So we are not blaming the Republican Congress or Senate that also put us in this mess. I like how both sides only like to blame the other side. It took mistakes over the last 10 years by both parties to put us where we are today. Don't just take the talking heads, both parties have been abusing our buget for over a decade now. Lets increase spending, but lower taxes. Been going on for a while now. Since 2001 if Net Income is negative, Liabilities are positive, that means total equaty is a negative.
In order to do what needs to be done, just like Reagan did in the 80's raise taxes and cut spending. One cannot be done without the other in the current environment.

Response to comment below: I believe you have "your facts" backwards. One, Reagan implemented the largest across the board tax cut since JFK. Both understood the principle of keeping as much disposable income as possible in the hands of those who earned it in order to have a robust and growing economy, just as we had done for most of our history to that point. The result was a 50% mol increase in revenue to the treasury, which in turn WOULD have resulted in a surplus. However, point two, there were no spending cuts. The Dems. (having controlled congress from the late 50's to the early 90's) increased spending by nearly 100% which doubled the deficit (and you're right, the repubs. are responsible as well in recent years for continuing to surrender to this financially destructive behavior.)

Mark,
Both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised Taxes as portion of the plan to jump start the ecomony. The tax cuts in the early 2000 went against the economy base of Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton in keeping the value of the dollar strong. If you look at the taxes under Reagan, each "lower" came with an increase else where. Initially the Petroleum tax, then the Corporate taxes, then on the lower income tax level. He did lower it on the highest wage earners, but increased the overall average tax rate. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduce the percentage but removed the loopholes (something that is needed today) which increased tax revenue, which also raised taxes on making under 500,000. In 1982 he rollback corporate and individual tax cuts (techinically not raising taxes, but like earlier this year taxes did go up). In 1983, Reagan institued the payroll tax on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. So yes, Reagan did raise taxes, if you are referring to the 1981 tax cuts that was actually inacted under Carter. Reagan increase taxes on the American public 11 times starting in 1982. So other than the Economic Recovery Tax Act which was only in place 1 year, all other tax legislation increased taxes. The Tax increases from 1982 removed all of the 1981 reductions. So I am correct in the fact that Reagon increased taxes. Which is what spured helped spur economic growth.

Michael D: Cheers to that! Yes, both parties are negligent!

no one takes responsibility for prudent and logical spending, hence the cust need to happen and continue to happen. it is interesting that a majority of people receiving assistance refer to it as free rather than tasxpayor funded.

The deficit went through the roof because of out of control spending by the democrat controlled congress. NOT the tax cuts. Later, he made a deal with the Dems. that he would agree to raise taxes (a marginal increase) for future spending cuts, which the Dems. later reneged on.

Raising of the Taxes first by Reagan and then by Bush Sr. was a huge proponet for the government/economy to get on track. it was a core piece of Reaganomics even his most senior members has said. Clinton got the credit for the ground work laid down by Reagan and Bush Sr. If you cut taxes and raise spending, which came from Congress, Senate, and signed off by the President it rises exponentally.

Steve,
yes the initial bi-partisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 sponsored by Jack Kemp and William V. Roth Jr. was possibly the death nail. But with inflation of the Dollar at 12.5% when he took office, the value of the dollar was decreasing greatly. I do agree this was a bad act, but that doesn't discount the 11 other tax increases and removal of loopholes that began the following year. Which made him leave office with an average tax rate of 18.2% of GDP whch was higher than the 18.1% of the previous 40 years. In our economy that is a .1% is huge in revenue.

Raising Tariffs are great theorically, but it will also kill our capitalistic society. Without Free Market and Free Enterprise we kill what this country claims to be. We haven't been a Democracy in centuries. We are a capitalist society that depends on businesses. We are no longer a manufacturing society, we are a service society. Just everyone in Washington is too scared to say it. Until we remove things like minimum wage and Unions (agree with you here) our labor is overpriced for any true manufacturing of disposable items. Economically we have lost our way, and that is due to the Political System that allowed it. If a job is worth $3 an hour, we shouldn't be paying $7.25. We are so worried about the lower and upper classes we forget the real backbone of this nation is being squeezed out, the Middle Class.

