Debt Ceiling Talks Collapse

Congress

Salaries in this room alone total approximately 6.5 billion dollars in taxpayers monies.
Salaries in this room alone total approximately 6.5 billion dollars in taxpayers monies. | Source

Politics as Usual

The President spoke at 6pm tonight and mentioned the debt ceiling negotiations had stopped. The USA has decided not to raise the debt ceiling at least for the time being. The fall out from this is three fold, one the USA's credits rating will drop, two the poor and middle class will be taxed at even higher rates and three the disabled and elderly, who are already going without food and medicine trying to survive, will loss their only income which is social security.

I have written about this possibility in other articles and it is a distinct possibility that the USA will default on the interest payments to China thus freezing up the USA's ability to borrow money. I will refer you to the article I wrote called "Throw the Bums Out" for you to place your hostilities to in the future.

But who do we blame for this economic collapse and this complete irresponsibility? Well I would blame generations upon generations of DC insiders who milk the system for all it is worth.

What is clear is the election season has started. And the posturing couldn't be clearer.

Do I really believe the USA will default? No. Bu it will be interesting how they shape the simple fact that DC is borrowing money not to only to pay the USA citizens but also to pay for their own salaries as well.

Somehow DC doesn't ever mention that fact. but it time they took responsibility.


Debt Ceiling

Do you think the Debt Ceiling will be raised?

  • Yes
  • No
See results without voting

Politics as Usual

Do you think this is politics as usual in Washington, DC?

  • Yes
  • No
See results without voting

Presidential Election Season

Do you think all the politics is posturing for the 2012 Presidential Election?

  • Yes
  • No
See results without voting

In Closing

In closing I would like to state when I originally wrote about the debt ceiling I received some negative feedback. I am certain I am not the first nor the last author to endure that. Basically, I was told that USA would never consider defaulting on the debt ceiling and now here we are several months later considering just that. I do believe this will be resolved but for only the next 18 months and then Congress will be faced with this exact same problem all over again.

Personally, I agree with raising the debt ceiling. Raise it up as high as the sky. The more money borrowed the better. But when Congress starts lecturing The People of the United States of America about fiscal conservation they need to start with taking a pay deduction since approximately 6.5 BILLION dollars of debt every year is generated to pay Congress ( and this year Congress gave itself a 5% pay raise) and that doesn't include all thier perks!!! Congress increased its own pay by 325 million dollars in a year when unemployement is sky high and the average person is struggling just to feed their children.

Maybe they can raise the debt ceiling so high the economy recovers and the average person can have prosperity for which this country is founded.

More by this Author


Comments 27 comments

PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

JT, they're doing it again. Scare the old people and the poor into submission, then they can do what they want because they just saved our bacon. Well hopefully their slight of hand won't work this time, we need to get them out. Keep writing and prodding and maybe enough will wake up and kick the bums out. Very timely and good,

Peter


Jt Walters 5 years ago

325 million in raises when the average person can't afford food? I doubt Congress will leave but the best I can do is let the public know how much off the debt is actually caused by Congresses salaries.

Thanks for your support Peter. I appreciate it along with your reading, commenting and posting.

All My Best,

JT


mikelong profile image

mikelong 5 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

China's holding of U.S. debt constitutes only 7%...a minimal concern.. The overwhelming proportion of our debt is held by American creditors...they lose if we default...it won't happen.

Secondly, many people put forward the idea that, since China holds so much U.S. debt, that they have power over the U.S..

Rather, they hold so much of our currency that if we go down, they go down...in turn, we actually control them.

We become too big to fail....and we get bailed out as a nation..

There is still time to get the agreement done....but the GOP has to be willing to tolerate tax increases..


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Can you site your source on US debt held by China. I think I am working off of different numbers than you and i would like to see your source.

More importantly is Congress gave itself a 325 million dollar raise during a timee they claim fiscal conservatism and debt reduction. It is hypocrite.

I doubt it is the GOP that will not tolerate taxes but the Billion US Senators and the wealthy Congress.

I agree if we go under os does China and but I also think the USA is prepared to allow that to happen or atleast some of the USA congressional members.

Thank youf or reading, commenting and posting. I appreciate ti. I am following you now.

Thanks.

JT


mikelong profile image

mikelong 5 years ago from The largest convict colony in the United States

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=how+much+us+debt+do...//www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/03/who-does-the-us-owe-money-to/&docid=WUefswFE9NcyZM&w=915&h=663&ei=L0QqTuTKPImosQOtqsDgCg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=62&page=1&tbnh=107&tbnw=148&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=45&ty=28

This points to a slightly higher percent than I have read about...I will be looking for more sources..

The GOP will have to tolerate a return to pre-Bush tax levels... There is no choice in that matter... It is just sad that they are putting so much stress on our system and our society to back a failed financial strategy.. The tax cuts didn't stimulate job expansion during the entire Bush administration...

Why so few in the GOP (I am one of those few) recognize this gross error I don't know...


Jt walters 5 years ago

Thanks for the link. I have read about higher rates than even described here.

I don't think we can blame one party here but a systemmatic failure on behalf of both parties in Congress.

I recognize it was haired brained scheme from the lack of weapons of mass destruction to tax cuts for the wealthy during an unfunded war. I don't think you have an argument form anyone outside of an election cycle. The question is will Congress pull itself together and do their over proced well funded jobs?

Because if they don't then all of them and that includes Democrats and Republicans need to be kicked out of office. All the Bums need to be Thrown out to send a strong message to Congress that we will no longer tolerate them acting ouot of their own self interests.

