@denis....one again....that was idiotic. Closing a loophole make sthe government more efficient? How? If I have to pay taxes on my mortgage how does that make the government more efficient? that is even more stupid than something Santa would say! Not to mention I'm "avoiding paying taxes"? How is that the law says I don't have to...therefore I am not avoiding anything, because the law says this is waht I have to do. If they change the law to "close the loophole" then you are creating a law to avoid not paying what the law said you did not have to pay. Duhhhh...You can pay all the word games you want....I can play them right back.

Bottom line is, you don't know what a loophole is, and you can't define any "loophole" you want closed or what the impact of closing the loophle would be. In other words, you are just another blathering left-wing idiot regurgitating that crap you heard from left-wing blogs.

Besides, Santa, WHERE IS THE DEMOCRATIC LIGISLATIVE PROPOSLA FOR ANYONE TO VOTE ON???

as I said it doesn't matter, obviously the democrats have a goal they are negotiating towards it doesnt matter one bit if it isn't written down. What are we even arguing?

"I prefer my Representative Republic to be run by the elected officials executing the process defined in teh Constituion, instead of pundits saying things will or won't pass before bills make it to the floor."

I believe your constitution
1. Gives congress the power to define their own rules
2. Gives the Pres. Veto power

Yes I know you love your constitution

Spending bills have to start in the House. That is Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Therefore, the Senate cannot start a bill for the budget, they can only amend. And amending that turkey the House passed would simply take too long.

But hey, don't let me and my facts get in the way of your faux-angry ranting.

@Santa you can not negotitate towards a goal if you have not defined a goal. You are a fucking retard. Seriously. Not further point in discussing anything with you.

As far as teh Constitutiuon, of course I love the Constitution....it is what, in theory, our Congress and President are supposed to be adhering to.

You truly are a blithering idiot, and you make that more obvious every time you post such an asinine comment.

@Jack....and....they won't even take the bill up for a vote. they won't debate it to amend it. sorry, jack, let's not let actual facts get in the way of your ideology.

As for the process, you are correct. None the less, the Senate took a vote on an Obama budget proposal earlier this year and voted it down 97-0. Was it a valid vote? No, not really. None the less, the vote took place, and Obama was 100% defeated. facts are facts, jack. I know you lawyers don't like to deal in ALL the facts around you....but....whatever. I never expect you to be an honest debater. Only a mental masturbater....

Clearly no liberal here has any decent argument for anything. Have a sad night whining about your failure of a president.

Loopholes are not intentional, that's the whole idea. It makes the government more efficient by allowing it to do what was originally intended when the legislation was passed.

"Santa you can not negotitate towards a goal if you have not defined a goal. "

Just because it isnt written down in bill form doesnt believe there isnt a goal.

"You are a fucking retard. Seriously. Not further point in discussing anything with you."

Just keep throwing the haymakers despite a lack of anything in return, I dont know why i throw insults in the first place, it feels much nicer to keep your cool and watch someone go epileptic with anger

"
As far as teh Constitutiuon, of course I love the Constitution....it is what, in theory, our Congress and President are supposed to be adhering to."

You are exactly right, Harry Reid is following rules that congress made with the blessing of the constitution, and the president is ready to use his constitutional power of the veto, ie. adhering to the constitution.

"You truly are a blithering idiot, and you make that more obvious every time you post such an asinine comment. "

Keep saying it maybe it will come true. You learned everything I have said here in eighth grade civics

And because the Senate doesn't like the House's bill, its not even going to come up for a vote. That is within the Senate Majority leader's power. And if the Senate disagrees, they can vote in a new leader. However, its a pretty that the Senate would not pass the bill as is, or even with major modifications.

Governing requires compromise, and the House bill is a political dead letter. Its not going to pass either Senate, or the President's desk. Raging on either because they're exercising their lawfully appointed power is just foolishness.

All three have to agree on something, and the Republican party seems to think that because they control the House, they get to dictate to the Senate and the President without any compromise whatsoever. Which is not just patently false, but also incredibly irresponsible.

This whole exercise has confirmed to anybody who doubted it that the Tea Party types are incapable of governing responsibly. What happened to the pro-business Republicans who understood the value and utility of compromise?

Increasing government efficiency.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
That's a really belly buster Denis.
Don't ever run for public office and make that statement.
You campaign would end immediately.
Adults don't fall for such foolishness.

Efficient Government is an oxymoron to begin with.
Thanks for that chuckle man.

just came to my attention that the Democrats had written legislation all along. Oh Krellin...

