E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe short-term importance of the budget bill which the House approved this week is that Democrats now have another vote which they can use against Republicans running in tough races this fall.
The NOW with Alex Wagner panelists discuss how Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is defending his budget proposal that cuts billions of dollars from welfare programs while saving the Defense Department from a budget slash.
Sixteen House Republicans voted against the measure -- called the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act -- which would replace some of the automatic spending cuts mandated by last summer’s Deficit Control Act with reductions in spending on programs for low-income people.
Championed by Budget Committee chairman and potential GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, the bill stands no chance of becoming law but does indicate where the vast majority of House Republicans want to spend more (on the military) and spend less (on outlays for lower-income people).
From Ryan’s point of view, the bill makes sensible changes in benefit rules, such as ending the practice of sending money under the Child Tax Credit to people who are not eligible to work in the United States.
The House vote was part of the debate over “austerity” -- a term that has gained new currency this week as a Washington buzzword since voters rejected French President Nicolas Sarkozy and voters in Greece refused to back a government that is pursuing a policy of cutting public spending and selling government assets.
“Austerity” implies a government sector that’s on short rations, with programs being scrapped, and government workers being laid off.
That is not exactly what’s happening in the United States at the federal level right now.
One way to measure “austerity” or lack of it is to look at what federal spending was before the recession started at the very end of 2007.
In FY2008, which began in October of 2007, outlays were $2.98 trillion, or about 21 percent of gross domestic product. In the current fiscal year Congressional Budget Office expects that spending will be $3.6 trillion or 23.4 percent of GDP.
The CBO reported this week that federal spending for the first seven months of fiscal year 2012 “was about the same as it was during the same period last year,” accounting for shifts in the timing of certain federal payments.
So far in FY2012, the federal government has spent about 0.8 percent less than it did for the comparable period last year.
To be sure, spending in certain categories is down: Medicaid outlays fell by $26 billion, or 15 percent, because the increases in the federal government’s share of Medicaid spending – part of President Obama’s stimulus plan enacted in 2009 -- expired.
The CBO also reported that outlays for unemployment benefits dropped by more than one-fifth, compared to the same period last year, because fewer claims were filed in recent months.
Defense spending decreased by about 3 percent, compared to the same period in the prior year. But spending for Social Security and Medicare benefits were up.
As for the number of federal employees, it is hard to see austerity in the most recent available data from the Office of Personnel Management which showed 2.1 million executive branch employees as of December, an increase of nearly 3.7 percent over December of 2009 and an increase of about 13 percent over September of 2007, before the recession began.
The data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, does show a reduction in the number of state and local government workers. For example, since the summer of 2008 the number of local government employees has shrunk by 3.6 percent.
“The concern about austerity is that we are still in a very, very weak economic recovery and this slashing of spending at the state level and to some extent at the federal level – we’re under a wage freeze on federal employees… that is hampering the recovery and hampering the robust creation of jobs,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the progressive group Campaign for America's Future.
Hearkening back to his 2009 stimulus plan, which helped avert state and local government layoffs in 2009 and 2010, Obama proposed in his American Jobs Act to send $35 billion in federal funds to the states so they can hire and retain public school employees, firefighters and police officers.
He also wants to spend another $50 billion on highways, subways, railroads, and aviation.
In an election year, such spending saves the jobs of members of public employee unions who tend to be loyal Democratic allies and donors.
The debate over austerity is in large part the traditional policy struggle over what the preferred or “right” mixture of spending should be: how much should government spend on a missile defense shield for the East Coast of the United States, for instance, on which House Republicans want to spend $100 million for openers, versus medical care for poor people.
And because the Republicans control the House, they have been able to prevail in some of their battles with Obama and the Democrats over which groups should be singled out to bear the burden of less spending.
Case in point: in February as part of the deal to extend the Social Security payroll tax cut, Republicans were able to force newly hired federal employees, as of next year, to pay a higher share of their paycheck for their pensions.
“For federal employees it feels like an attack, because no one else is being asked to do anything. When millionaires in this country, who have done very well, have not been asked to put in anything more from their pay check, but middle-class federal workers are asked to put in more from their paycheck, it feels like they are being singled out,” said Julie Tagen, the legislative director for the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.
Next Tuesday the focus will shift for a day to the long-term struggle over the federal debt and the entitlement programs, as former Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson holds his third annual fiscal summit, a kind of Woodstock for numbers crunchers, economists, and those who worry about the nation’s ability to pay for the benefits it has promised to future retirees.
The lineup of speakers includes Ryan, former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
Hickey said Peterson “is trying to buy Democrats into an austerity focus.”
Hickey, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and other progressives will be on the sidewalk outside the summit protesting: “We will be there to say if you look at the polls, the American people are very, very worried about jobs… We seem to be stuck in a permanent level of high unemployment and these deficit proposals are threatening basics like unemployment insurance….”
He added, “The best way to address the short-term deficit is to get the economy growing in a robust way so that unemployment actually comes down instead of just being stagnant. A stimulus – an investment in growth through infrastructure and aid to the states, getting the growth rate up, – will in fact bring down the deficit.”
Obama does not use the word “stimulus” anymore and he hasn’t focused on his American Jobs Act in his campaign ads, but that stimulus proposal is essentially his antidote to austerity too.
Leave a Comment:
Austerity in the US- that's a good one. What you are seeing here is two political parties, completely oblivious to the simple matter that we have WAAAAAY overspent our income for years and years and sometime soon we are going to either default or be forced to make some serious cuts to keep our country afloat. Both parties have failed miserably with budgeting, both parties fail to understand that you can't tax your way into prosperity, both parties failed to get things under control when they were in power.
You want austerity- think Greece. They had to make serious cuts to get temporarily bailed out by the EU. Now the nation of unions is upset and don't want to loose their benies, so the government is turning over to more union supporting politicians. These politicians are headed right towards default and pulling out of the EU. They will be on their own soon, back to their own currency, and NO creditors whom will want to risk giving them money. Bet you that doesn't go over well when they want energy, food, etc.
If we don't want to go down this track we need to make major cuts, not create more incentives and programs to "relieve" debt. Our currency is at stake. Wake up and start paying the bills!
Austerity has not started yet. When it does, it will be felt as a deflationary crash. The finances of a country is quite different than the finances of a family. In a debt based monetary system, the budget cannot be balanced for a long time because the money supply (all the money we have) was borrowed at interest. Google for "HOW DO BANKS CREATE MONEY" to understand the problem. Money was created when we borrowed. It will never be paid off. And in order to pay the interest, we need to keep growing the economy at all times. But in a limited world that may not always be possible. As the social mood changes, expansion and contraction of credit, aka money supply, creates economic cycles like Kondratieff wave. We are now in Kondratieff Winter. Until spring, all efforts will fail.
Republicans just want to pretend that the American People don't exist, or that we are completely inconsequential.
Obama/Biden 2012
Haa. Just ask a liberal they will tell you the deficit and debt are meaningless. Obama will just continue to print funny money until our economy is totally collapsed.
As for are we there yet? YES! we were there ten years ago.
TO: Devdoc12able who wrote:
Pardon me but, it Republican Ronald Reagan that famously said "deficits don't matter" and it was Republican George "Curveball" Bush who totally collapsed the entire United States Economy.
Obama/Biden 2012
Paul Ryan's point of view means a parallel universe in which everything is rewritten from history to the Bible and Catholicism to economic theory, etc. In this case a hideous attempt to renege on previous agreements to cut spending including defense spending. This POS bill is to cut programs for poor children (food stamps), the disabled, etc. so the Teapublicans can continue their out-of-control deficit spending on defense. And heaven forbid companies like Exxon/Mobil lose their tax expenditure subsidies, or the rich pay a fairer share in taxes!
This constant submitting of NOT PLAUSIBLE plans by him and the GOP/TP is a waste of taxpayer money, time, and consideration. I used to say it was symbolic posturing, but such extreme positions are worse. It is "inflicting" a view on the rest of the nation, it is a "my way or the highway" demand that the opposition Party come to their position with NO regard for common ground or compromise.
Austerity has caused Europe to double dip into recession with unemployment skyrocketing in countries like Greece. Milton Friedman's hypothesis has been tried and debunked, supply-side "voodoo" economics has been tried and debunked. Let's do something different -- Keynesian theory has been tried and has worked.
If Teapublicans want to protest they can march in the streets. If they expect to be paid as representatives in our government, they need to show up for work, and then govern on behalf of The People. Throw Paul Ryan and the Teapublicans out of congress!
It was The Dick Cheney who famously stated "deficits don't matter".
He made that statement as he and his incredibly stupid pres were busy running up the deficit.
TO: Larry-2094469 who wrote:
Ok, Cheney is a Republican too, but I thought he was quoting Ronald Reagan.
As it turns out, Cheney did say that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
So, ok, you're right. 2 points for you!
Obama/Biden 2012
Deficits don't matter -- you're quoting Reagan and Dick Cheney. Republicans also believe that tax cuts pay for themselves, that the market corrects itself (the "invisible hand"), and trickle-down tax cuts for the rich will create jobs. Many believe Earth is only a few thousand years old too.
I just saw we're all correcting this crazy talk at the same time... In Cheney's case it is appropriate to this article, as deficit spending on defense/war (in his case, war profiteering) in particular "doesn't matter."
See georgecons above, Republican or Democrat, read above, as far as Paul Ryan is concerned he can have some entitlement programs when he gives me and millions others how he is going to pay back 2 wars and tax breaks simultaneously costing this country almost 6 trillion his party hood winked us into with the WMD lie of Iraq. When the Republicans find a way to pay that back then I personally will say, let's cut entitlements.
Neither Cheney or Reagan ever said that deficits don't matter. Those words come from a book by a liberal member of Bush's cabinet who was fired. Cheney denies he said it and there is no proof given by O'Neil to show that Cheney did make that comment.
TO: Larry Robinson-1323081 who wrote:
"Here we go again", lie and deny pile-a-tricks.
It surely seems like a very poor way of living, everything based on either a "lie" or dependent upon re-writing history.
Bush NEVER had a "Democrat Cabinet Member". In fact, Bush didn't even bother meeting with any Democrats until AFTER Bush had been in office for well over a year.
Cheney also denied that he said that it was Iraq that attacked us on 9/11, but he's on tape saying it, and for awhile they re-played Cheney saying it many times on TV.
Obama/Biden 2012
Democrats, in Washington and on this thread, look at Ryan's bill as they look at any issue....how can we use this to make Republicans look bad, even Republicans who left office years ago? I do understand their tactic though; they have absolutely no accomplishments to point ot for the past 3 1/2 years, so they must resort to deflection and lame finger pointing.
And then, there's always the old "the GOP hates poor people" crap. Fact is, many poor people are poor by choice, and the left doesn't delineate between them and the hapless poor. I mean, chances are, anybody you give a handout to, deserving or not, is going to vote for you....and to Democrats, that' s all that counts. Votes = Power!
Right on Joe. The asian corridir is not converting to dollars, and the fed is the only ones buying our debt at this point, we are merely printing our own money.
greece wants to drop out of the euro, because they too want to live beynd their means.
Obama sucks. he is purposely destroying this country.
Bush called Obama often for advice, where Obama doesnt consult ANYONE! He is a narcissist. DANGEROUS
Nobody runs deficits like Obama, not even close. Deficits don't matter if they are $100-$200 billion. They DO matter if they are $1.3 trillion, year in, year out.
Put another way, a century of $100 billion deficits will rack up $10 trillion in debt. Less than eight years gets you there under Obama's economy.
TO: spider-737231 who wrote:
Republicans surely don't need any help making themselves look bad, and the reason WHY we still talk about Republicans who left office years ago is because the DAMAGE REPUBLICANS CAUSED YEARS AGO STILL AFFECT US AND THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY TO THIS VERY DAY!
What do you think, that Republicans can just destroy the entire economy of the most prosperous country on the planet and just walk away and forget it while we still suffer? Why should WE forget it, and why would YOU want to forget it?
And why would you even try to defend Paul Ryan standing before Congress to make a point that more weapons mean more to America than its own people? Do you consider yourself to be "disposable" or "expendable"?
Republicans must be insane.
Obama/Biden 2012
Larry Robinson, as much as you try to deny it, it is tru:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm
fielden,
Sorry, all you've done is reference a source that references the Paul O'Neil quote. As I said, there is no evidence that Cheney actually said it. You have one man's word against another.
People can claim someone said something, but without any 3rd party validation or an admission by the person who supposedly made the statement, it's only hearsay and not fact.
Are you crazy???? Do you even know what harsh austerity looks like???? Look at Europe (as you right-wingers always do). The economy is practically in recession. We cannot rush to austerity while our economic recovery is so fragile. We must establish a policy of long-term deficit reduction with short-term stimulus, and using a mix of both in the medium-term. You cannot cut spending during a fragile recovery; doing so would send the economy into a downward spiral. The best thing we can do know is raise taxes on those who don't affect the economy the most (the wealthiest Americans) via repealing the Bush tax cuts for them, reducing defense spending by about $700 billion over 10 years, and reforming entitlements. It would probably reduce our cumulative deficits over the next decade by approximately $2-3 trillion, or roughly half of the deficit. By 2014, when our economy will be stronger, we can focus on tougher austerity. While we must try to reduce our shortfalls, we cannot abandon our recovery when it is so fragile. Here is my plan to reduce the deficit while helping the economy:
I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.
