jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (144 posts)

Why is Washington not listening to the will of the majority?

  1. Ms Dee profile image86
    Ms Deeposted 6 years ago

    All the House had to do was say no, & borrowing would have stopped, http://bit.ly/pueE2p

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "All the House had to do was say no, & borrowing would have stopped,"

      What do you think the House did other than saying no? The Tea Party members of the house blocked a reasonable resolution of the deficit issue.

      Joseph Farah is spreading ignorance to his ignorant readers.

      Nearly every sentient American, GOP and DEM agreed that allowing a default was not in our interest. Obama and Boehner came close to reaching a better solution than the one ultimately arrived at that nobody likes. At least there is now time to try again for a workable long-term solution.

      1. Ms Dee profile image86
        Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Ralph for your take on this. But what did it get us? Our credit rating still got down graded and the markets falling.

        1. oldhorse profile image80
          oldhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Our credit rating got down graded, in part, because of the brinksmanship of the Republicans.  They said they were willing to default and S&P believed them.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            S&P in their report said why we got downgraded -

            “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Do~~~oug~~~~!!!! You didn't include the other quotes in the report, now did you?! Bad, BAD BOY!!

              "We view the [recent debt ceiling] act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation."

              - This means that S&P ACTUALLY LIKED WHAT THE R'S DID!!!

              "The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
              long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
              reduction in spending than agreed to
              , higher interest rates, or new
              fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
              debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case."


              - Translation: It's going to go lower if spending isn't decreased EVEN MORE!!!

              And here is the Report agreeing with Ron Paul's assessment that 'all of the reduction in deficits is merely promised':

              "However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future."

              Read the whole report - not just the part that the liberals want to blame the Tea Party for - here: http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet … lue3=UTF-8

              Also, if you're confused about this entire debt ceiling issue, i'll have a hub up explaining it all very clearly before the end of the day.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "This means that S&P ACTUALLY LIKED WHAT THE R'S DID!"

                Then why did they cite Republican resistance to raising revenue as one of the  reasons for the downgrade?

                1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                  Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Because S&P is looking for a balanced approach (where have I heard that phrase) of reduced spending AND increased revenue to lower the deficit soon with a responsible plan over the long haul for a balanced budget.

                  Obama endorsed spending cuts. He combined that with new revenue by closing tax loopholes and Boehner walked from the deal.

                  The GOP Ryan plan throws Granny under the bus by privatizing Medicare. The Balanced Budget Amendment makes sure she can never get out from under the bus.

                  1. American View profile image56
                    American Viewposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Oabam endorsed the cuts, but then backed away from the deal,, would not back it again unless there were "significant tax hikes(I know he sadi new revenues, but we all new what he meant) and thats when Boehner walked. Nothing like a President to keep his word.

              2. kashannkilson profile image60
                kashannkilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                First off, it's hard to put faith in S&P calculations, not only because it miscalculated the first assessment by $2 Trillion, but because this is the same company that gave Lehman Bros a AAA rating a month before Lehman went BANKRUPT. And, as we look at the market, stocks took a severe beating yesterday, but Treasury Bills did JUST FINE.

                All that being said ladies and gentleman, I would ask all of you to reread the S&P report through non-partisan eyes for just a second, because through all of the spin, the message S&P sent is rather clear and decidedly NON-PARTISAN.

                @Doug:

                "Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

                The original assumption they are speaking about is a scenario figuring the Bush tax cuts would expire. They changed that assumption to a scenario in which the tax cuts WILL remain in place due to Republicans refusal to raise revenues.

                Also, the report clearly states:

                "Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
                measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing."

                And while certainly I'm in favor of a balanced approach to balancing a budget, the term "balanced approach" does not appear in the S&P report.

                @Evan:

                "- This means that S&P ACTUALLY LIKED WHAT THE R'S DID!!!"


                Before you take Doug to task, maybe you should get your context right. Here's the entire quote you referenced in context:

                "We view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation.
                However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow."


                And here are a few more that cover what they think about the fiscal consolidation plan:

                "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
                that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
                what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
                medium-term debt dynamics."

                "We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."

                "Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
                view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
                extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
                agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently."

                Wow, "falls short" sure doesn't sound much like "like" to me...

                Seems like you neglected a few quotes yourself didn't you?  You bad, BAD BOY!

                Oh and this:

                "The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
                long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
                reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
                fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
                debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case."

                probably shouldn't be translated as "It will go down if spending isn't decreased."  Given the fact that S&P clearly stated they have NO POSITION on spending or tax increases. I think you meant to say:

                "Translation: It's going to go lower if the deficit isn't reduced to safe, acceptable levels." because that IS what S&P is saying.

                Honestly, we can spin it however we want but the FACT is that S&P isn't singling out a side. They place the blame pretty solidly on BOTH SIDES:

                "-The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
                that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
                what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
                medium-term debt dynamics.
                · More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
                stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
                institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
                challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
                negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011."

                I don't have much faith in S&P, but please allow me to summarize what is ACTUALLY saying:

                The PROCESS is broken, the POLITICAL GAMES are causing a severe lack of confidence in the US Government, and the debt bill Congress passed is NOT NEARLY ENOUGH to make things better. And unless Congress and the President fix it soon, the rating is going to get worse.

                1. TTanglewood profile image60
                  TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Well summarized. 

                  I do find it interesting that a good portion of what they recommended sounds like the original deal that was put forth by the administration.  You know, the one including tax increases.

                  But like they pointed out, the process was the issue, not the actual debt itself.

                  1. American View profile image56
                    American Viewposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    There are lots of reasons for the downgrade. Congress bickering, the President wanting to raise taxes, here is a big one, the President shouting from the rafters we have no money in the coffers. Of course in a weekly address he admitted there was enough money to pay the bills. If you call the bank looking for a loan because you will be late on paying the bills and keep telling them during the conversation you have no money, when they hang up you credit rating will go down. Same for the government

                    They all can cut the budget, raise revenues without raising taxes but they will never agree to it

      2. profile image66
        logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The only reasonable thing about any plan put forward by either party was a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.  I'll guarantee if that had passed we would not have received the downgrade by S&P and the stock market would be higher than it was before the debate.
        It's not rocket science or brain surgery.  Control spending and eliminate subsidies to all entities and we will be on a path to regaining balance.
        Don't tell me we don't need the BBA either.  It is quite obvious that Congress or the President do not have the courage, the wisdom, the vision or the ambition to control the spending and balance the budget.  Therefore leverage is needed to force them to do what they should do on their own.  The BBA is that leverage.

