ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — deficit-reduction deal approved by the U.S. House on Monday split Minnesota’s representatives, with the plan losing support from the left and right ends of the state’s congressional delegation.

Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum joined Republican Reps. Chip Cravaack and Michele Bachmann in voting against the bill. The plan received “yes” votes from Minnesota’s other four congressmen: Democratic Reps. Collin Peterson and Tim Walz, and Republican Reps. John Kline and Erik Paulsen.

The compromise plan would combine a record increase in the government’s borrowing limit with the promise of more than $2 trillion in spending cuts. House members voted to approve the plan 269-161, and the Senate is scheduled to vote Tuesday.

The vote came after a months-long standoff over raising the nation’s debt limit to keep the U.S. government able to pay its bills.

McCollum released a statement saying she had twice voted to increase the debt ceiling during the process but that tying “massive cuts” to a debt ceiling increase was “completely unnecessary, totally counterproductive, and it will make America’s job crisis even worse.”

Hours before the House vote, Cravaack hinted at a “no” vote without outright promising one, telling WCCO-AM radio that the deal “doesn’t solve the problem.”

Walz, in a statement after the vote, said the compromise “is not perfect,” but he believes it will help stabilize the economy.

Kline released a statement saying the bill was “far from perfect,” but he said the plan will “enable America to pay its bills and fundamentally change the way Washington spends taxpayer money.” Kline also said he’s glad the proposal is free of tax increases.

“Deficit reduction should not be enacted in a hostage situation,” Ellison said at a news conference held by the Congressional Progressive Caucus before the vote. He accused tea party Republicans of forcing deep spending cuts that he said would hurt the economy.

On the other side of the aisle, Cravaack said in the radio interview that the cuts weren’t deep enough. “It doesn’t solve the problem,” the Republican said. “Americans want us to solve the problem.”

The debate over raising the borrowing limit had already divided the state’s four Republican House members, with Bachmann and Cravaack rejecting a plan Friday to increase the debt authority and Kline and Paulsen voting yes. Bachmann rejected the latest proposal while on the presidential campaign trail Sunday, saying the spending cuts weren’t enough.

“Someone has to say no. I will,” she said in an emailed statement from her campaign.

Minnesota’s two Democratic senators — Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar — have promised support for the deal.

Klobuchar announced her support Monday, saying it would prevent a U.S. default that would hurt consumers by raising interest rates while beginning to reduce the deficit. The senator predicted that the Senate would approve the deal.

“The main focus here is to save our country from defaulting on our debt obligations, which would have caused real pain for Minnesota’s families and businesses,” Klobuchar said in an interview.

She added: “The American people now understand this issue — they understand what would have happened to their mortgage rates. … I’m sure people will run cheap political ads on this stuff, but we have to do what’s responsible.”

Franken joined Klobuchar in pledging his support for the deal, but criticized the agreement for relying too heavily on spending cuts.

“Nevertheless, I will vote for this package, because defaulting would have grave economic consequences for my Minnesota constituents,” the senator said in a news release.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments (86)
  1. BB says:

    Steak this one out, pay this debt off on the backs of the poor, working poor, elderly and middle class there will be a huge backlash in this state and country by those very groups to throw out these tea party and republicans that go along with it. The moderates have left the room, extremists on both sides will be seeing the unemployment lines in the next election. I will be keeping my money in my pockets until the top wage earners in this country start sharing the pain and paying their fair share of taxes. I will be keeping my money in my pocket, let the rich support the economy.

    1. waste says:

      Wow. Keep drinking the coolaid. Taxes should not have to be raised via any one.

      We just need to live within our means.

      If anything, the fifty percent who don’t pay should start.

      Quit the class warfare. It does nothing to help with getting spending under control.

      1. Jim says:

        “If anything, the fifty percent who don’t pay should start. Quit the class warfare.” = IRONY.

        LOL. Who’s employing class warfare again? And I’m sure you know that the 50% of people who don’t pay federal income taxes include children and retired people WHO DON’T HAVE JOBS. But they still pay plenty of taxes, like when they buy something. But you already knew that.

        1. David J. Conklin says:

          >the fifty percent who don’t pay should start.

          Whoever told you that, lied through their teeth and you were too stupid to check to see if it was so.

          1. dan says:

            Like your statement earlier that people making under $16,000 year pay $2 Trillion dollars in taxes? Nice try David, but unless there are over 3.5 Billion in this category you are the one lying thru your teeth and too stupid to know any different.