I am not joking. Check (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie…
II. Economic Recovery Package
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
JoeNY
Can't argue with anything you said. "Race-baiting girls" first words have nothing to do with the context of the story nor you're opening post but that's just her way of proving she has no clue. Go ahead, ask her how the EU even works. Ask her what a Euro is or how GDP affects inflation in this country. Ask what inflation is for that matter. You'll get a blank stare like you wouldn't believe. But I digress.
To your points, every day there is a new twist and turn in the Greece saga and with this disastrous global economic model that we're getting deeper into there's no way that Greece isn't going to affect us even more negatively in the near future. France has now elected a Socialist, although someone on another post labeled him as a "moderately socialist leader". 75% tax rate on the wealthy...yeah, that will keep their money in the country. Canada is now seeing the sins of their ways and switching gears to a more Conservative model and riots continue overseas because college kids think they'll have to work 2 more years of their life. Entitlements suck and they are breaking the spine of this country.
Anyway, your points are dead on and as much as I stump and bitch and moan for conservatism there is no doubt that both of these parties are nothing but a bunch of elitist ass-holes that think their power and ego is more important than the fiscal well being of this country. Too bad that idiot Ross Perot screwed up his campaign. He was on his way to breaking the cycle and this country could have looked a great deal differently (financially and politically speaking) if he would have started the trend.
In this country their were never truer words than, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
American Girl,
At least you are consistent in being wrong. It's just too easy to prove you wrong
1. I never said it was a Democrat who made that claim- I said a liberal. Paul O'Neil is a liberal Republican
2. Bush certainly did have a Democrat in his cabinet. Norman Mineta- Mineta was Secretary of Transportation appointed in 2001 by Bush after serving as Secretary of Commerce under Clinton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta
3. Bush also met almost immediately with Democrats in 2001
Bush, the Conciliator, Meets With Democrats
By DAVID E. SANGER and ALISON MITCHELL
Published: February 03, 2001
President Bush ventured into enemy territory today, meeting with Senate Democrats to outline his hopes for his first year in office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/03/us/bush-the-conciliator-meets-with-democrats.html
Here Bush meets with Democratic members of Congress on July 12, 2001 to discuss Medicare
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/07/images/20010712-1-8.html
Bush met with Tom Daschle Democratic Senate Majority Leader Sept 5, 2001
September 5, 2001
BUSH AND DASCHLE AGREE NOT TO TAP SOCIAL SECURITY
By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4— The White House and the Senate Democratic leader said today that they had agreed not to tap the Social Security program to pay the government's other bills, an agreement that economists insist is almost certain to be broken this year.
After meeting with President Bush at the White House, the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said that he had pressed the president to promise not to dip into the Social Security program to make ends meet elsewhere, and that Mr. Bush had agreed.
''I was looking simply today for his assurance that we're not going to do that, and he assured me of that,'' Mr. Daschle said afterward. ''We look forward to working with him and seeking his guidance on how we avoid using Social Security.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/05/us/bush-and-daschle-agree-not-to-tap-social-security.html?pagewanted=1
Please do not forget "No Child left Behind" was a Bush/Kennedy bill that was done early in his term.
So Americanummmmgurl, you were wrong before you were right! or right before you were wrong and gave away 2 points. How many points does it take to win....... something?
No, we are not anywhere close to austerity - yet. So far deflation has been limited to the housing market. When we finally reach austerity - the overall economy will begin deflating.
Since half of Congress insists on acting stupidly - our austerity will be severe when it is finally forced on us. If we give the government to the stupid half of Congress - expect GDP to fall at least 10 pct - maybe 20 pct. Before the sought after austerity is finished - the DOW would likely be trading around 3,000 - 4,000.
Ryan is many things - a smart economist he certainly is not. The only - no alternative - way to eliminate the Federal deficit and pay down debt is to grow the economy. Our fiscal problems right now are in the economy - not the government. Focusing on government at this point in time - is the stupid way to fix things.
Republicans and the TEA Party have a proven track record on economic issues - they crash the economy - repeatedly. Throwing money at the wealthy created this mess. Throwing even more money at the wealthy is only going to make things worse.
The economy is continuing to collapse because there is not enough people working in decent paying jobs,in fact ,not enough people working,period. The collapse in the job market was caused by executives ,who had the authority, ordering the outsourcing of jobs to India and China,from our designs.These products ,completed then returned to the U.S. were a lot cheaper for us to buy,so those companies made more profits even though they marketed them cheaper than we could produce them. Other companies started do copy this and found that they too made more profits, which increased this dangerous cycle. Soon the consumers found that they couldn't find "made in the U.S. products". Other Western countries started or were already doing the same as we, Now it is impossible to find products made in the U.S.A. Our President is considering bribing those co.'s to stop outsourcing products. That is a huge mistake. Those companies would take the bribes, then find ways to circumvent their promise. The best way to stop this is to consider those products as foreign. We can never regain our country while we have so much foreign debt. the interest on that alone is crippling us, so we cannot pay this back by continuing this behaviour.
Perhaps the Democrats should propose a budget.
2012 Budget
May 25, 2011 – The Senate voted unanimously (97-0) to reject a $3. 8 trillion budget plan that President Obama sent to Capitol Hill in January
“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,” Reid told the Los Angeles Times
2013 Budget
March 28, 2012 - President Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House late Wednesday
“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters
Today, will mark the 1118th day since Democrats in the Senate passed a budget.
Everyone should have gotten behind the Bowles/Simpson committee ideas and we would be on the right path right now.
Instead, you have Republicans trying to raise military spending as we are ending 2 wars, and eliminating programs for the poor. Democrats want no part of that and want more revenues.
Figure out a compromise and move forward.
NHShell: your post in #1.25 is contradictory. You write, "Perhaps the Democrats should propose a budget" and then cite the votes taken on Democrat proposed budgets for the past two years. Surely you can see the logical problem there.
dslsca - Mr Obama submitted budget proposals in both FY2012 and FY2013 - but they meant nothing because ZERO, NONE, ZIP, NADA Democrats in Congress would vote in favor of either of them.
The Democrats in the Senate had not made any budget proposals in over 2 years and have not passed a budget in over 3 years.
NHShell: Ah, so the Democrats DID propose budgets! It may come as a surprise to you, but all spending bills must originate in the House. The ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee has indeed proposed a budget and Speaker Boehner has not chosen to bring it up for a vote.
Austerity is completely unneccessary. Each taxpayer needs to pay their share of the debt, about $135,000 each.
They should be more than willing to pay, since their government has provided them with services that they voted for.
the Ryan budget 2012 .. same as 2011 ... tax breaks and loop holes for the rich .. belt tightening for the middle class ... will the American voter wake up ..probably not .. some are so full of hate that any thing that will help America is looked at with scorn ..
Larry Robinson-1323081 -- "Liberal Republican" -- Hahaha, that's even funnier an oxymoron than "compassionate conservatism" though now Reagan would be considered a socialist by Teapublicans. Dubya the "Conciliator" also is only true in comparison to the current GOP/TP.
The quote by Cheney was in 2005 and reported in the Weekly Standard.
Some argue Cheney was not referring to economics but rather to election outcomes. Cheney's reference to Reagan, however points to an economic reference.
At least the Republicans PASSED a Budget - something the Democrats haven't gotten around to for the last 4 years - despite being required to by the Constitution.
I guess Harry Reid is too busy blaming the Republicans to do HIS part of the job.
American Girl-724855......I suppose the following are your reasons for continually posting Obama/Biden 2012:
Yep, Obama supporters are really up-to-date on current/past political issues:
Welcome to the ObamaMiteClub.
Progressives/Liberals solution to our National Debt/Deficit, Unemployment, Housing, and economic problems: SPEND baby, SPEND.
Chaulk up another MINUS 1,000 points.
Yep, passed the same bill twice ROY WILSON-336103.
I think they dubbed it the Paul Ryan Medikill Budget.
Romney thought it was "marvelous".
spider-737231
Leave it to a Republican supporter to post and believe that EVERYTHING must be about getting a vote and NOTHING can be about doing the right thing FOR PEOPLE. Just because you think and operate that way doesn't mean everyone else does.
Let's flip this around to see how this might apply to the GOP.
The GOP claims that uncertainty in the market is holding this country back. They blame Obama. This sounds good, but they are lying. They (the big business drivers) know EXACTLY why the economy is held back. THEY are holding it back.
In several months there is a chance that a tax cutting, big business puppet will be in the White House. You tell me. So do you start a business now, or wait for the possibility of Romney? Do you hire now and provide fair health care coverage for new employees or do you wait for Romney to kill Obamacare? They're waiting for Romney. They're waiting for the big giveaway. The Obama environment is fair and very doable, but that Romney promise is just too nice... the "haves" will have more.
Combine the very purposeful big business stall tactic and the 24/7 all media consumer crushing hate messages with the current forced austerity at the state and local levels, and you have our currently stalled economy.
The economy will come back right after the election no matter who get's elected. Our vote will determine who benefits from it.
The bet is on for a new America... where the rich will get richer, the middle class will get flatter, and the poor will perish to make more room for the middle class at the bottom.
American Girl-724855 #1.4,
"... Bush who totally collapsed the entire United States Economy"
You better look more closely as to whose watch this was. Try WJC's watch. Have you forgotten Brooksley Born and her concern about derivatives? What Congress & the WH did to her for her warnings.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
Let's see how large our debt is:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
I'm gld the Republicans are being forced to Own their anti-Middd/lower econmic classs agenda. THey willl own it from positions other than the Senate, COngress and WHite HOuse in November.
Dems want to pretend that the debt does not exist........ Got Greece?
Atlass: I seem to recall Vice President Cheney saying deficits don't matter.
@Atlas shrugging -- Paul Ryan is the one pretending the debt does not exist. You do realize that his latest stunt does not make any new cuts. Paul Ryan is trying to break the debt deal - created by his coalition of Republicans - to simply score political points. Paul Ryan is just another incumbent politician trying to save his power and perks.
Comparing the United States to Greece is, frankly, stupid. Austerity in Greece will come from the government. The Greek government exerts direct control over its economy - wage controls, labor controls, price controls.
In the United States, austerity will come from the private sector. The private sector determines wages, compensation, working hours and conditions, even retirement savings. We have seen the beginnings of that private sector austerity - but - we are not in austerity, yet. Austerity in the United States will mean that everyone's wages will be cut - a large portion of our private debt will default - financial markets will crash. Austerity in the United States will come from the private sector and will look very much like the Great Depression.
The United States economy is where the problem is located. The private sector economy is where our austerity will happen. Focusing on government is an idiot's excuse to ignore the problem.
Nerm, Paul Ryan is one of the Biggest Phonies in the World, his political spin is for VP. Hes so desperate he would move in Mitt's out house to kiss Romney's Butt. Get out the fly swatters because $h!t is hitting the Fan !
Take the "M" in the middle of Mormon "OUT" and you end up with the word "Moron", Fits the Flip Flopper Well.
Let's get real for a moment.
The entire National Debt of $15.7 Trillion (an increase of $5.7 Trillion just since the end of fiscal 2008) represents 'stimulus spending'.
Because of inflation caused by this deficit spending, $1.00 from 1970 is currently worth only $0.16.
We are 'stimulus spending' ourselves into bankruptcy, so when does it stop?
We don't have to speculate what austerity will do, we just need to look at Europe. Long story short, austerity has been an absolute DISASTER, and now the teabaggers want to bring it to our shores. Real patriotic, fellas...
Do tax cuts pay for themselves?
It's hard to say for sure, but let's look at some evidence;
In the 5 years before the Bush tax cuts became fully effective (1998 vs 2003), total Federal Revenues increased by only $61 billion per year (4%).
In the 5 years after the Bush tax cuts became fully effective (2007 vs 2003), total Federal Revenues increased by $742 billion per year (42%).
Those who claim that tax cuts only reduce Federal Revenues fail to consider the stimulative effect of giving consumers more money to spend, which not only benefits the economy, but increases tax receipts as well.
Surprise - Another bigoted troll heard from - The liberal left wingnuts are definately the party of acceptance, reason, compassion and understanding
@ROY WILSON-336103 -- The basic definition of stimulus is that the government is putting more money into the economy than it takes out. Tax cuts are only stimulative when accompanied by deficits.
The national debt increased by $10 trillion over the last ten years. That is a LOT of government stimulus. The parts of the economy that has expanded and prospered is where that stimulus was directed.
The tax cuts were not the stimulus - the increased deficits were the stimulus. The tax cuts did not add any money to the economy - the tax cuts only moved money from one pocket to a different pocket. The only way the economy grows is by adding money to it - not by redistributing money from one pocket to another. Deficit spending adds money to the economy - tax cuts do not.
You like to claim that when someone has debt - they should cut back - drop the cable TV - drop the mobile service. Right? That individual should live within their means. Sounds reasonable - until you realize that YOU are the cable company - YOU are the phone company.
The government cutting back - living within its means - will take money out of the economy's revenue stream.
The only - no alternative - way to solve our fiscal problems is to grow the economy. The economy is going to provide the money to pay debt - the economy is going to have to absorb the loss of revenue from ending the deficits. You cannot remove money from the economy (cut deficits) and add money to the economy at the same time. You cannot fire government employees and lower unemployment at the same time. You cannot pay government debt and leave more money in the economy at the same time. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Here is my simple proposal: focus on stimulus spending in the short-term, deficit reduction in the long-term, and a combination of both in the medium-term. That would get the debt down effectively and grow our economy.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
@Nerm_L
Excellent post, I agree 100% with your perspective. But I think you'd have better luck convincing a rock than getting Roy to consider your position.
