CalvinBall wrote:Republican Senator Crapo from Idaho got a DUI.

The 40-year-old Schatz, a former state representative and onetime chairman of the state Democratic party, said his top priorities would be addressing global climate change, preserving federal funds used in Hawaii for things like defense spending and transportation, and getting federal recognition for Native Hawaiians for forming their own government, similar to many Indian tribes.

Schatz, who ran with Abercrombie for the state's top two offices in 2010, beat out Hanabusa and Esther Kiaaina, a deputy director in the state Department of Land and Natural Resources

Report: Crapo drank vodka shots

Which brings us back to the middle class. When President Obama talks about taxing the rich, he means the top 2 percent of Americans. John A. Boehner, the House speaker, talks about an even thinner slice. But the current and future fiscal imbalances are too large to exempt 98 percent or more of the public from being part of the solution.

Ultimately, unless we scale back entitlement programs far more than anyone in Washington is now seriously considering, we will have no choice but to increase taxes on a vast majority of Americans. This could involve higher tax rates or an elimination of popular deductions. Or it could mean an entirely new tax, such as a value-added tax or a carbon tax.

jerseyhoya wrote:Wishful Thinking and Middle-Class Taxes

Which brings us back to the middle class. When President Obama talks about taxing the rich, he means the top 2 percent of Americans. John A. Boehner, the House speaker, talks about an even thinner slice. But the current and future fiscal imbalances are too large to exempt 98 percent or more of the public from being part of the solution.

Ultimately, unless we scale back entitlement programs far more than anyone in Washington is now seriously considering, we will have no choice but to increase taxes on a vast majority of Americans. This could involve higher tax rates or an elimination of popular deductions. Or it could mean an entirely new tax, such as a value-added tax or a carbon tax.

jerseyhoya wrote:Wishful Thinking and Middle-Class Taxes

Which brings us back to the middle class. When President Obama talks about taxing the rich, he means the top 2 percent of Americans. John A. Boehner, the House speaker, talks about an even thinner slice. But the current and future fiscal imbalances are too large to exempt 98 percent or more of the public from being part of the solution.

Ultimately, unless we scale back entitlement programs far more than anyone in Washington is now seriously considering, we will have no choice but to increase taxes on a vast majority of Americans. This could involve higher tax rates or an elimination of popular deductions. Or it could mean an entirely new tax, such as a value-added tax or a carbon tax.

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wishful Thinking and Middle-Class Taxes

Which brings us back to the middle class. When President Obama talks about taxing the rich, he means the top 2 percent of Americans. John A. Boehner, the House speaker, talks about an even thinner slice. But the current and future fiscal imbalances are too large to exempt 98 percent or more of the public from being part of the solution.

Ultimately, unless we scale back entitlement programs far more than anyone in Washington is now seriously considering, we will have no choice but to increase taxes on a vast majority of Americans. This could involve higher tax rates or an elimination of popular deductions. Or it could mean an entirely new tax, such as a value-added tax or a carbon tax.

Notice that he doesn't do the numbers? That's because he's completely wrong.

If you do the numbers, the deficit is almost exlusively a product of a depressed economy and not over-spending. For an explanation, read this.

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wishful Thinking and Middle-Class Taxes

Which brings us back to the middle class. When President Obama talks about taxing the rich, he means the top 2 percent of Americans. John A. Boehner, the House speaker, talks about an even thinner slice. But the current and future fiscal imbalances are too large to exempt 98 percent or more of the public from being part of the solution.

Ultimately, unless we scale back entitlement programs far more than anyone in Washington is now seriously considering, we will have no choice but to increase taxes on a vast majority of Americans. This could involve higher tax rates or an elimination of popular deductions. Or it could mean an entirely new tax, such as a value-added tax or a carbon tax.

Notice that he doesn't do the numbers? That's because he's completely wrong.

If you do the numbers, the deficit is almost exlusively a product of a depressed economy and not over-spending. For an explanation, read this.

*Asserts article is completely wrong* *Posts link to article discussing something different*

Krugman does mention in passing there "Now, America does have a long-run budget problem, thanks to our aging population and the rising cost of health care."