Thanks for following. I am following you as well.

JT


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi JT,

You say Congressional salaries are estimated at $6.5 billion. 535 Congressmen, at $200,000 each, is about $100 million, before fringes.

I don't think it can be taken as a given that hitting the budget ceiling will unequivocally result in a credit rating drop, higher FIT rates, or a cutoff of SS/Medicare benefits. Although Congress will hate it, they have the option of reducing discretionary spending (pork) instead. The reality that not having some kind of deal in place and cutting anything to stay under the limit will anger somebody (the recipient who for a while isn't a recipient), but this is the price Congress pays for not having the guts to make a serious long term decision about operating spending, the tax base, and entitlement formulas.

I view the odds of defaulting on the official debt as very low (in the immediate present at least). Even the Congress, with their limited intellect, knows the dollar would sink like an anchor, and a depression would result (business couldn't import raw materials and other production inputs that are not available domestically, and would have to close shop en masse).

Actually, I don't blame DC insiders for the mess we're in as much as I blame we the people. We wanted for so long to live above our means on borrowed money. The problem now is the corpus has become so high, we can't continue down the same path. We must liquify (pay off) the existing debt; that means smaller government, lower entitlements, and a broader tax base.

The scariest thing here is that Congress may not implement real reform until the crisis becomes so large it can't be fixed.

Stu


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Stu,

Congress isn't just paid $200,000 per person. The salaries range a great deal. Let me give you an example Senator Bill Nelson nis paid about $150,000 for his tour in the Congress and well over $300,000 as a sitting US senator and he hasn't been one that long. That is almost a 1/2 million dollars in a year. People like Beohner have collected a 5% rase every year since they have been in office. 20 Years in office and a Congress members salary doubles from the $200,000 to the $400,000. Michelle Bachman who have served what three terms in her seat is being piad almost double her inital salary all of the taxpayers back.

Who do you think opened the credit lines in this country? And what do you think the purpose of opening those credit lines were? The people wouldn't think they could live above their measn if they didn't watch the governemnt including your beloved Tea Party Movement do it for decades upon decades and get away with it. Why should the average ordinary person pay their bills when their leadership is ripping them off for everything they are worth, and spending like drunken sailors on sabbatical, and they are ebing told by their leadership they have the right to live better?

Until Congress returns the approxmate 325 million dollars in bonuses they took for themselves then they can't try and take the angle of fiscal conservatives.

Have you ever considered the benefit to USA exporters if the dollar does sink like an anchor. That maybe the goal. The dollar is already in the toilet. And if you lower the value of our currency even further it will stimulate investment in the USA much like the Boom Asia is experiencing.

Stu, entitlement spending and pork aren't the same thing. Entitlements have been earned. I have paid enough into my Soical Security that I am entitled when I turn 64 to receive my Social Security. I had earned enough when I was 32 as I had worked my entire life. I am entitled to that because I paid for it. Only the Tea party Movement would rape entitlements from the people who have paid into the system inaccordance to the law and then tell them they are not entitled. Pork is another subject for another time but I doubt it is going anywhere.

I don't think Congress wnats ot fix it. I think they want to sink the dollar as to stimulate investment in this country in what can only be described as another welfare hand out to Wall Street.

If you want smaller governmnet lower the pay of all of the members of Congress. Tax the wealthy in this country instead of having them pay tax penalties only. End the flat tax as it is unfair.

I know people who were in the mortgage business of selling Chinese Mortgages out west and they were invited to Washington DC and congratuated for their successful business practices with China with the ultimte understanding it was a con to get people into really expensive houses, have them lose their homes and force them into the military because we needed soldiers to fight in the midde east. It turn out not to be a successful recruitment tactic, China was using predatory lending practices in which they artifically lowered the value of their currency, and it caused the housing collapse which ultimate effected our markets.

I don't blame people who apply for loan and are qualified for homes they can't afford. That has ot be on the government.

JT


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 5 years ago from Northern Germany

JT - the dept ceiling issue is just an arena for political powerplay. Of course the US cannot go bankrupt. But the cost for maintaining its current economic status will rise if no agreement is reached.

In the discussion about foreign involvement in treasuries this link may help:http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart...

If you look carefully you will notice that China did not increase its involvement, while the total jumped from 4.000 Billion in Mid 2010 to 4.500 Billion in Mid 2011. Actually what happened is that while the chinese GDP increased by 10%, the current trade surplus towards the US is no more financed by the Chinese themselves. It is the finance hubs of the world (UK, carribean, Wallstreet...) who got deeper into the mess.

So if the dept ceiling busts and a shock of mistrust hits the world of borrowers and lenders, it will definitely hit the financing infrastructure of the world. This will have impact on Wallstreet and so at the end of bargaining and political muscle show, the dept ceiling will be raised.

Discussion about generous public spending for political mandates only reveals the mindset of politicians. It does not solve the economic crisis.

Chris


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Hi Chris,

It is always nice to hear from you. I will check out the chart. Odd because the UK and the Carribean are doing well financially as well as Canada.

I agree the debt ceiling will have to be raised. I just can't believe the polticians would chose this particular topice to fight over. I expect some political theater but not when it comes to serious issues of governing.

You are right of course politicans are only worried about keeping their jobs and could care less about the people they represent. And Asia's economy is booming.

I think fair trade needs to be addressed as much as free trade.

Thanks for the link again.

