Why is Washington not listening to the will of the majority?
All the House had to do was say no, & borrowing would have stopped, http://bit.ly/pueE2p
"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.Thanks Ralph for your take on this. But what did it get us? Our credit rating still got down graded and the markets falling.
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.
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.”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."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?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.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.
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.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.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 itActually not the same for government. Look I'm a big fan of using Micro economic principles to make macro arguments, but this one is an inaccurate statement.
The country has more money going out than coming in. That is a fact. Conservatives can't have the argument both ways. We can't both be in the worst debt position ever AND have the capability to pay ALL our bills.
Yes, we can pay the interest on the debt, but the President was correct when he said we can't pay all our bills, not without borrowed money.
The downgrade wasn't as much about the debt, as it was about the process to raise the debt ceiling. S&P's analysis focused on the fact that our current political system is so on the fringes that the moderates are being forced out. Their concern was noted as being that the deal to raise the ceiling wasn't enough to tackle the actual issue of lowering the debt.
An open primary system in every state would go a long way towards us selecting representatives that are more concerned with solving the problem than being re elected. That and campaign financial reforms that removed all the money from our politics.TT,
THe only one that said that ws President Obama, far from a conservarive.
THe rest of your points are good. Election reform is in desperate need. But of course, how can you compete with a President that campaigns everyday at taxpayers expense. His upcoming bus tour is a prime example.I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
Is your point that Obama said we CAN pay our bills without borrowing or that Obama said that we CANNOT pay our bills without borrowing?I've been following the political process for years and the amount of money that flows into the right is far more than what flows into the left.
And it is often coming from businesses that have an agenda that is diametrically opposed to what is in the individual's best interest.
Last election cycle was dominated by the Chamber of Commerce who spent $32Million mostly funneled to conservative candidates. Their best interest doesn't have my best interest in mind.
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.phpObama said we can pay the bills:
"If we don’t, for the first time ever, we could lose our country’s Triple A credit rating. Not because we didn’t have the capacity to pay our bills – WE DO – but because we didn’t have a Triple A political system to match it."
Here is the transript and the video gor you to watch.
http://www.shallownation.com/2011/07/30 … ube-video/
If you follow as you say, as I have for years, you would see that the majority of entitlements are in place because of the Left. The majority of attachments to bills for useless spending is from the left. And I know, I have read most bills as they come up. Ihave read ALL of Obamacare. No one would listen to me then, but they do now as many thigs I said was in there hace coma out. The entire NSF budget and all its programs are from the left.
Sorry, the chamber spent nothing compared to the unions. They spent, depending on whos report you believebut they all fall in this range, $300 to $400 million dollars. It was not all in donations, it was the PACs they creaqted, the fundraiser events they paid for, the TV and radio ads, the rallies, and a whole lot more. Wonder where that union money comes from? It is not dues. Avereage union due is $10 to $15 per month. The unions just spent $30 million alone in the recall election in Wisconsin, and they are not done yet.Let's not forget that that is the so-called U.S. Chamber of Commerce, not your local chambers. The "U.S." Chamber is funded by a small number of huge corporations that are mostly domestic in name only. Their only interest is increasing profits for their benefactors and they are quite pleased by the sight of good jobs fleeing to impoverished nations with populations willing to work for small wages & no bennies.
The irony is that as those expatriated jobs drive the middle classes in those countries, the cost of labor will increase. Eventually, the cost of doing business will be equal or lower domestically and many of those jobs may return. But that is about a generation or so away.
Of course, cheap labor comes with other perils. Just ask Apple about the fake Apple store in China.
The unions spent over 100 million dollars on the midterms and the AFL-CIO will not say what they spent, so the amount is much higher. If they spent that on the midterms guess what they spent on Presidential campaigns
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/99 … e-the-dems
This reprot says $360 MILLION
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356643,00.html
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.
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.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.I say, keep taxes where they are, but cut everything by 15%.