            1. O-done-a says:

              Bottom 50% making <$33,048 pay in 2.7% (not 2 trilllion) of all federal tax collected. I hope you don't think I'm trying to be wonderful for providing this.

        2. jan says:

          I’m 80 years old, retired and don’t have a job and I pay federal income taxes, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Most retired people have income and pay income tax.

        3. Jake says:

          Funny, I remember when I was 16 and working part time, *I* was paying state AND federal INCOME taxes, and I was only making about $4 an hour. Many retirees also pay state and federal INCOME taxes, TOO. Sales taxes don’t account for that much of a lower-earner’s “income”. Such taxes can be avoided by buying used or on the internet, or buying groceries instead of fast food. So to those who not only pay NO federal or state INCOME TAXES, and receive plenty of entitlements to BOOT, it’s time for you to GET IN THE GAME and pay YOUR FAIR SHARE, even if it is only a thousand bucks a year.

      2. BB says:

        Taxes would not be raised in the sense that the Bush tax cuts should have never happened in the first place. As for class warfare the tea party and republicans have set that up by holding this country hostage to their extreme agenda. The rich do not pay their fare share period, should be expected to share the pain as much as any other group in this society. They do not pay their fair share!!!

  2. progressive america says:

    This shows the level of irresponsibility coming from the Republican side. They created the economic uncertainty by attaching unfair spending reductions to the debt ceiling. The majority of the republicans claim to be fighting to protect the American people from out of control spending are the same republicans who approved the out of control spending. The Iraq war, medicare part D, Bush Tax Cuts and their continuation, all were unfunded. Now they blame it all on Democrats, as if they had nothing to do with the problem. They must think the average American is very STUPID. They are fighting very hard for some Americans, the top 2%. They go on TV making people think they are fighting for all of us protecting us from higher taxes, but they fail to disclose that the Tax Hikes they are fighting so strongly only affect the rich, super rich, and the Super powerful multi billion dollar corporations.

    They’ve had all year to tackle the issue, but waited till the last minute and created a great deal of economic uncertainty. This is their way of passing drastically unfair reductions while avoiding a single dollar more in taxes for the top 2%. In my opinion THEY WON. This is the equivalent of the bank bailout but now we are bailing out the super rich on the backs of the working middle class.

    1. O-done-a says:

      We aren’t bailing out the super rich. We are paying for the damage they caused allowing them to remain untaxed and unprosecuted. TAX THE TOP, REGULATE the hell out of the financial sector and REPEAL the Bush tax cuts. I just solved the debt crisis. Now wasn’t that easy?

      1. Citizen says:

        @O-done-a & progressive. Absolutely right on the money (pun intended). A lawyer friend of mine has always preached we can only do what one person can do. I, for one, will eliminate any unnecessary consumption. If I need say table linens, or dishes, or a gift, I will go to an antique store and purchase there. That will not support WalMart or corporate America. I will drive as little as possible. Only purchase the basic necessities. My family and I already have more clothes than we need. I cannot and will not support this fiscal insanity by our politicians.

    2. Comrade Lenin and Chairman Mao says:

      Comrade Progressive America-

      You darn right THEY WON. All red blooded(nice color)American Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Progressives and Populists must now organize and fight this injustice. Those Evil Tea Party people used the rules of American Democracy to do this to us. They organized, got their candidates elected, pushed their agenda and THEY WON. All we did was sit at our computers and post ideas that inflamed the EVIL Republicans to work even harder to defeat us.
      First THEY WON in Minnesota. Now THEY HAVE WON in Washington. “the average American is very STUPID.”

      We must write more! We must use our obvious INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY and talk to anyone and everyone we can and convince them of the evils of Capitalism and Free Enterprise.

      As Comrade Karl was fond of saying, “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”

      Power to the proletariat!

      Comrade Lenin and Chairman Mao

    3. Lou says:

      So the Rich don’t pay any taxes????

      1. Give me liberty says:


        The top 1% pays 40% of all taxes, but that is not convenient for the left talking points. The fact is you could tax the super rich at 100% and still not cover the out of control spending by the left.

        O-done-a has not solved anything by spewing left talking points. Explain to me how regulating the hell out of business increases revenue? It is counter intuitive. And you could roll back all the tax cuts and still not put a dent in the deficit. It’s the spending stupid.

        And Citizen. Why don’t you walk your talk. Worry about what you can control and stop forcing your beliefs on others. Nobody is begging you to stay so feel free to join your socialist and communist pals across the pond.

