By ohiodonkeydude

July 27, 2010 11:56 AM | Link to this

Bush conservatives said as little as 2 years ago that the debt doesnt matter. No problem. Today, all of a sudden the deficit is a huge problem. Employment insurance provides 1.76 to each dollar provided. Wake up people, quit watching Fox Noise. It will ruin your brain. !!!!

By throttle-jockey

July 25, 2010 11:19 AM | Link to this

I agree with “Mark” cutting the Federal budget and letting the public sector “do their thing” However we got a administration all they wanna do is grow the federal goverment, take away state rights, and spend like its free money. I’m not writing this cause i’m “upper income” matter of fact i’m what most would consider “middle class” but Bush Tax Cuts benefited everyone. it didn’t matter if you made 1000 dollars or 1 million dollars. a family making 60,000 dollars per year saw about 29-30 dollars a week combined back due to the Bush Tax cuts. i know 30 bucks isn’t a ton of money but its enough to give you gas money or take the family out for pizza. January 1st the Bush Tax cuts end.

By smoke & mirrors

July 23, 2010 8:29 AM | Link to this

Don’t worry….Be happy!

By rrhoop

July 22, 2010 7:59 PM | Link to this

Get people working and those people pay taxes. With more people paying taxes, it will be “a bit” easier to start reducing the debt…but the debt will never be reduced unless the government stops spending on needless stuff and stop the extravagant lifestyles and start living like the rest of us & getting benefits like the rest of us.

By milt

July 22, 2010 6:37 PM | Link to this

dont worry about nothing got it from a good source everything a ok.

By jerome

July 22, 2010 6:06 PM | Link to this

At some point taxes will need to be raised, and would have even if spending stayed at the levels they were when Bush was in office. The question is how much per person will they need to be raised. The fewer people working, and the lower their pay then the higher the percentage increase on everyone to get budget balanced.

By null

July 22, 2010 6:00 PM | Link to this

Here’s what’s wrong with job growth - Republican business owners holding back jobs so Republicans can take power again so they can rob and steal us blind once more. The economy is screwed up becuase too few people have too much money. The answer - 100% death tax on anything over 5 million in an estate until the deficit is no more. Who cares about silver spoon babies?

By 'Nuff Said

July 22, 2010 5:53 PM | Link to this

Spade, the banks are not sitting on OUR money. They are sitting on THEIR money. They cannot be forced to spend or invest it because who will do the forcing? Who will dictate where that money goes? Obama? Don’t think so! Would you want the Govt to dictate to you that you must spend your savings when and where they say? Didn’t think so! This is a spending and taxing problem, and as long as Obama continues to create uncertainty in the private sector, the private sector will continue to hold off creating many jobs. ‘Nuff said.

By Clay

July 22, 2010 5:53 PM | Link to this

Look out Sheeple, Taxes, Taxes, and more Taxes are headed our way. Thank-you Demoncratics, may I have another!

By Clay

July 22, 2010 5:49 PM | Link to this

Look out Sheeple, Taxes, Taxes, and more Taxes are headed our way! Thank You Demoncratics.

By TRS

July 22, 2010 5:44 PM | Link to this

I am in agreement that we do need a fair tax, flat tax or some system better than we presently have. Both liberals and conservatives complain about the “big” influences. Liberals blame everything evil on the private sector and conservatives on gvmt. We have given politicians and lobbyists far to much power and one way that has occurred is in our tax system. It allows them to grant favors or use the divisive “tax the rich” but what is that accomplishing? Mostly buying votes. For liberals, if we’re going to divest those capitalists they fear of great power, we need to get them out of the halls of power. For conservatives such as myself, I believe we need to divest gvmt and politicians of the power which allows them to hold sway over us. Do you really think they are acting in our best interests? The only way that will happen is to take away their power to play games in the halls of power as much as possible. Whether you lean left or right, we have made it easy for them by centralizing power in DC where access of “big” business, “big” law, “big” media and “big” gvmt (or politics) can meet and make deals which best affect them more so than us.