All My Best,

Jt


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Chris,

I read your chart and mainland China still holds the majority of our treasuries along with Japan. The UK and the Carribeann have extend their postions in the treasuries but are by no means the mjority holders of US treasuries. If the USA defaults it will have a significant impact on China and Japan based on the treasurey charts you have provided as well as England and the Carribean.

Thank you once again for sharing this informtion.

Jt


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi JT,

Your math doesn't make sense. How do 5% raises double salaries in six years (Bachmann)?

Can you tell me more about the bonuses? How are these determined?

A reasonably priced currency is good for any country. But a severely beaten currency is a death trap. Sure, your exports are cheap, but unless you can build things mainly with domestically sourced inputs, you have nothing to export. The absence of drilling permits means we must import most of our raw materials (from South America and Africa), and most intermediate production goods must be sourced from Asia (because of the decline of our midwest industrial belt). A great deal of American production is final assembly, with the aggregator perhaps making only one part (e.g., Boeing makes fuselages, but buys just about everything else that goes in the planes).

You are right that pork and entitlements are not the same thing. Pork is unnecessary federal spending to buy votes. Entitlements in some, but not all, cases are funded by beneficiaries, but they are never fully funded by beneficiaries (i.e., there's always a big general fund subsidy). I appreciate that phasing out SS/Medicare will result in some people getting less than the value of what they paid in, but our national survival is at stake. More than 2/3 of the $90 trillion of off balance sheet debt goes to cover the accrued liabilities of the big federal entitlement programs. By phasing out the benefits, much of the special issue treasuries that back them can be ripped up. The simple point here is that it will take EXCRUCIATING fiscal austerity just to pay off the official investor owned debt of $15 trillion (an annual positive swing in the current account of $2.5 trillion for 30 years to cover principal and interest). The off balance sheet debt cannot be paid by any means. It MUST be mostly abrogated, or we will collapse financially. This is not "conservative meanness;" this is fact.

I see no evidence that Congress consciously wants to sink the dollar, but I admit that Federal Reserve policy could inadvertantly have that effect. Bernanke printed almost $3 trillion in fiat money in FY 2012 to retire T-bonds for the purpose of providing stimulus (more lendable cash in the economy). It didn't work. Willing borrowers were few, and banks were able to make more money buying depressed corporate bonds on the aftermarket than making new home loans. If the Federal Reserve keeps this up, we will not only have a falling dollar, but we will also have rising interest rates and inflation. $3 trillion is 20% of GNP; you can't keep doing this without ultimately stoking inflation, and the fear of inflation (high interest rates).

You could pay Congress nothing, and raise marginal rates on the wealthy to 75%, and it wouldn't matter a hill of beans. I admit that initially it would pull in a few hundred billion per year in extra revenues (remember from above, we need a $2.5 TRILLION annual swing), but keep in mind that the wealthy provide alot of the jobs we need (businesses that report income on Schedule C or K). If you make ROI's too small, private businesses will close down en masse, extract their tangible equity, and invest their money in securities (stocks, bonds) instead of job producing businesses. The ultimate effect would be much higher unemployment, and much lower federal revenue from wages. This strategy, over time, would make the debt larger, not smaller.

The flat sales tax is more fair than the progressive FIT. Since use of government services does not vary with income, the only truly fair tax is a flat-dollar poll tax. But too many people couldn't pay it. A flat percentage consumption tax is a compromise - it's more fair than the FIT, and it also prevents people from paying no tax (no loopholes, shelters, etc.). Also, most important, it does not depress business ROI's like the FIT does. That means more business investment, and thus more jobs. Finally, progressive taxes are illegal (the Constitution forbids them).

The government is certainly to blame for the housing bubble - Greenspan kept interest rates so low that you could borrow money almost for free and speculate on any hard asset you wanted. This drove housing prices way up (massive demand for new homes by developers building on speculation using borrowed money). But the blame for overpaying by and overlending to ultimate residents lies with the ultimate home buyers and the banks, especially in cases where banks issued ARM's to let people get in over their head with low initial teaser rates, and later the borrowers had to default when the resets occured. It was a classic case of mania based on the assumption that house prices would increase forever, and the economy would stay so strong that no loan underwriting was necessary. Essentially, what happened in 2008 was a repeat of the same errors committed during the S&L crisis of the mid 80's (terrible loan underwriting, and non-enforcement of capital structure regulations).

Stu


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Stu,

If Bachmann only served six years then she has only had a raise of 5% each year which is a 30% raise on her salary which is according to you 200k. But that doesn't include her salary from her time in state office either. So all things being equal and not including perks Bachmann has received a $60,000 dollar raise in six years. Have you received that big of a raise? It is outlnadishly high at tax payer expense. More interestingly is NONE of Bachmann's foster children will be champaigning for her which is questionable since she thorws then out under the bus as bait for everyone everytime she speaks.

Stu since you and the Tea Party Movemet are so concerned about the debt then all of you should pay down the debt. All of you give up your social security. I followed the law and worked very hard all my life to qualfiy for my social security and I am not willing to sacrifice my social security benefit for a Congress that gave itself a 325 million dollar raise in a year where they can't adress the debt ceiling in a responsible manner. I am not interested in sacrificing anything that is not a completely shared by all of the country.

Please Stu you obviously don't know any billionaires. Billionaires and even millionaires but like a 100 million dollar millionaire don't pay taxes. They only pay taxe penalties for withdrawaling funds from banks to quickly. They basically are the creditors of this country and the banks count on their wealth to keep the economy going so if they take out more than they are legally allowed they are financially penalized. So you have to ask yourself is the USA better off with 1% being its creditor or redistributing wealth and making the entire country the banks creditors?