  3. American made says:

    Will all you super rich people please take your business and jobs out of the country so all these whiners will quit complaining about how much money you make. Maybe when the un-employment rate reaches 15% and all these people complaining do not have a job then they will quit whining.

    1. O-done-a says:

      Ha! The corps. for which you speak are sending out some outstanding earning reports on The Street. Yet, what have they done? What are they doing? They are hoarding assets and cutting their workforce. Nice.

      1. leroy says:

        And what would you do? Go ahead and hire 5 kids to mow your lawn. Does that make sense?

        Frikkin free loaders, read a book and get rich yourself. Stop being jealous of what someone else earned.

        1. O-done-a says:

          Leroy, you moron, I make $320,000+/yr. which doesn’t factor in my husbands pay. I don’t need any more. Oh, and I make it legitmately with 3 hard earned degrees. Bring it on.

          1. dan says:

            If you dont need anymore then please write out a check to the US Treasury Dept and stop telling us how wonderful you are. You are starting to sound like Architect. Are you related?

            1. O-done-a says:

              and I always liked you.

              1. Leroy says:

                Thanks for showing your intellect. I see you didn’t answer a simple question.

                Should all these businesses hire extra employees? You are a moron. If they did, then they could not compete with businesses in other countries. Believe it or not, the use is not the only player in this world.

                How do you expect a US company to stay in business employing a hundred extra union workers, when the same company in Germany can do it without?

                You people are so blinded by the left propaganda, that all US businesses are evil to you.

                You make me sick. These business owners give up their lives, family, etc, and all you can do is rail against them.

                Take your liberal college pay and get out of here, this site should be for normal workers.

                1. O-done-a says:

                  I’m an independent–far from a democrat. If you could read, I stated the obvious of what was happening–right now. There is a difference between not needing the employess and hoarding. I am not saying to add new taxes–interest rates and inflation will take care of that. I’m saying repeal/let expire a stupid tax cut that catered to the top and Wall Street.

                2. Citizen says:

                  @Leroy. The average American work week is now the longest it has been since the Great Depression–almost 48 hours. Instead of hiring, most large companies are simply working their employees to death. People can never work fast enough, long enough, hard enough. It’s ridiculous. And the money IS BEING HOARDED by the wealthy because economists have identified a money liquidity trap. A simplified explanation is that the wealthy no longer have a tax burden that makes them choose between investments and maintaining money in a corporation OR GIVING it to the government. The government barely takes anything, so the wealthy can just keep hoarding it. A very simple explanation, but it is the gist of the issue. When taxes are raised on the wealthy, they try to lower their tax burden with investment in jobs and companies, that’s called keeping the money in the public realm. Right now it is in the private realm.

            2. The Architect says:

              Heck, I WISH I made NEAR that much money. I don’t.

          2. weird argument says:

            Bring what on?

          3. Comrade Lenin and Chairman Mao says:

            Genius Comrade O-done-a-

            Comrade Dayton and Comrade Obama agree with us: YOU HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY! Give it away or we will take it from you, before we let you join the party! Remember our constant promise, “No more rich, no more poor. Only workers in a workers state”

            Power to the people!

            Comrade Lenin and Chairman Mao

            1. O-done-a says:

              As long as i am immediately entered in the high ranks—-close enough to be within your inner circle—so my opportunity to assasinate you is greater and my reign within reach.

          4. Redneck Purist says:

            Smells like bovine scatology to me. But anyhow since you don’t need any more how about if we just take everything over 50K. Anyone can live comfortably on that. Way to throw down the gauntlet honey. Bring it on? I think you’ve seen too many tween chick flicks.

            1. Digs says:

              Did that make you “feel” better? Did you have a point? Are you bored? Nah, lonely. Maybe the beer?

        2. David J. Conklin says:

          >Frikkin free loaders, read a book and get rich yourself.

          No one has made money reading a book–much less got rich doing so.

        3. Rory says:

          No one is inherently jealous of the wealthy. Reading a book will not make you rich. Working in the financial sector may do that but not everyone wants that type of employment. Many hourly wage and salaried jobs have pay caps. In fact most do. There aren’t as many legitimate “freeloaders” as you may think. If you’re going to read a book try something that will educate you about people and not money. Please don’t leave any more talking points that are masked as actual comments.

    2. Me says:

      Oh please, CEO Wynn of Wynn resorts complained that President Obama is anti-business because although he made a profit last year, it would have been a larger profit under another President. The old millionaire’s argument of “yes, I made money but not enough” argument just doesn’t go over well with the middle class.

