All I see is four years of failure..

OK..... so refresh our memories. What was the "Clinton era tax" thing all about ?

If Mr Obama has already cut taxes for the average family by $3600 ( is this for 4 years, or per year ??? .... we need clarification ), then - if the Clinton era was about raising taxes, I suppose he thinks raising everyones taxes ( like the Obamacare plan will do ) will get us back into prosperity. I still don't get the logic there.

One more thing ..... if the leaders in Washington are having trouble agreeing on the Bush era tax cuts, how is throwing another idea ( obstacle ) out in front of them going to help ?

Try this interesting math problem if you haven't yet already : Assume our debt levels out at $16 trillion then we begin immediately to pay it off at the rate of $1000 per second. How long will it take us to get to zero again ( assuming zero accrued interest ) ? The answer will surprise you. Even worse if you factor in the interest.

Mr Obama
Why did you cut $700 billion from Medicare?

Even as he talks Medicare on the campaign trail, the president has not explained why he robbed Medicare—and the seniors who depend on it—to bankroll Obamacare.

From factcheck.org: "Romney repeated a number of distortions, saying that the law would “cut Medicare” by $500 billion and that it “adds trillions to our deficits.” That’s a reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years. And CBO
(Congressional Budget Office )says the law would reduce the deficit."

Those $700 billion in cuts have been explained as savings from the ACA, and waste reduction.

So there's your answer, I guess.

I'm not voting for Obama (I'm to the left of him) but talking about four years of failure is silly, Jim.

Osama bin Laden, for one, would probably not characterize these four years the same.

The real irony that's killing me right now is that there is an easy way to make sure Medicare is and stays solvent for years to come: expand it to cover everybody, and let everybody pay into it. Single payer health care.

Medicare is worth saving, and in fact, it's worth expanding it so it covers all the uninsured.

Well yeah, taking 700bil from Medicare isn't that when it's a lie being told to sell a candidate. Seems pretty simple.

Honestly, I'm not too concerned with savings right now--Keynsian 101 here, government spending can drive an economy out of a recession by providing jobs, thereby putting money back into the hands of folks who will spend it--the working classes.

Giving money to the owner classes hasn't worked. We've been steadily decreasing their contributions (via taxes) for a long time now. Why aren't they "creating jobs" as the rhetoric says they should be? At what point does their refusal to create these jobs become a hostage situation?

I don't think they're job creators at all. The working classes create jobs by having money to spend, driving up aggregate demand.

Keynesians are stupid. After four years of it on steroids with TOTAL FAILURE you still are pimping it. Only a democRAT would bankrupt our country to such an extent.

Calling people you disagree with "stupid" and a "RAT" is childish and does nothing to convince people that you are a serious person who is worth paying attention to or debating with.

If you can't attack the idea, attack the man, right?

Happy to attack the idea of Keynesians. None of Keynes' core assumptions make sense when they are analysed either separately or together. Business cycles have historically been caused by governments, and they are usually a response to government policies to increase the size of the state through trade barriers, higher taxation, more spending, more regulation and programs of fear and compliance. The Great Depression, the 70s Stagflation and the current financial crisis are all obvious examples of this fact. Government causing economic malaise would appear to mean that government programs are not the solutions required to either get out of an economic downturn, nor to prevent future derailments from taking place. The main impact of Keynesian economic stimuli is to increase debt; raise future tax rates and distort the normal functionings of economic markets and personal and corporate decision making. Governments choose winners and confirm losers. The winners will include companies which get bailed out, those receiving welfare, unions and others having their jobs protected, those receiving redistributed incomes and those paid off for political support. The losers invariably include firms both domestic and international who want fair and free trade; higher income families; small businesses who are classified under high income categories; future generations who must pay off the debt; and consumers who pay a higher costs for all products and services.

Socialism 101. Try the simple technique of opening your eyes. Look at the whole continent of Europe. What a mess. Obama and the democrats like the model because "THEY CAN BUY VOTES: Example would be an auto bailout where Shareholders and Bondholders get the shaft and the UAW gets Taxpayer money.

"Business cycles have historically been caused by governments"

This is a huge oversimplification. During the robber baron era, when government intervention was very low, were the constant boom and bust cycles caused by the absence of government?