... then proceed to keep doing that for 20 years....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....
@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.TTanglewood, so why is it those reps are not listening to the will of the majority, do you think?
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.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
. Yeah, power has done its corrupting work.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).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.
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?
The Fed hasn't run a surplus since Reagan.
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.
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.
Oh, sure, let's make no mention of the Bush-era tax cuts. They have nothing at all to do with the revenue shortfall.
You mean the Obama reasserted tax rates?
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?In an ideal world, I would prefer the Fair Tax but in this world I would make the current tax rates permanent.
I can agree with half of that idea. I could get on board with a fair tax.
There is a specific tax plan called the Fair Tax. It has already been thoroughly constructed and vetted by economists, accountants and financial analysts.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
In the mid-90s Dick Armey introduced a flat tax that was also very interesting. It had built in exemptions of $10000 per year for the taxpayer and $5000 per year for each dependent(if memory serves.)I was close.
http://www.ctj.org/html/flatsum.htmThe Fair Tax (an excise tax on what you spend instead of income tax on what you earn) is a good idea. I'm not sure how well it will work in practice, but the premise is sound.
The worry I have is that government will become more intrusive as it tries to track and tax non-cash transactions, which will probably proliferate as people figure out how to trade stuff to avoid taxation.Jeff
Good points. I have thought the same thing.
I hace thought and written about a flat tiered tax system. Eliminate all deductions. Start with taxing the lowest income at 5%. create several levels like the tax system has now, and end up with taxing the highest income earners at 39%. That will get the 50% not paying taxes to become taxpayers and add revenues. Then do the Same thing for businesses. And include businesses that try to avoid paying taxes that hide overseas. Does not matter where you are based, make money in the US and Pay corperate taxes on the money they made here. Added revenues should be the result, and without tax increases, well except on those who have not paid before:) To me fair is fair, if I pay, everyone should pay.The cautionary phrase uttered by conservatives about large centralized government and ignored by liberals comes to mind with your reservations about the Fair Tax - unintended consequences.
My question is - could it be anymore intrusive, destructive, byzantine, indecipherable or convoluted than the current system?
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.I've heard this logic before and it is faulty on several premises. We'll begin with the premise that lower taxes are more important than the debt. It is an either/or proposition. Every tax cut over the past 30 years has added to the deficit. This isn't a liberal talking point, just math.
As for the proposals originally on the table, they would affect businesses and individuals that make over $250K. Now that is a pretty straight up number for individuals, but I have no worry about them paying a couple hundred more annually. They won't starve.
The affect on small businesses is always overstated because businesses pay taxes on their PROFIT, not their REVENUE. Companies netting over $250 annually would not be devastated by returning to Clinton tax rates.
As for capital gains taxes, it hasn't been shown to create jobs in this economy, and it allows billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Warren Buffet's words, not mine. Companies aren't having a problem with cash, they are hoarding it. And they aren't generating domestic jobs with that cash.
Also, the capital gains tax overwhelmingly affects the high earners. 90% of the investment in stocks and mutual funds is held by the top 10%.
All of this concern about the middle class is ironic as the spending cuts proposed would most affect the middle class. And the Bush tax rates overwhelmingly favor the top 2% of the population.
Honestly, the issue is if we can balance the budget at current levels. The items on the budget that are considered discretionary spending total $630 Billion. The deficit cannot be cut by simply cutting spending. If the plan is to roll back spending to 2006 levels, then a credible deficit reduction plan should include a roll back of tax rates to 2000 levels.
A progressively designed Fair Tax would be a huge step forward if it eliminated the loopholes that most businesses take advantage of.
But our current political process is so poisoned that even if the President got behind such a proposal, the right would instantly oppose it."As for the proposals originally on the table, they would affect businesses and individuals that make over $250K."
I don't know if this point has been made here before, but many people I've heard in other discussions forget that the $250K is net income, not gross. That is a big game changer, especially to small businesses.I actually made the point in the very next paragraph.