For taxes all I want is a flat 20% across the board, no loopholes, no tax cuts, 20% on income no matterwhat.

@TC: Removing loopholes does increase efficiency, its one of the few cases were
efficiency is increased by 'raising' taxes

here we go again. krellin and TC once again get a chance to showcase just how stupid they are.

"For taxes all I want is a flat 20% across the board, no loopholes, no tax cuts, 20% on income no matterwhat. "

Man, it would suck if you had to pay 20% income tax when you only make 40k/yr.

I'm way late for this conversation but first: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-tax-loophole.htm There you go Krellin.

Second, I cannot believe all this nonsense about "leadership" from the republican party. 3 times they've tried to force a bad deal through the legislative process and the reason Senate isn't picking it up is because, as the Republicans say all too often, it's a non-starter. If you want progress, then you need to compromise. Fact of the matter is that yes, the House has proven that they can force the passage of a Republican generated bill. And the Senate's proven that the effort's wasted unless more ground is given by the Republicans in Congress.

Finally, while the Tea Party got attention in the 2010 elections, I've heard so much outrage from my peers and frustration at themselves for not going to the polls. I truly hope the sentiment lasts for 2012 so we can show the Tea Party that they're ideologies are just too extreme.

16 Trillion is debt isn't extreme Plenoge.
The individual states are rejecting the ridiculous vote buying and dependency created by the fiscallly unsustainable policies of Big Government lunatics in D.C.
States are able to give services to their citizens, and more importantly jobs.
In case you didn't notice Texas gain 4 electoral votes in the last decade.
People with common sense who recognize the lunacy of Obama's policies just laugh at Big Government types that call the Tea Party "extreme."
Obama and the Big Government types are going to see the youth vote turn against them dynamically in 2012.
What to the Big Government fools have to offer the under 30's in this country besides no jobs, massive debt, and ever escalating taxes.
What self-delusional fools the Big Government crowd is.

I made 40,000K take home a year as a bartender working five nights a week while I graduated Summa Cum Laude from UCLA back in the day. My BA came without one dime of debt.
I guess the world is full of lazy, unambitious individuals who just want to kick it.

40 million dollars as a bartender? Or is that 40,000 Krones ( scandinavian currency)?
PS still waiting for a link to the Swedish Institute of Trade Study... The link you gave me was a link to a list of documents at the Swedish Retail Institute.

I guess you don't understand what five zeroes are Denis.
I guess you don't know how to read the title of documents.
It's nice to read posts from someone so helpless, they can't read zeroes or document titles.

Tettleton... you said "40,000K." 1K = $1000. Thus 40000K = 40000 * 1000 = 40000000, or $40 million.

Here is a great article on Scandinavia from the New York Times for you Denis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/weekinreview/17bawer.html?ex=1271390400&en=44ea05b3e068feb5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

In late March, another study, this one from KPMG, the international accounting and consulting firm, cast light on this paradox. It indicated that when disposable income was adjusted for cost of living, Scandinavians were the poorest people in Western Europe. Danes had the lowest adjusted income, Norwegians the second lowest, Swedes the third.

I'll keep finding stories about Scandinavia for you Denis since it's obvious you are so ill-informed on the subject.

Some choice excerpts.
....a large pizza delivered from Oslo's most popular pizza joint - will run from $34 to $48, including delivery fee and a 25 percent value added tax.

In Norwegian pubs, for example, anyone rich or insane enough to order, say, a gin and tonic is charged about $15 for a few teaspoons of gin at the bottom of a glass of tonic.

+1 president Eden
@TC please point out a document on that lsit by the Swedish Institute of Trade. Just post it. Prove your point. It's very simple

Who are some qoutes from the book "Cowboy Capitalism" written by German author Olaf Gersemann.

European welfare provides better for the most needy than does the United States. Reality: In the mid-1990s the poorest 30 percent received over 40 percent of welfare benefits in the United States. In Italy that figure was just 20 percent, and in France and Germany the numbers were just over 30 percent.

It seems Europeans are so poor that people who aren't poorest need help too.

The United States has the highest living standard of any major industrialized nation. Adjusted for price-level differences, per capita income in the United States exceeded the French level by 36 percent in 2003. At 42 and 44 percent, respectively, Germany and Italy lagged even further behind.

You European cradle-to-grave welfare state isn't what you say it is Denis.

In 2001 almost 65 percent of U.S. federal income tax came from the 10 percent of households with the highest gross income. In Germany the top 10 percent contributed less than half the total intake.
The wealthy in America can support the poor much better than the wealthy in Germany.
Almost 50% of Americans don't even pay income tax. Germans would love that figure.