Interesting you should bring up the crisis of the S&L back in the 1980(s). I have a very different take on it as I believe it was caused by the JUNK bonds known as REITS. I worked in the financial industry and remember this event quite well. REIT(s) which were junk bonds were housing subsidies and they all fell through. So I blame those junk bonds for the S&L crisis.

What government services are you talking about? Congress can't get to the table to do their job and resolve the debt ceiling problem. FAA had to lay off 4000 employees last Friday because Congress couldn't reach a budget agreement John Boehner walked out twice. What to what service do you refer? If anything Congress is being disruptive.

Flat taxes aren't fair since they most heavily weigh on the poor who can least afford them.

Wealthy people don't provide jobs. They sit on their duff and hoard their money. Again you really need to get to know some weathly people. It is a down right lie that wealthy people are job creators. Coportaions right now are sitting on record cash holdings and not paying higher dividends, not highering and lowering their costs as much as possible thus buying outisde the USA and employing people form outside this coutnry who will work for next to nothing. Prove the wealthy create jobs Stu? Trcikle down economics has been proven to only be trickle up economics and everyone in this country knows that now.

Like you can prove the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution for the National Guard that didn't exist until the 1900(s) or that one culture is better than another or that John Quincy Adams was a founding Father? And while I appreciate a civil debate with you, you have taken advantage of my fair mindness and have made personal attacks against me on other sights and on my own.

Sorry you don't like Obama but I think you should get use to the thought of having him around for 4 more years and I think if you want to be heard on anything I write I would spare the personal attacks on my sights and on other Hubs.

You have lost every debate with me because you are always willing to attack me personally and I haven't done that to you Stu. You tear up Muslims and you have so much hatred in you. How could anyone listen to what you are saying because of the way you say it?

If you can't stick to the issues then don't post. I find merit in what you have to say but I am tried of your attacking when you don't win the arguments as a means to overcome the fact your arguments lose substantively.

JT


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi JT,

I've paid into SS for over 30 years. Under my own phaseout proposal, I would get nothing, not even a return of my FICA taxes.

I agree the under-taxation of the wealthy is atrocious. Many of these people pay no taxes at all due to loopholes. This is one of the reasons I like the consumption tax; everybody pays something.

The S&L crisis, just like the 2008 commercial bank collapse, was caused more than anything else by two major factors: lax underwriting, and failure to enforce capital risk rules. Yes, each had some unique nuances, but these were the big issues.

On government services you're making my point for me. The federal government rules more than it provides services. And whatever services it does provide do not generally vary with income. Thus the progressive income tax is not equitable. Flat taxes ARE fair, for the reason just explained. Don't confuse equity with "social engineering."

Wealthy people and corporations DO create jobs, and they would create them in America, if Congress would stop letting them offshore our jobs. You could fix this problem in two seconds flat. Countries like China with 35 cent per hour labor demand export protection in exchange for letting us set up shop there. They impose import tariffs on our exports, but demand that we not impose retaliatory tariffs. Our corporations spend BILLIONS on "campaign contributions (bribes) to get this special treatment. If Congress was forced by law to erect retaliatory tariffs in all instances, we would be kicked out of China, India, etc. faster than you could blink. Our jobs would return home.

I'm not aware of any time I've attacked you, but of course I've attacked Obama vehemently, and will continue to do so until his sorry ass is tarred, feathered, and kicked out of town. He is a transnational socialist, he's wrecked every strategic alliance we ever had (except with the UK), he violates the Constitution with abandon, and serially breaches affirmative duty. He is a traitor, and should be impeached.

I've never torn up Muslims; I've spoken stridently against radical Islam, and I will continue to do so. It is not a religion, but is a political ideology based on inflitration, terror, domination, and genocide.

Stu


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Stu,

There is no such this as fair, justice or equitible taxation someone always gets the shaft.

There is a difference between wealthly people and wealthy coporations for one things wealthy corporations aren't suppose to be represented and wealthy people are only suppose to have one vote. Under any normal democracy they would all pay high taxes but your are suggesting flat taxes when specifically these individuals haven't paid taxes for the last decade. Time to catch up on their over due taxes!!

India is a stradegic ally and in good relations with Obama.

Do you realize how many American Coporate billionaires live in Hong Kong? Rich people would just move to countries they could exploit labor and not pay. Their only patriotism is to their wallet.

Corporations paying bribes is illegal and anyone accepting them has broken the law and therefore are outlaws in our society especially Congress!!!

Wow I guess you haven't insulted me since you just called Obama a traitor? How has he betrayed the office of the presidency? How has be betrayed this country? Stu, respectfully there are things you don't know about Washington DC and I think you are way off base with this allegation.

If we can agree all radical forms of all religions are dangerous then we might have a meeting of the minds. Didn't the terrorist in Oslo just blow up a bunch of people and he was a fundamental right winged Christan? How can you claim Islam terrorists when Christans are blowing things up as well. Terrosists are terrorists and there isn't really an ideology behind it. It is more of brain washing and that is done in almost every religion.

Extremists are bad like the Tea Party Movement. Centerists are the way to go for the next election. If you don't elect moderates from both parties DC will shut down.

Perhaos that would make you happy but it would completely compromise our nation security.

JT


Stu From VT 5 years ago

JT,

There IS equitable taxation - a flat poll tax. The problem is most people would have to take pauper's oaths, and the system would collapse. The VAT or national sales tax is a compromise. More equitable than the FIT, everybody pays something, and it's feasible (it won't fall apart).