It is interesting that many conservatives keep parroting the same talking points, but are unaware of the differences between how individuals and businesses are taxed.
They are also unaware that when a business hires, it lowers its taxable liability. That means the connection between taxes and jobs is also misunderstood.
Businesses aren't basing their hiring on taxes. They are basing it on demand and productivity. Because of weak consumer demand, companies aren't hiring as they can currently meet their demand with current levels of staffing. Only when consumer demand returns will we see a mass return in jobs.Businesses are also holding back from hiring because of the unpredictability in the economy. Uncertainty tends to make businesses hold cash. To protect their stock holders or owners from future loss businesses tend to dial down their activity if their is an environment hostile toward expansion. We couldn't ask for a more hostile environment.
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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.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?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.Here is your great Obama accomplishment and its impact has yet to be fully felt.
http://www.heritage.org/research/report … are-passed
The destruction of wealth pleases you? Great, if that is the opinion of the majority of Americans than we are finished as a free people. The desire to place in the hands of a distant and impersonal national government the kind of power Democrats worship will mean the end of freedom. But I expect that will be the future as Americans become used to riding in the cart and expecting others to pull it.
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.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.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?
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.
TARP was signed by GWB but it was designed by Pres. Obama.
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.
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?
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."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_FBRalph: 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?
That may well be true. It's a screwball deal. That's why S&P downgraded our US government bonds.
Since when has Obama ever been willing to fight?
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.
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.
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?
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!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.
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.,,,
@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.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.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?
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.Interesting, TTanglewood. I do not run a business, so this is interesting info.
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."
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.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.
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.kashan, what's your take on why Obama would not go after entitlement reform, even though he could not get tax cuts at this point? Do you think it is to keep as many dependent on gov't as possible?
Ah, Ms Dee it is at this point that logic flies out the window in favor of ideology and stereotypes. This is where I get disgusted about the current state of politics in the nation.
If you are on the right, the ideology is that the government spends waaay too much, it needs to shrink, stay out of the private sector, and that the country should get by taxing as little as possible.
If you are on the left, you think the government has an obligation to provide for those who can't provide for themselves, that the government should be regulating the private sector, and that people should be taxed for the support of the greater good.
It would seem to me that for the first time that I can remember, a good percentage of the base of each side is so far to the extremes of these ideologies that they can't really find a middle ground.
When it was Obama and Boehner in the room talking, it would seem that they had everything on the table. You heard Obama come out and say he was willing to look at the entitlements. You had Boehner come out and say he was willing to look at the taxes. The problem is that they went back to their bases (ie Congress), and neither one of them could get support.
You had Dems going crazy (to the point where there was talk running a primary) that he would even mention entitlements, and you had GOP's flat out refusing to listen to anything that involved raising taxes.
Obama and Boehner both strike me as being closer to center than everyone gives them credit for, but their bases are way out on the extremes.
And then everyone gets fired up, and you watch your news station of preference and get all of these stereotypes propagated by the ideology and talking points:
If you are a Republican it would be very easy to watch Fox News and think that the Dems just want people to live on the government teet and that they hate rich people, and they want some sort of socio-communist economic government.
If you are a Dem it would be very easy to watch MSNBC, and think that the Republicans hate poor people and old people and sick people, and just want to throw everyone out in the street in favor of the rich individuals and businesses.
If we are reasonable we can look at some basic truths and come to the conclusion that neither of those statements are very accurate.
I don't buy that a reasonable Republican wants to throw old people and sick people under the bus. I don't buy that any reasonable Democrat thinks an able-bodied person should live on welfare for five years or however long.
I think the average American of either party wants to work hard, live the American dream, and feel a sense or responsibility for our vulnerable citizens.
I would submit to you that these problems can be fixed if Washington is willing to drop all the BS, but the problems are a lot bigger than anyone is willing to deal with. Entitlements are unsustainable in the current form in the current economy. It's just basic math.