By Ron

July 22, 2010 5:13 PM | Link to this

A lot of revenue talk on here. Ever consider it’s not a revenue problem? Perhaps it’s a spending problem? We’ve created a monster that we can’t get back in the cage because everybody wants something, something for free or something for less. From the wall street insider gaming the system with help from the government to the poor unemployed guy struggling to get by. Everybody wants something and we spend all our time figuring out how to get something but make someone else pay for it. The system is going down folks. We’ve been stealing from each other for so long we (the people) have no power any longer. We’ve been so busy slicing the pie that all we have left is a pile of mush. The government does what it wants and it will only get worse. PREPARE

By spade is a spade

July 22, 2010 4:54 PM | Link to this

Mark…higher gvt. spending, absolutely not. Even though economists have recommended it to prevent a double dip. I really think we need to go to a flat tax system…Fair Tax Code…where everyone pays the same amount. I think the VAT tax on exports should be eliminated to make make us more competitve on the global stage. Most countries do not pay this tax on exports, even thought they are taxed overall more than us. This one hurts us. In order for the private sector to create jobs the banks need to start lending the record amounts of cash they are sitting on…which is OUR money anyways. This would provide for investments like employee hiring.

By Mark

July 22, 2010 4:44 PM | Link to this

That’s true, Clinton spent and taxed more than Reagan. But the economy was relatively healthy at the time and could handle the burden. The republicans also reigned in spending in the mid 90’s which helped lead to the balanced budget. Are you contending that raising taxes and higher government spending creates jobs, because it sure doesn’t seem to be working now.

By Dougie Style

July 22, 2010 4:44 PM | Link to this

The poles are rising.

By spade is a spade

July 22, 2010 4:28 PM | Link to this

Mark…Clinton also raised taxes and created even more revenue that Reagan. Those are undisputable facts too. Clinton also created more jobs w/ increased taxes. Reagan: Jan 81 to Dec 88, 16.3 million Clinton: Jan 93 to Dec. 2000, 22.8 million Out of the 30 most industrialized nations in the world the U.S. ranks 26th when it comes to taxes. That means 25 other countries pay more in taxes than we do and 3 others pay less. Undisputable Fact.

By Dr Zap

July 22, 2010 3:12 PM | Link to this

Dr Zap on the scene… Democratic leadership are now seriously considering leaving the Bush tax cuts i place. Why? They understand that raising taxes - particularly now - is an economic killer. Especially when taxes are going up due to health care and an increase in capital gains. To me it’s very simple. Stimulus doesn’t address what they problems are restricting growth, hiring, etc. It’s a temporary fix in the hopes of that it will spur a permanent solution. Why aren’t the Fed and politicians looking for the permanent fix? What does cutting taxes do? It allows me spend more money on goods and services. It allows business to buy equipment and hire people and do things they might not be able to do if taxes are stable or go higher. So dems…go ahead and repeal the Bush tax cuts and see where that gets you. Raise the capital gains tax to 20% (and the long term from 0)and see where that gets you. A whole lot more trouble. That’s what it will get you.

By Mr B

July 22, 2010 2:56 PM | Link to this

Mr A: Very interesting since liberal Nancy and Harry have held majority in the house and senate since 2007.They dictate spending all Bush did was provided the Pen.

By Mark

July 22, 2010 2:55 PM | Link to this

Mr. A, I just don’t believe you. Reagan’s tax cuts unleashed economic growth that created jobs and double revenue to the US treasury, from about $450 million in the early 80’s to about $900 million by FY 1989. Those are indisputable facts. If you honestly think we are under taxed and all we need to do is raise taxes to address this MASSIVE spending by these clowns then you are free to have that opinion, but you are in a small minority.

By To Obama

July 22, 2010 2:48 PM | Link to this

It’s the economy, stupid.

By Mike

July 22, 2010 2:41 PM | Link to this

I’m an economist who studies monetary policy and taxation for a living. The frustrating part about the recent deficit fussing is that without job growth, the taxes won’t be there to keep the deficit down in the future. We are MUCH better off keeping taxes low and spending high now but passing laws that will start closing the gap rapidly in 3-5 years so the government doesn’t run wild. People associate deficits with bad economies because when people lose their jobs, there is less income to tax. But recessions cause deficits, NOT the other way around!

By Jan

July 22, 2010 2:38 PM | Link to this

I agree with Mark. The country needs to focus on both jobs AND cutting spending. What won’t help is to make things harder for businesses, large and small, as this administration is doing. It also won’t help to raise taxes, again, as this administration is doing. I guess they are not interested in helping.