"Austerity" the "cure" that's worse than the disease. Maybe we'll commit economic suicide now like the Europe is doing. Things seem to be drifting in that direction.
The only thing that austerity does is destroy the economy and transfer huge amounts of money (and sometimes power) to the richest people in the society.
Quote:
"Using the rationals provided by neo-liberal ("Free-market") economic ideology the main project of the U.S. and Western leaders/policy makers generally since the 1970's has been the redistribution of wealth upwards from the middle class and poor to the richest 1% (or less).
The leadership of both the Republican and Democratic Parties in the U.S. (including Obama) as well as the leaders of the Eurozone, have been committed servants of this project and even after it resulted in the worst economic crash and economic downturn since the Great Depression, they remain fully committed to it."
Go down to the next "Occupy" demonstration in your area if you agree and really want to do something about this situation that at least has a chance of working.
Our TOTAL national debt is $58 trillion. That includes government debt AND private debt. The government represents a little more than a quarter of the problem.
The GDP is estimated to be $15.1 trillion for this year.
The value of ALL the stocks listed on the Dow is $15 trillion - that is how big Wall Street actually is.
The value of ALL retirement investments in financial instruments is $17 trillion.
The TOTAL income (wages, capital gains, welfare income, all taxable income) is $5.7 trillion per year.
Our TOTAL national debt is ten times (10x) our national income. Our TOTAL national debt is three and half times (3.5x) our retirement savings.
$0.27 of every dollar of our TOTAL national debt is Federal debt - the Federal debt is a little more than a quarter of our problem.
The only - no alternative - way to pay that debt is to take money out of the economy. There is no other magic source of money. Austerity in the United States will not be driven by government debt - it will be driven by private debt.
We either grow the economy to provide the money to pay our TOTAL national debt - or - we allow the economy to collapse and allow our TOTAL debt to default. We can continue to use government to simply transfer money from one pocket to another - or - we use the government to grow the economy.
Our government is a tool - not a problem. Use the tool to work and prosper - or - discard the tool and do nothing. That is the choice that shapes our future.
Nerm: I disagree that the only "no alternative" way is to take money out of the economy. If you look at how nations (Iceland and Argentina) have done after defaulting on their debt, you'll see that they are doing FAR better than nations (Ireland and Greece) that have imposed austerity. The following piece of wisdom is not original to me, but I agree wholeheartedly with it: "If you owe someone $1,000,000 and can't pay, you've got a big problem. If you owe someone $17,000,000,000,000 and you can't pay, he's got a big problem."
Nerm_L " You cannot have your cake and eat it, too."
That's the only part of your post that made any sense - you would have us believe that 'more stimulus' spending' (eating your cake) will allow you to reduce the deficit (have your cake, too).
If the $15.7 Trillion of deficit (stimulus) spending hasn't solved the problem, then perhaps we should stop digging the hole even deeper. The debt is increasing far faster than any reasonable increase in the economy could possibly overcome - in other words, it's already out of control.
Someone will have to pay that $15.7 Trillion back (plus interest), and it will be through a much reduced standard of living for our children and grandchildren as the cost of that debt gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger.
The sooner we start tackling that monster, the less of a problem it will become, but your thinking, and that of Obama and most Democrats is "Let's spend our way to prosperity".
It's never worked for anybody in the past (look at Greece), and it won't work now.
Nerm_L
Don't get me wrong. I happen to believe in Keynesian economic theory - Use deficit spending during a recession to stimulate the economy, but what we have is a 'corruption' of Keynes theory because the other part of his theory said that we should use excess revenues from the recovery to repay the deficits.
Therein lies the problem - politicians NEVER use the excess revenues from the recovery to repay the deficits - they always find more nice sounding social programs (entitlements) to spend it on, and the result is what we now have - an 'official' National Debt of $15.7 trillion, which has increased by 57% in just the last 3.5 years. For that type of deficit spending to make sense, our economy would have had to grow by 57%, but it has only grown by about 4%. The debt is increasing far faster than our ability to repay it.
We are rapidly approaching the point where it spins out of control - we can either try to do something now (yes, it will hurt), or we can stand back and watch as we fly off of a cliff (a deep depression). The experience of Greece over the next year or so is a harbinger of where we're headed.
I'm concerned about the standard of living for my children and grandchildren - I hope you are as well.
@dslsca -- Even default takes money out of the economy. Money was created when the debt was created. Default means that the money that was created in the past has no value in the future.
Nerm, you most certainly can reduce govt jobs and reduce unemployment. It's called private sector growth. The last i remember was that it takes 20 or 21 people i believe in the private sector to support a public sector employee. The govt doesn't create wealth it consumes it.
We have to have some sort of austerity no matter how big. We were spending in the mid to upper 2 Trillion range several years ago. Now we spend in the upper 3 Trillion range and people have a cow when some want to spend in the mid 3 trillion range, which is still 20%+ higher than in 2008.
I don't like Keynsian theories because as Roy mentions in real life the back end of it ...debt .... is never dealt with.
The Ryan deal with unemployment only resets it to 2008 levels by the year 2016. The reason the rolls ballooned is congress in 2009 expanded greatly, by 10's of millions, people to the unemployment rolls by offering many more benefits to a much greater base. If you weren't railing against unemployment benefits in 2008, you shouldn't be now against Ryan's plan because it is the same level.
It's a noble goal to want to give all these things to people in need. No one wants people to be needy. The hard reality is we as a nation can't afford to cover every single item of need for every person in the country. We just DO NOT have the resources to do it. We can reduce some programs now with a little pain, or wait until it blows up and there will be extreme pain. And to the poorest people at that.
NO....NO....NO.....and the reason.....the Liberals will make sure of that and will continue to spend even though the U.S. is nearly $ 16,000,000,000,000 in debt. And they will say that we "haven't spent enough".
@ROY WILSON-336103 -- Government is no longer the problem - the economy is the problem. The past stimulus (deficit and debt) were directed towards the wrong parts of the economy. That is why we have government debt and do not have a stable, growing economy. The tax cuts did not work - because - we have more debt.
The stimulative effect of the last 30 years of government deficit spending has been a dramatic expansion of private debt. The government stimulated the creation of private debt, inflation, and currency devaluation - the government did not stimulate real economic growth and did not stimulate real creation of private wealth. That private sector debt only gave the appearance of a growing economy. As you point out, the economic growth over the last 30 years has been an illusion because the dollar has been devalued. Our country has more money in circulation but we do not have significantly more wealth - our wealth has been devalued by inflation.
The tax cuts enacted over the last 30 years has been mainly targeted at freeing investment capital. That investment capital was leveraged to create increases in debt based money. That tax subsidized investment capital has not been used for capital investments.
The economy is beginning to regulate itself somewhat. People are more reluctant to pay for inflation with debt. That is what will trigger austerity in the United States.
That is why derivatives were attractive - because - it created a market for extremely high risk debt. That is the problem with inflation caused by debt - future growth depends on creating larger amounts of money and debt is the only mechanism. The debt markets are going to have increasing difficulty creating new debt to pay for old debt.
Unless we actually redirect investment capital toward capital investments - we will experience severe austerity.
RoyWilson: In #1.55 you write
I'd offer the final years of the Clinton administration as evidence that your claim is historically inaccurate.
BigATC " We can reduce some programs now with a little pain, or wait until it blows up and there will be extreme pain. And to the poorest people at that."
Good point. The people who will be hurt the most when the system falls apart are the ones that have grown dependent on the government, which is typically those living 'hand to mouth'. The middle class and the 'rich' have resources to survive on, but the poor do not. When those government resources are no longer available, the poor will suffer the most.
At some point our debt will exceed our ability to repay it, at which time 'investors' will no longer finance our deficits - at that point, austerity will be forced upon the government, and it will not be pretty.
Of course the '99%rs' think the solution is just to confiscate the wealth of the 'rich', but transferring wealth to other countries these days is done with the push of a computer keypad.
@BigATC -- You are relying on magic economics. Cut the government and the economy will grow by magic. Somehow more unemployment will create more demand. Somehow reducing the amount of money in the economy will create capital. Somehow the debt will be paid without taking money out of the economy.
It does not matter if the government creates the debt - or - the private sector creates the debt. We cannot continue paying old debt with new debt.
Somehow we need to redirect investment capital away from leveraging debt - and - towards capital investments. If the government is not going to do it - who will?
On our current track - the wealthiest have the most to lose and will be hurt the most. The 'poor' have nothing now - and - will have nothing after the collapse.
dslsca "RoyWilson: In #1.55 you write 'politicians NEVER use the excess revenues from the recovery to repay the deficits' ..........I'd offer the final years of the Clinton administration as evidence that your claim is historically inaccurate"
Nice try, but if you check the record, there was not a single year under Clinton where the National Debt actually went down - IT INCREASED IN EVERY YEAR.
The National Debt started at $4.0 Trillion in 1992 (when Clinton was elected) and ended at $5.629 trillion in 2000 (Clinton's last year).
We are all concerned about the standard of living for our children. The debate is in how to sustain and improve that.
Many believe cutting military is the way to go, others believe cutting safety nets will do.
In my opinion, military first and work down to safety nets, as it will take both.
Here's a thought, when did we pay off the debt from WWII? Never. We never have paid it off. We increased the economy so that the debt became minuscule.
RoyWilson: your riposte isn't even a "nice try." Anyone interested in the truth about the Clinton surpluses may consult the link below with a simple to read chart detailing the matter:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Nerm, i wasn't suggesting that by cutting the govt it would make the economy grow. That in and of itself has no causal effect. But the economy and employment can grow with a decrease in the size of govt.
The poor will be hit the hardest when "greece" comes to the US because all the entitlements won't be able to be funded. What the poor has to lose is welfare they count on to live.
The best the govt can do is create an environment condusive to growth and let us as americans do what we do best.
You are 100% correct that this paying old debt with new debt is just kicking the can down the road in a very destructive way. The Fed monetizing debt is very destructive.
dclsca ..... everyone always assumes that deficits and surpluses are always somehow a direct result of a certain tax rate. If you look back at all the different rates back to 1950 (from 28% to over 90%) our revenue/GDP mostly stays the same. 1950-1975 averaged 17.6 and 1976-2008 averaged 18.3 (st. louis fed research numbers).
The surpluses in the late 90's were because we had the lowest SPENDING/gdp than the previous 30 years or so. Debt and deficit are much more driven by spending than what ever tax policy an administration wishes to impose. There may be that magic number that our economy can thrive under without choking off productivity, although i would have no idea what it would be.
@Bosslimo -- Our children's future actually is pretty bright. It is the boomer's that are going to be hurt the most. We were all sold the magic economics - and - still are trying to believe in that magic.
We were told that only dimwits saved - investing was the thing to do. Only an idiot would give their money to the government - tax deferred investments was the smart way to go. Only the stupid would actually pay cash - inflation was higher than interest rates - borrowing actually made money. That was the magic recipe for a golden retirement in the future.
That magic future is today. We have people at or nearing retirement with large debt loads. We have people just now realizing that those magic investments were tax deferred - not tax exempt - and retirement will mean more taxes. The boomer's prosperity was an illusion - to be paid for in the future.
One out of every five of our current workers will be eligible to retire over the next 10 years. One out of every two of our current workers will be eligible to retire over the next 20 years. On average, 250,000 to 300,000 people will be eligible to retire every month, for the next 20 years. People will be retiring at a faster rate than our population growth.
There is no future left - only today.
A lot of that boomer debt will die with the boomers - simple default. Austerity begins when boomers can no longer support the magic economics.
The debt is going to be eliminated - one way or another. Eliminating the debt is exactly what creates a bright future for our children.
@BigATC -- Correct. The only way to cut government is to grow the economy.
We need to focus on growing the economy - so that we can cut government.
It is a lot easier to pay credit card bills if there is more money in the wallet. The economy puts the money in the wallet. Trying to cut government and pay down debt with an empty wallet is much more difficult.
That is why the 'Republican revolution' during the Clinton administration was effective at shrinking government - the economy was strong and could afford to absorb those cuts.
BigATC: If you're correct when you write,
why then did Reagan, G W Bush, and now Romney insist so strongly on lowering tax rates? According to your argument, it's pretty much all the same.
I didn't say it wouldn't grow a tax base or revenues, just that a tax change in and of itself won't cause a surplus or deficit.
Whether it will raise revenue or not is a different story. Take either side of the tax argument, up or down, and say it works. You raise revenues 5%. Then you turn around and increase spending 10% and you just negated your efforts of raising revenue. You have a deficit caused by too much spending (like we have).
Our historical revenue/gdp is around 18% from the post above since 1950. Sometimes down to 15% and maybe briefly touch 20% at times but will average at around 18% over time. You spend more than that and you will create a deficit. Our current spending is around 24% of GDP. We have never had 24% of GDP.
dslsca "RoyWilson: your riposte isn't even a "nice try." Anyone interested in the truth about the Clinton surpluses may consult the link below with a simple to read chart detailing the matter:"
Linking to a private site is misleading, because they invariably have a 'bias' in one direction or the other. That's why I always try to use official government sources for my data. The National Debt increased for every one of Clinton's 8 years, despite the so-called 'Surpluses', which are nothing but an accounting gimmick used by all administrations - Democratic AND Republican.