    2. TTanglewood profile image60
      TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The will of the majority is job creation.  That is what most Americans want our government to focus on. 

      The author continues to blame the fireman for not saving the house that was on fire when he got there.

      Putting the blame for the current crisis on the person most committed to a compromise is mis-direction at its finest.

      The Tea Party is for lower taxes, economic growth and lower debt.  Could someone please explain how that is possible mathematically?  No political rhetoric.  No left or right wing talking points.  Just use the numbers and explain how it can be done.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Federal Expenditures break down in these ranges -

        National Defense -  20%

        Medicare.              -   20%

        Social Security.      -  20%

        Everything Else.      -  40%

        Everything Else includes interest on the debt, Medicaid, the Judicial branch, Unemployment, National Parks, EPA, Education Dept.... a long list and a lot is not optional.

        The deficit is running about 40%.
        So if we lower taxes, keep defense spending where it is, don't change Medicare or SS, you have to eliminate everything Else from the budget, including the Judicial branch.

        If you hold Medicare & SS as they are, cut defense and 'other'  by half, you still can't balance the budget without raising taxes.

        The Ryan plan which the GOP in the House & Senate signed on to,  cuts taxes for the very rich, throws seniors under the bus.

        Democrats are overwhelmingly. for spending cuts and increasing revenue enclosing loopholes and subsidies, and raising taxes on those making over 250K.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I say, keep taxes where they are, but cut everything by 15%.

          ... then proceed to keep doing that for 20 years....

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            First Year - throw 15 % ogre Grandmas under the bus.

            Keep taxes low for the rich

            Second Year - throw 15% of grandpas under the bus.

            Keep taxes low for the rich.

            Third year - throw 15% of indigent people on the streets.

            Keep taxes low for the rich.

            And so it would go....

    3. TTanglewood profile image60
      TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      @Dee
      May I ask, when you say the "will of the people" what are you referring to?

      Do you believe the majority of Americans consider the debt more important or jobs more important? 

      I believe the clarification is necessary to properly discussing your question. 

      I stand on the side of the fence that believes that the majority of American families care about their day to day issues, and that we voted for representatives to fix the jobs situation.

      1. Ms Dee profile image86
        Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        TTanglewood, so why is it those reps are not listening to the will of the majority, do you think?

        1. TTanglewood profile image60
          TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Once again, it is necessary to clarify what you refer to as the will of the people. 

          Polling during the debt ceiling debate continually showed that a majority of citizens preferred a balanced approach including some revenue increases.  Polling at the height of the debate revealed that citizens overwhelmingly preferred raising taxes on a segment of the population over cutting the benefits to SSI, Medicare and Medicaid. 

          That would be considered the will of the people, but yet it wasn't part of the final package.

          That said, to answer your question, I believe that our representatives choose to listen to the will of those they believe agree with them.  It is no longer about the will of the majority.  It is about pandering to their base. 

          The fact that they can obstruct the process and then turn around and point fingers at the President and blame him makes the GOP far less willing to do what is in the best interests of the country.  Once again, it is about power at this point.

          1. Ms Dee profile image86
            Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Since it  is no longer about the will of the majority, I think this is why our government and constitution are not working as well as it should sad.  Yeah, power has done its corrupting work.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image59
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The majority in poll after scientific poll overwhelmingly support a balanced approach of cutting spending AND raising revenue.

              The Teabaggers are sucking up to the very rich by refusing to close tax loopholes and cut subsidies (corporate welfare).

              1. TTanglewood profile image60
                TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                This just in:

                "S&P also says the budget savings and increases in government receipts must be greater than those that came out of the compromise the two political parties just agreed to prevent a default...This rating agency made it clear that budget cuts alone are not sufficient but that taxes must be increased in order for the U.S. to regain its former credit rating."

                This position sounds very much like the plan that was on the table before the Tea Party gummed up the works.

    4. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Most Americans don't have a problem with putting taxes back where they were before the Bush-era tax cuts. You know, back when, for a moment, we had a surplus rather than a deficit?

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The Fed hasn't run a surplus since Reagan.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          We didn't have a surplus under Reagan. We had one under Clinton, and then Bush II pissed it away by cutting taxes instead of using the surplus to pay down the debt.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The last time Debt was paid down was by the Republican Budget under Clinton that paid down the most that could be statutorily paid down.  Hasn't happened since.  As for the theoretical surplus and it being "pissed" away.  There was a little devastating economic disaster on September 11th that yanked a $1trillion of value from an economy that was smaller than today.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, sure, let's make no mention of the Bush-era tax cuts. They have nothing at all to do with the revenue shortfall. roll

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You mean the Obama reasserted tax rates?

                1. TTanglewood profile image60
                  TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That said, without getting into the reasons it was extended, would you support allowing any of the Bush tax cuts to expire?

                  If so, would you support allowing all of them to sunset, or just for a select portion of the population?

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    In an ideal world, I would prefer the Fair Tax but in this world I would make the current tax rates permanent.

                  2. American View profile image56
                    American Viewposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    TT
                    One needs to read the Bush tax cuts to understand that Obama is selling everyone a bill of goods. There are only a few things in there for big business, and they can go. The effects of the bush cuts will be devastating to small business and the middle class.
                    1.    2001 tax cuts gave a 3% withholding cut. The 2003 cuts added another 2% in cuts. IF the Bush cuts expire, there will be a 5% tax increase on you withholdings in your pay check
                    2.    The marriage penalty and other breaks for married families will expire resulting in a 15% to 20% increase in the yearly tax bill.
                    3.    The death tax will be back
                    4.    The capital gains tax will double
                    5.    There were many tax breaks and new rules for retirement and 401K plans. They will all go away
                    Now these are only a few of the many tax increases the middle class faces. It will affect not only your current pay, but your retirement strategy as well.
                    So to answer your queation, I would let only a few of them to expire. But Obama wants to kill it all. Remember, he is the one who said "cut the jet tax" blaming Bush and Reoubs for it. But it was Obama who put that tax break into effect. It was a part of his stimulus and he signed it. Here is the best part, it expired in 2010. THats right, Obama is trying to cut a tax break that no longer exists.

