E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe signs look hopeful for a short-term accord in Congress on extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.
But right after Election Day, a lame-duck Congress will face a horrific fiscal train wreck: sharp tax increases, combined with automatic spending cuts -- and scanty reserves of political goodwill to help clinch a deal to avert that outcome.
A House-Senate conference committee met Thursday to try to push ahead with a full-year payroll tax cut. The committee will keep working next week as Congress heads to a Feb. 29 deadline.
Also as part of that deal, there’s bipartisan accord on the committee to not allow Medicare spending cuts enacted in 1997 to take effect. The payroll tax cut package will include another in a long series of postponements of the cut in Medicare payments to doctors.
At the same time that the House-Senate conference committee was meeting Thursday, five Republican senators, led by Arizona Sen. John McCain, were vowing they’d block the roughly $100 billion cuts in spending -- called the “sequester”-- mandated by last year’s Budget Control Act and set to occur in January. Half of those cuts would come from defense outlays.
Two of those five senators, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, voted against the Budget Control Act; but three of the five, McCain, John Cornyn of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona, voted for it.
Graham painted picture of a Budget Control Act that was beginning to unravel – and not a moment too soon, from his point of view. “I think there will be a lot of bipartisan support to abandon the sequestration provisions” in the Budget Control Act, he said, “because they are unwise and quite frankly dangerous.”
Because the Budget Control Act mostly exempts entitlement spending from automatic cuts, it’s the other big item in the budget, defense, which must bear the brunt of the cuts.
The GOP senators’ proposal was to avert the sequesters for one year by cutting the cost of the federal government elsewhere: hiring only two workers for every three who retire or leave federal employment.
They’d also maintain the freeze on federal employee pay until mid-2014. (The House voted Wednesday night to keep the federal pay freeze for this year and next year.)
McCain said even before the automatic cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act, the Obama administration plans to slice $487 billion from defense outlays over the next ten years. McCain and the other Republicans cited Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s warnings that the additional sequesters on top of the already planned defense cuts would be “devastating.”
While the GOP senators cited Panetta as authority for averting the defense cuts looming in January, they slammed him for the comment he made Wednesday that U.S. forces in Afghanistan would end their combat role as early as mid-2013, the first time that he has pinned a date on the end of combat. American troops are scheduled to be out of Afghanistan by 2014.
But the GOP senators may face a public perception challenge: if the average taxpayer knows that U.S. troops have departed from Iraq and if he hears Panetta’s end-of-combat in Afghanistan forecast for 2013, he might wonder: Why can’t Congress cut defense spending further?
Graham gave a nod to the presidential politics, saying, “This administration is focused on leaving because of the November elections.” President Obama, he said, “wants to tell the American people ‘I got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.’”
That might be a more crowd-pleasing campaign message than what Graham sketched out: a U.S. commitment in Afghanistan until 2014, followed by a security agreement with the Kabul government “where you would have three to four airbases left behind… with American airpower, helicopters and Special Forces units, that would be available to Afghan security forces as far as the eye can see….” He estimated this would take 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. forces on the ground “and the Taliban would never come back.” And at that point “then you sit down and negotiate” from a position of strength.
For now, Republican hawks don’t want to talk about tax increases as a way to avert defense cuts.
“Let’s not let a domestic issue such as a tax increase interfere with what could be ‘devastating’ in the words of our secretary of defense to our nation’s security,” McCain said.
“Defending our country is not the cause of our fiscal crisis,” Ayotte said. “The notion that defense spending is the driver of the larger fiscal crisis is not the case. Roughly 60 percent of our spending is entitlements.”
The 2012 figure for the three biggest entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) is 44 percent of total federal spending, but the CBO’s annual budget report this week said entitlement spending will nearly double in the next ten years.
The three big entitlements will go from 44 percent of total outlays to 55 percent, while defense outlays slip from 19 percent of federal spending to 13 percent.
But that entitlement growth is significantly understated because the CBO “baseline” forecast assumes that Congress will do exactly what the House-Senate conference committee Thursday had already agreed to not do: cut Medicare’s payments to doctors.
There was a bit of good news in the CBO forecast: revenues are improving. The CBO said that in 2011, individual income tax revenues jumped by $193 billion, or 21 percent. Even with high unemployment those who are working are earning more and paying more in taxes. Overall, revenues were up 6 percent in 2011 and CBO expects them to increase by 9.6 percent in 2012.
