Just an aside re Deborah Skinner:

She cannot remember her first two and a half years (how many of us can?)

She utterly rejects she was raised in a box, was unloved, went crazy. For what it is worth:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/12/highereducation.uk

Welcome back and thanks for everything you do.

Don Davis

I believe Obama is more than well aware that the GOP will not give in to increased revenues and will never, never accept his budget. I think that Obama, rather than being a conservative democrat (though I do believe he is very moderate), is actually a skilled politico, using the GOPs intransigence against them. Again, he looks reasonable, they look obstructionist. Boehner absolutely cannot pull together enough votes to accept this plan, period. While it seems a bit Machiavellian to me, I'm not losing any sleep over this ploy.

I'm a little shocked by Obama's inability to put himself in the shoes of those millions of worn out citizens trying to survive on their Social Security income. Many of these folks worked for decades, namely the last three, without unions, without pensions, without fair wages, without workplace safety, with wage freezes, with beneifit cuts, with theft of their modest 401k's..."Mitt"..and with job insecurity...."Mitt." Immoral Men, "Mitt," who felt no shame engaging in massive self enrichment at the expense of their desperate fellow citizens.

That said, I still don't see the Republicans giving in to revenues. The handful of billionaires who own their little butts won't allow it. I'm starting to think this same handful owns Obama's little butt too!

The quasi corporate government Federal Reserve should merge with the Social Security. Obviously this is a maniac idea, of course because it takes a maniac to have a fair argument with Congress and the Senate. And now with the President Obama who will ride in the back of the bus from now on.

Here is the plan, O.K. so Obama cuts the Social Security then everyone on Social Security now receives a Federal Reserve Gold card at sixty five, if you hold out to sixty seven you get a Federal Reserve Platinum card. All cards issued annually. well we are the richest country ever on earth so lets use it.

This common sense because remember Romney says corporations are people so people will receive a debit card backed by the Federal Reserve good for a minimum of a forty thousand dollar value in real cash buying power for a Gold card, and a fifty thousand dollar value for a platinum. Just like JP Morgan, the American National bank, AIG, or any other too big to fail entity this is better because it is not free money. We pay this off with a stock transaction retirement surcharge which is not a tax so the Republicans should jump at the chance to enact this new law.

It might be considered funny but it is inevitable it will eventually happen. This is really thinking out of the box. Imagine the next political party will have the presidency for a very very long time. I maybe a maniac but I am not crazy. America we could sweeten it up by giving a Gold card to any person involved in a terrorist action like getting machined gunned to death.

Wow, DAnneMarcanomics! How do you find time for all of this?

What was last years total defense spending, something like 700 billion? I think we could still tweak your defense cuts figure just a tad.

dddfaber: Machiavellian? To quote Wikipedia "The word has a similar use in modern psychology where it describes one of the dark triad personalities, characterised by a duplicitous interpersonal style associated with cynical beliefs and pragmatic morality." If this doesn't describe Obama, I don't know what does. If you believe that the guy is just being crafty with the Republicans, throwing Social Security and Medicare out there just to taunt them because he knows they can't gag down tax increases, and will then pull back the chip after the midterms - think again. Number one, you don't play that kind of game with America's safety net. Number two, any person capable of setting himself up as judge, jury and hangman (the kill list) and who knows better (Professor of Constitutional Law) Is capable of literally anything.

2950-10K ~ The previous years defense spending was reported at a little under $700 Billion. Last year the fed put the debt incurred in the recent overseas wars, along with the loan's interest, into the mix. That raised the defense spending bill to somewhere in the area of $1.1 Trillion to almost $1.5 Trillion, with about $100 Billion to $450 Billion of that total in interest payments alone. If you ask me the big hullabaloo about this debt from the Republinuts is because the want their constituency to reap the benefits of these wars; but, be free from having to pay for them. They would prefer to sacrifice our retired seniors, the weak and the ill citizens than to cost their constituents a dime.

Whether President Obama is implicit in this scheme is still uncertain. However, time will tell. We can only hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

As far as further tweaks to my defense cuts, you betcha; as Sarah Palin would say. A more realistic approach would be a $500 - $600 Billion cut. I'm just trying to propose one that might be deemed acceptable by all. I can only assume President Obama feels the same way. Our Defense Department causes more National Security Risks than it prevents in my opinion.