    5. profile image57
      wlesureposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have followed the processes in Washington, DC for a long time and I am sad to report that governance is absent. The rancor from both parties is disturbing at the least and ruinous at the best. Having said this I must assign responsibilty to the budgetary gridlock to the intractible members of the infamous Tea Party. I am appalled to hear them blaming "entitlement programs, Obama-care and other social programs that help millions. They seem to have forgotten that we are embroiled in two wars, one which has questionable legitimacy, both begun on the watch of the last Pres. Bush. I find it difficult to give their fiscal concerns much consideration when the bulk of them are millionaires. I find it interesting that the Tea Party in particular, and the Republican Party in general, have forgotten that many of economic problems that we face today began when they control of the Congress and the White House, not to mention the Supreme Court, too. Another topic for another day.
      Pres. Obama inherited the economic mess that is gripping the country. There were decisions made to try and stimulate the economy that worked and others that weren't successful. It is easier to criticize the person who tries something unsuccessfully than encourage another effort. The process of opposing for the sake of being oppositional is tantamount to having a temper tantrum and taking one's toys and going home. I find members of the Tea Party to be having temper tantrums and unwilling to do the work of governance. I find some members of the Democratic Party acting similarly.

      To those of you you who might read and thoughts and disagree I welcome your comments. But let's try to set a new precedent for or leaders and other readers too; let's agree to disagree with civility.

      1. American View profile image56
        American Viewposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Could you show me something that Obama did to stimulate the economy. It seems the job reports, unemployment reports, GDP reports and many more have missed something.

        1. profile image57
          wlesureposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Keeping the banking community afloat, trying to reduce the amount of mortage foreclosures, keeping the automobile industry from collasping, trying to get healthcare cost more manageable. What have the Republicans and other obstructionists done besides obstruct and deflect the real culprit of our economic mess: tax breaks for the wealthy and businesses and the cost of prosecuting two wars?

          1. TTanglewood profile image60
            TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'll expand on your point.

            Dow Jones January 20th 2009: 7,949
            http://daytradingstockblog.blogspot.com … arket.html

            Dow Jones today: 10,990
            http://daytradingstockblog.blogspot.com … arket.html

            Net jobs report January 2009: 598,000 Net Jobs Lost
            http://www.usnews.com/news/stimulus/art … n-35-years

            Net jobs report July 2011: 117,000 Net Jobs Created
            http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

            GDP First Quarter 2009: 13.89 Trillion
            GDP Second Quarter 2011: 15 Trillion
            http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

            In short, things are actually better than the month Obama was sworn in.  That said, is there still a ways to go to fill in the hole that was 8 million jobs lost?  Yes.  But so far, things are not worse than before he was sworn in.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              So not worse is the measure of success?  That sounds more like an oncology prognosis not a recommendation for returning a President to office.  Is that what we have to look forward to, anemic growth, unemployment figures that are constantly adjusted downward and a dollar that is losing ground everyday?  A collapsing currency is the sign of a collapsing economy and ours is collapsing.

              1. TTanglewood profile image60
                TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, based on the numbers I presented I would say we're doing better than when he was first sworn in.

                That said, it is now up to the private sector to create the jobs necessary to sustain the recovery.

                Conservatives are fond of saying that government doesn't create jobs.  Which is actually a falsehood.  Just ask any defense contractor or construction company that depends on federal contracts for infrastructure projects.  But, after losing over 8 million jobs to the recession, it will be necessary to create that many jobs in an atmosphere of depressed demand.

                The administration's goal of stabilizing an economy that was on a downward spiral has succeeded.  Companies that required a lifeline three years ago are back to being profitable and paying out record bonuses again. 

                This isn't a crisis that started under Obama, he inherited it.  And every GOP proposal currently on the table is exactly what got the nation here to begin with.  Its like blaming the 9/11 first responders because the building was on fire when they got there and then collapsed after they went in.

                I will go on record as saying this.  Four years of a GOP president will only make things worse.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Cherry picking statistics.  No wonder people don't understand nor trust them. 

                  Unemployment is higher
                  Gasoline Prices are higher
                  Food Prices are higher
                  than when Barry was sworn in - 31 months ago.  He had filibuster proof Senate and complete control of the House for 18 months.

                  Hard core unemployment among minorities is the highest it has been since the last Democrat tinkerer ran roughshod over the economy.

                  History is that which we are doomed to repeat.  I wonder what will happen when Republicans are back in charge and it all changes for the better.  Just like when Reagan and Eisenhower were President.  The two greatest periods of expansion in the 20th century followed Republican Presidents who were not liberals.

                  If GWB was not a liberal than why does Barry preserve so much of his legacy?

                  1. TTanglewood profile image60
                    TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Prices for gas are higher than day 1 of the presidency, but still haven't reached the highest prices achieved under the last administration. 

                    Food prices increasing are a function of higher fuel prices.  In fact, most of the increase in the prices of consumer goods can be attributed to higher fuel prices.

                    And your bias is showing.  You managed to also cherry pick the statistics to support your point.  According to any reputable economist, unemployment is a lagging indicator.  Jobs are the first thing to be cut, and the last factor to be added.

                    You also need to review your facts.  Obama's filibuster proof majority in the Senate was for the first 7 months.  When Kennedy died in August of 2009, he was replaced by a Republican Scott Brown in January 2010.  Far short of your 18 months.

                    And since then, every proposal put forth by the President has been a dog fight.  Even if the proposal was once supported by Republicans. 

                    Ironically, if history repeats itself, then we already have the blueprint to fixing the economy and dealing with the deficit.  Clinton teamed with a GOP Congress created the template.  All we have to do as a country is follow it.

                    Oh yeah, and don't expect me to cry tears for the loss of a few billionaires.  The loss of wealth in the stock market in 2008 contributed to that much more than any of Obama's proposals.  And the top 10% still control 70% of the wealth in this country.  And own 90% of the money invested in stocks and mutual funds.

          2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The banking community was kept afloat by TARP, signed by GWB.  The GM and Chrysler non-bankruptcies robbed equity holders of the value of their corporate bonds. Those bond holders were the pension plans of teachers, policemen and firemen in places like Indiana.  It was a clear abrogation of the rule of law and the twisting of it to the will of the union and their political servants. 

            The bankruptcy law already existed and would have allowed a restructuring of GM and Chrysler that would have allowed them to emerge healthier than they are now.  It is patently untrue that bankruptcy means the destruction of a business.  To the contrary, many businesses that address the reasons they had to declare bankruptcy emerge strong than before.  GM and Chrysler have not addressed those issues and it is likely that they will be back in real trouble with in ten years.