Wealthy corporations aren't supposed to be represented? How come? They are owned by PEOPLE (the shareholders), WHO HAVE RIGHTS.

I agree business is about making money. I don't blame the corporations for bribing Congress to get the special tariff treatment, as corporate managers owe fiduciary duty to their shareowners to maximize profits. I blame Congress for accepting the bribes. There is no actual crime here as the "bribes" are just campaign contributions.

I could write a book on Obama's traitorous activities; way too much to discuss here. But in very short summary format, he's ripping our Constitutional Republic to shreds and replacing it with socialism. What do you think about the unconstitutional Appointments Act? Obama is trying to (substantively) alter the Constitution WITHOUT ratification by the states. Obama is a criminal.

Centrists are the last thing we need; they are the ones playing Texas Two Step with the Democrats, and solving nothing. We need a solid TPM president with strong centrist support in the population (so Congress can be bullied by a budget hawk POTUS into fixing the debt problem for real).

Stu


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Stu,

National flat sales tax would make inflation so high people would be in soups lines.

Coporations are owned by the government now so they don't deserve representation.

George Bush wiped his bottom with the constitution so take it up with him. Obama hasn't done anything but Bush didn't do.

Radicals and extremists are the last thing this country needs right now. They just blew up Oslo...Christan fundmentalists.

Tea Party Movement has lost its credibility because it claimed to be fiscal conservtives and it gave itself a fiscal raise while in Congress. They are hypocrits and liars so I would never vote for them ever.

Like I said, the last fiscal conservative to run for office that I can think of was Goldwater and he lost. Fiscal conservatives just don't get elected.

JT


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi JT,

A 20% end use sales tax (the amount necessary to pay off the official national debt over 30 years, assuming we also get $1.5 trillion in annual reduction in federal operating expenses) is not as onerous as it appears. Remember that not only would there be no personal income tax, but business income taxes would also vanish (meaning the cost of business FIT would not be built into product and service prices). The cost of end use goods and services would not rise by a full 20%, and consumers would have more money in thier wallets.

Corporations are not owned by the government. It's more accurate to say that corporations influence government (via campaign contributions), and government sometimes illegally influences business ("corporatism", the socialist concept of forcing corporations to comport their activities to the attainment of national goals).

GWB was anti-constitutional in military matters; Obama is anti-constitutional in everything.

In a sense, "radicals" are just what we need now. RINO's will only block the Obama agenda. Only true conservatives will roll it back.

Trashing the TPM and its platform over one issue (Congressional raises) makes no sense. It's like holding Romney's mistake on MA HC against him forever. While I'm no Romney fan by any means, I look at the whole picture, not a single error.

You are right that fiscal hawks do not get elected, because we the people are so addicted to goodies we can't afford. Our solution is to elect politicians who will borrow from the future. We need to wake up, hunker down, and pay off the debt, or there won't be a future.

Stu


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Right s the really poor peope who have very little income will pay 20% on everything they need to purchase like gas or wait gas taxes are already higher than 20%. No Stu, people need to pay income taxes like I paid under the Clinton administration. I paid 35% income tax while in graduate school making under 50 k a year. And that tax needs to be across boards. Anyone and everyone who hasn't paid income taxes for the last decade needs to shuck it up and pay. Flat tax will make inflation to high for the majority of taxes.

Really, FISA was a military matter? When he illegaly wired tapped all Americans who spoke to friends over seas? That was constitutional? GWB got rid of the consttituion and he created that whole bebanckle wth Terri Schiavo and you know what Michelle Bachmannn actually claimed Terri Schiavo was alrigth. The Cleveland Clinic had to explain to everyone in Congress the woman was brain dead and Michelle Bachhmann instead of following facts just lied to everyone and said Terri Schiavo was alright. Terri Schiavo was hear. I spoke to people who cared for her. It was cruel to keep someone alive artificially when there body have given out and Michelle Bachmann has that on her hands as well. I see the Tea Party Movement for what it is a lie. If they were fiscally conservative with taxpayers money when it came ot their own raises then why would you think they would be fiscally conservative at all. I have pointed this out for how long now and has the Tea Party MOvement even considered repaying those raises, absolutely not. They aren't fiscal conservatives they are liars. And that Stu is the big picture.

Sorry Radicals so ofetn don't rise to power there is no reason to elect any of them and because they are radical they ofetn resort to violence which is part of their extremist nature. I am not into supporting an unelectable, lying party who has pulled the wool over your eyes.

And I know you are a radical as well Stu but really? You don't think there is goign to be a future unless Michelle Bachmann is elected? I disagree. I believe if the Tea party Movemnet were to gain any power then our country woud be in more dire straits internationally then now. Who would lend Bachmann money? Israel? Israel is so keen on the USA lately and they don't have enough cash to float us while we fight a war, which you totally believe in and I have doubts about, for any length of time. And how do you think Bachmann would go over in the international community. I can hear the Europeans already making fun of her. We need Europe as an ally. And how do you think, according to you, our one ally England would endure having Bachmann of the Tea Party Movemnet in office? By the nature of the name if would be offensve to England.

Tea Party Movement is a dead baby you are trying to birth. They killed themselves when they took those raises and claimed to be fiscal conservatives. Not that Michelle Bachmann doesn't shot herself in the foot everytime she gets near a mircophone. She does.

I actually believe in fiscal conservatism, I just don't believe the Tea Party Movement at all. And I don't think anyone else does either. And if you really want the coutnry to be a disaster...then keep trying to birth that dead baby Tea Party Movement into office because our country will not survive that.

