But giving him all the blame not refusing their demands is self serving and disingenuous.

I argue otherwise because 1) without a balanced budget we don't reduce the deficit, only slow it's continued growth (hence the need to raise the debt ceiling) and 2) mandatory spending already eats 90% of our revenue, so to balance the budget (the only way to actually end the deficit and reduce the debt) we'd have to cut everything else. And by everything I mean EVERYTHING; disbanding the Army so we can reduce the deficit without a tax hike is beyond absurd and incredibly selfish, not to mention short sighted. That's the thing that really staggers me here: The wealthiest people, the ONLY ones who've yet to make ANY sacrifices during a decade long recession, are willing to risk a federal bankruptcy that would instantly make their accumulated fortunes worthless, all to avoid a tax hike. Joe Kennedy once said he'd gladly give up half of all he had to keep the other half in security; Republicans refusing to give up ANYTHING, even at the risk of destroying the economy on which their wealth depends, would do well to heed his words. Times ARE tough; we can't reasonably expect the poorest Americans to keep making painful sacrifices so the wealthiest can avoid any.

The Clinton era prosperity had a lot to do with economic growth, unquestionably, but Clintons balanced budget and $1 trillion surplus had to do with Republicans forcing spending cuts AND Clinton forcing tax hikes. See how that works? We cut spending AND raised taxes, and rather than destroying the economy we had the longest sustained economic growth in our history. Perhaps that explains why Bushs attempt to "stimulate" that record breaking economy with tax giveaways sent us into a decade long recession (though the unfinanced unnecessary war didn't help).

Short form: Yes, we need to raise taxes AND cut spending to balance the budget and no, we can't cut the deficit without balancing the budget, only slow the deficits growth.

Dude: He either raised taxes or he cut them; it's impossible to do both. How 'bout you instead of accusing me of illogical rhetoric you stop using it yourself? For what it's worth, I agree he shouldn't have signed off on extending decade old tax cuts during a recession just because Republican rammed them down his throat; just offering to keep the middle class tax cut was a major (though necessary) concession in those circumstances, but accepting them for the wealthiest people as well was irresponsible.

They never had a filibuster proof majority, or DeMint and company wouldn't have successfully threatened filibusters against any healthcare reform worthy of the name. Lieberman consistently sided with Republicans on every fiscal and most other policy issues. Dems SHOULD'VE had a filibuster proof majority, but Norman Colemans court challenge to Al Frankens election lasted until June 2009; by that time Ted Kennedy was dead and Scott Brown had already been elected to replace him. Why didn't Obama let Reid jerk Liebermans committees to stop his one man filibusters? Rank idiocy, from what I can tell.

All of which is rather beside the point on the Bush tax cuts; those stuck around because Reid intentionally waited until the midterms to go after them, hoping to make political hay of Republicans defending millionaire tax cuts during a recession. Of course, he forgot the public wouldn't hear the "millionaire" part and would simply see Dems trying to raise EVERYONE taxes during a recession, because Harry Reid couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag. That said, Democrats never supported, let alone advocated, Bushs tax cuts to the wealthy: The let Republicans shove them down their throats. Trying to make them the Democrats baby is inverting the facts, and we both know it, so stop playing dumb for the sake of politics. The day America could afford to ignore stark reality in the interest of political gain is long past.

Why not increase revenue and worry about spending cuts later? Maybe because if you do that the other side has no incentive to worry "later", and much incentive from their base NOT to do so. No, you do both; both sides give up something the other wants in exchange for something it wants, in the interest of a massive deficit reduction deal they BOTH want. That's called "compromise". Expecting the other side to give up everything you want in exchange for nothing is called "unrealistic selfishness". Saying, "spending cuts will erase the deficit if we just cut more spending later" ignores the facts. Facts like already proposed cuts increasing the burden on Americas poor when they're denied benefits they paid into the system for 30 years to get, even as their healthcare costs continue to rise. Facts like Pelosi and Reid not wanting those spending cuts for just that reason, but accepting them because Obama said they would get him tax cuts to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion. Instead of telling Dems, "let us cut spending and we'll give you a tax hike, " you're going to tell them, "let us cut spending and we'll cut it again next year"? Good luck with that. Of course, the biggest fact that ignores is that "cut, cut, cut" is no more a rational approach than "tax, tax, tax" to balancing the budget and reducing debt. You do both or you're just wasting time we don't have; telling people one will work without the other is just partisan BS.