            So where is the great success story?  By this time in Reagan's recovery the economy was growing at 7% and he inherited a much more damaged economy than Barry.  Where are the jobs the stimulus was supposed to create?  Weren't there supposed to be millions of infrastructure jobs? 

            Obama has be callous toward the plight of the unemployed.  Laughing at not creating "shovel ready jobs."  Dining on $100 per pound beef.  Golfing, vacationing in luxury.  This is hardly what the "great" Democrat leader, FDR, would have done.  CBO predicts the cost of OBAMAcare will spiral out of control.  It is one cause for insurance companies dropping individual policies, businesses refraining from hiring and hold trillions of dollars in cash anticipating rising benefits costs.  It is the reason that hundreds of economic entities - businesses, states, localities and unions - have all sought waivers to protect them from the monumental increase in insurance costs.

            Quite a success record.  Barry's people also claim that unemployment and food stamps create jobs.  Well than there should be plenty of jobs if Barry gets four more years since he has created so many unemployment and food stamp recipients.  Brilliant jobs program.


            The top 3% of income earners pay more than the other 97% but do not earn more than the other 97% - seems rather unfair to me.

            1. TTanglewood profile image60
              TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate without factoring the political environment he worked with.  While on other ends of the spectrum, the Democratic controlled Congress was more interested in helping to fix the country than in subverting his presidency to ensure their success in subsequent elections.

              Also, you are referencing the Reagan accomplishment without context.  First, Reagan tripled the deficit to achieve his recovery.  Where taxes were cut, he borrowed the money to make up the difference.  Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times while in office. Not an option available today.

              Second, Reagan raised taxes 11 times while in office.  Also not an option on the desk today.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Reagan worked the entire time with an oppositional House.  While revenue doubled the House insisted on much larger budgets than the ones submitted by Reagan.  The political atmosphere for Reagan compares quite favorably with Barry.  Both entered office with huge popular support.   The biggest difference is the oppositional House.  Barry had a perfect majority in Congress.  A Filibuster proof Senate and a huge majority in the House.  If the imputed nobility of the Congressional Democrats was true than why has this economic slow down lasted longer than any since the Great Depression?

              2. profile image57
                wlesureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                TTanglewood, you are correct in correcting me. My intention was to show that like Reagan, Bush orchestrated a economic policy that favored the Elite, and both presidents tried to placate the masses of disenfranchaised working class peole by promoting a policy that suggested that giving tax breaks, aka incentives, would stimulate growth and that those that recieved the tax breaks create more good paying jobs for the all. Obviously both president missed the mark.

            2. profile image57
              wlesureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              TARP was signed by GWB but it was designed by Pres. Obama.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What was it he said in the meeting in the White House about the giant sop to the millionaires and billionaires bailed out by TARP,  oh yes, "Do this in memory of me."  That was it.

      2. TTanglewood profile image60
        TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well said.

    6. profile image57
      wlesureposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      After posting my last comments I was struck by the vagueness of the threads title, "Why is Washington not listening to the will of the majority?" The longer I looked at the title the more concerned I became. I asked myself, who is included in this category. Is Ms Dee referring to the 39.1% of none voters who opted out of participating becaused they were disillusioned, disenfranchised, marginalized or minimized becaused that lack resources that gave them access to policy makers? Is Ms Dee referring to the social and financially elites who have backed the winners and now have greater influence when policies are being made that benefit them, the few most powerful and often at the detriment of the many with less power? Is Ms Dee referring to the extremists of either political party hell bent of maintaining the staus quo?

  2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    The Truth About Taxes
    Published: August 6, 2011

       

    "A week later and we are still amazed at how the Republicans in Congress pulled it off. They held the economy hostage, won some cheap political points, and all of us will spend the next decade paying the ransom as government programs — $900 billion over 10 years in the first round — are slashed and the recovery is put at risk.
    Related

       

    "The only glimmer of hope is that the battle is not completely over — if President Obama is finally willing to fight."

    1. rebekahELLE profile image89
      rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I can't imagine what would happen with a far right Tea Party President in power during this time.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/opini … _LO_MST_FB

    2. Ms Dee profile image86
      Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ralph: However, what is this I hear that the cuts over 10 years will most likely not happen because of all the changes in Congress and president that normally occurs during such a span of time?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That may well be true. It's a screwball deal. That's why S&P downgraded our US government bonds.

    3. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Since when has Obama ever been willing to fight? mad

      1. Ms Dee profile image86
        Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        At least, when has he fought for the majority of the people?

  3. FanUSA profile image61
    FanUSAposted 6 years ago

    But, don't you know - lower taxes for the rich "create jobs".  Just because it hasn't been working so far doesn't mean we should stop trying.  Perhaps we should not tax the rich at all to maximise our chances of seeing more jobs generated by them? - You are right, tea party logic defies reason.

    1. Ms Dee profile image86
      Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      FanUSA, yes, this part is what seems to make sense--to give businesses room to expand and hire more people, rather than adding the heaving regulations that are being added.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Then why has it never worked?

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Shh! Don't ask questions about reality. That kind of thing has no place in a discussion of ideology!

          By the way, did you know that objects of different weights fall at different speeds? If it's heavier, it falls faster. No need to check for yourself. It stands to reason, doesn't it? smile

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            A few months ago I asked LaLo what 'crushing regulations' she was talking about. The only significant item she could think of was low-flush toilets.

            Oh, the tyranny!

            1. Ms Dee profile image86
              Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hmm, I've heard a lot of reports, even some from friends who have small businesses, that government regulations being levied on them are drastically increasing.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Like what?

                And I'm looking for specific examples of new regulation from the Obama administration and the cost. Because the specific examples to date carry the importance of low-flush toilets.,,,

      2. TTanglewood profile image60
        TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        @Ms. Dee
        I've had this discussion with others.  Tax cuts for the wealthy don't create jobs.  Businesses don't hire based on income tax rates. 

        The reason? Businesses pay taxes on the bottom line.  That is revenue minus expenses.  Employee wages are an expense.  This means they are subtracted from the bottom line.

        Hiring new employees will actually lower a business' tax liability. 

        Businesses aren't hiring because they can meet current demand with the current level of employee productivity.  Until demand is greater than a company's capacity to supply, we will not see significant job growth.