However, we don't HAVE to gut Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security. It needs RESTRUCTURING. You need to do things like raise SS age, to negotiate costs of medical care and prescriptions, and regulate it to make sure it's going to the people that need it, and not getting sucked up by the freeloaders( who I don't think are as numerous as people believe, but still are out there nonetheless). It can be done without increasing the load on the old and the sick.
As far as taxes go, it's the same situation. We need to restructure taxes. You can end all these nonsensical subsidies, flatten the rates, hell you can even lower the rates as long as you make sure that everyone is actually paying what they should be. Also, getting more people BACK to WORK goes a long way to increasing income without raising taxes!!!
There is a way to do all this, but it doesn't live in just broad cuts or broad taxes. It lives in direct, deliberate reform, and until both sides can get out of ideology and into reality, and be willing to do the hard work that is going to leave some of the base on both sides unhappy, you'll continue to have these brutally ineffective pissing contests (pardon my language, but it is what it is).It is so nice to have your calm, reasoned replies, kashan, indulging my sincere questions. I am just appalled I guess, though not surprised, at all the BS and the unwillingness to stick necks out to deal seriously with the problems. They certainly are not impossible to solve, from what I see. Restructuring requires a very serious endeavor that they do not seem willing to take on. I must be trying to work myself to the point that the government is so corrupt that it will not do so.
Well thanks for posting this hub Ms. Dee!
A bit of my own ideology disallows me to give up on the notion that regardless of the current situation, when we can get groups of Americans to talk to each other- having rational discussions- there is hope for us yet. I was told that groups of people getting together to solve problems to reach a common goal can have an amazing effect.
I think you are echoing the sentiment of a lot of Americans. The Tea Party for instance, feels like a truly emotional response from concerned people that are convinced the system is broken. That have lost faith in the process want to affect real change right now.
While I personally disagree with a lot of the methods, and the seeming "change it at all costs" mentality, the Tea Party does consist of a lot of people who were politically disenfranchised, got together and affected changes. Regardless of whether I agree with that change or not, it's Americans getting politically active and I can certainly respect that.
I'm afraid that corruption in the government is so rampant at this point it will take the American people to get as united as possible and go after one thing in particular- lobbyists.
I have a cousin who is a police officer. Where I live it is illegal for him to take a free cup of coffee- it is considered a BRIBE. He loses his badge, the restaurant owner can get arrested and fined.
However, lobbyists funnel HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars into Washington DC. A cup of coffee to a cop is a bribe, but if you have a big enough lobbying firm, you can BUY VOTES.
Have you ever tried to get a hold of one of your Senators? Yet lobbyists have offices literally within spitting distance of Congressional offices. Until enough people can get together and nullify the effect of money (ie send the message that "It doesn't matter how much money your campaign raises, if you continue not doing the people's business we WILL NOT re-elect you.") unfortunately I think corruption will continue.
But as I said, Americans coming together in honest discussion is a great start
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.- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
0A 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! 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!!!!!!
Good point. I will watch Wisconsin
. We need people who are serious about reform.Well, now with Wisconsin, we know more who the mainstream public is that will stand up for America.
We picked off two, and we're not done yet. The governor is next.
- Sherlock221bposted 12 years ago0
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.
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
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.
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.
'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.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.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.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.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.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.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.
The debt is different from the deficit. So we'll start there.
Using micro principles, many families purchase homes that are more than they make annually. That would be debt. If they had an interest only loan, and spent more than they made annually, that would be a deficit. A deficit is cause for concern whenever it is realized. Accrued debt is only an issue as it continues to grow due to continued deficits. If we fix the deficit issue, the debt issue gets resolved.
I said that spending has not gone up significantly in relation to GDP. A accurate apples to apples comparison. On the other hand, revenue has fallen to 60 year lows as a percentage of GDP.
Blaming "spending" is to not look at the situation correctly. The budget deficit is the correlation of both increased spending, partly due to economic conditions, as well as lower revenue, which is also due to economic conditions.
