I don't understand what you are talking about when you say "who will want to work when they can make a living staying home and watching TV"?

Under what government program is this possible? The answer is "none". It's a stereotype.

The traditional welfare program was replaced in 1994 with one that has time limits and work requirements. It is not possible to receive welfare without working.

Some people temporarily receive unemployment benefits, but those are people who actually did have jobs and plan to return to work.

People who are living on Social Security might not pay taxes, but these are people who used to work for a living and are retired. And, they actually paid into the program throughout the time they did work.

Many of the people who don't pay taxes actually do work for a living. In fact, they might be working 2 or 3 jobs. If they earn a low rate of pay and are raising children, they may be exempt from federal income taxes because their income is too low. However, they do still pay the payroll tax, which pays for Social Security and Medicare. Their employers also pay into these programs and pay for unemployment insurance.

The people who actually are voting to "get stuff" are the very wealthy who are getting laws passed to help them avoid paying taxes or to get lucrative government contracts. These are the people who can pay hundreds of millions of dollars to lobbyists. Why do you think they pay 15% on their income (often from investments and capital gains) while those of us who work for a living pay much higher tax rates? The poor and middle class can't afford to pay for lobbyists.

I love when donna writes before I get on here because she always says what I want to but puts it better than I ever could. Donna, you are my DS posting goddess and I bow down to you!

Course, I can't leave it at that though, but I do hope to be able to get my point across as well as donna did.

Wag, it is a myth that rich men take a tax cut and use it to hire people and expand his business and all that other stuff. What you're talking about is Trickle Down Economics - Reagan tried it and it failed. George W. Bush tried it too and again it failed. However, when Clinton was in office higher income earners paid more in taxes and guess what, our economy was solid, the middle class were earning more and able to afford to both pay taxes and feed their families and there wasn't a mass outcry of rich folks claiming to have to cut workers or raise his prices or take their businesses to Mexico. In truth, in a bad economy, rich people hang on to their money and even in the event they do spend, it's not stimulating the economy and filtering the money down to the middle class. Supply Side Economics is what has been known to work better - put the money into the middle class and the lower class folks and they will spend the money and thus the economy picks up. The rich have had their tax cuts since George W. Bush took office and it has not helped our economy so I'm sorry but you are wrong to say that tax cuts to the wealthy help us all - if that were the case our economy would be great right now but it's not.

You make me laugh wag by saying your mind is open. It is not. More than one of us have have pointed out where your statements and logic are flawed but you still insist it is the rest of us who are wrong. I haven't seen you to be open minded in any way.

"Somebody once said 'Democracy has to more than two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.'" Well, someone else once said "you're only as strong as your weakest link". Everyone has to help each other out or no one makes it. Helping just the top end who already have enough to help themselves isn't helping the lower class get stronger or the middle class.

Reagan came into office with a huge recession.... and left with a balanced budget. But remember this Clinton didnt raise taxes DURING a recession.... that is a real killer. Even Bill Clinton months ago said that he didnt agree with Obama's wanting to raise the taxes. Raising taxes now would only hurt the tiny improvements we see. Donna... please look at the numbers... we have more people now on unemployment, disability, and food stamps than any time in history. We just reached a deficiet of 16 trillion, and the rest of the world may be worse off than we are. Ladies... I'm tired of trying to explain to you that we are spending way more than we take in. So much so that your tax increase on the rich will not cover more than a small percentage. 49% are on Govt assistance and will vote for you know who so the gravey train they ride will not end. I give up... I surender.... but I really cant agree.

Wag, I have studied the numbers endlessly, and, by the way, I have a bachelor's degree in economics and I used to write an economics blog. So, I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on with the economy.

Everyone understands that we are spending more than we take in. Let me explain to you WHY. I apologize if this is long. There are so many important elements, but if you take the time to understand each point, it's not that complicated.

Yes, we have more people on unemployment and food stamps (not disability) as a direct result of the economy. That's what happens when we have a crash like we did in 2008 (under President Bush). The safety net kicks in. And, by the way, that has nothing whatsoever to do with President Obama or any other president. These are benefits that are mandated by federal law and no president can unilaterally take them away.

When President Obama took office we were losing about 800,000 jobs every month. Normally, we would expect 100,000 to 250,000 jobs added. He started his job in about a million jobs a month hole. No one has seen that kind of a crash since 1929. If you look at the monthly numbers, he continued to lose jobs for a few months until the stimulus kicked in. Eventually we started gaining jobs and have had something like 40 straight months of private sector job growth.

The hole that we were in, with GDP negative 9% and 800,000 a month in job losses, it would have taken a stimulus of about $2-$3 trillion to get us where we needed to be. That could not be sold politically. So, the stimulus wasn't big enough and the economy is limping along. There are simple formulas about how much needs to be pumped into the economy to increase GDP and decrease unemployment. With the amount of the stimulus that could make it through Congress, it was completely predictable that we would be where we are right now. Go back and look at the columns of Paul Krugman (Nobel prize winning economist), and you will see that he predicted it.

By the way, the stimulus itself was not all spending. About half of it came in the form of tax cuts.