The link to the Obama White House on the historical National Debt by year below gives you the correct figures, and as I mentioned, the debt went up every one of Clinton's 8 years - See Table 7.1;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
BigATC: when you write that deficits are caused by too much spending, I think you're only half right. Deficits are caused by spending more then you take in. I'd match income to needs and then tax at the rate we've decided we need to spend. I'd argue that the final years of the Clinton administration show that we can increase taxes and thereby incur surpluses.
Nerm: when you write "Eliminating the debt is exactly what creates a bright future for our children," I cannot agree. Would your children have been better off had you never gone into debt for a mortgage or had they never gone into debt for an education?? Debt can certainly create a brighter future for our children.
I don't remember who, but someone on the hill tried to get a bill put in to limit the federal govt spending to 19% of GDP. Never heard from it again as i'm sure it got the smack down, surely from the Dems and probably some in the Rep party too.
Above should have been "we have never had revenue taken in of 24% of GDP". Which is our current spending rate.
dslsca ... the final years of the clinton administration had no tax increases. But it did have a tax CUT. Yes, a Clinton tax cut. Most people don't remember, or choose to ignore, but in 96 or 97 the Cap gains tax rate was CUT from 28% to 20%. Revenues increased quite a bit. They were stagnant for the previous decade (cap gains revenue) when the rate was increased from 20 to 28%.
Agree debt is not always a bad thing, IF .... it is used responsibly. I have used debt for well over a decade for my real estate ventures and done quite well with it. I am however very conservative and make plans for downturns.
Nerm_L "@BigATC -- Correct. The only way to cut government is to grow the economy."
As I mentioned above, the Federal debt is growing far faster than an improving economy could possibly compensate for. In the last 3.5 years, the National Debt has increased by $5.7 Trillion (57% above fiscal 2008), while the economy (GDP) has only increased by about 4%.
Deficit spending (stimulus) is just digging a hole that will be impossible to climb out of with a 'growing economy'.
Sooner or later, we will have to impose an 'austerity' program, and the longer we wait, the bigger the problem becomes.
The effect on our children and grandchildren from this massive increase in debt will be a dramatic drop in their standard of living because just the interest increase alone will require crippling tax increases. They will not be very happy when they find that their parents have put them hopelessly in debt.
Right now, 'austerity' is a choice, but it will become an unpleasant reality if we don't act soon, but unfortunately, it's always easier to vote for someone that say 'sacrifices are not needed' instead of someone that says we need to tighten our belt.
The Greeks are in their situation now because politicians told their people that deficit spending could go on indefinitely, but now their well has run dry since foreign investors are no longer willing to finance their 'social programs'.
We are on their same path - we can learn from them, or repeat their mistakes.
Well said Roy. We have never had a potential financial crisis that is so easy to see. The problem is responsible spending isn't prudent at this time for the parties to get elected. It may be turning though as more people are aware of our massive deficit and debt.
CNBC had a piece on countries that hit debt of 100% GDP, and how i believe all of them had stagnant economies when that happened. Don't remember who the economist was but he estimated that our huge debt is draining close to 1% GDP growth away from our economy.
RoyWilson: factcheck is widely acknowledged as non-partisan.
When you write, "We [i.e., the USA] are on their [i.e., the Greeks'] same path - we can learn from them, or repeat their mistakes," you are incorrect. As the USA is a monetarily sovereign nation (unlike Greece), we can always print money to cover our needs and will never "go broke." Please don't mention the threat of "hyperinflation" here (I personally witnessed hyperinflation in Russia in the 1990s and have no desire to see that here); I'm only talking about "printing" enough money to keep the government going in part (i.e., as there will continue to be other revenues coming in) and temporarily (until the economy rebounds--and you DO know, don't you, that in April the govt took in more revenue than it spent?). And a bit of inflation would be good for the economy; people tend to forget that capitalist "growth" cannot occur without some inflation and that the current economic mess was started by massive deflation in housing value.
The Democrats will cut defense but increase domestic spending. The Republicans will cut domestic but increase defense. Neither party is interested in increasing taxes on their voters. Neither party is interested in spending cuts on "their" programs. Neither party is serious about fixing the budget issues. Maybe the next congress voted in will care about the long term fiscal health of the country, but the current congress does not care enough to put aside partisan politics.
talking hit it on the head. partisan politics on both sides trumps all. it's all about getting re-elected and making the other side look bad. there are a few good intentioned folks up there but i'm sure they are smacked down from the party elites. and it's very sad they act like elementary school kids.
Correction. In 1919, spending went to 23.44% of GDP. In 1943-45, spending was at an average of 40.87%. We've been above 24% before.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are truly at a crossroads in history. In this election, there are two directions that our country will take; both will be hurtful, and both will cause suffering. On one side, there is our current path of slow but steady growth and a gradually solidifying of our recovery. For our fiscal problems, there would a balanced effort to reduce long-term deficits through tax reform, entitlement reform, a draw-down in Afghanistan, and overall budget cuts. Hopefully, we can rely on the future in which the standard of living will increase, economic inequality will decrease, and our education and health systems are more efficient and competitive with the world.
The second path is that proposed by the opposition party, in which tax cuts are supposed to cause "dynamic growth" while spending cuts will decimate both the public and the private sectors. Massive deregulation would occur, on a level compatible with that of the the 1990s. This deregulation would allow banks to continue to forge monopolies on financial markets, while the derivatives market will bloat uncontrollably. Government would shrink significantly, forcing individuals to reduce their standard of living in order to deal with current constraints.
My fellow commentators, we cannot forsake our slow but steady path to economic prosperity for a get-rich-quick scheme that has been proven to fail time and time again. We cannot abandon the fact that our government is one of the largest drivers of economic growth, and that it is reasonable to slow growth down in order to improve a nation's long-term health. We cannot cut our way out of this recession, just like we couldn't spend our way out of it. We need to find a balance between long-term deficit reduction (via tax reform and spending cuts) and short-term stimulus policies (via investments in education and infrastructure). We must do so now, or forever regret our negligence.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
dslsca "BigATC: when you write that deficits are caused by too much spending, I think you're only half right."
Absolutely correct. It's a combination of too much spending AND not enough revenues. In the current situation, the increases in the Deficits (from 2008) are about 65% extra spending and about 35% from reduced revenues from the recession.
While spending needs to be curtailed, we also need to have a significant increase in taxes - much of which should come from closing the 'loopholes' that the rich use to avoid taxes, but that is only part of the solution - we all need to 'pay our fair share', and a good place to start would be to let the Bush tax cuts expire - GRADUALLY, to avoid a shock that might stifle the economy in 2013.
Most people claim that the tax rates were 'fair' under Clinton, so let's just return to them.
We still have a chance to avoid a financial catastrophe, but unfortunately, I don't think we have the political will to do so. People tend to vote for the politicians that promise 'no pain' over those that 'tell it like it is', as Sarkozy in France just found out.
The new head of the French government just promised what Obama wants to keep doing - increased spending and ignore the deficits, along with no sacrifices by anyone except for a 75% increase in taxes on the 'rich'. Let's see how that turns out, but the initial response has been a dramatic drop in the value of the Euro. Time will tell.
dslsca "RoyWilson: factcheck is widely acknowledged as non-partisan."
Only by people who don't do actual checking of their views. My experience is that they have a distinct liberal bias.
As for your contention that we can always 'print money to cover anything', while this is true, the resulting disruptions caused by massive inflation will end up devastating our economy. We seem to have grown accustomed to moderate inflation (That's why a $1.00 from 1970 is currently worth only $0.16), the inflation that will ultimately result from the current massive increase in the money supply will make that seem tame.
Your idea of simply 'printing more money' was tried in Germany under the Weimar Republic, and has been more recently tried in Zimbabwe, but it didn't turn out so well. Google them and you'll see what I mean.
BigATC "CNBC had a piece on countries that hit debt of 100% GDP, and how i believe all of them had stagnant economies when that happened"
Last year we had GDP of about $15.1 Trillion, and our National Debt is currently $15.7 Trillion, or about 104% of GDP. It averaged 63.81% under Clinton, and 63.02% under Bush (Yes, it was lower under Bush than Clinton - amazingly).
Freshie, when i said we haven't reached 24%, that was REVENUE/gdp i was talking about, not spending.
Curious what this "get rich quick scheme" is?
Wow, the ignorance of Conservatives on the subject of economics is really on display here. We have real world, real time examples of how austerity is plunging economies into recession RIGHT NOW and all the GOPTP sees is the fictional dystopia of Ayn Rand. Europe is a drag on the world economy RIGHT NOW and all the Republicans know to do is double down on the same imaginary budget that they KNOW has NO CHANCE OF BECOMING REALITY...because they already passed the same ridiculous monstrosity a year ago.
How about the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about -- Republicans aren't even honest negotiators in the budget process. THEY SIGNED ONTO THIS DEAL and now they're trying to weasel out of it. Clearly even Conservatives don't believe austerity is a real solution...if it did you couldn't get a much bigger bang for the buck than a sudden, dramatic decrease in military spending.
RoyWilson: in response to your Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe comment, I simply repeat my post from #1.78:
Ah, the hyperinflation bogeyman that the John Birch Society has been pushing since the 1960s and that Glenn Beck pushes on a daily basis...between Goldline commercials. Yeah, there's some level on which we could be looking at such a scenario, but we're years away from that point. The Dollar is still the currency of choice worldwide, so safe and secure that the Treasury Department can sell all the securities we need at an interest rate of effectively zero.
So, what keeps us from reaching that level? Conservatives clearly believe the massive contraction in the economy created by severe austerity can somehow outpace the collapsing revenue that would result. It's a death spiral as Europe is discovering. A better solution is expansion in the economy. Already, even with a level of economic growth we'd all like to improve the reduction in required unemployment benefit payments is very significant.
Austerity would do the opposite, dramatically INCREASING the need for unemployment changes and all measure of public support...rapidly and dramatically INCREASING the deficit. The FYIGM Conservatives would solve that problem neatly by just letting people starve. That's a recipe for massive unrest as Europe demonstrates. The result is the worst case scenario -- rapidly increasing deficits, a collapsing economy, and incredible public anger all at the same time. Nobel Prize winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz said it best;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9019819/Stiglitz-says-European-austerity-plans-are-a-suicide-pact.html
Oh, and he said it MONTHS AGO, when American Conservatives were crowing about how the Socialist nations of Europe had discovered the magic elixir of austerity. They were wrong then and they're even more wrong as evidence of their failure becomes more obvious by the day.
@John B, Des Moines, IA -- We have experienced hyper-inflation for 30 years. That is exactly why today's dollar is worth 15 pct of what it was worth in 1980. That 30 years of hyper-inflation was created by simply throwing money at the wealthy.
The income and wealth disparity we see now is not because the 'rich' were more successful. The 'rich' have the same amount of wealth as they did 30 years ago. The 'rich' used their investment capital to create money by investing in debt. All the 'rich' accomplished was to devalue the wealth they already had by creating money based on debt - by creating money based on inflation.
The conservatives say that no one ever got a paycheck from a poor man. Well, no one ever got a loan from a poor man either. The poor have little wealth - little investment capital - so the poor could not create money for themselves by investing in debt.
That is what troubles the conservatives. If a poor man defaults on their debt - they lose nothing - and gain freedom from debt. Stop feeding the poor - and - the 'rich' man starves.
Go ahead and cut the social safety net. All you will accomplish will be freeing the poor from debt slavery (austerity through default) and starving the 'rich' (austerity by removing their revenue stream).
Nerm: I always get a big kick out of it when I hear a conservative say "no one ever got a paycheck from a poor man." I was a college professor at three different public universities over my career. Every paycheck I ever got was from poor people paying their taxes.
@dslsca -- Apparently most conservatives never actually worked for a living. The 'rich' guy that owned the business only handed out paychecks - the customers provided the money. Remember when the customer was always right - instead of the boss?
You can tell by most of the conservative discussion - that conservatives have no clue how the economy really works.
Conservatives don't even know which backsides they should be kissing.
Basic economics. Government cuts taxes, increases disposable income. The Feds lower the banks reserves, increases borrowing. Business produce more, which means they hire more.
Step one. Government needs to reduce spending except on infrastructure. Cut all the non-sense spending that only promotes dependency by the poor.
Step two, reduce taxes.
Step three, reduce government regulations. Build the Keystone pipeline. Accept more drilling permits, especially of the coast of Florida. Put Americans back to work. Then the revenues will come.
@Jason-1398178 -- Taxes only move money that already exists in the economy from one pocket to a different pocket. Taxes to not destroy money in the economy - taxes only shifts money in the economy. Your idea is to create demand by cutting demand. In the overall economy - that is a wash.
Keystone XL is being constructed - right now - in Oklahoma. Keystone XL is also being constructed - right now - in Canada. The pipeline has not even been delayed. The oil industry is drilling so much - right now - that there are not any idle drilling rigs. The government will get more for the leases when the demand for places to drill increases. Selling leases when the market is glutted is a stupid idea.
Do you want to use government to grow the economy - or - are you simply demonstrating ignorance of how the economy works? Here are some ideas.
Right now the government is handing out about $100 billion is subsidies. Cut those subsidies in half for ONE YEAR - use the $50 billion to set up an infrastructure bank. If reducing subsidies by half for ONE YEAR is too much - then reduce the subsidies by 10 pct for five years - place $10 billion in the infrastructure bank each year for five years. The subsidies can return to previous levels or not as the economy requires. Instead of 'giving' money away as subsidies - put it to work with capital investments.
Designate capital gains as earned income and tax under the current code for earned income. Use the revenue from that tax change to provide credits for capital investments. As the economy expands - allow the credits to expire and use the revenue for debt payments. Instead of rewarding closing factories - reward building and expanding factories.