Denis, I know you are inept so I'm just overwhelming you.

Here is the Timbro study I mentioned a couple of posts back that the New York Times cited.
http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf

Pg. 9 in the study. Today there is a relatively big difference in economic prosperity between the countries of Europe and the USA. Per capita GDP is appreciably higher in the USA. As can be seen, the USA is far and away ahead of all the European countries. Next
comes Switzerland, a relatively extreme and, for Europe, misleading example, owing to
the heavy flows of foreign capital it receives. Even so, the difference in per capita GDP
between the USA and Switzerland is 17 per cent. Next comes a whole clutch of countries in the middle of the GDP hierarchy, all of them relatively far behind the USA.
The gaps already existing today are so great that, even if the European countries were to suddenly being growing much faster, it would still take them a long time to catch up with the USA.

Page 16. y. Most Americans have a standard of living
which the majority of Europeans will never come any where near. The really prosperous American regions have nearly twice the affluence of Europe. It is worth reminding ourselves what this means. In these regions the average American can get exactly twice as much of everything as the average European.

I'll posting this stuff for you Denis so you can be even more hysterical.
Thanks for the entertainment dude.

Here is a nice piece that says exactly was the Swedes own study said Denis.

Page 23
Average total dwelling space in Europe is just under 1,000 sq. ft. In the USA it is
1,875 sq. ft for the average household and 1,200 sq. ft for poor households. Adjusting for size of household, one finds that poor households in the USA have slightly more dwelling space than the average European.

The poorest Americans have a bigger house than the average European.
That Welfare State model just looks like shit Denis.
You need to post something besides "I can't find the article TC."

Okaaaaaaay......

TC your argument is that if Leviathan would just keep its tentacles off, private entrepreneurs will gladly provide the services that government had provided, with greater efficiency.

While this may be true (I won't argue on that as it's pointless), let me ask you a question. Do you think private companies will be able to make up for the shortfall immediately after government downsizes? And will they be willing to do so, given that some social projects, while popular and improve society in non-monetary ways, are simply non-profitable? It would be hard to expect charity to expand to cover all the social programs that cost the government money.

While privatisation is a good idea in general, is it a good idea to do a large-scale government downsizing right now when jobs are most needed? Since as I argue, private organisations cannot immediately cover all the shortfall from the reduction of government spending, how do you propose we protect the affected people over this duration of time?

Gobbledygook, I guess you have a problem with being out of touch with the real world as well.
Do you think that a 16 trillion dollar day growing at an annual rate of 1.6 Trillion a year with unfunded obligations through entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that amount to 200 Trillion through the end of the baby boom generation's lives are fiscally sustainable by any economy at any rate of taxation.
Because if you do please give me your address because I could sell you anything.

You sound just like individuals I've seen lose businesses, totally in denial.
They invariably say "we'll get another loan to get us through" and they can't believe it when they can't get another loan.
We borrow well over $1 Trillion dollars a year right now as I type.
People don't have to lend us that money.
If you look at the interest rates on a 2-year Greek Government bond that is over 30% you will understand that fact, unless of course you are in total denial.
If that is the case who cares what idiots think, they are still idiots and there is no hope for them.
I look at Obama giving his speech tonight and I think what a sad spokesman his is for the generation that is younger than me.
Then I think about how I can protect what I have from the US Government, the California State Government, the Los Angeles County Government, the Los Angeles City Government, and the Federal Reserve that wants to devalue dollar denominated assets because my friend what you keep calling "social programs that cost the government money" are actually insolvent contractual obligations whose only question is whose contract will be the first one to fail.

So you keep posing useless question like who will make up the "shortfall" (what a humorous word to use for the Trillions of dollars in question) and I'll keep my eye on the ball of reality that my mother and father will need me to replace their medicare and social security when the money quits coming because no one else will.

Keep on dreaming dude. It sounds like you do it well.

The last time government were this much in debt they were called England and France after World War II and look at what happened to them. Their empires vanished with two decades.

Another example are Spain and Portugal when Spain defaulted under Phillip II. Spain never recovered.

The Welfare State is defaulting now and will never recover.
All you can do is realize that reality, protect yourself and your loved ones as best you can because no one else will, and use the traits that are time tested to rebuild- (honesty, loyalty, sobriety, frugality, a work ethic, and driving ambition.)
It ain't rocket science.

I say we cut the government down to size. The entire government should be able to operate on $1 million a day, anything more is waste.