  4. Cindy says:

    There have been nothing but tax cuts the past 10 years. Where ARE the JOBS?

    1. Carl says:

      Unemployment was under 7% for the past 10 years until Obama took office. Didnt he promise jobs? I guess his background as a Community Organizer didnt quite prepare him for the job at hand.
      Move aside Oblame game and leave economics to the experts.

      1. easyrider says:

        The crash occured during Bush’s Admin.

        1. CArl says:

          We are talking about jobs here easyrider. Go inhale more cycle fumes and see if it makes sense then.

        2. Sinclair says:

          wrong, Obama owns this economy. His assault on the coal and oil industry, his stimulas bill, his obamacare, his card check/union pushing, and his end around with the EPA, Labor department, and DOJ has caused the entire business world (except GE) to stop the presses. This is uncertainty that business is worried about.

          1. leroy says:


            Obama is in a job over his pay grade. He knows it, and now we all know it too!

        3. dan says:

          And all those Bush policies were voted on and approved by a Democratic run congress and house.

          1. pat says:

            You know, the Lib’s always seem to leave that out of their arguments.

            1. Jim says:

              Taxes on corporations and the rich are lower than they’ve been in 50 years. Where are the jobs? Corporations are making record profits and sitting on huge stockpiles of cash. Where are the jobs? Is the answer to lower taxes even further so these companies sit on even more money?

              1. dan says:

                Who is asking to lower Corporate taxes? Here’s a clue, no one!

                1. Jim says:

                  Come on, dan. Lowering taxes for the wealthy and corporations is the main plank of the GOP platform. You know this. But don’t take my word for it. Maybe you’ll believe the Republican Party of New Hampshire, the state that helps set the agenda for presidential races. From their proposed 2011-2012 platform: “Support cutting or eliminating taxes which inhibit enterprise, earnings and savings and investment, such as the Interest and Dividends Tax and the Business Enterprise/Business Profits Tax.”

                  So they want to cut taxes on business profits, even though business profits are at an all-time high and the businesses are still not hiring. Does that make sense?

                2. Citizen says:

                  Pretty tough to lower corporate taxes past zero, and they’re already getting huge tax returns from the U.S. Treasury. Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot, that cities and communities are supposed to bribe corporations to come to their community. Other countries bribe them, too. So I guess they are below zero in taxes–NO WHERE TO GO BUT UP!

          2. easyrider says:

            Wrong…a distortion of reality is no argument. You are simply a part of the problem when you attempt to mislead.

        4. Redneck Purist says:

          Yeah, the crash occurred during Bush’s term, then Obama came on the scene and started killing the survivors.

      2. Rory says:

        In the last six months under Bush we were losing three quarters of a million jobs per month. The 9% unemployment rate is still residue from the Bush years. Having said that, presidents don’t cause the unemployment rate to go up or down but their policies and the policies of Congress can. Bush by deregulating the banking and investment industry set the stage for the crash.

        1. Me says:

          Yes, this is the true example of trickle down economics. Company A,B,C go under and companies D and E, that were doing just fine, go under because their business came from said companies A, B and C.

  5. Garry Freeman says:

    Can I borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars every year then take a small portion of what I actually owe and pay that off over a 10 year period while still borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars? NO Neither should our government, The poor get taxpayer money with out ever being able to give back, time for the free checks to stop and ” you do not work, you do not eat” Jamestown 1607 Captain John Smith

    1. Citizen says:

      Yeah, that Jamestown colony thing worked out so well, didn’t it.

  6. easyrider says:

    Even the poor pay taxes everytime they buy something. If you have credit cards, or loans, and are wealthy enough, paying back over a hundred thousand over a 10 year period is rather common and so is getting loans while paying off that credit. The death rate in Jamestown 1607 was high.

    1. dan says:

      Most items the poor buy are tax free. Food, Clothing and Rent are all tax free.

      1. easyrider says:

        Then they aren’t getting money…no checks. However, food, clothing and Rent are not tax free. Misrepresenting reality is no argument.

  7. Mary Lehan says:

    To raise the debt ceiling is not a responsible thing to do. It is very irresponsible. This would not have been the first time our country was in a recession, and it probably won’t be the last. Sad to think these adults are not listening to the comments of the American people. Instead they are doing things that are causing a lot of heartache and pain. If God had been put back into this nation as it was founded “ONE NATION UNDER GOD” and put chaplains back to pray for each session things would have been much different. As long as God is not part of this country, we will continue to go down hill. And fast.
    I am very disappointed with the decision of this government. If you didn’t want to know what the people thought, why did you ask?