And then between 2012 and 2014, revenues are scheduled "shoot up by more than 30 percent," the CBO report said, but that, again, assumes that Congress will do what it’s almost certain to not do: allow the scheduled expirations of the current income tax rates and the scheduled increase in the reach of the alternative minimum tax.
A Democrat who serves both on the payroll tax conference committee and on the Armed Services Committee, Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, sees room for progress toward averting a fiscal train wreck.
“If we can successfully conclude this (payroll tax) conference,” he said, “that’s a good sign that we can start dealing more constructively, cooperatively and effectively with the whole set of budget issues.” This would, he said, “set a good precedent” for dealing with the looming sequesters.
Democrats and Republicans can agree to at least discuss both spending and additional revenues, he said, “so that we don’t get into austerity measures that are leading to zero or negative growth and making deficit problems worse” in countries such as Greece and Spain.
Leave a Comment:
Gee, you mean getting the troops out of Afghanistan is an election year ploy? Why would doing that be popular? The American people may judge otherwise-or not, but let them decide in November.
Funny thing is no one said anything about getting the troops out of Afghanistan. Panetta said that we hope to transition from combat missions to one of training and advisory.
What are the troops in Afghanistan accomplishing? If the troops have accomplished their mission - why do they need to stay?
Either the military has succeeded or the military has failed. The President is saying the military has succeeded. The Republican opposition is saying the military has failed.
The political debate is not about national security. Congressmen want to keep sending money back to their districts - simple as that. Congressmen are putting soldiers lives at risk simply to protect Congressional jobs.
I agree with you Nerm. Our mission in Afghanistan was to get the people responsible for 9/11, we have either killed or isolated most of Al Qaeda.
Afghanistan is the last remaining pork barrel for the defense industry. I am not surprised in the least that the Rs are fighting to keep it going. How else do you defend the largesse to the defense industry?
Also, the Rs are going to have to bite the bullet on revenue items (either tax increases or eliminate deductions). They don't have the votes to cut entitlements.
Really nerm...... can you show me where republicans have said the military has failed? I spent 10 years in our military it was then and is still now mostly supportive of Republican/Conservative supporters. This time around there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters. Also get out a map of the area and see where Iran is located. If you the military is going to pull out now when there is a game of war words going on with Israel and Iran which could escalate, you dont think that Iran will flood across both Iraqi and Afgani borders if that happens your crazy. Spend some time in the military and see how they think.
We should remember that the President, regardless of what congress does, promised that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars. To do this the federal government must spend more than 1 trillion dollars less in 2012 than it did in 2011. The President has yet to explain how this is to be accomplished and we are already well into the fiscal year. Congress has yet to even pass a budget for 2012. But the President did make the promise and we should all expect that it will be kept for after all he is the President
Money fairy in town again?
Just so you know the rest of the story.
We are in Afgan for an additional reason.
We were asked by Unocal to stabilize the country because they wanted to run a massive trans continetal natural gas pipeline across the company
We financed dept and lost Americans for profit - unfortunately no profit for the American people.
Whatever they said about the Terrorist's blah, blah blah...they did to make your fearful so they could support the country finacially then militarily ....alll for profits to a private oil company named Unocal.
Everything else said is just a smoke screen
I thought we were there to protect the poppy fields so that the drug prices would not go too high for the liberal junkies that control Washington these days? Probably as good a conspiracy theory as any.
Watermoon...yep we like our poppies...but. Thats a fact not a theory.
Google it if you don't believe.
@jollyoldsoul1 -- If the US needs to maintain a fighting force in Afghanistan - as the Republican talking heads are saying - then the military has failed to defeat the enemy and secure the region.
Either the US military as accomplished its primary mission - or - it has not. The Republicans are saying that the US military has failed to accomplish its primary mission.
There's the problem, the Republicans promised tax cuts and a balanced budget. They delivered on the tax cuts, but then make record unbalanced budgets because they refuse to make spending cuts, particularly for Defense, instead they increased spending, but refused to raise taxes to pay for it. I'm predicting that they'll refuse to raise taxes even to pay for their beloved Defense Dept.
So far, their only proposals to cut spending have been:
1. to eliminate "entitlements", which is politically impossible because those receiving those entitlements paid for them and are entitled to receive them, and senior citizens turn out in record numbers to vote, and
2. Cut the number of government employees, which will increase unemployment and restrict necessary government services. Not a good idea in a bad economy.