Convert the unemployment extension to government sponsored internships and training. Let trade schools, colleges, and universities administer the program. Since everyone 'hates' welfare - bring assistance programs under the internship program. Give a man a fish and feed him for a day - teach the man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Convert the college loan programs to trade schools, colleges, and universities to a direct reimbursement system - vouchers if you wish to use that term. The schools are reimbursed for the education when the student is employed. Create an incentive for colleges and universities to train for careers - instead of just peddling degrees.
Transform the disability entitlements to a research program. The beneficiaries still receive their payments - but - they must participate in research to find better ways to accommodate the disabled in the workplace. The research could also develop new technology and treatments that would mitigate the disabilities. That would create new products - new markets. Instead of warehousing and ignoring the disabled - allow them the dignity of participating in their future.
There are many, many ways for the government to promote economic growth - without spending more money. Everything I listed could be revenue neutral - by shifting where and how government spends money. And everything I listed would encourage capital investment - instead of simply investing capital.
We must grow the economy - so that we can reduce government.
Reagan and Chaney never said deficits don't matter, true but what chafs me good is that somehow the GOP has hoodwinked everyone into believing that they are the "fiscally" responsible party. Which they are not anymore than the Democrats.
ROY WILSON-336103
Pretty funny. The math that "proves" that tax cuts lowers debt is exactly the same math that "proves" that stimulus spending will do the same thing. Let's spend a dollar and reduce taxes by a dollar and see what happens.
Spending a dollar instantly increases debt by one dollar. But the dollar is used to hire a contractor and those that administer that dollar. Absent any "stimulative" affect, the return back to the government in taxes is 25% more or less. This spent dollar is "direct" spending and can be targeted to problem areas like construction or state and local government operations.
A reduction in taxes by a dollar instantly creates one more dollar in debt by collecting less revenue. If that dollar gets spent, and not saved, then that dollar enters the economy somewhere and provides someone another dollar in income. Again, minus any stimulative affect, 25% of that dollar may be returned to the government as income taxes. This tax reduced dollar is indirect stimulation in that you do not know if it is really being spent and you have no idea on what it is spent on. The only "control" you have is who you give the tax break to.
So, we can talk about economy "stimulation" all day long, but it appears we both agree with the concept. The only difference is the stimulus direction, certainty, and effectiveness.
Agreed?
Jason-1398178
Your post sounds good, but I think there are a few problems with the concepts:
See my post to Roy, above. We understand the tax cut concept... and it does have merit... but tax cuts are less directed than increased spending. In general, agreed.
Reduced spending is anti-stimulus. Unless you can prove tax cuts stimulate more than spending, you've started your process here with anti-stimulative measures on the backs of the poor. This may be the largest gap between the way the two parties approach the economy.
Okay. But just remember that some people will save the money and you have no control over where it is spent... but okay. The Dems claim that further reducing an already record-breaking low rate for the rich will have no stimulative affect.
Reducing the RIGHT regulations will help. Reducing the WRONG ones just throws our economy back into the gamblers' hands... the same ones or worse than where we were.
The pipeline? It's a net jobs loss. Yes, we temporarily create construction jobs. But when it's done, all the truckers that currently transport the oil get fired, gas prices rise significantly in middle America, and the oil that is sent to our largest exporting port will probably be exported after it is refined. The main difference here is more money in oil company hands... just what the goal was in the first place, right?
Think big deficits cause recessions?
Think again!
BY
FREDERICK C. THAYER
http://www.epicoalition.org/docs/thayer.htm
The chairman of the Republican National Committee predicts that a recession is on the way, blaming the usual suspects - deficits, regulations and taxes. His prediction is probably correct, but his reasoning is not. The culprit is very probably the recent reductions in the federal deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. The record of history is totally at odds with economic principles and textbooks.
The annual deficit (spending minus revenues) has dropped from 4.9 to 2.3 percent of GDP since 1992.
This is the same pattern that immediately preceded the recession of 1990-91 that became a campaign issue in 1992.
The "recovery" that had begun in 1991 was not all that evident by mid-1992. Indeed, the beginning and end of "official" recessions can only be identified long after the fact.
Technically, recession occurs when the economy experiences negative economic growth for two quarters (six months). It then takes some time for the National Bureau of Economic Research to collect data and announce the beginning or end, a process that can take a year or more. If recession begins this year, we will know for sure only well into 1997, but the immediate effects will be quite visible.
I am not an economic forecaster, but I have uncovered unusual relationships that connect reductions in the national debt with major economic depressions, rising annual deficits with economic growth, and reduced annual deficits with economic contraction and recessions.
The record of history is clear and wholly consistent. Increases in the national debt and annual deficits never have harmed the economy, always have helped it. Significant reductions in the debt and the deficits never have helped, always have hurt. The record divides itself into two periods.
From the origins to World War II
In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.
Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.
This is the record:
1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.
2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.
3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..
4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.
5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.
6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.
There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.
Post-World War II
Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.
Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:
· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.
· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes.
· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.
Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.
The Republicans who now praise that "Reagan boom" never refer to the deficits or blame the Democratic Congress, while Democrats repeatedly attack "Reagan deficits." Neither side seems aware that a steep rise in deficits began in 1981, preceding the "boom" by almost two years.
When deficit reductions finally began in 1987, they paved the way for the next recession. Political irony is everywhere.
When the economy slides downhill, the incumbent president is badly damaged, and it does him little good to proclaim "success" in reducing deficits.
Ronald Reagan suffered no political harm because of the deficits of the 1980s and, even at his advanced age, might have been elected again in 1988 if he had been permitted to run. Whatever citizens say to pollsters, they vote against recessions, not budget deficits.
Driven by what appears to be wholly fallacious economic principles, politicians have put together such monstrosities as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollins deficit-reduction policy and the more recent "zero-sum budgeting" (all new programs must be financed by cuts in existing programs), along with the Clinton administration’s "reinvention of government" ("downsizing") to virtually guarantee a new economic disaster, perhaps more serious than any in recent decades.
Extreme danger ahead?
Europe as a whole has been in deep economic trouble for some time, and even Germany now has 11 percent unemployment.
Following the Maastricht criteria the prerequisites for monetary union, European countries are attempting to reduce their annual deficits to the less than 3 percent levels required by the treaty.
There is reason to believe that this effort is hurting European economies which, along with Japan and this country, cannot sell as many consumer goods and services as they need and wish to sell. A spreading recession virus could be very dangerous indeed.
The relationships outlined above deserve serious study, even if they are wholly foreign to widely accepted economic principle that blind even sophisticated analysts to such possibilities. It may be time to question what has been considered unquestionable principle.
Now we're getting somewhere over the last few posts. First of all, the concept that reducing taxes is automatically stimulative because it puts more disposable income in he pockets of consumers is true to a point but simplistic. The tax cuts implemented over the last 30+ years by Conservatives have a common thread...they've exploded deficits and debt while not putting the money into the hands of those who would actually stimulate the economy the most. Tax cuts have overwhelmingly been targeted at the wealthy and at corporate welfare. The overall tax burden of the middle class -- the engine that drives the US economy -- has remained virtually unchanged. In other words the tax cuts that destroyed the budget have been targeted at the least effective spenders.
Nerm_L, interesting the way you stand the concept of hyperinflation on its ear, very thought provoking. By "conventional" standards what we've experienced is far from hyperinflation. By putting it in terms of how rapidly it's become difficult to maintain a middle class standard of living you've said something really significant. When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s pretty much anyone above the very bottom rung of the economy was buying a new car every 3-5 years and had some sort of "hobby interest"...a fishing boat, camper, basic cabin in the woods or on a lake, regular vacations...something. Conservatives will whine about how even the poor now have dvd players or some such, but that's just nattering. Once upon a time even the rich didn't have central heating either. The fact of the matter is that it's become increasingly difficult to maintain a middle class standard of living.
Then there's the simple fact that investment in infrastructure and our people IS CRITICAL to our economic well-being. American education and transportation infrastructure were crucial to our predominance as the world's greatest economy. Stagnation in those areas thanks to Conservative cheapness is hurting us in relation to other economies.
LMarcT, great comments about the power of sensible regulation to keep the economy on an even keel. The Libertarians who think freedom and the free market are one and the same have it all wrong. China manages to pair capitalism and authoritarianism very effectively. Capitalism paired with enough regulation to keep things fair for the "little guy" is the genius of the American system.
ArchStanton, interesting article about paying down debt. I think that takes it to a bit of an extreme. I believe debt should be paid down...but over decades, not a few years when the debt is as large as ours.
I think we have a consensus here on one issue: we need to address our debt and deficits. The problem that I see here and in Washington is that (A) we don't how to reduce them, and (B) we are unsure of how to balance austerity with growth.
I would also like to point out a few facts that conservatives tend to ignore. For one thing, conservatives always bash the concept of the "welfare state" and mock the Europeans for their "entitlement society," yet they fail to mention that some countries in Europe are actually prospering. Take Scandinavia, for example. Thanks to massive investments in things like education and healthcare, not only are they more competitive and healthier than us, but their unemployment rates are far lower than us and their growth is equal to our greater than ours. They love to state how welfare states discourage growth, but they also ignore the fact that that statement isn't universal. The Scandinavian countries spend massive amounts of money on safety nets and social services, and see how they are prospering. Yes, massive government spending can discourage growth, but that is only when funding is concentrated only on the safety net and not on long-term growth sectors like education and healthcare.
Secondly, conservatives remind us constantly of how Europe is in a debt crisis, yet they don't tell us that the austerity measures that they are taking have destroyed their economies. Europe is in a recession now, dragged back into the swamp by the harsh austerity requirements forced on the nations by Germany and the EU. Even with that in mind, every conservative deficit reduction plan is comparable to European austerity. Take the Ryan budget, for example. Congressman Ryan's plan promises to reduce non-military domestic spending by 72% over the next few decades, from 12.5% of GDP to a mere 3.5%. Ryan travels across the nation, telling us that everything from food stamps to foreign aid must face the budget ax, yet he forgets to mention that such cuts could weaken or even reverse our fragile economic recovery. In addition, Ryan is actually proposing increasing the already bloated defense budget, which at nearly $1 trillion is nearly 25% of the entire federal budget. He even criticized Defense Sec. Leon's Panetta when he argued against increasing defense spending on the backs of social services. Finally, Ryan and his fellow budget hawks on the right fail to address the revenue side of the equation. Deficits are not only caused by spending more but by making less. Ryan even argues for massive tax cuts, stating that they will cause "dynamic growth," even though economists have rejected that and the value of the cuts will significantly reduce the savings of the Ryan plan.
Finally, conservatives always tell us how we need to tighten our belts, but they ignore the fact that we still need to eat (earn more revenue). Not only do they reject the fact that the government needs higher revenues, but they are totally convinced that spending is our only problem. The Ryan plan even calls for trillions in massive tax cuts, even though it has been proved that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy as much as spending. Republicans remind us how great leaders like Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes and how our economy prospered, but they fail to mention that rates under Kennedy and Reagan were much higher than they are now, and that Reagan only cut taxes during a recession. Even after the failure of the massive Bush tax cuts, conservatives are pushing for even greater tax cuts that will only benefit the wealthy, no matter who gets them. There was an interesting point that Rachel Maddow made on her show on Friday that giving people a lump sum of money doesn't necessarily mean that they will spend it, while giving them couple extra bucks each payday will cause them to spend it, as they won't see the increase as significant.
My fellow Americans, we cannot abandon our steady path to growth because of our fiscal problems. Yes, we need to tighten our belts, but we also need to accept higher taxes in the future, because we cannot solve our debt problem with spending cuts alone. And we cannot embark on the treacherous path of austerity, not while our recovery is so fragile. We must find a balance between short-term stimulus, long-term austerity, and a combination of both in the medium-term. Our only hope is to find that elusive balance between austerity and growth, for even a slight miscalculation will send us back into recession. The GOP may have it right when we need to focus on our debt, but they are not right when it comes to how to reduce deficits, or even how to stimulate the economy. Our only hope is with the Democrats and Independents, for the moderate Republicans are virtually nonexistent. In the words of the great John F. Kennedy, we need to "ask not of what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Our country needs our help, and we need to come together to save it.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
@John B, Des Moines, IA -- Hyper-inflation simply means the inflation occurs over a short period of time. Compress the inflation that has occurred over the last 30 years into a single day - your $3 cup of coffee would cost $18 - your $23k automobile would cost $138k - your $250k house would cost $1.5 million.
The problem began 30 years ago when government policy shifted towards favoring risk - investing. Our monetary system is based on risk and investment growth. Inflation over the last 30 years has been based on profit taking.
Before that change, our monetary system was based on wages. Inflation was cause by increasing wages more than increasing profits.
Before the supply side economics took hold - our monetary system was based on the ability of people to make a living wage.
This is simply an observation. We have people on here, almost all, that state we have problems. What we don't have is people stating, unless I missed them, that we will not fix our problems without one group or another getting hurt in one way or another. I wonder, why we as a people united can't seem to come to grips with the idea that most groups have to be hurt in some way to correct our problem.
Yes, welfare must be cut.
Yes, rich must pay more in taxes.
Yes, We need to cut foreign spending.
Yes, corporate loopholes must be filled.
Yes, government spending needs to be cut substantially.
Yes, some will be hurt.
