I see the raising of the minimum wage as a means to transfer this obligation from the government to the private sector. I would rather pay 5cents more for a hamburger then have my taxes subsidize these businesses who don't pay their employees enough to buy groceries.

What an Idiot poll. I think most polls are a total waste of time. I can ask a question in two different ways and get two different results from the same people polled. Our Country is in a state of almost equal division right know on which direction it should take. Our two major parties are going to have to figure out how to govern with this division. What would be great is a compromise between the two budgets.

I like Sheppard and OReilly, but that's about the only cable news shows I watch unless there is a Natural Disaster at which time I usually find myself watching CNN. I never considered any of MSNBC's programs as news programs anymore then I consider Hannity a news program. Although OReilly is not really a news program I like to watch him because he used to be a History teacher and I like his opinions on historical events.

OK big boy. Why don't you just list both sides of the budget debate. Do so in a manner fair to both sides. That's all I'm trying to do. This isn't a political issue, it's an economic issue.

I just turned 65 so I just got on Medicare. Medicare cost me $316.00 per month with total 100% payment of all cost with my high end supplemental policy. I still have to pay about $100 per month as my drug copay. If I can buy the supplemental policy from Humana at $160.00 per month and the drug plan from Humana at $50.00 per month and my part B is $106.00 per month and I am 65 years old with major medical problems and high drug cost then I fail to see how Obamacare is going to destroy this country. I know that all everybody in our party talks about is the repeal of Obamacare, but let's see how it works. If it turns out as bad as everybody on here predicts then public outrage will cause it to be repealed or at least modified.

I understand that comment. Thanks. Now how about these truths: (1)Firing government employees increases unemployment which reduces taxes collected and increases spending on unemployment compensation and reduces demand for products which then creates the need to fire more government employees. (2) Government is needed to protect the public and insure safe water, food, and medicine. (3) Government is needed to build and repair roads, bridges, rails, and other inferstructure. (4) Rising health care cost will criple this country unless we get these cost under control. Now we have both sides of the argument.

My ability to learn is not hampered in any way. I am always willing to listen to both sides of a discussion and this willingness has helped me to succeed in my life and my finances. When my broker told me not to buy Starbuck stock because a "coffee shop business was not diverse enough" I also listened to my wife who was addicted to their product. This is just one example of how listening to both sides can be benifical, I want to listen to both side's economist and see which one seems to be based on good solid logic.

The Senate budget and House budgets do show the sharp contrast between the Democrat's economist views and the Republican's economist views on how best to grow the economy. I consider myself a conservative when it comes to economic issues but right now I don't know who to believe. All I know right now is that my 401K is back in good enough shape for me to retire, but I can't ride out another crash like I just did. I'm going to listen to both sides of the debate in the Senate. Hopefully some good economists will discuss both budgets and both the Senators and the Representatives will listen to these economist and do what is right for the country.

Is that because GDP went down or spending went up. If GDP went down because of austerity then auserity increased the deficit instead of reducing it. It's a chicken or egg argument and I still don't know who is right and neither does anyone else on this forum.

He is a nobel prize winning economist and yes he does make sense to me. His logic seems to be based on sound economic theory.