Republicans keep proposing a "balanced budget amendment" as a sop to their fiscal conservative base when they're out of power, but when they get into power they never mention any "balanced budget amendment". rack up record deficits, and make no serious attempts to raise taxes or cut spending to bring the budget into balance.
GOP never have a problem cut tax for super rich like Mitt Romney. In fact, they borrow China 700 billion to pay for super rich tax loophole just like Mitt. Do you know that Mitt only pay 13.9 % tax rate while most American pay 2 to 3 times his rate? It's unfair isn't it?
Why is GOP don't have a problem cutting taxes for super rich like Mitt, but having a problem cutting taxes for middle class and working American? Is GOP on the side of ordinary American?
brian: Clearly you don't understand the difference between regular income and capital gains. Romney pays what the law says he owes. It's not a loophole. It's the law.
@gousa-
Yes, it the tax loophole that lobbyist by Mitt Romney elites from wall street, hedge fund, isn't it?
Where is Mitt working income tax? American voters want to see
What they haven't told us in this article is that they have sent 50,000-100,000 troops to two ilslands in the straights of hormuz.They are getting ready for a war with Iran. You can find this info. on debka.com or inforwars.com
What about the 12,000 troops Mr. Obama just sent into Libya AFTER he continually stated "THERE WILL BE NO TROOPS ON THE GROUND" ?
Wait a minute....where is the MSNDC's article on this deployment ?
How can anyone trust Mr. Obama ?
Yeah....here comes Mr. Obama's request to INCREASE the National Debt Limit AGAIN !!!!!!!
ldo,
They're in Malta, not Libya
@Idol your ignorance is evidence on how easy it is for you Righties to be manipulated by the Republicans. You lack of fact search tells me know lazy you are to perform your on research and to be able to defend waht you believe to be fact (fiction). What a Pendejo!
The biggest stimulus possible would be that Obama declares he will not run again and the democrats find an excellent person to run in the election. A person with charisma, experience and honest.
Greece here we come.
The TOTAL debt burden in the United States (government - personal - business debt) is four times GDP. Eliminating the Federal debt would still leave a TOTAL debt burden of more than three times GDP - because cutting government spending lowers GDP. That non-government debt burden is why the United States economy is faltering. We have a money surplus and a wealth deficit.
Greece's problem is that the government cannot raise sufficient revenue to pay its debts. The Greek economy is so weak that it cannot create sufficient wealth to generate a tax base that can pay the government's debt.
The obstacle in the United States is artificial. Our economy is quite capable of creating enough wealth to generate sufficient taxes. The political policies in the United States that favor the 'idle rich' has caused our debt burden and is preventing fixing the problem.
Greece is a great place to vacation, great beaches.
Nerm, another part of Greece's problem is that their whole society is rampant with corruption. People cheat on their taxes, and government workers are complacent, and are probably cheating on their own taxes.
The problems in Greece are the same as here in the US. Our politicians are bought and paid for by big business and the rich. No real change will happen until the people revolt. Not 99% type revolt, I'm talking street to street fighting. The rich will run like the spineless rats they are. Let their clean, sanitary hands get bloody.
Hopefully folks will say that they have been screwed enough and will get together. The rich won't do anything them selves. They will try to get the government to defend them. They do nothing for the common folks but shuffle money and take an outrageously huge portion for their own greed.
That would call for better enforcement from the government. In a Right wing world, they would say that we dont need rules.
Notice nerm didn't have anything to say about that rad. Didnt mention the pensions Greece has to pay and the Union work week. Want to get abused dont tip a Greek taxi driver enough. Greek public workers have been on vacation for 20 years. Same as the French.
We do not need to worry about the debt. It is only a little more than 15 trillion dollars. For any new money borrowed, I estimate that it will cost the tax payers only 9 times the amount borrowed to repay in as little as 170 years. So spend away. I am sure that the tax payers do not mind that our federal government is in effect having to spend 9 times the going rate for goods and services.
@!$%# YOU, GOP. I don't wanna hear another word of stalling defense cuts until you do your @!$%#ing duty and COMPROMISE. Get real. In order to shrink our huge $8 trillion deficit from 2012-2021, we need to put EVERYTHING on the table. That includes tax reform that raising taxes, not just on the rich, but on EVERYONE. We also need to get real on spending; I'm a progressive liberal who believes that it is in our national interest to maintain social services, but our spending is out of control. I mean, why do we need to spend nearly 7% of our GDP just on defense??? Why not tack it down to about 4.5%???? And to Democrats: get real on entitlements. We need to reform them, and that includes trimming costs AND raising the cap on payroll tax cuts. I say raise the cap to 90% of income, maintain estate taxes, increase fees for wealthier benefits, and trim costs. Check this out in my new and improved deficit reduction and economic recovery package:
I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.