And, if we do nothing ALL will be hurt. Imagine US Government insolvency, there would be zero welfare and social programs. There will be near zero government jobs. Crime rates will skyrocket because of poverty, and there will be no money for police. There will be no food for the masses because no one can afford it. Think of what everyone has read about the Great Depression, and multiply it by 30 because of population growth. We will all be eating Soylent Green.
We really need to come to the understanding that we are in trouble, and playing partisan politics is what caused this mess. Common sense is apparently no longer common.
Pretty words - when will you become part of the we that pays any taxes let alone accepts higher taxes.
What evidence do you have that Freshieee doesn't pay taxes?
Or do you just prefer to cast aspersions without actually offering an opinion?
Yeah, it's that second thing.
John B, Freshieee has stated "I don't pay taxes"
What was that you said about casting aspersions?
No payroll taxes?
No fuel tax?
No sales tax?
You see, that's where the Conservative line "almost half of Americans pay no taxes" is a complete and total distortion. Even at the federal level nearly half of tax collections are payroll tax, not income tax.
But keep plugging that wedge issue...maybe someone outside the radical fringe will one day believe it.
John - Those are Freshieee's words not mine. So save me your rant.
John, it's a fact. I don't pay taxes. But that is because I don't work. I am not eligible to work, as I am too young. But NH, before you rush to judgement, try to wonder why people don't pay taxes. Many are too poor, many are unemployed. Many are retirees. So spare me your rant, and try to use a USEFUL argument.
What was the point of this article?
I'm sure it wasn't to point out that the House keeps passing budgets and budgeting items and the Senate can't get one to the floor due to poor leadership.
TO: Realist-1226632 who wrote:
The point of the article in my view is that Republicans feel that weapons are much more important than the American People, even if they don't need any more weapons.
Obama/Biden 2012
The point was to let us know that they plan on spending money on what makes money for them and squeeze the lower classes even more. In four words, austerity for the poor.
The point of this article is to say the Republicans have one idea of making govt. fiscally responsible, mainly with a butcher knife on entitlements, the Democrats would articulate more across the board with perhaps paying debt back, which is not in the Republican playbook, well, I should say it is not well known to the public, as long as their taxes are hidden, then they tend to go along with taxing.
THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE is to lie, and say republicans want to starve poor people. What a joke. Damage control, because obama is losing in the polls by DOUBLE DIGITS ALREADY! LOL!
Paul,
The actual article made no mention of a Democratic plan because there is none. They have not proposed a budget because they do not want to put their ideas on paper for people to run against.
Please note that the Senate has not come up with a budget in over three years which is a violation of United States law. The last two budgets from the President have not received even one vote so that is an exercise in wasting peoples time and not taking the budget processes seriously.
Democrats would let the system go bankrupt so no one has any benefits because they are more interested in buying votes than helping anyone.
TO: rightisright-5861504 who wrote:
When you quote someone, that's not a lie. Paul Ryan's Plan is what it is, and it WOULD result in taking food off the table of American Families.
Maybe what you could say is, "Republicans don't care if people starve" which would be true, I mean, look how Republicans lambast needy Americans.
jerryl: dunno what you mean when you write, "The actual article made no mention of a Democratic plan because there is none. They have not proposed a budget because they do not want to put their ideas on paper for people to run against." Both the President's Office of Budget and Management and the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee have formally proposed budgets for the coming fiscal year, but the House (where all spending bills must constitutionally originate) won't allow a vote on them.
People will starve if you accept the budget that Duh Ryan wants to pass. Please don't act like they care about anyone but the rich!
The Obama administration has proposed budgets but it includes tax increases to even the balance of over a decade of tax cuts and it's been pooped on by your Rep. Paul Ryans and Alan Wests.
Obama's budget would raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, end subsidies paid
to the largest oil and gas companies, increase government spending on
transportation infrastructure projects while broadly maintaining federal
spending on other domestic programs. The House Republican budget, written by
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, would
drastically cut federal spending across the board with the exception of defense
spending. It would lower tax rates for wealthy Americans and propose a dramatic
overhaul to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. -Wall Street.
The Democrats have made proposals jerry l-1335133
Dslsca,
Last year the President Obama budget received 0 (zero) votes in the House and this year his budget received 0 (zero) votes in the Senate. Please check your fact before you post. Also you are wrong, bills can start in the Senate, as it is law that the Senate propose a budget and we are going on our fourth year without a budget from them.
The way the system works is the House passes a budget and then the Senate does, after they meet in committee and work out a compromise that both parties can accept. If the Democrats do not pass one then their can be no compromise and a dysfunctional system.
Paul,
Zero votes from the Democratic controlled Senate where only 51 votes are needed to pass a budget bill which they have
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/wh-chief-of-staff-errs-on-senate-budget-rules/
jerryl: you wrote above in #3.9, "They [i.e., the Democrats] have not proposed a budget." Then in #3.12 you write, "Last year the President Obama budget." Which is it???? Did he or did he not propose a budget? And I have my facts: ALL spending bills must originate in the House. Minority Leader McConnell may (as may ANY Senator) move for the adoption of the Ryan budget. If you're right that they have the votes, all he need do is to move for its passage. I'm not holding my breath.
The President proposed a budget, and the Senate brought it up for a vote and it received zero votes. Please note that a budget cannot be filibustered and requires 51 votes to pass which the Democrats have. If something gets no votes do you think it is a serious proposal or a waste of time?
Only the head of the Senate can bring a bill up for a vote which Senator Reid refuses to do, they can move for adoption but the final decision rests with Senator Reid
Go to realclearpolitics.com.
Obama is +1.3 ahead of Romney. Gotta love Republicans that say Obama has already lost when we have Romney trying to explain why he captained a forced hair cutting session with a gay student in high school.
jerryl: again I repeat my point: if McConnell thinks the Ryan budget can attract 51 votes he may move for its passage at any time. Your notion that "only the head of the Senate can bring a bill up for a vote" is simply not in congruence with the rules of the Senate. ANY member may ask unanimous consent for the introduction of a bill for consideration; McConnell chooses not to do that with the Ryan budget as he knows he cannot get it passed and the defeat would humiliate him.
dslsca,
If the Republicans do not have the votes then would it not be in the interest of the Democrats to bring it up for a vote so they can say it is a lousy piece of legislation.
jerryl: you're thinking like a Republican--you'd rather embarrass the other party than actually do something constructive. I don't want the Dems to sink to that level.
Exactly!! as seen on TV.... Hannity and FOX
The ONLY austerity going on in the US is the meager brainpower supplied by Paul Ryan and his bunch of lackeys.
American race-baiting girl writes: "When you quote someone, that's not a lie."
Really? No, really? Is that the stance you want to take? Are you sure? Okee dokey then.
From American Girl:
"I'm a 36 year old strong liberal woman I'm 5'-2" 210lbs. I live in Kiryas New york where I attended school until the age of 13, I dropped out to raise my first child but that's when I found out that the state gives me money when I have babies. I've now got 8 little blessings and it's awful wonderful because each one of their daddy's comes by at least once every month and makes me feel so good. Then they take their share of the state assistance money and I don't have to see them for at least another month. I love my family so much and did you know that the government will actually pay you each month for every child you have? Between that money and the food stamps, I'm living like a queen, don't gotta get a job, a husband, or nothin'. Oh, and I just found out some amazing news; as of of August, my youngest daughter Delialah, she's 14 now, she's gonna be a mama! I'm gonna be a grandma! Woo Hoo! obama/biteme 2012"
So since I quoted you it's not a lie...right?
Wow, if someone listens closely they can actually hear the circuitry sizzling.
Oh precious American girl, you need to stick with playing race cards because that's the only thing you're good at. Making sense of something just isn't your cup of tea.
Rightwingwac
You obviously missed her intent and I suspect it was on purpose.
She meant that when you quote someone verbatim, the one doing the quote is not lying. They are repeating someone's words. Whether the quote contains a lie is irrelevant.
On the other hand, your fictional quote is a lie, meant to incite, and insulting on a personal level. It jeapordizes any credibility you may have gained, creates resentment on both sides of the issue, and corrupts any meaningful debate that was present.
When you can not beat them with intellect, you beat them with inflamatory language.
Bosslimo
Exactly correct. I have zero respect for "her" and the way she chooses to conduct herself on here. When she can't beat them she pulls a race card and accuses the same blathering ignorance that's assisting barack in dividing the country. This ain't about here and now, this is about her pulling crap on me that I don't let people get away with. I have the utmost confidence in my ability to win any argument against her because she has proven time and time again that when she's presented with legitimate debate she resorts to either the crap that I mentioned or the "liar liar pants on fire" offense. Either way, I've said it a million times...I will gladly get in the mud and the blood with dems when they go that route. You can check my entire history and I've yet to start a conversation with names and ignorant bashing (unless there's a history with someone deserving like this). But when someone throws a brick through my window and runs through the gates of hell to escape me...they don't escape, I gladly follow.
See I'm considered by many on this vine to be some vile right wing whatever. But the reason and thus the problem is that I don't let people get away with being an ass-hole. To many on the RIGHT just take the elementary bull shi$ abuse and leave...not me. I don't forget, and I don't back down, nor will I. I've had multiple instances where logical arguments have been presented against me and I've conceded points when I may have mis-represented something. But to stay with a current theme, the "bullying" by some of these liberal bimbos is something that's just not going to shut me up, in fact it does the opposite.
I will play on the high road or when invited I'll play on that low road. The race-baiting girl dragged me into her snake pit where I will gladly hang out and shine a light on who she is. I wasn't trying to post some well constructed debate here, you're right...it was on purpose. Her arguments are about as surface and simple is it gets too, but that's another post.
As much as I respect and honestly agree with your statements to a point. If this was the first thing you've seen from us I could see possibly coming to her defense, possibly. But please don't sit down half way through a movie and assume you know everything that's going on.
Bosslimo
A perfect point for my case is that she did exactly what I was doing, before I did it, and used "republicans want people to starve" and then said, "which would be true". So again, the left hypocrisy is in full form. I'll admit I get petty, they think they're Gods. With hypocritical nonsense like that she can stay in hell where she belongs. Thin skinned hypocrite leftists are the easiest targets to bring out.
I see that the "STALKER" is out with his usual utterly BS !!!
So this will be your "buzz word" for the week? That's cool because I can have all sorts of fun with that word. I'm looking forward to it. But come on neurotic, the "holes in the shoes" thing was so much better. Go back to that incomprehensible blathering. It made you look soooo smart and in tune. Or how about "phony 1%", or then there was "flip-flopper" which none of those made any sense but it is you we're talking about so that in itself makes sense.
You just love getting intellectually whomped don't you? I think you and about four of your liberal bimbo counter-parts must have a secret "leather mask" club because you sure like being put in a submissive position. You really are pathetic, you can't even stand up and argue for what you claim to believe and that's why you just won't win schnookums.
"Stalker is Schizophrenia" !!!!!!!!!!!
As usual your post makes no sense. Schizophrenia isn't even relevant or close to something I display even if you wanted to burn me with a psychological label (like I did you, way to be original). Besides a person is not "schizophrenia" they would be "schizophrenic". So please look up the meaning of something and then pretend to be original with it. bye bye puppet.
"It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways." -
Buddha
Schizophrenia was the meaning of you, a form of illness in which a persons personality and behaviour undergo a complete change, putting it nicely.
Now she's trying to explain the meaning of an attempted dig. Oh my neurotic you display all the brains of a small farm animal, it really is amazing. Maybe it's time to simply stick to forums about Barbie or bedazzling or something more your speed sweetheart. You really are making a fool out of yourself...putting it nicely.
Low income Americans need a hand up not a hand out. Nothing is free....All food stamps, welfare, even unemployment should not be given without drug testing and if you are collecting from government programs you need to give back through some type of volunteer work. I have to get up every morning and go to work, I have to be drug tested in order to keep my job which pays for the government programs. Life is tough and I am sick of all the people who think they should be handed what so many Americans work hard for. Paul Ryan's budget is drastic I agree, but it is also exactly what we need to get us out of this mess. Not 4 more years of Obama's spending. The only way back to prosperity is for it hurt across the board...everyone must feel the burn....
So you're going to drug test children are you? I'm sure you're aware that the majority of these programs go to the support of children especially food stamps. As for unemployment....that's not welfare...that's an insurance program that we ALL pay into so that when we become unemployed we have some income support. Too bad you have to be drug tested to keep your job. Not all people have such employment conditions. Seems to me you are resentful and want to take it out on unfortunate people that fall on hard times. And no Ryan's budget is NOT exactly what we need. Any more contraction of spending into our economy and we will fall back into recession. You only have to take a look at drastic spending cuts in England to see that they have fallen into a double dip recession. That will be our fate if we continue to cut back on spending when the economy is not more robust.
And, if we did make these cuts and they did lead to a double dip recession it would all be Obama's fault.
I think the Democrats have been trying to tell you that everone should feel the "burn". The rich have been feel the "good feeling" of low taxes and want them even lower for themselves. Since they are the ones that created the problem with the help of the republicans, they need to feel the heat that the rest of us have been feeling since 2007 thanks to the previous administration. I still cant believe that there are so many poor people being led by the very rich into a nation of the very rich and very poor with no one in between but that seems to be where we are heading.
That's a lie. Republicans got unemployment down to 4.6%, it was democrats in congress that destroyed the economy and doubled unemployment. Compare the dozen years republicans ran congress to the last five. No contest, democrats are incompetent.
Laurie - That is a disingenuous argument. Of course the children (under about 8 years anyway...) don't need to be tested, but the benefits are issued to the parents. If the parents can't pass, then the kids shouldn't be with them, either.