And you my friend will be taxed like you will never have expected it because they are lying. Every President with the exception of GWB said "No more Taxes." and then turned around and taxed the heck out of society. Inevitably when a person in office says no more taxes they mean taxes are on their way.

JT


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi JT,

You are correct that a 20% VAT or end use sales tax, in place of the FIT, would do more than just raise total federal revenues. The poor, and wealthy tax dodgers, would take a hit. The middle class, and many of the honest wealthy, would see a reduction. The issue is that too much of the tax base (currently income) simply escapes taxation via shelters, loopholes, and outright cheating. We need a system without loopholes, and one that minimizes cheating, so ALL of the tax base is actually taxed. The obvious impliction is that those now paying little or no taxes will bear a disproportionate share of the tax increase. How could it be otherwise if the goal is to ensure that all taxable activity is actually taxed?

FISA was of course related to military issues, but certain aspects of it are unconstitutional (such as permitting surveillance without a court order). I doubt FISA is so riddled with unconstitutional aspects that it is non-severable, but the unconstitutional portions should be stricken by Congress or the courts. FISA, sadly, is a blueprint on which the blatantly unconstitutional Patriot Act is modeled (the Patriot Act is something akin to FISA on steroids).

Speaking of radicals, who could be moreso that Obama and his Czars? The Net Neutrality Regulation (violates the Tenth Amendment), The Patriot Act (which Obama extended, and violates four Amendments in the Bill of Rights), The UN Small Arms Treaty (violates the DOI and Second Amendment), The AG Firearms Restriction Bill (violates the DOI, and four Amendments in the Bill of Rights), The Appointments Bill (violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution), The Disclose Bill (violates the First Amendment), The Internet ID Bill (violates the Tenth Amendment), The Internet Kill Switch Regulation (violates the Tenth Amendment), Failure to secure our southern border and expel illegal aliens (breach of affirmative duty), Stated promise not to enforce DOMA (breach of affirmative duty), The "First-to-File" Patent Bill (violates the Patent Clause in Article I of the Constitution), The Federal HC Plan (violates the Tenth Amendment, Senate Cloture Rules, and the House's constitutional sole discretion in originating bills to raise taxes), Waging war in Lybia without Congressional consent (violates the War Powers Act), Exempting Interpol from FOIA requests (violates the "confrontation" clause of the Bill of Rights), The Governor's Conference Executive Order (violates the federal posse comitatus law), Pressuring immigraton courts to drop valid deportation cases (violates horizontal separation of powers, Articles I-III of the Constitution), etc. Please bear in mind that this is a TINY SAMPLING of illegal bills and executive orders coming straight from Obama's desk (the real number may be in the hundreds or even thousands). I appreciate that some of the above legal abuses have been killed by Congress, but this in no means exonerates Obama. The point is that he serially violates the Constitution and federal code, and breaches affirmative duty whenever he doesn't "like" a law.

Regarding the GOP primary candidates, I can support Bachmann, Paul, and Cain. The others are RINO's or flip-floppers (if any of them won the primary, I would vote for them in the general election just to help keep Obama from getting a second term). Paul is a libertarian, and is probably the ultimate "anti-Obama." Obama steals power from the states and people, and hands it to the feds. I have a fear Paul will steal power from the states and feds, and hand it to the people. Power stealing is wrong no matter which direction it goes in. Cain is a solid conservative, and I believe he would stick to his campaign promises. The problem is that he is well known only in right wing circles, and will receive no special interest money in the general election (because being TPM he does not want to sell his office). That puts him in the impossible position of having to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for ad money in the general election, when 65% of the voters barely know who he is. The reality is that no matter how good Cain's platform is (and it is good), financial considerations will make it virtually impossible for him to beat Obama. Bachmann's platform is similar to Cain's. But Bachmann has the HUGE advantage of natinonal name recognition. With good campaigning, she can attract centrist contributions at a grassroots level, in addition to those from her right wing base (namely, centrists who are upset with Obama about jobs). She will not be able to match Obama dollar-for-dollar (since Obama will be getting hundreds of millions from unions, the LGBT and abortion lobbies, corporations, etc., none of which Michele will get), but she doesn't have to. If she can at least raise a credible amount of money (say, $500 million), and match Obama 50% on campaign spending, she can beat him by having a better message.

As I've said many times, I believe it is imperative that federal revenues be increased, since fedreal spending reductions alone cannot result in actual debt liquification, but only lower deficits (i.e., slower buildup of debt, but not debt reduction). I am strongly in favor of higher federal tax dollars, just not higher federal tax rates. We need a tax system that does not punish business investment that sustains and creates jobs, and one that recognizes, to the greatest extent fesaible, that use of federal services does not rise with personal income. This is why I support repealing the FIT and replacing it with a VAT or end consumer sales tax.

Stu


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Stu,

Do you realize how many more people are impoverished now than ten years ago? You want to tax them when they don't have homes or jobs? That doesn't make any sense. They aren't taking advantage of a loop hole. They are unemployed and homeless and are on hard times. You really want them to be burdedned with a flat tax? Stu I don't believe you are that cruel.

You made me laugh again Stu!! Have your ever sued for FOIA to get a document out of the federal government before. I have and you know what the entire document was redacted. So FOIA never existed. There is no such thing as the Freedom of Information Act. It doesn't exist.