Instead of draining the rich as you put it, why don't we remove all the loopholes and have a flat tax rate. When the average middle class citizen is paying approximately 30% of their income in taxes when the average lower and upper class citizens are paying 14% how is that draining. How about everyone pay their fair share at say 18%? Stop the loopholes and just pay your percentage. Strangely this is just the idea that many Fortune 500 companies are telling the government as well. Remove the loopholes and have them all pay the same lowered percentage and the gross revenue in taxes will go up.

"Draining the rich" will take a lot of doing. Over the past ten years, the net worth of the top 1% in the US has gone up by 121%, when adjusted for inflation. The net worth of the OTHER 99% remained "flat." The cost of the tax loopholes which were NOT fixed in the last set of tax increases (just done) is estimated at $1.1 Trillion a year, most of which go to the upper-earners in the US. They just WANT you to believe that "everybody's" taxes are going to have to go up; ain't so.

http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/president-obamas-deficit-plan

Obama did NOT get "his" tax hike. He didn't even get "our" tax hike. Because of the Republican intransigience, what he DID manage to get was the end to 18% of a bunch of tax cuts that were supposed to expire three years ago--the remaining 82% of those tax cuts--which the Republicans were scared to talk about in 2001 because they knew of the effect on the deficit--are alive, well, and feeding the greed of the rich in this country. Frankly, I'm a bit sick of paying part of John Boehner's tax bill for him.

"STOCK MARKET HITS ALL-TIME HIGH TODAY!!!" Find out why, review the first slide. http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/president-obamas-deficit-plan

You've got to be clowning around with us, John.

Obama has totally ignored the far left, and is instead pandering to moderate conservatives, centrists, and moderate progressives. Of course he is also ignoring the far right, but so are any Republicans who intend for the GOP to be relevant to America in future elections.

As to cutting spending, I'm all for that, but there are smart ways to do it, and very very dumb ways to do it.

As a starter, I'd suggest you get a copy of the March 4th issue of Time, where there is a terrific analysis (in a thirty page report) of why US health care costs are so outrageous; just getting costs under reasonable control would do a tremendous amount to reduce spending.

And, while I am a retired military officer, and a strong advocate for a vigorous defense establishment, there is a tremendous amount of unnecessary spending - much of it mandated by Congressmen and Senators seeking to keep programs running in their home districts. Many of those pork barrel projects are not even wanted by the generals and admirals.

Besides, do we really need a massive deployed force in Europe; those Ruskies ain't comin' across the border, friend, and Germany and France the others in Europe are strong enough to defend themselves, if they'll get off their collective asses and spend what they really need to do that.

How does somebody who believes i keeping Social Security and Medicare intact classify as the "Far Left." My father died at age-96 after 31 years on Medicare and 36 years on Social Security, both of which he gladly accepted while calling himself a "staunch conservative." He paid in a tiny fraction of what he got out of both systems because he always worked at relatively low-paying jobs. He voted for Barry Goldwater and defended Richad Nixon to his death. But, according to you, he was a member of the "Far Left." Nonsnese.

Boy you are totally misinterpreting what I wrote, Steve.

Protecting Social Security and Medicare (and that's not to suggest there couldn't be some reforms, by the way, as long as they would not materially affect current retirees or about-to-be's) is not a Far Left issue.

Those of us who are centrists, as well as most conservatives and certainly all progressives, want to protect those two essential programs.

But you can reform essential programs (as the US has done from time to time) and achieve some savings while protecting the most vulnerable. For easy example, there could be simple reforms, such as means-testing benefits, with triggers that clearly only to the higher end of incomes, and there could be reforms in what the cut-offs are to FICA wages.

No, Steve, that's not a Far Left issue, and I never suggested it was. But there are plenty of loony left ideas out there, just as there are plenty of loony right ideas out there. We just witnessed one such demonstration of the loony right in what Rand Paul said and did on the floor of the Senate, only to be later criticized by staunch conservatives McCain and Graham.

Yeh, he was so radical that he refused to compromise when he extended the Bush Tax Cuts for two year; and when he allowed a raise in capital gains taxes from 15% to 20% instead of 39.5%; and when he allowed the hedge fund managers to keep calling their "income" "carried interest" instead; and when he only managed to cancel out 18% of the Bush Tax Cuts, rather than the entire 100%. Real radical there--NOT! Why do you think the liberals are about fed up with him, too?