TO: Valhalla Phil who wrote:
No, when Republicans arrived in Washington after the Clinton Presidency unemployment was already at 4%, and being the lying sacks of crap the GOP are, they immediately laid claim to ALL of Democrat Bill Clinton's successes, even though, as Larry says (above) Republicans make "progress" by doing nothing.
Get a life people! Republicans' revisionist history doesn't even make sense, especially to those of us who were actually there.
Obama/Biden 2012
The Republicans were there for most of the Clinton Presidency. I will give credit to President Clinton for finding ways of working with his Republican Congress led by Newt which could not have been easy and for that matter President Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill which was another tough match up. When Presidents put the good of the country in front of their ego we make progress.
Clinton and good ole Republicans substantially decreased welfare--- by moving the U.S minimum welfare earings up $2,000 and making millions of families with children most of them working people do without subsidizing to assist them. A good majority single parents, the very people they should have given some assistance to. Oh they got off welfare alright, so they could scrap and clean out the bottom of the barrel to survive.
Just so the graph could look lower for campaign purposes.
Jerry, and when Congress puts the good of the people in front of their egos, we make progress. It's a two way street, and both sides are guilty as sin of being all about themselves.
Annie,
I agree with you completely but if you notice I mentioned a President from each party and was not making a political argument.
Our deficit is growing because our unemployment rate is so high right now. If the government actually spent money on infrastructure and the rehiring of teacher, firemen and police, then the economy would grow and the deficit would come down naturally because more people would be paying taxes. Once the economy is on the rebound then money from the government can ease back. Austerity will only put us in a perpetual stagnent economy.
Laurie,
That is exactly what we did. The problem is there is not enough money to do the indefinitely. That is why many states have laid off these workers once again.
We have money in the private sector that could be invested, the problem is who knows what to put the money in?
http://www.examiner.com/article/irs-pays-out-billions-fraudulent-tax-credits-abuses-multiply-under-obama
This is what we need to stop. If you are worried about the poor of the united states, why are we giving money away for children of illegal aliens that do not even live in the country?
We as a country cannot take tax income from 3-5 years to support a 1 or 2 year spending package.
That is also what we have done, we need jobs that are funded for the long term, not short term band-aids.
Laurie, we don't need to create more jobs for union hacks in the public sector that have been milking the taxpayers for decades, we need to create more private sector jobs. The only way the government can help is by buying products and services from private sector companies, or lower the cost of doing business here by simplifying or doing away with burdensome regulations and reducing taxes. Obama and the czars in his regime just don't get it. There answer is to punish companies with higher taxes and even more regulations than they've already heaped upon them.
David - My friend you've been brainwashed....Our economy is made up of both private and public sector jobs. We need both to make our economy work. We cannot cut back on teachers, fire and police indefinitely. These are vital public services that people want. These jobs create jobs in the private sector because after all it's demand that creates jobs. So if you have more jobs in the public sector this creates demand in the private sector. If you continue to lay off public servants you will continue to have lagging demand and no growth in the public sector. The economy need both private and public. You've been brainwashed by ideologues on the right that have an agenda and they are hurting this country
Laurie: you state that "public jobs create jobs in the private sector"? ....wow. I would really like to know more about this statement...please back this up by some evidence...just who has been feeding you this very obtuse information?
Laurie it is you that have been brainwashed. The public sector creates wealth, the public sector destroys it. The public sector leaches off the wealth of the private sector. Even when it prints money it is destroying wealth by devaluing the dollar.
Money exists whether it's in bureaucrats hands or individual hands. Lowering the government's share does not shrink the economy, it grows it.
Actually, the states laid those workers off because they were forced to balance their budgets, which is stupid, especially during a recession.
Oh, so if we have money in the private sector that can be invested, why isn't it being invested??? Companies are sitting on $2 trillion in cash, and they could fund millions of jobs. Why don't they invest it??? I'll tell you why; there isn't enough demand. Private funding goes down in a recession either because there is no money or there isn't any confidence; we are lacking in confidence. That's where the government comes in to make up the difference until the private sector can become confident again to invest.
We have done that. Hundreds of thousands of long-term jobs have been created, which will create even more through the multiplier effect. And short-term bandages do help, when applied responsibly. They keep the economy going forward in a steady pace until the private sector once again grows a pair and starts to invest.
It's basic economics. Look up Keynesian economics and the multiplier effect. Hiring public workers enables them to spend money, creating demand and allowing companies to hire workers, as companies hire because of demand.
Since when does the public sector destroys wealth??? Wealth is like energy; it cannot be destroyed, only changed in form. Essentially, wealth travels in a cycle; the government takes money from the private sector via taxes and fines, and then spends it on things like defense or contracts. Those contracts goes to the private sector, where they hire workers, and then they pay taxes and start the whole cycle all over again. And doesn't the private sector leach off of the government through special tax loopholes and regulatory breaks????
Not necessarily. If you cut government jobs, where are those people going to go??? Don't tell me that the private sector is going to receive them with open arms; they won't. Many might be unemployed for a while until they find a job. And I do believe that the government also grows the economy. Look at Scandinavia; their spending per GDP is among the highest in the world, and yet their economies are in relatively good shape. Not only that, but they have better education and healthcare than we do. Seek the truth, my misguided friend, for the truth shall set you free.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Freshieeee: you are so wrong...the reason that the private sector is holding on to their profits and not hiring is they have no confidence in what is happening and will continue to do so as long as there is over-regulation...they are not willing to spend profits unless they have assurances that they see minimum risks of investing more in the growth of their enterprises...this means they will not risk hiring more employees...it is no secret that Obama is not friendly to business and the private sector. Also, they do not know how they will be further impacted if the full thrust of Obamacare (hopefully the Supremes will get rid of this travesty) goes into effect in January of 2013...remember,the government produces 0, nada, zip...government employees have to be supported by taxes...the taxes that are created as a result of growing the private sector. Government jobs absolutely do not grow the economy...
Obama/Biden - 6 more months
The private sector also need almost a billion dollars of Minnesota tax payor money to keep the private Minnesota Vikings playing football in Minnesota, so it can go both ways. Mary Fallin wants to get rid of Oklahoma's state income tax, being the Republican she is, but she also needs oil and gas profits and the taxes they generate to make up for it. It's a two way street.
We shall see if a new stadium will profit Minnesota, the contract is over 30 years.
The states by law have to have a balanced budget, it is not stupid it is the law that they have to follow. As a state you cannot print money, you can borrow money as a bonding bill for a specific project.
Are the tax cuts going to be extended? How can you hire someone when you do not know what it is going to cost in salary and taxes? When you do not know if you are even going to need that worker next week let along next year. Of course companies are gun shy. All we hear about is raising taxes.
Really? if so many jobs have been created why are the states laying off people to balance their budgets? Why do we have less people in the work force than we did in 2009?
That is the point the band-aids have not been applied responsibly. It has been a Hodge podge of this and that. We need real work. How about upgrading our coal plants to be more efficient and pollute less? That would be a good investment in our future.
As much as the Oil companies are hated they generate jobs and profit for all of us. We need the jobs that we create to be self sustaining. Not based on a hope and a prayer that things will be better next year.
Freshieee If you had a billion dollars what would you buy, or invest in?
We are a consumer based economy, until the consumers have money we are stuck. Paying more in taxes is not going to give the consumer any more money. Having high energy costs, high food prices is not going to give us more money. We have less buying power then we did in 2009.
I would love to buy new furniture for my living room, but I just cannot spend that kind of money when I have no idea how much I will make let alone if I will have a job.
Hahahaha. If I am wrong, and you are right, then why didn't we have an explosion of job growth after the Bush administration??? Wasn't he "business friendly," what with his tax cuts and deregulation and "pro-business" principles? Don't give that anti-business crap that you got from the same schmuck who says that Obama ought to be tried for treason. Businesses don't spend money unless they can make a return. Unfortunately, they don't see that know with demand at its current state. Do you know why we had a depression just a few years ago???? BECAUSE OF A LACK OF REGULATION. We deregulated the financial and housing markets, and then the monopolistic banks crashed, nearly destroying us. We need regulations to plug make sure those bastards don't screw this economy again.
So offering tax breaks to small businesses is "anti-private sector???" Trying to create jobs to increase demand and expand businesses is "anti-private sector???" What kind of idiot is making all these claims???
You do realize that Obamacare is not the business-crushing program that you think it is. The Chamber of Commerce reported earlier this year that the program would cost jobs; one congressmen even claimed that it would destroy 800,000 jobs. Politifact proved otherwise, stating that there was no evidence whatsoever to prove so.
So nothing is created by government??? Apparently all those roads and bridges (made by private contractors, but paid for by federal funds) and schools produce nothing??? So does that mean my education is worth nothing??? Hmm, interesting statement. Obviously false, but interesting....
Yes, public employees are paid by taxes, but they do cause growth. Ever heard of the multiplier effect?? It states that hiring several workers could stimulate demand, creating more jobs which will, in turn, create more demand. Even public employees contribute to the economy; after all, don't they spend money on food, gas, and household items???? Sorry, but your argument is completely baseless.
OBAMA BIDEN 4 more years.
We need to cut every program and every department. Across the board cuts no porgram is exempt no department is safe. As a country we need to understand we cannot afford to fund everything all the time. If we taxed 100% of all of the so called rich in this country we still cannot afford the levels of spending.
Not true. If we were to hypothetically take every penny that they made, we would run trillion-dollar surpluses for years, as the top 20% control anywhere from 60% to 93% of all the income in the US. Check the facts.
The last number I hear for the 1 percent is 5.4 trillion dollars. Since most of this is not liquid assets there is no way that we could run our country for years. A lot of those assets you would have to be rich to afford, so who can you sell it too? You cannot hand out bricks from a multi million dollar mansion. You cannot cut up a yacht. Who is going to buy all the stocks?
So we take money from the top 20%, then what. Who is going to be left to pay taxes? Who is going to own the company?
If you take our GDP and divide by our population you end up with roughly $50,000.00 for every man women and child in our country. At 20 percent you are probably hitting that $50,000.00 salary.
If you took every Penny than they could not spend it.
Actually, the top fifth make at least $88,000 a year, and there are two working members in the household.
Of course if you took every penny they could not spend it.
And as for taxpayers, you do realize that there are millions of Americans beside the top 20% who pay taxes, right???
And dividing GDP by every person is an almost useless comparison, because it can depend on independent factors like population. A country with 4 million people and $360 billion in GDP has a per capita income of $90,000.
Tell that to Rep. Paul Ryan who would cut everything but his precious military budget.
It seems to me that the house republicans would rather take food stamps away from poor people, than raise taxes on billionaires, or stop subsidizing big oil companies that are raking in record profits while we pay record prices at the pump. I guess thats why I, for one, will be voting Obama/Biden in november!
airwavescout,
http://www.whoownsbigoil.org/
check out the website, if you take money from the oil companies, you are taking it away from us.
They make very little profit per gallon, they make a large overall profit due to volume.
What about the 6 billion dollars we gave to Brazil for their oil production?
What about the 1 billion dollars Hathaway owes in taxes.
Stop with the class warfare.
Let's say the government implemented ALL of the following today:
- End to all Foreign Aid
- End of all Earmarks
- End of Corporate Jet Tax Deduction
- End Gas & Oil Tax Breaks
- End Bush Tax cuts for those making over $250,000
- Implement the "Buffet Rule"
Doing all of the above would fund the government for a whopping 12 1/2 days. We do not have a revenue problem. We are never going to get the deficit under control without addressing spending. Perhaps in a second Obama term we will have 75% of the country on food stamps. Personally, I'll take Romney and getting those folks a job rather than a handout.
Subnormal - LOL!!! I need to pick myself up off the floor.....that's why oil company profits are through the roof each and every year....Hah!!! They have fixed costs so when the price of oil jumps and prices go up at the pump, it's just pure profit for them. They need to expend a dime more for that increase in price to them.
I am happy to provide food stamps to those who really need them and we are donors to our local food bank. It is the people who are fraudulantly getting the help that I cannot tolerate. And what can be purchased needs to be controlled. Fruits yes, junk food no. There are restaurants taking food stamps. When I did not have any money, we ate at home and as cheaply as possible.
Laurie, oil company profits are not through the roof. Since I own a ton of Exxon I only wish. If you think they are making all that money, buy the stock! You could retire in no time!
Oil companies do not control the price of oil, the futures market does. Again, if you think they are making money invest in futures yourself.
In other words, put your money where your mouth is.
TO: weaselyone who wrote:
Just as soon as Republicans STOP giving more tax cuts to mega-millionaires while Republicans take food OFF the table of American Families!
Hmm, so revenues being at 14% of GDP is not a problem??? Very conspicuous.
Nor are we going to get it under control without raising taxes. The truth cuts both ways. Understand that, and you'll understand life....
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Democrats = Communists
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/nyregion/among-russian-immigrants-in-new-york-affinity-for-republicans.html
Ooooookay Road Warrior....
..."Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor,and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital,and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has it's rights,which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is,and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits."
"...Inasmuch as most good things are produced by labor,it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labor has produced them. But it has so happened,in all ages of the world,that some have labored,and others have without labor enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong,and should not continue. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor,or as nearly as possible,is a worthy objective of any good government."
Both quotes from Abraham Lincoln,the first was from his State of the Union Address on December 3,1961.
Wasn't HIS election the ascendancy of a new political party?
What was that party's name...?
Hmmmm...