II. Economic Recovery Package
Would be funded by a surtax on millionaires and additional spending cuts.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
jolly, the problems in Greece is not because of the pensions or the "union work week". it is because no one wants to pay their taxes. Not sure why you put the anecdote about not tipping a Greek taxi driver, but it's false, because Greece, as in most European countries, tipping is not the norm. BTW, in Greece and France, it is not a "union work week," it's the national work week, as in it is established by law.
You didn't even mention the possibility of making the 47% freeloaders who pay no tax begin to pay a fair share. Nor did you suggest cutting the budget of the federal bureaucracy a minimum of 25% and then fire any director who tries to blackmail us by cutting services. And the cutting out entirely the failed Department of Energy and irrelevant but useless Education Department - return schools to local jurisdictions.
Your plan sounds like the present Obama agenda to me.
I ain't touching Education, and I would see if I can reform the Department of Energy. I will do what I can to cut UNNECESSARY spending, but I am NOT cutting R&D spending for green energy or funding for education when our schools are underfunded. The federal government should partner with the states and local governments in order to make education more competitive and efficient.
Oh and in the tax code reform, I will see what I can do to broaden the tax base. But that number only relates to those who don't pay the INCOME TAX (not every federal tax), and a lot of them are retirees on entitlements or those who are unemployed or under the poverty level and therefore don't pay any taxes due to their financial state.
And I take your correlation of my plan to Obama's as a complement. Mainly because Obama's agenda IS working and your statement gives me faith that mine will as well,
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
@jollyoldsoul1 -- Corruption and tax evasion are serious problems for Greece. The difference between Greece and the United States - is - the United States has legalized corruption and tax evasion. That is what the Republican favoritism towards the 'idle rich' has accomplished over the past 30 years - legalized corruption and tax evasion. Legalized bad behavior does not make it 'right'.
Paying down debt requires revenue - doesn't matter if it is public debt or private debt. The United States still has tremendous potential for generating revenue by creating new wealth. The legalized corruption and tax evasion provided to the 'idle rich' are our only obstacles.
We cannot gamble our way to financial health - we ALL must work for it.
Thank you, Nerm. It is a wonder how Republicans cannot see the consequences of coddling the rich; higher deficits, bigger debts, more income inequality, and economic fragility.
Come to Detroit, I can show you a lot of bad behavior on yours and my nickle. And none of them are "idle rich"
That is a right wing myth. Everyone in this country pays some form of federal tax. Now, if you mean income. Ok, you tax them, and maybe raise a million or two, then what? What has failed about the Dept of Energy? most of the nuclear research done in this country is done by the DOE. But, lets cut them out, you save $26 billion there. Get rid of Department of Education, another $70 billion or so. Now you have saved close to $100 Billion. Now what? Sorry, but cutting services will have to be the result of your proposed "25%" cuts. See, having a top rate country costs money.
Watermoon: Of the 47% number that so many right-wingers are fond of throwing around, what portion are truly sitting-around-on-their-arse, no-good freeloaders?
As opposed, say, to people who may have had a good job taken away and outsourced, then lost their homes, then burned through their savings, while trying unsuccessfully to find a job that provides even a fraction of what they once earned?
Or people who have taken multiple low-wage jobs to support their families, and who still fall below the minimum income for federal income tax?
Do you have that kind of data, to know whether 47% means 47% are freeloading, or if it means 5%? 10%? Do you have any facts, or are you just repeating the talking points you've been told?
"Perhaps, in the future, you will hold your tongue until you have discovered where the surplus population is, and WHO it is."
-- Spirit of Christmas Present
Ditto, but insert "47%" for "surplus population".
-- VS.
Freshieee: Unless you are a member of Congress, all you can do is vote.
Watermoon,
how many times are we going to have to shoot that claim down with the facts?
The 47% that work by pay no taxes do so because they make under a certain threshold with which their deductions wipes out what they owe. That will be fixed with a rewrite of the tax code to remove all deductions.
Freshieee
Here's a tax plan to go with your deficit reduction plan.
The following would give us a surplus every year to pay on the National Debt. Within approximately 10 years, the National Debt would be retired and we could lower the flat tax rate to around 10 to 12 %.
Eliminate all of the tax cuts and institute the following as a beginning.