By Mr. A

July 22, 2010 2:24 PM | Link to this

Here’s an interesting chart showing the growth in federal spending: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/federal-spending-per-household Note that the vast majority of spending in federal fiscal year 2009 actually happened under the Bush administration (federal fiscal years run well ahead of the calendar).

By Mr. A

July 22, 2010 2:02 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Jack, but your article is from 1995. We’ve seen the longer-term results. Try finding something a little more current. Plus, you didn’t address the other two examples I provided. But thanks for playing.

By Jack

July 22, 2010 1:36 PM | Link to this

You wrong as usual Mr. A. This is from the Congressional Joint Economic Comm: Nothing illustrates the negative effect of tax increases as well as comparing economic growth following Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts and the tax increases in 1990 and 1993. Both the tax cuts and the tax increases had profound effects on the subsequent economic recoveries, which began in 1982 and 1991, respectively. To assess the magnitude of such effects, Figure 1 compares the cumulative percentage growth in real GDP from the low-point of each recession. Comparing the cumulative real GDP growth experienced in the 1980s and 1990s, it is evident that Reagan’s tax cuts led to a strong, healthy recovery, with GDP growing 29 percent in just 7 years.[2] Over the same time span following the Bush/Clinton tax increases, real GDP is expected to increase only 21 percent.[3] In fact, the economy after Reagan’s tax cuts grew more in 5 years than the Bush/Clinton recovery will in 7 years. In other words, the burden of tax increases on the economy has “cost” the American economy 2 years of growth.

By Jack

July 22, 2010 1:33 PM | Link to this

You are wrong Mr. A. as usual. This is from the Congressional Joint Economic Comm. http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/taxpol.htm With four years of data on the current economic recovery (extending back to the Bush Administration), it is now possible to tally up the scorecard and compare the Bush/Clinton recovery that started in 1991 with the Reagan recovery that began in 1982.[1] President Clinton has boasted that his policies have spurred economic growth, added jobs, and helped the middle class. However, the data show that the Bush/Clinton recovery is weak compared to the Reagan recovery along several important measures. Both economic growth and job creation in the current recovery lag behind the Reagan recovery by two full years. The middle class is suffering an actual loss in real median family income, while during the Reagan recovery it gained. Moreover, tax revenues increased more rapidly under Reagan’s tax cuts than under the Bush/Clinton tax increases.

By Dixie Lady

July 22, 2010 1:32 PM | Link to this

The 2 go hand in hand-If people are not working-they are not paying taxes-not buying-ect. I also agree there’s many places where the budget can be cut-reduce what we pay the congress-we’ve had to take pay cuts-so should they.

By Ron

July 22, 2010 1:14 PM | Link to this

If I’m broke and drowning in a sea of debt, credit cards maxed out, upside down in my mortgage and unable to do much but pay the interest on my debts; would it be rational to work more hours, make more money and continue to spend more than I make? What we’re seeing is the result of our country living above it’s means for 4 decades. We will all be forced to live below our means very soon. Sorry but that’s reality. Apparently 64% of those polled have no concept of the debt system running our economy. It will end, badly.

By Mr. A

July 22, 2010 1:07 PM | Link to this

Mark, the only problem with the “cutting taxes” idea is that history shows us that federal income tax rate cuts have NEVER stimulated the American economy, NEVER increased federal income tax revenues, and NEVER created a net increase in the American workforce. Federal income tax rate cuts have repeatedly led to economic slow-downs or recessions, and/or massive federal deficits and debt, and/or declining Standards of Living. Three examples: 1: The national economy experienced a dramatic slow-down in 1966, less than 18 months after federal income tax rate cuts were enacted into law, with GDP going over a cliff from 10.1% down to 1.4% (note that the previous high levels of GDP occurred while the top marginal rate of individual income tax was 91%). 2: After the 1981 federal income tax rate cuts under Reagan were enacted, GDP was a net NEGATIVE 9% over the six subsequent quarters, and as David Stockman (Director of the OMB 1981-1985) stated, federal income tax revenues plunged to 1940’s levels after the federal income tax rate cuts in 1981, resulting in MASSIVE federal deficits and debt. Both GDP and tax revenue only turned up again after Reagan started raising federal taxes. 3: The U.S. Treasury documented the plunge in federal income tax revenues after the federal income tax rate cuts beginning in 2001, down to 1950’s levels, which resulted in TWO recessions and MASSIVE federal deficits & debt.