        1. Moderndayslave profile image61
          Moderndayslaveposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly

          1. kashannkilson profile image60
            kashannkilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If I may expand on that a bit:

            Tax cuts bring liquidity (money in the bank) to businesses. Liquidity simply answers the question: "Could we hire if we wanted to?"

            Demand answers the question "Should we hire?"

            To further TTanglewood's point, use this example:

            ACME widgets fulfills 5000 orders a month. They have been fulfilling 5000 widgets a month for 18 months, and have kept 100 employees over that time, that have handled all the sales and production. ACME forecasts that they will continue to sell around 5000 widgets per month. Even if they had $10 million in the bank, would they hire more people to fulfill the same demand?

            A business has to have a yes to BOTH questions.

            The problem with simply relying on tax cuts for the rich and big business is twofold. A wealthy family of 5 will only buy so much more consumables than a poor/middle class family of 5. Only so much food that 5 people can eat. Only so many clothes a family of 5 can wear. Regardless of income.

            Also, the US jobs market runs into real danger if business has too much capital on hand and no demand to sustain business.

            If ACME Widgets, from the example above, has an extra $10 million in cash sitting around, and they don't need to hire more workers, perhaps they could use those monies to invest in a machine that can do the work of ten employees. They aren't selling anymore products, but they can improve their bottom line by spending 2 million dollars on a machine that will reduce the operating costs by $400,000 per year (10 salaries @ $30,000/yr plus associated employee costs) for a net savings of $2million dollars over ten years. You have the cash to do it and since they aren't increasing profits, they will opt to reduce costs.

            Another possibility (one that we have seen a lot of): suppose ACME is selling 3000 of those widgets here and 2000 of those widget is China. China offers big breaks for construction and hiring. The US charges significantly less tariff to bring imports in than China. Even if it costs 10 million, you can build a factory in China for $.50 on the dollar. You can hire 100 employees in China for approx. $.30 on the dollar. AND China has a booming economy so you can project that your presence there will grab you a foothold in a growing market.

            I would argue that both of those scenarios have happened with numerous companies over the past ten years.

            That being said, giving business  extra money to hire with is a good idea in a bad economy, but it has to be paired with demand if you want to create or sustain jobs. And I think history has shown that government spending spurs the demand needed to make those tax breaks work.

            1. Ms Dee profile image86
              Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting explanation. So extra $ to hire plus demand through government spending. But if the government has to raise taxes in order to increase its spending, doesn't that take away the extra $ for businesses to hire?

              1. TTanglewood profile image60
                TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There are two answers to your statement. 

                One is the direct answer.  If government gives you a dollar and then you have to pay government a quarter of that dollar, do you not still come out on top of that equation.  Your net would be .75 you didn't have before. 

                The other answer is that you have to once again look at how businesses are taxed, specifically on income.  Unlike individuals, businesses aren't taxed on income when the revenue is received, like payroll taxes.  Instead, they are taxed quarterly or annually.  After bills are paid.

                Let's look at numbers.

                If you make $100 as an individual, you are taxed first.  Let's assume a 25% rate.  That means government gets its cut first, then you get the $75 that is left over.  If you bills are $50, you have to then figure out how to pay your bills with the $75 you receive.

                A business makes $100, then pays its $50 in expenses.  It then pays taxes on the remaining $50 dollars.  That would be $12.5 that they would pay in taxes.

                Did you notice taxes are paid AFTER bills?

                Businesses don't base their hiring decisions on income tax rates as some would have you believe.  Hiring a new employee would actually lower your taxable liability.  Businesses base their hiring on fulfilling demand.

                1. Ms Dee profile image86
                  Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting, TTanglewood. I do not run a business, so this is interesting info.

                  1. TTanglewood profile image60
                    TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    If you are a freelance writer, then you technically run a business:)

                    As for your later question regarding entitlement reform, I remember it being part of the discussion on the President's side.

                    Entitlement reform was on the table, the issue was that tax increases weren't.

                    I believe a large majority of the population currently on unemployment would rather have good paying jobs than receive benefits.  And to believe that pushing Medicare recipients into the private market is a viable solution is misguided at best. 

                    Big insurance is not interested in insuring the elderly, voucher or no.  The reason is simple:  Old people get sick.  Sick people with insurance file claims.  People who file claims cost money.

                    When I went for my insurance license, my instructor, who had 40 years of experience stated, "Insurance companies are not in the business of insuring people.  They are in the business of maximizing shareholder profits."

              2. kashannkilson profile image60
                kashannkilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well here is where we run into the real bulk of the debate. Typically in a down economy, the government will cut taxes and borrow the money to fuel the spending.

                Most recently you can use the example of Ronald Reagan. He came into office and slashed taxes, borrowed and spent a ton of money (the debt doubled from about $2 trillion to $4 trillion in those 8 years).

                Most people don't seem to understand that all of his "military spending" actually created a ton of jobs and got the economy moving. He then started to raise taxes once the economy got moving again as well as reigning in on the spending to help bring down the deficits that all the tax cuts and spending created.

                Obviously 14 trillion dollars in debt changes the game quite a bit as not many people are in favor of increasing that quite large number. Hence the debt limit debate.

                1. Ms Dee profile image86
                  Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  kashan, it is this that I remember of what Reagan did. Thanks! It is quite a challenge to grasp how to relate it to the current huge debt, that's for sure.

                  1. kashannkilson profile image60
                    kashannkilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Well Ms. Dee, I think that's why were are seeing so much stasis and finger pointing.

                    No one looks at $14 Trillion dollars and thinks it's a manageable or sustainable number.

                    At the same time, everyone can agree that the only real fix is to get more jobs flowing which will naturally increase revenue and lower spending, and that constricting money whether it be through reducing spending or increasing taxes is exactly what not to do in a struggling economy.

                    No one in either party seems to have a good way to deal with both of these HUGE problems.

  4. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    S&P were they same genius who triple A'd the dunny paper that bought the whole fiasco to it's knees?

    America can still trade out, if it follows the Ford Motor Company's CEO Alan Mulally.

    The interview with Charlie Rose was a real eye opener as to why Ford got itself in a hole, and how he dug his way out of it.
    The same process would work for the whole country.

    1. gustaw1981 profile image59
      gustaw1981posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think anyone can get out of trouble if the whole global market is based on debt. You can't keep the growth indefinitely.

      1. Ms Dee profile image86
        Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hmm, intriguing thought.

  5. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

    A few ways that liberals can help our economy!