Eliminate the "cap" on SS income.
Eliminate all corporate "welfare".
Reduce foreign aid by 50%.
Change the tax code to a flat tax of 15% (it might have to be as high as 17% initially) of all income over $25,000 for everybody (including corporations, investment income, etc.), excluding income derived from the sale of your primary home, with no other deductions for anyone.
Tax all income over $1,000,000 at an additional 5% (% to be reduced or eliminated after retiring the National Debt).
Institute a 20% "windfall" tax on all bonuses, lottery winnings, inheritances exceeding $1,000,000.
Levy an additional 30% tax on all corporations that purchase or produce/provide more than 50% of their product/services outside the USA.
Current spending levels could be maintained (would still like to see waste, fraud, and duplication of services eliminated) with adjusted increases for population growth and COLAs for SS and Vet benefits.
Once the National Debt was retired, there would be enough revenue to either reduce SS and Medicare taxes or possible eliminate them altogether (depending on how well we eliminate waste, fraud and duplication of services).
While you are giving anyone under $ 25000 a free ride let's quit giving them a refund of taxes they didn't pay in.
That's a common sense approach. Compromise is the way forward.
Can Republicans put aside election year politics for the good of the country?
"Can Republicans put aside election year politics for the good of the country?"
Not on your life. They don't give a damn about anything but POWER.
I'm a DEM and I care about unsustainable spending and the debt it creates.
Bob - You're dam rite that repubnikins only care about POWER... but you gotta say it with a race car engine revving up in the background. Then and only then will you achieve the intent of your statement.
Buck, do you also care about unsustainable tax cuts and the debt they create?
NO!! They cant! Job #1 is denying Obama a 2nd term!
And raddave......... The last 3 GOP presidents signed TWENTY deficit riddled budgets that added over $11T to the debt AND saddled Obama with a $1.3T deficit even BEFORE he took office!! "Starve the beast" was the plan and the goal was to privatize SS and Medicare. So this debt crisis was DELIBERATELY created!
But Tom, Obama has doubled down on that debt. You can't say he's not the most spendingist president this country has ever known. Over $5 Trillion in just 3 years is just not taking the bull by the horns and controlling it. Obama in fiscal restraint is a huge failure. Like it or not!
The only way you'd have a case for Obama is if he put the brakes on spending and controlled the deficits. How can he do that when he doesn't have a budget? Hasn't had one in 3 years at all! Stop defending this guy by pointing out the failures of others.
Tom
That was a DEMOCRAT CONGRESS in 2007 2008 2009 2010. Remember? Do you also remember Continuing Resolutions? That is what we have been operating on since FY 2007. BTW The LAST Continuing Resolution signed by Bush was in Dec. 2008. It covered Gov't expenses until Mar. 2009. So from that date forward it is ALL DEMOCRATS and OBAMA'S Deficit and Debt growth!
Brain, the debt under Obama has gone up by $3.4 trillion, not over $5 trillion. A budget was passed in December.
Slow, again spreading falsehoods? It was a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT that submitted budget request for 1007,2008, and 2009. Budgets were passed for the entire year for EACH of those years. The budget for FY 2009 was $1.4 trillion and it covered until Sept 2009. Stop lying slowdon
raddave - I'm going to call bullsh!t on you. There was no budget passed in December. It was voted down. Obama has taken a $10.8 Trillion dollar debt and turned it into $15.3 Trillion. You aren't real big on math are you? The only budget that was passed was the defense budget. Seems you need to bone up on your current events. By the time Obama leaves office, his debt for the 4 years he was in office will be well over $5 Trillion. Unless you liberals somehow manage to get him reelected.
Every election the its the other sides job to make the current party the losing party. The republicans just made it public right up front. You dont think Mr. Obama and Ms Clinton were not thinking the same thing, of course they were. they only difference is the Democrats have convinced some people they are for the poor. Al Gore donated like $200 to charities the year he ran for president. Look and see how much Mr. Obama donated to charity. I dont care who wins as long as the other side does not have full control. I would want Mr Reid and Ms Pelosi to have Minority before their titles.
Part of the "increase" in debt on Obama's watch is due to his doing the honest thing, of putting the cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars on the books. W kept those costs out of the budgets, and they have now been accounted for as they should have been originally.