By Ben

July 22, 2010 12:44 PM | Link to this

Good comment Mark. I was just going to mention something about there being no discussion that included a reduction in government spending. When we as individuals confront a defict situation, we cut back on spending - it’s only good economic sense.

By Mark

July 22, 2010 12:36 PM | Link to this

We need to do both immediately. Cut government spending by 5% a year indefinately while cutting taxes to spur revenue and job growth. Getting out of the way of the private sector will increase economic growth, tax revenue and create jobs. We should also repeal the health care act and return any left over stimulus and/or other slush funds to offset our debt.

By Todd

July 22, 2010 11:55 AM | Link to this

No! The debt is out of control and if not addressed will lead to huge problems for our kids and grandkids. Fix it now, and jobs will take care of themselves.

By WPA and CCC

July 22, 2010 11:20 AM | Link to this

What we need to do is to have the unemployed work for their paycheck. Across the nation, we have national parks shutting down (or scaling back), infrastructure that is lagging, and many other areas of the economy that have been impacted due to the recession. These are jobs — similar to the WPA and CCC work during an earlier era — that the unemployed who are receiving compensation could be doing. At the same time, they would be adding value to the economy, helping to reduce the deficit, and developing skills that would be valuable for their own futures once this recession is past.

By Duh!

July 22, 2010 11:18 AM | Link to this

While I’m no fan of the reckless spending that has put us and our children so far into debt, creating jobs to offset the 8 million or so lost, which returns much of the population to work, will in turn accelerate the flow into the Treasury and the debt will at least be sustainable.

By Joanie

July 22, 2010 11:17 AM | Link to this

Just click on the words Quinnipiac University Poll dale1. That’s why they are highlighted. Yes, I absolutely agree that jobs are more important than the deficit at this time. When people are back to work, there will be more revenue to reduce the deficit and there will be a lower cost of government supported programs like food stamps since the need will be lower. I am concerned about the deficit, but getting people working is a more immediate problem.

By Ben

July 22, 2010 11:14 AM | Link to this

Can’t think of a reason in the world why both issues can’t and shouldn’t be addressed at the same time.

By dale1

July 22, 2010 11:12 AM | Link to this

I agree with you Max! Just term limits alone would solve half of our problems. I just heard the new job numbers and they are terrible. I read that all the gains in jobs have been all but wiped out from the latest umemployment numbers. I am still hopeful the reps will get back to conservative values like they did in the 90s which created a ton of jobs and balanced the federal budget. The latest projections show a $1trillion defict each year for 10 years out.

By Mr A.

July 22, 2010 11:10 AM | Link to this

Dale, I don’t suppose it occurred to you to follow the link in the very first paragraph of the story? It’s in blue, and you click on it. Following that link might give you the answer to the question you’re asking.

By Max

July 22, 2010 9:58 AM | Link to this

Democrats and Republicans (throw in the Tea Party) polled means less when Independents - nationally the fastest growing voting block - aren’t accounted for. From our(Indies) position, the political polemics and blame games matter less than the actual work done and to be done. Those best capable of that task regardless of race, gender, age, religious affiliation, or political party, are who is needed instead of the ping-pong players saying ‘jobs before deficit reduction, and, creating jobs through more federal spending.’ Neither is totally right which both parties rely upon every two years. Until there are 1.) term limitations for the Congress, 2.) a balanced budget amendment, and 3.) a line item veto for the president, then the two parties will continue having their way with America. But, making those changes would give less for Wm. Hershey to write about and less for the pollsters to do.

By dale1

July 22, 2010 9:50 AM | Link to this

Please print the poll questions. Anyone that knows anything understands that poll questions can be asked that sway the out come of the poll. In college I had a class to create a poll to get the results I wanted. I polled students and got the exact results I wanted just by how I asked the questions. I am skeptical of any universtiy poll so unless the DDN prints the polling questions this article is worthless.