FISA spied on me when I called relatives in Europe and I have absolutely nothing to do with the military. I have tracked by NSA on my computer before. Please don't go there. Government has been spying on the people since the advent of the telephone. Heck Stu you wouldn't have a computer or a telephone if the government didn't think they could gleen information about you from these devices. Government intrusion has existed since the very beginning. It didn't start with George Bush but he certainly wasn't opposed to using it and he authored and penned the Patriot Act.

LGBT are giving Obama money? After he promised them equal rights and then caved in and didn't even give them the ability to serve openly in the military? That would have to be some strange LGBT to support Obama who hasn't supported them and I am for LGBT rights.

No doubt Bachmann has an up hill battle but I have written several articles about her giving her free publicity. She hasn't paid me a dime nor has Palin and look at all the attention I have given them. I too like Herman Cain but also think he has a longer harder fight ahead of him if not an impossible one.

I appreciate you reading, commneting and providing feedback. I think we are closer together in our beliefs in this hub than in others, not that we have to agree. We can have different opinions ad still respect each others vantage.

JT


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi JT,

It isn't cruelty. We have a crisis. The government budget is not big enough to achieve debt liquidation via spending cuts alone. We can only resolve the debt crisis via a combination of spending cuts and more tax revenue. And the only place to get more tax revenue is from the portion of the tax base paying little or no tax. That means the poor, and those among the wealthy that are heavy users of loopholes and shelters. It's just math.

Suing under the FOIA for lawsuit purposes is one thing. But using Interpol testimony in a criminal trial, without having access to the documents on which their verbal testimony is based, denies the accused his/her Constitutional right of confrontation of accusers (the Sixth Amendment).

We are not in disagreement on FISA. As I stated, certain, but not all, portions of FISA are not Constitutional.

The LGBT Lobby is strongly in favor of Obama. Obama did fight hard to repeal DADT, and if I recall correctly, it was repealed, possibly with implementation pending final review by the Joint Chiefs.

Both Bachmann and Cain have excellent chances at the primary level. Cain has no chance of beating Obama because Cain can't raise enough money (he's unknown to centrists). A Bachmann/Obama contest, for centrists, will be a choice between the lesser of two evils: are you madder at Obama about jobs, or too scared to vote for Bachmann? I think a Bachmann/Obama contest will be a real squeaker. Bachmann will pick up the 35% right wing block, and Obama will get the 25% who are left wing. The 40% in the center will decide the outcome. Unlike Cain, Bachmann is well known enough within the center to raise money from them, but how she campaigns will determine whether or not enough of the center supports her.

Stu


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Stu,

You can't get blood from a stone. The poor don't have it to give. And that is the majority of America. Actually you are wrong the middle class and the upper class will have to pay taxes because they are the only people with disposable income. Poor people just don't have it although I appreciate you making the suggestion. Everyone with any money will have to pay the majority of the country is destitute.

If FOIA doesn't exist here theny why would you expect it to exist in Europe? And i didn't explain what type of case I sued over. I can tell you the merits of the case were the USA government was ripping off the tax payers by condcting corrupt research to push bad policy through Congress. And this was under Clinton and Bush and Washington DC agreed.

If Bachmann of Cain win they will lose to Obama even with my help. They just don't stand a chance. Although I have tried desperately to guide Bachmann away from the treacherous behavior that makes her incredulous. Bachmann needs to grab the center and be more centerists but it is too late. It looks like a show down with Romney and Obama but I still think JEB is in the race.

JT


Stu From VT 5 years ago

JT,

Under a VAT or national sales tax, everyone will pay tax, because suppliers/retailers will mark-up prices and pay it for them. This is the whole point. If we want to avoid job killing increases in FIT rates, the only option is to increase the tax base (by ending loopholes and cheating). We need a tax system where NONE of the tax base escapes taxation. This way the RATE can be kept reasonable, and still result in national debt reduction (as long as we also have a roughly 40% reduction in federal operating expenses).

You're missing my point on FOIA. I know FOIA requests are routinely stonewalled. Most of these requests are in connection with press or advocacy group activities to uncover corruption. The FOIA issue with Interpol is different. A rule was enacted which permits Interpol operatives to testify for the prosecution (the US AG's office) in criminal cases and reference Interpol documents damaging to the defense, without having to actually produce the documents and have them admitted as evidence. This prevents the defense from having the ability to confront and cross-examine the damaging testimony, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

I agree Cain has little chance of beating Obama due to name recognition among centrists and resultant funding issues. I still think Bachmann/Obama would be a close race. Obama will raise more money, Bachmann won't have the jobs issue as a liability, both will be unappealing to the center, and Bachmann will have a larger core voting base. Bottom line: if Bachmann can capture about 40% of the center, she can win.

Stu


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Vat and Flat taxes only keep the rates reasonable for the weathy. The poor are taxed to death with this system and it increase INFLATION and our country will spin into a INFLATIONARY DEPRESSION and stay there.

The constitution is dead. Only the Tea Party Movement believes it is still around. I told you GWB wiped his behind with it and that was the end of that. While the Patriot Act is around the consttituion will remaind dead. So you and I don't have amendment rights. And I don't think the government is ever going to give those back they have been gone for over a 100 years now. I doubt anyone can ressurct them.

Bachhmann can't capture the center because she is so right winged. She is offensive to her own Party so forget Democrats liking her. Stu, I like you and I appreciate all your enthusiasm for this country and I really respect that but Bachmann has shot herself in the foot too many times to win the GOP nomination. You might as well get use to the idea of either voting for Obama or voting for Romney because those are your only choices. In three years from now no one will remember who the Tea Party was and what they stood for because they have made a mockery of the election process and not voting for the cut, cap and trade deal just damaged Michelle Bachmann beyond any point of redemetion. Prepare yourself Stu taxes are about to be risen.