And, I call Shubit on you. There was a budget passed on 16 December , unless the government shut down and I was never told about it. But, my wife keeps going to work and is getting paid for it, so I guess it was not shut down. Obama's debt started at $11.9 trillion, not $10.8. The entire FY 09 budget was requested and signed by Bush. From the CATO institute:
from CNN: Obama was essentially correct when he said he inherited a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Though the budget deficit for 2008 was a then-record $458.6 billion, the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year, before the cost of any new stimulus plan or other legislation was taken into account.
You can even read the CBO report issued in Jan 2009 on their website.
raddave
Here is the definition of Continuing Resolutions.
A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations legislation used by the United States Congress to fund government agencies if a formal appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the end of the Congressional fiscal year. The legislation takes the form of a joint resolution, and provides funding for existing federal programs at current or reduced levels.
Now here are the Continuing Resolutions signed into law by Bush.
Now how can you say with a straight face that there was a Budget in 2008?
Now What do you have to say about this tidbit of info?
On Friday, March 6, 2009, the President signed into law: H.J.Res. 38, which provides FY 2009 appropriations for continuing projects and activities of the Federal Government through Wednesday, March 11, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/06/President-Obama-signs-continuing-resolution
Now before you start calling someone a liar you need to get your facts straight.. FOOL
A tax cut costs nothing as there is no outlay of cash. Think of the federal budget as you do your household budget. If you don't get a raise, it's not the same thing as your employer taking money from you. You simply live on what you have.
Go USA-851295
Tax cuts result in lost revenue. If your pay check was reduced by 25% I am pretty sure that you would claim that it cost you in the long run. In fact, reductions in revenue tend to almost double the actual cost of such reductions. The fixed spending remains the same and revenues decline, therefore borrowing has to increase to meet the payments necessary.
If tax cuts cost nothing, as you claim, then why were the Republicans insistent on "paying for" the recent middle class/working poor payroll tax cuts? Check out my tax reform proposal and Freshieee's deficit reduction proposal and tell us what you think.
"Because the Budget Control Act mostly exempts entitlement spending from automatic cuts, it's the other big item in the budget, defense, which must bear the brunt of the cuts."
Well of course the republicans have an issue with this.
They talk a real good game when it comes to deficit reduction, but when it comes time to decide WHAT gets cut, guesss what...it is always the poor and middle class who must pay.
Yet the Republicans are attempting to avoid cutting Medicare payments to doctors. Letting the provision expire is an automatic cut to entitlements.
Seems the only cuts that Republicans are interested in affect people that worked for the 'entitlements'. Favoring the 'idle rich' and breaking promises to workers is a 'take from the poor - give to the rich' philosophy. Gambling our way to prosperity through 'investments' has only redistributed wealth from workers to the 'job creating rich'.
... or job-exporting rich, as the case may be.
The "Good News" is that the debt problem does not have to be "fixed" overnight. The "Bad News" is that fixing it will require BOTH spending cuts AND tax increases.
Correct again stone6
Very true...also very unpopular. Nevada has a "no deficit budget" law. It is harsh in bad times, but it keeps things from getting so bad we'll never get out (California ...anyone) Yeah unemployment is 13% here still, and programs have been slashed to the bones, BUT when things turn around...and they will...we don't have to dig ourselves out of a hole. It would be NICE however, if when the good times return, they sock a little away for the next budget crisis. Silly me, that won't happen either, because no one wants to think about the bad times when in the middle of the good times.
were in the world is Fiesty? Have anyone a clue?
I think she is volunteering at the homeless shelter today
Who cares where Fiesty is?
She had a doctors appt. Its not easy to find a Dr. that can a treat a cranialanaladectomy on $40 a visit!
Watching the GOP this last year has been like watching the Keystone Cops...
The GOP orchestrated the current problem.
Now they are running around hastily trying to undo their own handiwork.
Let em sweat.
It seems obvious that the increase in military spending by 300 billion dollars per year without an increase in revenue is a large contributor to the debt. It is time for McCain to give it up and go home...he can't even do simple math.
If Congress does extend the Bush tax cuts again they should all step down. The CBO has consistently demonstrated a negative effect on the debt accumulation and income through extending the tax cuts. The economy will suffer as the rich get richer.
If Sen. McCain is so hot to prevent the sequestration cuts, why didn't he try a little harder to work out a compromise when he was on the "Super-committee", instead of sitting on his hands with the rest of the Republican members?
Okie Joe its called "politics" and the main goal is to bash the president..
Because compromise to you demorats means my way or the hiway.
You mean like sending out the US Marshalls to arrest judges who make unappreciated rulings? Oh wait... that's not a Democrat threatening to do that - it's a Republican.