    1. MARK says:

      I’ve got no interest in the supernatural. Keep that stuff in church where it belongs.

    2. easyrider says:

      Just a thought. Christ was a champion of the poor not the wealthy. Most christians today have to come back to the reality that to be a true christian is to follow the words of Christ. Among those words are “No one comes to my father except through me!” No Party, or no Church can claim to speak for Christ, they can only follow his message.

  8. CWH says:

    When a Cut is Not a Cut
    One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.

    No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the “cuts” being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family “saving” $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.

    The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith and credit of the United States is being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever, in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family’s income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.

    In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of “cuts” that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to “cut”. It would only take us 5 years to “cut” $1 trillion, in Washington math, just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.

    A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply returned to that year’s spending levels, which would hardly be austere, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending, and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.

    We pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn’t have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

    In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger “cut” than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.

    – Congressman Ron Paul (TX)

    1. HUH!? says:

      you have way to much time on your hands bud

      1. waste says:

        Good comment CWH. But some here may not understand any of it.

        Once again, the Tea Party is being portrayed as a radical organization for a plan that involves no current cuts. Just ask you rep to enumerate the cuts in this bill. They will look at you with a blank stare.

        They say the deficit will go down, not the debt. Keep watch for the words used. This will not cut the debt in any way.

        There will still be trillions of debt increased over the next 10 years.

        No one is looking at the reality that we cannot have another stimulus. The housing stimulus is over, TARP is over, the Obama Stimulus is over. There is nothing left but to start working.

        1. easyrider says:

          Unfortunately, the trouble we are in was visible in the early 2000’s. A train wreck waiting to happen. A 35W bridge waiting to collapse. Both happened. What the Tea Party really represents is the hope that a collapse will benefit the few, not the many. Waste is when those who can help their country and the people in it, turn their backs willfully and without compassion, hoping only to line their pockets from the leftover debris. If we look at history, The Tea Party is a Neo-Tory organization hoping to reclaim wealth and status that does not belong to them. While they may have an (unclear) understanding of how to manipulate economics, they are oblivious to the human condition and the events of the world unfolding around them.

  9. Murph says:

    NO matter what,you can bet the rich will get richer and the poor poorer!The so called middle class is shrinking fast.

    1. Sticks and Stones says:

      The poorer are getting that way on their own Murph, there is no reason they have to get any poorer if they would go to work if able. That comment is out there but you do have your opinion but get the facts straight. I can tell you there isn’t one thing in this debt deal that will make the poor poorer if anything it will probably give them more money.

      1. David J. Conklin says:

        >there is no reason they have to get any poorer if they would go to work if able.

        If you are over 50 you cannot get hired. If you are unemployed the companies tell you straight up to not bother applying. If you come up with a good idea (one VC said it “would be like printing money”) you can’t get it financed. So you go ahead an lie some more.

      2. Mark says:

        > “There is no reason they have to get any poorer if they would go to work if able.”

        Kind sir/madam, take a look a median wages in our nation since the 1970’s. In that 40 year period, the wages of the BOTTOM 90% of all wage earners grew only 10% (when adjusted for inflation), while during that same period, the wages of the TOP10% of wage earners increased by more than 300%! Or in just the past year, top pay for CEO’s and upper wage earners grew at more than 20%, while the rest of the wage earners only saw increases (on average) of only 2%. So how can the lower and middle class ever make any headway when the inflation rates are larger than the increases?


  10. Joseph Rodela says:

    I love how almost everyone’s opinion is one that has been regurgitated, then consumed and regurgitated again. Minnesotans need to turn of Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, and turn on some C-SPAN. If not, please be quiet while the adults are speaking.

    1. The Jig Is Up says:

      Better year, find out What Really Happened. Blows C-Span out of the water, IMO.

      1. Joseph Rodela says:


  11. lorenz says:

    Ellison is the worst congressman ever: total panderer without any sense of justice for ALL. Any group of voters who elect him destroy the concept of democracy. He epitomizes complete selfishness. Please, please, do not elect him again.

  12. Justin says:

    Ellison, if he had his way would spend us into bankruptcy. He is the most progressive/socialist member in congress. He takes the hardest and most radical line every time and I am ashamed he is a congressman from my great state of Minnesota.