    @ pay off your fed student loans from the seventies and eighties , nineties.
    @ Stop givig tax increases to all offices of government.
    @ Stop blaming ,When you point your finger at "others", 4 more are pointing back at you.
    @ Actually pay a fed income tax[50 % don't}
    @ Get off welfare after ten years or so.
    @ Put an experienced president [And his staff} in office.
    @ Stop whining!

    1. Ms Dee profile image86
      Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I like some of your practical suggestions, ahorseback smile

  6. Danny R Hand profile image61
    Danny R Handposted 6 years ago

    Watch Wisconsin! That is what we need across the country! The Representatives in congress are interested in only one thing. REELECTION!!!!!!! The bickering that takes place between ideology is PART of what got us in this mess. We don't need ideology, or party politics! WE NEED GOVERNING!!!!!! When the people of Wisconsin show us how to do it today, we should follow suit! Disunity and arguing gets us nowhere. STAND UP FOR AMERICA!!!!!!

    1. Ms Dee profile image86
      Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good point. I will watch Wisconsin smile. We need people who are serious about reform.

    2. Ms Dee profile image86
      Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, now with Wisconsin, we know more who the mainstream public is that will stand up for America.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We picked off two, and we're not done yet. The governor is next.

  7. tatyana walker profile image57
    tatyana walkerposted 6 years ago

    hello why are u sad love

  8. profile image0
    Sherlock221bposted 6 years ago

    I don't think any government actually listens to the people.  I remember when Tony Blair became Prime Minister, how he called the Cabinet together and told them that it was not their job to represent people in Parliament, but to represent Parliament to the people.

  9. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

    Of course our Gov. is out of control! AND, we all have to take responsibilty for a past of apathy to our  political responsibilty. Term limits , getting rid of incumbents, and  electing mainstreem Americans to Senate and Congress. Get rid of these career politicians. No more electing Presidents  using 'American Idol ' mentality.

    1. Ms Dee profile image86
      Ms Deeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly, ahorseback! All that is happening now is a result of our irresponsibility, when we really come down to it. Yes! More mainstreem Americans need to be elected.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        'mainstream'... not mainstreem.

        The ignorant clowns in the House got our credit rating downgraded and now Wall Street is in a tailspin.

        You think the voters want more? A recent CNN poll, results released yesterday, has the GOP down 8% for their antics. For the first time this year Obama is ahead against the generic GOP candidate.

        1. TTanglewood profile image60
          TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't feel bad for Wall Street.  The rich will continue to get rich.  We're seeing the speculators mucking things up right now.  It has nothing to do with actual market forces. 

          We keep treating this crisis as if what is going on on Wall Street is related to what is occurring on Main Street.  The two are more disconnected than they've ever been.

          90% of the investment in stock/bond/mutual funds is owned by the top 10% in this country. 

          The top 1% control 50% of all the money in the stock market.  They have the system set up so that they never lose money.  Stocks go down, they buy more shares cheaper.  Stocks go up, they make money.  See they win either way. 

          We can't really fix the economy until we fix Main Street.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If you have a 401k the Stock Market does matter to you.  Your 401k is rooted in the financial system. Even if you do not have a 401k your employer is invested in your company and he is likely to be invested in the stock market.  No part of a market is entirely separate from another.

            The current problems in the stock market are a direct consequence of the distortions in how that market has functioned in the past by the manipulation of the Federal Reserve through Quantitative Easy I & II.  The QEs have concluded and the effects of that coupled with the coming collapses in the Eurozone, the refusal by Democrats and establishment Republicans to actually cut spending and the subsequent(and coming) credit downgrades have distorted market functions and thrown over all order.

            Congratulations, you voted for hope and change - you got it, at least the change part.

            Will the attacks on "the rich" by British lowlifes become the fashion here?  After all, according to liberals and Obama, all our problems are from the rich.  Perhaps it is time to eat the rich, Comrade.

            By the way, I have thousands invested in a little disaster we call the Social Security System, not because I wanted it but because I was forced to participate.  If that money had gone into a 401k starting with the very first paycheck I received some 33 years ago it is likely, even given the crazy stock market, that I would be close to retiring today.

            As it is I also have thousands in a 401k that actually belongs to me and will be inherited by my family when I go unlike the despicable SS system that robs every working person.  I am just a clock puncher and my 401k will return far more than FDR's rapidly depleting ponzi scheme.

            1. TTanglewood profile image60
              TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Even with a 401K, the stock market's DAILY issues don't matter. 

              Your retirement accounts are a long term investment.  And the stock market has trended up over time.  So these day to day fluctuations that make for compelling story lines on the daily news, mean little to nothing for long term viability.  Even much of the value lost when the recession started was gains and matched money.  Most people didn't lose much in the way of principle they paid in.

              That said, the issues in the stock market are not related to actual events.  Its mostly speculation, and group panic.  All of these sell offs allow the truly well off to purchase back shares at lower prices.  Just a fundamental of how the stock market works for those who can afford it. 

              When we talk about spending as the problem without talking about raising revenue, we really aren't having a real conversation.  The 2010 budget only allocated 19% to non defense discretionary spending.  A total of $660 Billion.  That's the "spending" everyone keeps talking about. 

              The issue isn't "not cutting spending" as many would have you believe.  Spending cuts have been on the table.  So much so, that the Secretary of Defense was complaining earlier this week about how it cuts "would be unacceptable". 

              The issue is not increasing revenue.  I have yet to get an answer about how to lower taxes, cut spending AND lower the debt at the same time. 

              Not the rhetoric.  Using the numbers.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Increasing taxes during a recession/depression is a disastrous notion.  It is spending that is completely  out of control and how is it possible that one cannot see that.  This year alone the budget deficit will be 4-5 time higher than the highest Bush deficits and his were 2 times higher than Clinton's highest.  There is a nearly exponential increase spending. 

                Taxes suppress economic activity.  The percentage of GDP collected from revenue has ranged between 18% and 20% for years.  If you want more revenue encourage economic activity.  That is impossible when one party and its President spew hatred of free market economics.

                1. TTanglewood profile image60
                  TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  So the answer is you don't have one.  Your response only accounts for two factors: taxes and spending. 

                  Lower taxes don't contribute to economic growth without contributing to the deficit.  There is nothing that has been presented to the contrary.