It is nothing you could have stopped. The country cycles like this and right now it is in a cycle in which the wealthiest Americans and the coporations must be taxed in order for the nation to survive. It is what is required. And no matter who is or will be president the moves are all the same. There is this little organization called the National Security Council and they make all the really tough decisions and then Washington follows through although at a very high price.

Bachmann's presidential campaign is dead she might as well donate her funds to Romney which she will end up doing in the end anyways.

Sorry Stu, I appreciate your enthusiasm and ideas but it just isn't how this one is going to be played out. Perhaps the Tea Party Movement might have had a chance had they not been so irresponsible and pulled this stunt with the debt ceiling negotiations but they did and now it is going to cost them.

I really applaud your enthusiasm and I still think you should run for office and see just how crokked and broken everything is.

JT


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi JT,

A VAT or end use sales tax will not cause inflation or a depression. Yes, consumer prices will take a one time hit. But don't forget that all income taxes go away, and the other part of my plan is greatly reduced federal operating spending, so the private sector is less "crowded out." Federal workers would take a gigantic hit in jobs and compensation level, but private citizens, though paying more tax in total, would see a mix of effects (some would pay more tax than they do now, some would pay less).

The Constitution IS almost dead. That's why the TPM came into being - we want to resurrect it. While GWB was unconstitutional in matters relating to Iraq, federal decisions in all three branches have been eroding the Constitution ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution 120 years ago. Bush was a bit player in this. The big offenders were FDR, Wilson, Clinton, and Obama. We definitely can force the feds to return stolen powers to the states and the people. If we cap federal spending at a MUCH lower percentage of GNP than it's currently running, the "regulatory state" will have to be dismantled (i.e., agencies that don't perform duties Constitutionally mandated to the federal government will have to be defunded en masse, and their regulations vacated, because there will be nobody to enforce them).

Bachmann is disliked by the GOP, which is one of her most desirable qualities (she's not an establishment RINO who will sell us out for special interest money or votes). I agree she will have a tough time with the center, but so will Obama (due to the jobs recession). And the right wing voting base is 35% of the electorate, compared to 25% for the left wing. All these factors, put together, mean Bachmann has a chance. Romney would be a disaster. Not that he would necessarily do anything bad, but he doesn't have the fire in the belly to roll back progressivism; the most he'll do is prevent it from expanding. Further, Romney is a flip-flopper (he'll say/do anything for money and votes), and is in the hip-pocket of the big banks (i.e., he may press for poor financial regulation in exchange for the millions they are donating to his campaign).

I assure you the TPM is not going to go away. I think it will grow in numbers at the grassroots level, and saturate Congress by an incremental 3-5% per election at minimum. To be factual, there are thousands of TPM groups, and some supported CCB, some didn't. Those that didn't simply felt that CCB didn't go far enough (because it permits a short term increase in the debt ceiling). I myself view CCB as a necessary evil if we can't get anything better, but would prefer debt reduction immediately. How did the TPM "make a mockery of the election process?" Look at 2010 - all the election fraud and intimidation was committed by liberals.

I agree taxes will and must go up. I just don't want punitive rates imposed, because it would kill more jobs, and possibly work effort too. As I keep saying, we need to bolster the tax base, so the feds collect alot more money, but the tax rate can be kept reasonable. Soaking the corporations and the wealthy is the dumbest thing we could do. It would just mean more offshoring of business investment, and thus jobs. We need to make the US business-friendly again: reasonable taxes, elimination of unnecessary regulation, elimination of tariffs that favor other country's exports at the expense of our own, etc.

The truth is that both parties are playing a "stunt" with the debt ceiling. Both parties want to look like they are "doing something," so they submit bills they know the other party will reject. The reality is that both the GOP and the Democrats are terrified of real spending cuts, entitlement reform, and increasing revenue. Fiscal austerity hurts the voters, and makes getting reelected harder. But we have to do it, or financially collapse.

Stu


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 5 years ago from Florida Author

Stu,

How can you return power to the people by imposing more taxes on them? By definition taxes are slavery and federal intrusion. Your plan is loopsided and will hit the majority of Americans with exhorberent inflation while still preserving the wealthy people. Shared sacrifice is truly shared Stu.

And when the Tea Party Movemnet speaks so ardently about cutting federal spending do you realize who they are threatening with cutting pay checks? It is the intelligence community specifically the Homeland Security Department. Now I can tell you this is as dangerous as cutting the FBI funding during FDR(s) time and it will not happen. And quite frankly during FDR(s) time Hollywood and the Congress took some major hits and that is about to happen again.

Elimintaion of unnecessry regulation? What regulation is there in the USA against corporations and be careful Stu I live by General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin so your answer needs to be that of national interest and not just Vermont interest.

I know gay people in Vermont have it easy but gay people across the USA don't. In Florida on Memorial Day gay soldiers walked in silence for their fallen gay brothers and sisters so DADT hsn't been repealed atleast as of Memorial Day. And gay rigths aren't limited to the military they need to be throughout all aspects of life. Quite frnkly, government needs to get out of the bedroom of our fellow citzens.

Bachmann is running as a red heering for Romeny and JEB and there isn't a Bush in existence that believes in being fiscally conservative. They love to spend The People's money but not their own. You wait and see JEB is lurking around the corner.

Thanks for reading, commenting and providing feedback. You always provide very interesting counter arguments and I appreciate that.

JT

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working