What is also going on to keep the economy anemic and unemployment relatively high is that public sector jobs are being cut in state and local governments. The American Jobs Act, which was proposed by Obama included additional stimulus funds for state and local governments to help keep teachers and police officers and firefighters employed. If that would pass, that would keep about 1-2 million more people employed. It would reduce unemployment (and related payments for unemployment insurance) and increase tax revenues. As of yesterday that bill has been blocked for one year. In addition, there are a number of Republican governors that have greatly slashed public sector jobs, often while giving tax breaks to millionaires and corporations. That helps keep the unemployment rate high.

Regarding tax cuts, there are two ways that money gets pumped into the economy by the government. One is spending and the other is tax cuts. Some ways have no ability whatsoever to stimulate the economy. For example, spending money on foreign aid helps the economy of the country that receives the aid--not our own economy. The most effective way to use government money to stimulate the economy is to get it into the hands of people who will spend every penny in their local economies. The best way is through tax cuts to small businesses and low income people and spending on infrastructure (roads, bridges, schools, etc.) Tax cuts for big business and the wealthy are completely useless. They are already sitting on a few trillion dollars in cash they aren't spending. Giving them more is not going to cause them to spend more.

Now, on to the deficit. The budget deficit is a simple formula. It's revenue minus expenses. When the economy crashed, it did two things. The first is that people paid a whole lot less taxes. Businesses lost money, people lost jobs, and anyone with huge investments got to take big capital losses. Meanwhile, the mandatory safety net kicked in (unemployment insurance, for example), causing an increase in spending. Then, to stimulate the economy, there was a stimulus package of more tax cuts and more spending. OF COURSE the deficit is going to go up. It always happens in a recession. The way out of this mess is to get the economy back to where it should be, which will mean the entitlement spending will go back down and the tax revenues will start pouring in again. Meanwhile, it's OK to increase taxes on the wealthy because this closes the hole in the budget without having much of an effect on the economy.

Bear with me while I make one more quick point about that deficit. President Bush did not put the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the budget. You may recall that every couple of months he'd ask Congress for emergency supplementals to pay for the war. None of these were paid for and were simply added to the national debt. President Obama actually included these two wars in his budgets. That made it look like he was increasing spending. He was not. He was simply recognizing the spending that was already happening by putting it on the books. Then he ended the war in Iraq so the spending actually did end.

Oh, and by the way, Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increased federal spending and also tripled the national debt. He also did not leave office with a balanced budget. He left an annual deficit of about $150 billion. The last time that we had a balanced budget was under Clinton. He actually created a surplus, which could have been used to pay down the debt. Instead, George Bush said that if we had a surplus, that means tax rates are too high. So, he proposed a TEMPORARY tax cut to eliminate the surplus. Now that we have deficits as far as the eyes can see, one party demands that we make these cuts permanent.

Thank you Donna for sharng your research.I found it most helpful informative.

((sigh)) One more time... I dont believe your numbers and you dont believe mine. We are not going to convince each other so lets just agree to disagree... OK? I doubt any one is even reading this except for us any way, the subject has grown stale. One last comment.... Dont tell any one you took economics in college, it makes you sound untrustworthy, and the only thing worse might be statistics. I fear it was economic advisers that got us into this mess and then compounded the felenoy by trying to spend their way out of it with borrowed money. (joke)

16 trillion dollars in debt. About $136.000 each of us owes right now to pay off this debt (I think). I see nothing but many many years of austere measures to start to get our country out of debt. I don't hear any candidate having truly laid out a plan yet. Maybe during the debates.

Wag, I'm pretty sure those aren't "Donna's numbers" but rather actual factual numbers. It's pretty hard to dispute actual facts. And the comment about not telling anyone about taking economics...? I took economics in high school. It was a required class as part of our social studies cirriculum. Did you not have a similar requirement when you were in school? Perhaps this would explain your disagreement with Donna over those pesky numbers she was talking about before.

Boomer, it might be good to put that debt into perspective - it was created by borrowing money to cover two wars after tax cuts wiped out the surplus. Bush never factored in the money going to the war efforts into his budgets which is why we have a debt. Obama did factor those funds into his budgets which is why now the Republicans like to claim he's spending more when that money was already being spent on IOU (like the difference of paying with cash versus credit). Austerity measures don't work so well - just ask most of Europe. And don't expect to ever get much of a laid out plan from Romney; he is avoiding giving details because he doesn't want to give any more ammo to be criticized by or lose ground in the polls with.