Economic growth doesn't increase federal revenue unless you tax. Again, I don't see why that's so hard for people obsessed with finance to grasp. Let's put it another way: US 2009 GDP was $14.7 trillion. Our current debt nearly equals that; our current taxation is about 1/7th of that. Don't you think increasing the latter MIGHT have some impact on the former? We've been cutting taxes for a decade and it hasn't stimulated growth; in fact, the longest period of economic growth in our history began with tax hikes and ended with tax cuts. We can't just grow our way out of debt; buying into that fantasy for 30 years is how we got into this mess. Raise taxes, cut spending.

I wish we still had wSE points so I could take that bet; what I ought to do is wager a few ounces of gold payable when the Republicans force a deal without tax hikes or just force a default. Obama delegating negotiations to Reid and then Biden meant the GOP spent months drawing a line in the sand on tax hikes. If they back down now their Tea Party base will lynch them. Of course, if Obama refuses to give them massive spending cuts without at tax hike and we go bankrupt, the rest of the public will lynch them. Oops; maybe they shouldn't have played political games with the nations economic existence. I'll tell you this much: The Senate Minority Leader didn't offer to cede the President Congress' Constitutional budget controls in exchange for NOTHING just because he thinks his House colleagues will cave on tax hikes.

For what it's worth I hope you're right. Instead of just closing loopholes I'd like an actual tax RATE increase, in fact, what I'd really like is an upper class rate like 40-50% instead of one that goes up to 38% then BACK DOWN to 35%, and a middle class cut: You're taxes ARE too high, because you're paying the share of those who can pay but won't. However, in this case demanding more would be unrealistic and would queer the deal; if nothing else it would be worth, the precedent, much like that Gingrich and Clinton set in the '90s, that Democrats and Republicans CAN negotiate a compromise that cuts spending AND raises taxes to eliminate the deficit and reduce our debt. Also, it would deliver on another old and now incidental DC promise to simplify the tax code; the myriad write offs, deductions, loopholes and credits are what have so complicated it, and obscured what I believe amounts to the middle class paying too much because the lower class can't and the upper class won't pay more. The big thing, however, is that it would start to pare down the deficit like we did in the '90s and allow us the luxury of changing things later if the economic picture gets significantly better, instead of declaring bankruptcy (which just raising the debt ceiling won't prevent anyway), ending all the benefits people paid into Social Security and Medicare for anyway, ruining the dollar and destroying global confidence in American business AND government.

I'm not holding my breath though; maybe if the reported White House attempt to pin all the blame on Cantor for blocking a deal work and Boehner along with other GOP leaders force him in line. He IS the problem, IMHO; Boehner was on board with some tax cuts until his colleagues, probably led by Cantor, forced him to decline, and it was Cantor who unilaterally terminated last months Biden talks while the VP, the other Republicans involved and the world all watched, just as it's Cantor who's stonewalling Obama on the "grand bargain" now. It might work from a political perspective, and that may be necessary; Cantor could make himself the maverick darling of the Tea Party while Boehner, Obama and the rest pat themselves and each other on the back for a hard fought and well earned compromise in the nations interest that has something for everyone. It all depends on whether House Republicans as a whole think they can buck the Tea Party that elected them and stay in office, but even as spacy as the House can be in the best of times, it has to be sinking in by now that if they'll be out of a job anyway if they don't agree to SOME kind of deal. Like I say, I hope you're right, and not just for the sake of deficit elimination. The healthcare debate taught Obama hard lessons about letting Republicans turn negotiation into capitulation: He's not going to cave, so if Republicans refuse to offer ANY concessions to match his MANY, the US will default on its debt obligations. Republicans can try to make that Obamas fault all they want, but the smart ones (like McConnell) already know it won't work, and it will be small potatoes anyway when our economy collapses.

Saying, "if the Dems would give Republicans everything they want we'd have a deal" doesn't make this the Democrats fault. Obama and his party have offered a LOT, things Reid and Pelosi wouldn't have considered for a moment six months ago. What have Republicans offered in return? To cut millions of peoples healthcare and retirement income even MORE later? Gee, thanks. As for Clinton: Longest period of economic growth in US history. Balanced budget through spending cuts AND tax hikes. Trillion dollar surplus that would be at $2.5 trillion now without the Bush tax cuts and war in Iraq. Those are documented indisputable facts; you can ignore them, but that's the ONLY way to deny them. The Bush recession has lasted nearly a decade now; maybe it's time to stop doing the things that caused it and go back to what we did during our longest ever economic growth.