You mean like passing laws that would withhold from people reproductive choice on religious grounds, even for people who aren't members of that religion? Oh wait... that's not a Democrat threatening to do that - it's a Republican.
Your statement, RAS, is wildy ridiculous. It is the Republicans who practice thoroughly offensive "my way or the highway" politics. And Republican icon Barry Goldwater even predicted that that would be the case:
http://www.fishink.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/quote-goldwater-on-christopublicans.jpeg
Why doesn't the congress just let the economy go and when it is done they will be able to see what class warfare really looks like.
I would say that's exactly what they are doing. All under the guise of a two party system when in fact it's a one party system. Everyone who believes it's National League vs. American League can fantasize about the game, but God would have to change every law in the universe to accomodate the fantasy.
Having a surplus of years and a deficiency of melanin, i can keyboard with some authority that some of my similarly situated brethren with more far political power but arguably somewhat less political astuteness just can't/won't see that they've been played. Just how dismissive was the tone towards the community organizer? Just how dismissive was the tone towards the pick-up hoopster? Neither endeavor is for the faint of heart or mild of intent. Given the ages of so many of the Obstructors, it should have been part of their memories, but having not remembered it, they are now condemned to be pummeled by the rope-a-dope approach.
GOP/Ters, Round 10 is about to start: Do you want to lose on points or do you need to KOd?
This is exhibit A on just how badly the GOP created debt/budget crisis has affected this country's finances!! How DARE they endanger this country's finances and economy to hand over SS and Medicare money over to the same people who crashed the economy. There's a name for this but it escapes me at the moment!
What a bunch of clowns. At least they won't have to rotate into new jobs in corporate America. They've proven they have the talents to go be politicians in Europe
Oh hell we cant cut defense spending..what are we to use for the next country we invade?? Bows and arrows??
So just how did we go about our budget process? Something like "Well, I've got $100 but I feel like I deserve to spend $140, and borrow the rest, and do it every week"
Short term stimulus? Now where is this money coming from? And will this correct the problems caused by the first stimulus? This president is a joke. ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012!
You didn't read the article, did you mcpaddywack? The "short term" stimulus is extending the payroll tax cuts. And, exactly what problems were caused by the first stimulus?
mcpaddy
you showed who the "real joke" is.....just another teapublican who comments before reading!
stock market up, unemployment slowly declining?
I will switch my vote from Hussein to Romney, since newt said Obama is the worst president in history!
The only way there is a snow ball's chance in hell of cleaning up our act as a nation is to vote every single congressman out of office come election day and start from scratch. the keep doing it until we get people in office interested in America not their wallets.
Who does McCain think he is? He was a terrible soilder who got himself caught while bombing children from the air, and to avoid being tortured he sold out his fellow soilders! He has no credibility on military issues!
You should be ashamed of yourself.
U sound like the typical vietnam backstabber. how would you know what a good soldier from Viet Nam would be? U make me wanna puke
Just more Republicans eating-their-own.
And I will bet you were a Draft dogger ala Bill Clinton.
What's next, for you, RAS? You're going to accuse him of his mother wearing Army boots?
What is going to be cut today, not in the future, to pay for it all? Another Trillion? Just bill the children!
Boy, the bad news for the right (I almost hate using that term. It just doesn't fit with these people) just keeps pouring in now. Pretty soon they won't have any petty arguments left.
And just today I received my quarterly newsletter from Ford Motor Company, and in it was an article about their new pact with the UAW. They call it a "landmark agreement" that will create 12,000 hourly jobs in the company's U.S. manufacturing facilities by 2015. That stunning (their term) number is 5,570 more than the 7,000 U.S. jobs that Ford promised in January, 2011 to create by the end of 2012.
Ford is also investing $16B through 2015 in American product development and manufacturing, with a sizeable slice of $6.2B earmarked through 2015 for plants to produce a new level of upgraded vehicles and parts.
Then, John Fleming, executive vice president of Global Manufacturing and Labor Affairs, said, "We are pleased that, by working together with the UAW, we reached a deal that is fair to our employees and that improves the competitiveness of Ford in the U.S.".
Holy Cow! Ford Motor Company obviously doesn't share in the doomsday prognostications of most of the 'wingers we have to deal with on this site. So let's recap here; Ford, which can't be accused of "stealing" government money to rebuild, isn't afraid to make huge investments in their future, and worked out an amiable and mutually beneficial deal with a (OMG!) UNION, and appears happy about it. Is it possible there was actually some give-and-take negotiations going on here? Maybe even some (again, OMG!) compromise? Everybody in the Tea Party KNOWS that crap never works!