The causes of the Great Depression were complex and nuanced. There were several failures, some of which can be laid at the feet of policymakers, but many that were absolutely failures of the private sector. Attempting to paint all modern economic crises as products of governance is oversimplified and hardly stands up to scrutiny.

It's not self-evident that the government is the sole cause of these woes, and it's not even convincing that they are the large part of them--it would be EXTREMELY CONVENIENT for bankers to be able to throw their hands up and claim they had no responsibility for their overleveraged, underfunded liabilities, their gaming of the LIBOR rates, the enormously irresponsible CDO market, and their failure to properly manage home loan documentation--but it's just not so.

You're trying to set up an explanation where major systemic failures in our financial system have no generative causation in those same systems--it's facile and nakedly partisan.

The answers are much more complex than you'd like them to be, and until you can start addressing them as products of both private sector and governance, you'll never get anywhere.

You mean the auto bailout that resulted with the auto companies paying back the government money, Jim? The most successful, least controversial of all the bailouts, that one is the one you really want to talk about?

Everybody. Obama steals 700 billion from MediCare to make ObamaCare work. Thta is a fact. Democrats want/need to fool people. Please do not be fooled by these ling democrats.

Stephen Schmidt made some excellent rational points. Best of all he did it without name calling and blanket statements.
Conversation works best when we all keep calm and cool headed.

Obama and Democrats promised that our Health Care cost would go down by $2,500 a year by now. Guess what, they have gone up by $2,500 per year. I have a problem with that as everybody should.

Did Obama need that 700 Billion to cover Illegals?

I'm sorry that your insurance company chose to raise your rates. That's why we should have had a single payer plan for everyone; unfortunately scare tactics about turning the U.S. into a socialist country stopped this action. Apparently we allow our seniors to be socialists via Medicare---the rest of us need to wait, eh?

Here's a few reasons why I appreciate the Affordable Healthcare Act:
Insurance Companies Can’t Deny Coverage to Women
Women Have a Choice of Doctor
Women Can Receive Preventive Care Without Copays
Women Pay Lower Health Care Costs
Health plans that cover children can no longer exclude, limit or deny coverage to your child (under age 19) based on a pre-existing condition
If your plan covers children, you can now add or keep your children on your health insurance policy until they turn 26
Help for Family Members on Medicare-The gap in drug coverage known as the “donut hole” is being closed, reducing seniors’ out-of-pocket costs. In addition, people on Medicare may receive recommended preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies for free.
It's not perfect, but it's a start to evening the playing field of receiving quality health care.

Kurt: Agreed. All of our members of Congress should be on this plan but I don't think anyone brought that up when this was being discussed.
As for the rest of your examples---well, respectfully, it's a hard trail of logic to follow.
Again, the AHA isn't perfect but it was the best that could be agreed on while all the shouting was going on via the Tea Party folks, etc. Single payer would be best.

Thank you darling wonder Mitt! Thanks for blessing us with inspiration of inherited wealth. Thank you for teaching us nobody should pay more tax just because they hide money, tax-free, in the Caymans & Bermuda & Switzerland & Andorra. Thanks for having fools pay their taxes, while you live in luxury. Thanks for building an elevator for your cars & limos in one of your 7 palaces, which also gives us inspiration to be like you: accomplished & not being afraid to demonstrate loyalty to yr fellow accomplished friends with the promise to further lower their taxes. And also thank the Ryan budget author for promising to reduce yr tax rate to 1%. After all 13% tax rate sure beats the 37% rate those on salaries must pay. It'ss inspiring for all of us not yet rich as you; not rich like yr daddy, not rich as yr wife or boys. Thank you for choosing a running mate who is also a millionaire from the inheritance from his great-grandfather, the road builder, whose company was passed down to his son & then his son, Paul's Daddy afforded Mr. Ryan a life in Wash.DC & inspiration to lower taxes on his multimillionaire mom & dad & all those whom God has blessed. You go Mitt! Why should Americans wait for the government to give a measly retirement to those who paid for it, when you show how to take care of yourself? Why give people Obamacare just because people without $ get sick? If God wants them sick, why go against God's will? O Mitt, how inspiring you are! Pay no attention to envy!