                  And spending isn't significantly greater than it has been in previous years as a percentage of GDP.  You see, the numbers sound massive when taken by themselves, but not as much so when reconciled with the fact that the GDP of the nation has also continued to increase.

                  http://www.chadwickresearch.com/blog/20 … on-of-gdp/

                  However, our revenue has dropped to levels lower than even 2008 levels, even while GDP and spending have continued to increased.

                  http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/down … mp;local=s

                  As for the free market myth, I'll believe it when Big Business gets out of our government.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    So your answer is that a National Debt equal to the GDP at the same moment that Social Security is in default - paying out more than it brings in.  It is acceptable to you that the budget deficit - the spending of non-existent capital - is four times higher than what it was three short years ago.  As the baby boomers are about to retire and demand that the stupid and empty promises of FDR be fulfilled you think there is enough money to tax away from those who produced it in the first place.  Perhaps it would be better just to sieze all property now and redistribute it so those poor people who won't take care of themselves can finally be treated fairly by a vast and all powerful and compassionate state that just loves its little pets.

            2. TTanglewood profile image60
              TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'll provide the numbers we as a nation are working with:

              Total Budget: 3.4 Trillion

              Medicare/Medicaid - 23% ($793 Billion)
              SSI - 20% ($701 Billion)
              Defense - 20% ($689 Billion)
              Net Interest - 6% ($197 Billion)
              Other Mandatory - 12% (416 Billion)

              The Above programs are considered mandatory spending.  They aren't choices made by the President.  They are costs automatically built into the budget.

              The "spending" we're all talking about is the remaining 19%.  A grand total of $660 Billion. 

              It is also interesting that the President is held accountable for not successfully moving the country forward, when almost a full half of the Legislative Branch has made it their priority to oppose every policy he puts forth. 

              Look, there is a lot of room between the right and the left.  It is irresponsible, as well as fraudulent to equate my belief that the wealthy have increased their share of the pie at the expense of the middle class with communism.  False and intellectually dishonest.

              The numbers are my truth.  Not the rhetoric.  Can you say the same?

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There is nothing between right and left.  I do not deal in party rhetoric but in economics.  It is long past time to dump the entitlements as the inevitable destroyers of prosperity.  The disasters in Europe are precursors to our won down fall.  The socialist state started by FDR is a weight that will drag the whole economy down - rich and poor.

                1. TTanglewood profile image60
                  TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Referencing Europe without differentiation of the countries is another example of the issues we have with having an honest discussion.

                  For every Greece, there is a Germany, a country with a strong social net, but also with conservative monetary policies.  You see, the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes.  Government can provide for those who are less able to provide for themselves, and still be run responsibly.

                  It is a mistake for you to believe that these are either or propositions.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Where is the other German?  There is only one Germany in the Eurozone.  Germany and France are one and two in order of economic Size in the Eurozone.  The third and fourth are Italy and Spain both on the verge of a Greek like collapse.  What other Germany?  The German government just decided to commit its entire economy to the rescue of the Euro and it will sink them.  Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain and now Belgium are all tanking - where is the other Germany?

                    These are not programs to provide for those who are incapable of providing for themselves they are lounges constructed in a vast cart pulled by the productive.  Once there are too few pulling the cart and too many riding in it that economy will collapse.  The productive class in Greece is fleeing just as the productive class in California is fleeing.

            3. JEK1959 profile image60
              JEK1959posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              TTanglewood, I believe defense spending isn't mandatory because it has to be continually reauthorized. 

              uncorrectedvision, about your post regarding 401ks & Social Security: There was a time when working people had pensions that could not be stolen by employers who didn't care about them. But payoffs to politicians ensured that corporations could dissolve those pensions to pay for fatcat bonuses and anything else that didn't help the very workers responsible for the profitability of the company.
              So Wall Street came up with 401ks & convinced ordinary people to put money in them & then manipulated stocks to steal as much money as they could.
              I've always thought Social Security was a pyramid scheme that could only work as long as people kept breeding more to add more victims. BUT...people have been paying into it with the belief that they would get what was promised to them. The only reason it will run out of money is because of a relatively new cap on taxes for those making over 106 grand and change. As far as I know those who stop paying have no cap on benefits.
              Don't even mention means testing because thats just a worms way to compare Social Socurity to Medicaid and to try to eliminate it. Eliminate the cap on taxing higher incomes & it will be solvent until the inevitable global thermonuclear war makes it a moot point:)

  10. Jessicablox profile image59
    Jessicabloxposted 6 years ago

    Good topic.. There should be reformation in the market..

  11. crazyhorsesghost profile image75
    crazyhorsesghostposted 6 years ago

    The only way it will ever work is to get rid of both the Republicans and the Democrats and start a new party that will be for America first.

    Politically infighting among the good ole Republicans and the Democrats is crazy to say the least. We should think as Americans and not as political parties that is never going to work. Think about this. The Republicans on the committee that is supposed to fix everything have all signed a pledge that they will never raise taxes. How is that realistically supposed to ever work. It won't. Big Corporations and the super rich should have to pay their fair share of taxes.

    And the Democrats don't have the answer either. It burns me up that the average American Republican can believe that the USA can survive and never raise taxes. Its totally unrealistic.

    Its also unrealistic for the Democrats to continue to push social programs that are never going to work. The American Food Stamp Program is filled with fraud. A large portion of food stamps given out monthly are used to pay for illegal drugs.

    The War on Drugs is never going to work. All we do is continue to clog up courts and lock people up that we the American people are going to have to pay to keep up.

    We need to set up a real system of government with strict term limits, no lobbyists allowed in Washington DC, a fair tax system where everyone pays their fair share.

    And if you've read this far ask yourself these questions.

    All these years after Katrinia 15.000 plus homeless people live under bridges in New Orleans. Another 300.000 former citizens of New Orleans can't come home because they have no where to come to.

    12 Million American Children are borderline hungry. Even one American child going to bed hungry is one to many.

    Many many seniors can not afford to buy their prescription drugs and have to make the decision to have shelter and food or have the prescription drugs they need. WHY WHY WHY. Obama's Health Care Plan fixed nothing.

    And I could go on and on but I won't. It is the Republicans and the Democrats that did this to us. Both parties are to blame. Both. So what are we going to do.

  12. junko profile image66
    junkoposted 6 years ago

    Washington is not listening because the silent majority has said nothing.

  13. RKHenry profile image79
    RKHenryposted 6 years ago

    Blah, Blah, Blah.