Well, I just thought this was another example of what I said in an earlier post to 'wingers: The zooming sound you hear is the world passing you by. Do you know how to say, "irrelevant" ? BYE, BYE!
Why do we need a military much larger than the rest of the world(combined) and perpetual wars?
Corporate greed has ruined us. $1,000,000,000,000 down a rat's hole every damn year. But let's cut the elderly's social security and bomb brown children. I see clearly why we're so hated, and it isn't envy.
OBAMA2012
Don, our military isn't the largest in the world. China's is by far. However, we do spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
China has the worlds largest military force as raddave stated. I think there are more cost effect ways to cover the military defense and armory. You don't need to cut quality.
I am not thrilled about the increased taxes. The sad thing is yes, it may help but then no matter what you are going to have someone who sees it as their own personal bank. I wonder how long the middle class will survive?
We don't need a military at all. We have loyal Americans that would step forward and defend their way of life at a moments notice. And if we would just take more of the "idle" riches wealth and give it to the poor and down trodden we probably would not need such a large police force and/or justice department.
jackjr: Those loyal Americans are members of the National Guard (Army and Air). Oh, and the Navy is required, being constitutionally defined. By the way, taking something from someone to give to another is theft.
Charging money for something you sell is theft.
See? I can make up vacuous axioms too.
No WaltDIS. Charging money for a product or service is called commerce. Surely, you know that right?
I do but it wasn't clear that you understood such things. So going back to your comparably vacuous assertion:
Taxing the rich is not theft; it's taxation, as per:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Taxation is only legitimate for legitimate functions of government.
And let me guess - you're going to put your personal interpretations about what is the legitimate functions of government over that of others. How convenient. The real problem here is the failure, on your part, to acknowledge that you're not the only person in this country, that reasonable people disagree with you and that, oh-my-gosh, their perspective may actually prevail in society.
If you don't want to live in a society where these decisions are decided by society through its defined processes, then find a place to live where the decisions are yours and yours alone. Good luck with that. Until then, accept that folks in this society doing what this society has granted them rights to do are, literally, righteous, and your criticisms of them are utterly self-centered and without any merit whatsoever.
A good start in derailing the fiscal train wreck.
Quit giving well over 100 billion a year to Israel.
Quit giving money to any country.
How can you say that? That is a Ron Paul statement and everyone knows via the MSM that he's a racist, crazy, kooky old man.
KJW369-
Derailments are the principal cause of train wrecks. Do you really want to derail a derailment?
Republicans want high enough defense spending to launch war with Iran and a few other places next year. However, major land wars are becoming unnecessary and obsolete. The war in Iraq killed more Americans than 9/11, as well as adding over a trillion dollars to the national debt. If they are determined to do nation building, the United States is available.
Congress makes the rules. Congress fails. Congress wants to change the rules, after the game is over. No more excuses! Keeping Americans alive is more important to the country than killing foreigners. Over 100,000 killed Iraqi civilians will have to be satisfaction enough for Republicans.
Defending our country is not the cause of our fiscal crisis,” Ayotte said. “The notion that defense spending is the driver of the larger fiscal crisis is not the case. Ms. Ayotte. please introduce a bill that repays all the TRUST FUNDS that were misappropriated between 2002 and 2006 for two unfunded wars and four taxcuts for the super rich. Oh. I am so sorry. I forgot. Republicans think the wars were paid for from GENERAL FUNDS.
@chuck,
GOP never have a problem cut tax for super rich like Mitt Romney. In fact, they borrow China 700 billion to pay for super rich tax loophole just like Mitt. Do you know that Mitt only pay 13.9 % tax rate while most American pay 2 to 3 times his rate? It's unfair isn't it?
The average middle class American pay 7 % effective tax rate for federal income one half of what Romney pays. The 13,6 rate refers to Romneys marginal rate, and I never paid that much even with a 6 figure income and taking standard deductions.
The average effective tax rate for millionaires is 25 %.
The 700 billion is over 10 years. The Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets were 4 times that, so if we want a significant impact by taxing , why don't we cut all the so called Bush cuts and save the 3 trillion ?
Fred: Because the left isn't honest. They are all about the "populist" sound byte.
Fred ... Romney's effective tax rate in 2010 was 15%. There's no way the marginal rate could be lower than his effective rate.