Even if Donnas information is not exact on it is close enough..The facts of what having Bush in office did to our country speeks for its self..When Clinton was in office the republicans could not find one thing bad on Clinton.There for they attacked him on moral stand point.His sexual encounters should never of been made public.Bush could not find Bin laden.Ohbama managed to find him.The long drawn out war was crazy.We should of went over got the job done and not worry about being so Dam fair.There will all ways be casualties in war.Repoters should not of been there reporting on how we treated prisoners.Thanks to them Americans were beheaded.The words war and fair can not be used together.I for one will vote for Obahama.There is no way 4 years is enough time to make changes that are needed to improve our economy.

wag952, here's the problem. We have two sets of facts, and you can't trust anyone on the topic of economics that actually has a degree in the topic. That's why both sides keep fighting each other. It used to be that people could agree on a common set of facts. Our disagreement would be on what to do to improve things. I fear for our country when we can't agree on basic facts. Do a google search on undisputable facts, such as GDP, debt level, and marginal tax rates and you will see that I'm correct.

boomer51, the statistic about the national debt per person is highly misleading because we have a progressive tax system and because the government takes in more than just federal income taxes. Yes, the current level of debt is a big number, but what's most important is the debt compared to gross domestic product (GDP). In your personal life, it's like saying that a $500,000 mortgage is a huge number. If you make $30,000 per year, it's impossible to pay back. If you make a million dollars a year, it's fine. GDP is the ability to pay back debt, just like income is the ability to pay back your mortgage.

The current level of debt is approximately 100% of GDP. There was another time in our history when debt was higher than 100% of GDP. It was in the late 1940's. This was because of an economic collapse and paying for a war (WWII) on borrowed funds. Sound familiar?

As we were coming out of the Great Depression, there was an attempt made to try austerity to get us out of the debt that came from the Great Depression. The result was another recession. So, in the 1950's we spent money wisely to invest in education, particularly through the GI Bill. We invested in infrastructure, with Eisenhower creating the Interstate Highway System. We also greatly raised tax rates on the wealthy. The marginal tax rate for the very wealthy in the 1950's was 91%. It was about 70% throughout the 60's and 70's. The economy boomed and we made significant progress toward paying down the debt. Today we're in a very similar situation, except we've been debating for years about whether to raise the top marginal tax rate on the very wealthy from 35% to where it was in the 90's, 38.6%. This is where it was raised to in the 90's under Bill Clinton, when, again, we went from a recession to a boom and everyone did very well. It got us to a budget surplus.

History tells us austerity leads to more recessions. Higher tax rates on the very wealthy, while investing in education and infrastructure leads to a booming economy where everyone does well and it pays down the debt. That's exactly what President Obama is proposing. Republicans are proposing the same policies that Herbert Hoover followed, leading to the Great Depression. These same policies were followed by President Bush, who nearly caused another Great Depression, and would have if it weren't for the stimulus and the auto bailout stopping the crash and turning things around. His policies also turned a surplus under Clinton into a deficit of $1.2 trillion per year, which he handed over to President Obama.

President Obama is following the same template as Republican President Eisenhower, except with much lower tax rates. He's following the same template as Bill Clinton did in the 90's. If you like the economy of the 50's, 60's, and 90's, follow Obama. If you want to give the Herbert Hoover and George Bush philosophy one more try, while we're coming out of the Great Recession, that's your choice. Just understand that you are risking the same result as Hoover and Bush.

Seriously here austerity leads to more recessions. So our country borrowing more than it takes in is good fiscal policy. Obama is not following the same template as Clinton. Clinton worked with the Republican Congress which in turn helped to balance the budget.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/05/morning-bell-16000000000000/

I want a country whose government will be fiscally responsible.

personally, I don't care for any of the candidates............But I will vote for who I think will do the best job,for us,as people..Even though it is the rich elete,that run thins country,there are,and will be,just a pawn in their game.

Just my opinion but as long as we have that electoral college that decides the president as compared to the popular vote then I don't think our vote IS heard, or counts.

I think the electoral college is outdated

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

boomer51, I did not say that borrowing more than we take in is good fiscal policy. My point is that we should not crash the economy again while trying to balance the budget, because that will backfire. It will cause revenues to drop further and spending to increase. Slashing spending indiscriminately is actually fiscally irresponsible. This is not a household budget. The federal budget is tied to the economy.

The correct fiscal policy is to target spending to ways that will create growth (bridge and road repairs, etc.) and to increase revenue in a way that does not harm the economy. In the long run we actually save money when we invest in infrastructure with borrowed funds. During a recession construction companies are looking for work and costs are lower than when the economy is doing well. Also, the federal government can borrow money at 0 percent right now. This is for work that's going to need to be done anyway.

Clinton was not working with a Congress that had everyone take a pledge never to raise taxes one penny. They had room to move. The Congress that Obama is working with refuses to budge on the issue of taxes and will not vote for anything that even raises taxes on billionaires by one dime. You can't work with people that refuse to negotiate and filibuster everything. They even vote against ideas that were originally their own.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

I think it be unfair to just blame the Republicans when for two years Obama had complete democratic control and passed everything he wanted until what he wanted, that being health care, wasn't what the voters wanted and the democrats lost the House. Obama has 2/3 democratic control of the government. The democratically control senate has yet to pass a budget. Not giving the Republicans a full pass here but with Congress's popularity at single digits I be thinking all are to blame for the gridlock.

The stimulus was supposed to get our economy roaring with all those so called "shovel ready" jobs which according to President Obama apparently weren't so shovel ready. Our unemployment is 8.1% and the last jobs report only 96,000 jobs were created and you claim we need another stimulus is warranted.

I personally think of a combination of tax increases and decreases but then I am no economist so who knows.