    Bush, Obama, or any other President isn't some magical lone ranger making all the decisions in Washington.  You all do realize that?  The House and Senate is were the true power lies.  Complaining about Obama or Bush gets us no where.  The real problems are a result of an inapt Congress.  You all should be b!tching about your Congressmen and Senators.  Not the President or Presidents. By the way, how many of you have actually taken action to air your complaints to Obama, or your Congressmen? 

    Yeah, just as I suspected.

  14. JEK1959 profile image60
    JEK1959posted 6 years ago

    The S&P is crooked as shown by their top notch ratings of the crap default swaps. OOOPS!! Credit default swaps. They mildly called out the Tea Party nutjobs & that was a surprise.

    Simple solutions are obvious but won't happen because the billionaires are against them. Cut expenditures by stopping wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Go back to top tier tax rates in the 90 percentile as was the case under that noted Socialist D.D. Eisenhower. He was president during the strongest economic era in U.S. history.

    Other solutions are: Reinstate tariffs since all countries with current strong economies have them, including those with whom we signed UNfair trade agreements, Repeal those NAFTA CAFTA CRAPTA agreements, & finally.......

    I know this will offend the breeders but I don't care. There are billions more people in the world than there should be. There isn't enough food for them, overpopulation is directly causing climate change which adds to food shortage, & back to the economic theme you have to consider supply & demand. Wages will not rise until there are fewer drones to do the necessary labor. If you truly "love children" you won't bring them into a world that will get less habitable for them & one in which their labor will inevitably be worth less & less.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, where to begin.  Perhaps the best place to begin is at the end.  Thanks for your deeply considered thoughts.

  15. stclairjack profile image80
    stclairjackposted 6 years ago

    i like the simplicity of the fair tax, but wonder how fair it would wind up being in practice,... the rich dnt spend all that they earn,... they invest or save,... the poor on the other hand generaly spend all that they have,.... until we can exempt the poor from the sales tax system, with a tax exempt status perhaps,... the fair tax is just a pipe dream.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      On big advantage of the Fair Tax is that it would encourage people to be aware of their spending.  It would encourage "green" thinking, in that it would reward the re-use of materials that hadn't expended their usefulness.  Used cars, older homes, vintage clothing, the Salvation Army Store, the Goodwill Store and Am-Vets Store would all benefit from this new awareness.  It would reward those who saved and behaved frugally.

  16. Dave Mathews profile image60
    Dave Mathewsposted 6 years ago

    Washington died a few hundred years ago. How can he hear anything and why would he care if he did hear?

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If George Washington was alive it is assured that he would be concerned with the current state of affairs.  He was a thoughtful man.

      1. TTanglewood profile image60
        TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        He would have been concerned years ago.  When political parties began being the norm.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think you are right.  Washington was disturbed by the violence between the factions developing around Madison and Hamilton.  I doubt that Washington would have been impressed with any recent president with the exception of Eisenhower.

          1. TTanglewood profile image60
            TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            In practice Clinton was moderate enough, he might have gotten the nod. 

            Cut spending, lowered the deficit, pared down military.  The whole intern thing may not have gone over well, but the whole impeachment sideshow would definitely have gotten the thumbs down.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Clinton's lack of respect for his office would not have endeared him to Washington, at all.  Clinton was also a physical coward, Washington would have had contempt for the man.

              1. TTanglewood profile image60
                TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Many of Washington's contemporaries would have been men like Clinton.  Let's not romanticize the man because of where he falls in history.

                Jefferson fathered children with his slaves, yet was still a key contributor to the Constitution as well as the 3rd President of the country.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  What was Washington's opinion of those men?  He held many of them at arms length because they were men of low character.  The accusations about Jefferson are still mythic and are unlikely to be proven.  How does a criticism of men around Washington suddenly become an indictment of him?

                  As for impeachment, I suspect Washington would have been disturbed by the personal aspects of it but would probably have supported it because Clinton committed and suborned perjury.  Washington was faithful to his office and the law.

                  As for Clinton's moderate-ness, he was moderated by the loss of Congress.  He was a pragmatist, a political animal but moderate, what ever that really means, not really.

                  1. TTanglewood profile image60
                    TTanglewoodposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I would take a pragmatic GOP over the current crop in a heartbeat. 

                    The all or nothing approach to governing isn't working.  The markets bear that out.  And we haven't moved the jobs needle with any proposals coming out of Congress. 

                    I will submit that I don't believe that anything is more important that JOBS right now.  The debt, spending and taxes are all secondary concerns if we have normal levels of employment driving the economy.

                    A working country spends less on support net programs, takes in more in revenue, and those two factors will help with closing the deficit gap.

  17. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 6 years ago

    American View makes a good point...that is the very reason Washington needs a strong scrubbing down, a deep fumigation, and a restocking of its ponds.  We have been sold out. WB

  18. BillWest165 profile image59
    BillWest165posted 6 years ago

    I see the Libs on here blaming the Tea Party. The Tea party is the only thing standing in the way of this President blowing up the printing presses and causing runaway inflation even more than it is. Has anyone seen the price of coffee? Tax and Spend. Tax and Spend. The Liberal Mantra.

    1. Moderndayslave profile image61
      Moderndayslaveposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "The Tea party is the only thing standing in the way of this President blowing up the printing presses and causing runaway inflation" Who do you think works for who? Obama works for The fed and Wall St and the other "powers that be",then the next election a republican will get elected. They will be briefed on "How it's gonna be " right after the inauguration. We get this illusion that our vote matters to keep us pacified. Don't forget all of the Big money donors calling in their markers.

  19. daskittlez69 profile image78
    daskittlez69posted 6 years ago

    "I wonder what will happen when Republicans are back in charge and it all changes for the better."  Yeah because Bush did such a bang up job!

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What changed in 2007?  Was it a Democrat Congress?  Since when is the President the only person in charge.  You concentrate on GWB but how has Barry been better?  Not to defend GWB, because there is more than enough there to disagree with - for a conservative, but when did he have a filibuster proof Senate?  Barry's party had total control of the mechanism of government for over a year and what do we have to show for it but a stagnant economy slipping ever closer to recession.

      The unemployment rate is higher than at anytime during the GWB years.  Prices are rising faster than at anytime during GWB years.  Gas prices have remained higher than at anytime.  There are emerging metrics every week demonstrating that the American economy is in collapse but it is better than GWB.  A man who has been out of office for 3 years and out of the public eye for that same amount of time.

      The attacks on Millionaires and Billionaires has been successful.  The number of those in the top 1% of earners has been cut in half over the last 3 years.  {HIGH FIVE} Barry.

 
working