SSI currently pays out more than it takes in. Part of the issue is the current level of unemployment which has fewer workers putting into the pot at the time the Boomers are about to retire en mass. The cap should be lifted. We currently have high earning individuals who've managed to game the system by transferring assets in order to collect maximum benefits, even though they paid less into the system.
But that is a different topic. SSI as a method of reducing poverty among the elderly has been more than effective. Do adjustments need to be made? Absolutely.
SSI's original design had it kicking in a year after the average American died. It was never meant to be used by the volume of people who will be collecting. Flaw in design. Yes. Am I willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. Absolutely not.
As for taxes. Still misdirection on your part. The well off actually pay less in taxes now than at almost any other time in modern history. While the top rate is 35%, very few actually pay that. Many pay closer to 17% in taxes, less than even their secretaries.
We could go back and forth without ever really dealing with the true issue. Which is more important? Growing the economy, lowering taxes or shrinking the deficit? All of the above?
I haven't had anyone yet explain how to practically pull off the hat trick.
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?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.
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.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.Each of the European nations faces different challenges. And my statement was that Germany and Greece are on the extremes. Each of the other nations has different challenges. Some from overspending, others from rescuing their banking system. Ireland actually has a relatively low level of spending, whereas Spain has a higher level of debt.
When we're discussing social programs, the major drivers of the budget are SSI and Medicare. Both programs are for the true drivers of economic growth, the aged Middle Class.
No matter how much money a company has means nothing if customers don't purchase their products. The true drivers of a capitalist economy aren't the producers, but the consumers.
But that is an ongoing discussion we're having on another hub.
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:)
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.Washington is not listening because the silent majority has said nothing.
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.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.Wow, where to begin. Perhaps the best place to begin is at the end. Thanks for your deeply considered thoughts.
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.
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.
Washington died a few hundred years ago. How can he hear anything and why would he care if he did hear?
If George Washington was alive it is assured that he would be concerned with the current state of affairs. He was a thoughtful man.
He would have been concerned years ago. When political parties began being the norm.
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.
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.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.
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.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.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.
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
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.
"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.
"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!
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.
Related Discussions
- 192
People are mad at the Tea Party for the US Debt downgrade!
by Gary Anderson 12 years ago
I have been watching the Yahoo boards and people are furious at the Republicans, especially the Tea Party. They are getting the lion's share of the blame for the debt downgrade. Here's why:1. Obama wanted a grand plan. The Republicans rejected it.2. Obama wanted shared sacrifice including taxes for...
- 491
The 118th Republican House
by Scott Belford 6 days ago
After several days, for the first time in over 100 years, the Republicans chose a speaker. But only after proving once again they don't know how to govern. In the process, the speakership was neutered, rendered essentially powerless. McCarthy gave away the farm in order to...
- 17
Why would I vote for Obama?
by tobey100 11 years ago
First off, I'm quite sure Obama's a nice guy. That's not how I vote. I happen to be one of those people Obama constantly attacks. I'm successful. I have a business. Two to be exact. I make a fair amount of money. I moved out of the city a long time ago (not...
- 110
Are you better off than you were twelve years ago? Fight the Lie.
by Xenonlit 11 years ago
The Republicans will not get away with this "Better off than four years ago" business. They already said that they will do anything to bring down the government and the first Black president. Apparently, they were prepared to destroy our nation in the process.For the most recent ...
- 819
The Beginning of the End of the Tea Party
by Doug Hughes 12 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last...
- 17
Is the Tea Party Destroying the Republican Party?
by Ralph Deeds 10 years ago
Is the Tea Party Destroying the Republican Party?Former U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett believes the tea party is destroying the Republican Party. The ex-Utah lawmaker, a victim of tea party politics when he lost his seat in 2010 to Mike Lee, gave his candid assessment to a conference of the Assoc.of Amer...