The War on Drugs causes more drug addiction than it prevents by seducing many people on relying on the drug trade for income. Decreasing supply by artificially restricting access increases demand and value. It's economics 101. Legalize drugs, remove the prohibition and flood the market with cheap legal recreational drugs and Drug Dealer phones will stop ringing overnight! That's the effect legalizing Medical Marijuana has had on the trade here in "Oaksterdam," and thats the effect that would occur in the nation. After the first rush of "over happy" citizens, the fad will die quickly when users realize that they now need a real job to survive and using drugs is just an obstacle. As supply approaches infinity demand always approaches 0. If you don't believe me, read "The Wealth of Nations," by Adam Smith. The Prohibition of Drugs has always been a fools errand and is the biggest pyramid scheme in the history of the world. Not only will this country save $26.5 Billion off the top in drug enforcement; but, also consider the countless Billions in undocumented cash flying out of this country into the pockets of organized criminal Drug Cartels and gone forever. I'm all for foreign aid. However, let's limit it to humanitarian aid, investment in infrastructure, or as loans with generous interest payments. Funding criminals is ridiculous!

The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) sealed its fate with me when I called them to help me investigate suspected terrorist activity in my Bank. They told me they weren't interested and I should call my local Police Department. My local Police Department? That's the best they can do for me with a $55.4 Billion annual budget of my money? In my book a servant of mine gets one shot at screwing up that bad on the job. All I can say is, "YOU'RE FIRED! CLEAN OUT YOUR DESKS AND DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU WHERE THE GOOD LORD SPLIT YOU!" The nerve. I still tremble in fury when I think about it!

Of course, this is just the beginning. You're welcome to add any tweaks of your own. This budget is so full of waste we could probably exponentially increase my surplus if we put our heads together. I only spent a couple of hours on this idea. I wonder how much time Congress is really spending. They sure are spending a lot of money.

DAnneMarc: I hope you're right, but I fear you aren't. Obama has lost too many opportunities to make meaningful fundamental change to give him that much credit for ultimate good intentions and great political savvy. Had he gone after the Wall Street crooks that crashed the economy in '08, even in a modest way, he would have netted tremendous political capital while sending a strong message that things were going to change. Things haven't changed. The same goes for prosecuting the war criminals that lied about WMD. Instead, he doubled down on Afghanistan. Even back then many knew that Afghanistan was (still is) a fool's errand. History alone makes that crystal clear. How many hundreds of billions down the rat hole since that missed opportunity? And most recently, a chance to drive through one of the most significant things he could have done to leverage a progressive agenda; kill the filibuster. The White House was mute on the issue when it was a real opportunity. Instead, he let Harry Reid mumble it away in Harry's inimitable fashion. It seems to be necessary to maintain just the right tension between the two parties (which are really just one party serving the oligarchy) such that no one is ever to blame. Finger pointing is the name of the game.

While I admire you optimism, DAnneMarc, I'm afraid your faith in Mr. Obama is misplaced. Should I be wrong about this, however, I'll be the first in line to apologize to the man.

I think the motive here is the same motive that drives a student to get an A grade. That is, the only measure of their (board of directors and the CEO) performance is the amount of profit they create in the next quarter.

I think government needs to convert that short term "greed" into long term "greed". The tax structure of 1950's did that for the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's.

That's not optimism you're admirering, OUTBACK, foolishness yes, but more so diminished expectations! I mean c'mon the dude (DANNEMARC) even admits he cast his vote out of pure fear, admitting that he (Obamney) had already proven himself not a man of his word nor a leader with true concern for the middle/poor working class, elderly, and ill, during his first 2 years in office when he had both the House and the Senete in his pocket.
"IF" hell freezes over and pigs take to flight then maybe, MAYBE, Obama will do an about face and prove himself a leader of the average American.
That being said, I am going to place my bet with Obamneys track record.
As Kenny Rodgers once sang; You got to know when to hold 'em...Know when to fold 'em...Know when to walk away...Know when to run.

When I said long term greed, I was referring to business practices. The tax structure of the 1950's encouraged long term greed behavior. The nutshell version is that a business person facing a 92% tax if he takes out the profit and zero tax if reinvests it in his business might think it would be a good thing to invest in his business for the long term..

Larry Beinhart in several articles for Alternet describes this process in a little more detail and provides the data support the hypothesis. Dylan Ratigan in his book "Greedy Bastards" has many more suggestions.

I like your view.

Will someone please tell me why one would want to balance the budget. Balancing the budget seems always to hurt the economy. The only time it works is when the economy is booming like it was in Canada in the 90's.