  13. the crux of the buscuit says:

    I’ll bet more people that voted yes will lose their jobs next election cycle than those who voted no.

  14. easyrider says:

    Phony use of “Tea Party” includes a gross misunderstanding of History. The poor (america) were being controlled by the wealthy (the British). American’s back then understood they would tax themselves in order to survive after the Revolutionary war, represented by Americans, not ourside interests. We fought again a Plutocracy and in the hopes of never becoming one. We fought against class warfare and may lose that battle yet. “We, the people, in order to form a more perfect Union…” is in danger of losing it’s meaning. If education in this country has any worth anymore, the Tea Partiers” should leave this ship of state before they sink us.

    1. Redneck Purist says:

      Speaking of Pluto-crazy. I think someone drank too much bong water before history class. It must be fun to get blitzed and start having your deep thoughts, and sharing them, but in the future, to avoid being thought of as a fool, run those thoughts by someone smarter than thyself. Like say – a second grader.

  15. Rory says:

    I agree that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes but the reason the poor end up getting some back is that income level is at or below the poverty line or at best not much above. If we over taxed them, many would be on the streets. The poor still end up paying in one way or another regardless of any argument. It seems those who gripe about this also think the wealthy are over taxed. To me, all classes are getting taxed realistically according to their yearly income.

  16. DARREN says:

    It really doesn’t matter, the world is ending in 15 months. Lets all go into debt bigtime, spend away, crank up those credit cards. There won’t be anyone left to pay when the world ends.

    Have a nice day!

  17. O-done-a says:

    I’ve been waiting….and now that it’s over…can say that I’ve never read one comment during this whole debacle in regard to the fact that the debt ceiling was last raised on 2/4 of 2010—1.9 trillion.

    1. Engineer says:

      You are correct, it’s passage was 217-212. But one must also look at the fact that under the BushII administration, there were 5 passages to increase the debt ceiling. 6-2002–450B, 5-03–900B, 11-04 800B, 3-06 781B and 9-07 850B. The debt ceiling increased from 5.95T to 11.315T. That’s almost double. It’s not looking good at all.

      1. O-done-a says:

        No it’s not. America needs to wake up and pay attention. This is serious.

        1. Waste says:

          Great post engineer, it was wrong under Bush, and it is even more wrong now that the economy is in the tank.

        2. Citizen says:

          Actually, O-done-a, it is a concern, but the book I’m reading details how complex the debt ceiling really is, and how it is tied to free markets, currency, and the global economy. The debt ceiling debate and the media’s coverage of it are a gross simplification of what is happening, and how much influence can be brought to bear on the problem. Read “Predator State” by James K. Galbraith (John Kenneth’s son) about the abandonment of free markets by conservatives–actually, free markets never really existed. A complex book but very enlightening.

          1. O-done-a says:

            Good morning Citizen. Ha! My “no it’s not” comment was in response to engineer’s “it’s not good at all”. This political theatre that just played out convinced me that it’s time to get rid of the concept of the debt ceiling. I read a lot of market news and remember the 2010 lift—very silent in the world, but the markets did react. The very idea of the debt ceiling is ridiculous! Like the human appendix, the debt ceiling is a remnant of history that does no one any good. You only notice it when it’s causing political turmoil. The debt ceiling does not provide a meaningful check on government spending. Congress does what it wants and then adjusts the debt ceiling to accommodate the deficits it votes for. If America wants control of the debt, they should look to the budget, appropriations and taxation bills— not the debt ceiling. You’re right, it may be unconstitutional. And, I have that book on my list to buy—you have referenced a few times so it must be a good one. Thanks

            1. Citizen says:

              O-done-a. There’s a lot of good economic history in the book, but it is complex reading. So enjoy!

      2. soso says:

        Yep, we keep raising the debt ceiling…and we keep hitting that ceiling a few years down the road. The debt is going higher and higher. Sure looks like we’re on the right track! Problem solved!

    2. Digs says:

      That’s crazy. Really crazy!

  18. Jake says:

    BOTH are wrong, for all of the wrong reasons. Ellison wants to play the race card, Frankenstein wants the animosity to fade. NEITHER one has a doable plan to put this country back on its feet. What a stupid deal. Can’t wait for November, 2012.

  19. sarah says:

    All UGG 1873 boots in our shop are with high quality sheepskin. UGG Bailey Button Tripletis the 2010 new style UGG boots. The molded EVA outsole is very light and flexible. Free shipping all over the world.Welcome to visit our site

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Watch & Listen LIVE