How can a company grow without profits? How can they hire more workers if they do not have extra money to invest? How do they replace equipment when it breaks?
We need companies to make a profit.
Do you ever think about how your purchasing habits effects the way companies go to market? If we constantly want something for a cheaper price, what do you think a company has to do? they have to find ways of lowering their costs. They can invest in equipment, cheaper materials, or change their labor costs. Sometimes they do all of them. That is part of progress.
Here let me help you up.
Did you know that there are many oil companies investing in green energy?
Also are you going to give them money back when they are losing money? Did you know that they are selling oil refineries because they are losing money on them?
If you want them to pay more in taxes fees and generate jobs, we could oh may be let them drill more?
You want to cut their profits? We could increase production?
Why are they the constant whipping boy? With all the pension funds and stocks that are out there it is not like they are not sharing.
Do you know how much money it takes to drill a new well?
DId you know Oil riggers are some of the highest paid workers in the country?
American Girl
Taking food off the table? Really, have you ever worked at a convenience store? Do you see what "poor" people buy for food? What is a poor person in your eyes? What do you consider the basic needs of a poor person?
Do not get me wrong there are certainly people that need help. I do not have a problem helping people do better for themselves. I think we should spend quite a bit more effert in doing more than just providing food. It would be great if they could become more productive members of our society. I guess I have more faith in peoples abilities to provide for themselves than it seems a lot of other people do.
How can we have more poor today as a percentage of population than we did when we started all of these programs? May be that is just my impression, but it does seem to be mentioned quite a few times on the news and the articles I have read.
Is it true that part of the reason we are in this mess is due to the noble notion of having more people own their own homes?
So right now we have a policy of higher energy costs, which increase food prices, transportation costs, clothing costs and pretty much everything else. So we need to provide more money to allow the poor to purchase what they need, by raising the taxes of people that have less free money for the things that they need, so they spend less and we end up with less people working which causes there to be more people who need help, and so on. When are we going to run out of people that are producing? I guess may be we will find out.
That's all fine,well and good Paul. I own a small business and have had to do all three of the things you listed at times. No problem here with your post.
My post's point,it's LONE POINT,was that I'm really quite tired of ignorant fools like Road Warrior who post infantile idiocy like "Democrats=Communists".
So I called him on his BS.
Freshieee
Hmm, so revenues being at 14% of GDP is not a problem??? Very conspicuous.
Nor are we going to get it under control without raising taxes. The truth cuts both ways. Understand that, and you'll understand life....
What we need is more people making enough money to have to pay taxes. You can raise taxes all you want but that does not mean that you are going to increase tax revenues long term. If you look at the numbers for tax revenue while President Bush was in office, tax revenue actually increased.
Look at the GDP growth after taxes had been lowered you will see that it actually increased as well. I do not think that we need to lower taxes right now, I do not see that is our issue. What would help is knowing what the long term rates are going to be. I have not heard anything that would lead me to believe that our present tax rates are going to be continued next year. Even if they went up, we could see growth if we stated right now what that increase is going to be.
Knowing would be a big help. Until then we are stuck with what we have 2.2% growth.
Republicans=Greedy Corporatists.
Yes, we need to broaden the tax base. But we still need to raise rates. I'd say repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy now, and in three years do away with the rest of them. And you do realize that tax revenue goes up during nearly every presidential term in a good economy, right??? That doesn't mean that the Bush tax cuts increased revenues; it means that the economy grew, and so did receipts.
We have to admit that we cannot afford these huge tax cuts; face it, they did nothing for the economy and are a pain in the ass whenever we talk about deficits. I would say to the American people that tax rates would gradually go back to Clinton levels; the wealthy won't get the Bush tax cuts now, and we will give the middle class a few years to get back on their feet.
Knowing would be a big help, but it wouldn't solve everything. The main thing that businesses are worried about is the health of the economy, of investments, and of things like inflation and the Euro debt crisis. Knowledge on tax policy would help a bit, but it wouldn't get GDP past 3%. What we need is a stimulus package (paid by tax cuts for high income earners or spending cuts) to create jobs in the short-term to give businesses the courage to invest their capital into the economy.
And by the way, cutting taxes wouldn't help with the confidence thing either. Businesses and consumers would be unsure whether the tax cut was permanent or temporary, and that would put a drag on their spending.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Obama/Biden and a democratic controlled congress in 2012, then this country can move forward again.
kennyw and Freshie,
Both parties have transformed over the decades. Based on 2012 politics, not 150 years ago, immigrants from communist countries not wanting to associate themselves with the Democrats says a lot about what the current party stands for. Immigrants from dictatorships generally have a clearer picture of a new land, and they see the Democrats as the party closest to the countries from which they have just fled. While liberals like you feel victimized, these immigrants see opportunity and freedom. The NYT article below says it all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/nyregion/among-russian-immigrants-in-new-york-affinity-for-republicans.html
kennyw and Freshie,
You should read the article I attached. It sheds light on why immigrants who have lived through communism and had to work hard to get to the US are generally very smart, self-motivated and very driven to succeed, while immigrants who simply walk across our borders have their hands out and become Democrat voters.
Let me ask you a question. If an American calls himself a communist, would he more likely to vote for the Republicans or the Democrats? Nuff said.
One more thing. Why did the Communist Party USA president endorse Barack Obama in 2008, hmmm?
The GOP has also transformed; they aren't the freedom-loving, socially liberal party of the early 1900s. They are now a corporate-minded, supply-side haven for stupid right-wingers and the radical religious movement.
And one more thing: why is Karl Rove, the same guy who shamefully turned John Kerry's decorated service in Vietnam into a weakness, on Romney's team???
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
GOP EXTINCT 2012
Freshie,
Based on what we saw in 2010, the American voters prefer right-wing politics over left-wing politics after Obama lied to them. Just released Rasmussen poll of likely voters has Romney 50-43 over Obama with 7% undecided. So much for Obama/Biden. Hope and change has morphed into four more years of Bush policies. The one thing that has turned off the independents is Obama's failure to bring the two sides together. That was his appeal, an articulate black president who had the ability to bring both sides together, no more division. How did that turn out? The nation has never been more divided. And he blames the Republicans for his failure to lead. That excuse did not work with Steve Jobs and other people voted for him. Did you see the turnout at his campaign kickoff speech at Ohio State last week? Half the seats in the coliseum were empty. The thrill up Chris Matthew's leg is gone. Independents found out Obama is all talk and not much action.
BTW, you didn’t explain why immigrants from the Soviet Union tend to lean Republican and the analysis in the article that the immigrants see the philosophy of the Democrat Party as the party that is closest of the two to the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.
RoadW: as I'm sure you are aware Rasmussen is a pollster paid by the Repubican party. It's results are highly suspect. If you want to talk about the empty seats at Obama's Ohio State rally, let's also talk about the empty seats at Romney's Ford Field rally as well! To say that the philosophy of the Democrat Party is closest of the two to the communist party in the Soviet Union is about as illuminating as saying that the philosophy of the Republican Party is the closest of the two to Attila the Hun's philosophy.
For one thing, I wouldn't trust Rasmussen, as they are biased to the right. I would advise relying on Gallup or ORC or CBS or Reuters. And contrary to what you might think, Americans didn't choose right-wing politics over left-wing politics in 2010. They were frustrated with Obama because of the slow recovery, and naturally they thought that the other party, which campaigned on jobs, would help. Did they??? Well, under them unemployment did drop significantly. But there isn't a shred of proof that that wouldn't have happened had the Democrats stayed in power. And while Obama did continue some of the Bush policies, he is still very different than Bush.
Obama did try to compromise. Look at his policies. He continued the Bush tax cuts for everyone (compromise), used a REPUBLICAN healthcare concept (compromise), used tax cuts in his stimulus (compromise), and offered an austerity package where cuts outnumbered revenues 3 to 1 (compromise). And don't you remember the fact that the GOP planned to sabotage Obama's presidency on the very day of his inauguration??? How can you compromise with a party whose number one goal is to make you a one-term president??? He even angered his base by giving so many concessions to the GOP, and they STILL made him out to be the divider. The GOP is the one we should be angry at, not Obama.
Not true. Obama's approval rating is at 50%, the stadium was only about a third empty (much better than Romney's business speech a few weeks ago), and he just energized his base with his support of gay marriage. Independents may be frustrated with Obama, but I will bet that they would rather stomach slow and steady growth instead of one of those Ponzi "get rich quick schemes" (aka tax cuts for the rich will grow the economy) that the GOP is offering, and their radical right-wing social agenda.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
GOP EXTINCT 2012
"We’re under a wage freeze on federal employees," The Republicans took the House in 2010 on jobs, jobs, jobs then proceeded to cut 1/2 million jobs such as teachers, firefighters, policeman at the state level. The majority of these jobs losses were the result of Republican governors.
Austerity cannot start untill our economy is running full speed, but the Republicans seem to want to obstruct that too.
I live where there are many federal employees. I assure you they would last five minutes in the private sector. I know one who spends most of the day texting. Start there if they want more in salary. And get the public pensions in line with private sector.
In case you didn't notice, unemployment didn't begin to fall until republicans took back the house.
Public sector jobs are bloated at the state level and states are going bankrupt. It is the liberal school system that chose to lay off teachers instead of bureaucrats, take it up with them.
TO: lulu98 who wrote:
Hey, we were just told that the GOP gets things done best by doing nothing, so I say start with them so we can stop wasting our money on paying their salaries and providing them with "Cadillac" health insurance plans!
If Republicans do best by doing nothing, then they need to get outta there! ASAP!
Enough with the anti-government worker sentiment. Public employees pay taxes and have bills, too. And many of them, like teachers, are either getting laid off or having their salaries cut. Take my father, for instance. He's being forced to pay 10% of his salary for pension, and when he was supposed to get a 2% raise, the government pocketed 1.5% of that. Don't think that public employees have it all, because they don't.
laurie-480643
I agree with you.
Job1,
please read my reply to Laurie.
That is not going to work. We have been doing that. We have been spending 1 trillion dollars more than we are receiving in revenue now. Why is that not creating jobs?
You are misguided in your thinking.
Subnormal - "Why is that not creating jobs?"
Why haven't all these years of tax cutting and de-regulation frenzy not created a single job?
Riddle me that one, tough guy.
TO: subnormal who wrote:
And Republicans know because they specialize in things that "don't work".
Obama/Biden 2012
"Why haven't all these years of tax cutting and de-regulation frenzy not created a single job?"
Bush/republican congress average unemployment 5%, Obama/democrat congress average unemployment 9%. Democrats inherited 4.6% unemployment when they took over congress. You don't get down to 4.6% without creating jobs and you don't run it up to 9% without destroying them.
5% unemployment works, 9% unemployment does not work.
TO: Valhalla Phil who wrote:
You mean, before Republicans collapsed the entire United States Economy, and then Republicans caused millions of job losses and millions of American Families to lose their homes.
American Girl,
Please remember that the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 so you can not blame the whole recession on the Republicans as is stated often, the President does not create legislation it comes from Congress.
TO: jerry l-1335133 who wrote:
Oh but I can, especially after Republicans lied us into war, and especially because after the collapse of the entire United States Economy, Republicans did NOTHING to get our economy moving again and put their own personal well being ahead of the country's.
Republicans had the ability to do a better job for the American People but chose NOT to because they were afraid it would endanger their own jobs.
Now that's what I call a "coward" and a "traitor", when the GOP put their personal agenda ahead of the good of the country, and ahead of the good of the American People, and WE are the ones who pay their salary!
Obama/Biden 2012
The war that the Republicans lied us into was voted on and most Democrats voted yes so again they are part of the blame.
If you really believe that the Democrats are not their for their own jobs then you are quite naive, as most members of congress are there for themselves.
In 2008 the President had a complete majority and said he had a plan to save the economy and in reality he did not. The argument I see posted here often that he only had 58 Senators and two independents so that is not a majority is ridiculous. A leaders job is to make those who disagree with you agree, and have them believe that it was their idea.
Because the Bush adminstration fed on the mis-lead CIA "up to date" information on Sadam's "advanced" WMD ( that didn't exist) and the public not understanding Islam and despartely wanting to lash out and something or someone, your good ole Bushman running around the country, saying, "time is running out, time is running out!!! Colin Powell, demanding more inspections, and Donald Rumsfeld saying, "shut up boy" we know what were doing, we'll invade Iraq and have it cleaned up in 3 years". Yah, 3 years my ass!!! 3 years and 100 body bags were coming back every month.
The Bush administration knew of this all along
Paul
I will start of by saying I totally agree that invading Iraq was a waste of time, effort and a great waste of our soldiers.
Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons on his own population.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm
After Desert storm I do not believe that he had much left to work with as far as chemical weapons goes.
The truth is we probably should have ousted him then, but there was not much support for that at the time.
Here we go again with this blame game, it was a Democratic congress in 2007 when the economy tanked, so it was the democrats fault as well.
Yeah it sounds good in theory, but congress had little to do with Bush and Cheney's unfunded wars that Obama is still paying for (when Republicans say Obama raised the deficit they neglect to remember that part) and I suppose that whole theory about regulation should be brought up too. Republicans don't want any regulation, but it must the Democrats who want to regulate that caused Wall Street and big money banks to throw the economy down the stairs. As usual the logic doesn't hold up.
Did you know Romney claims Obama's regulations are killing small business and jobs, but actually Obama has had less regulations than Bush.
Well I wouldn't expect Romney to break his perfect record of always lying, but the Republican arguments truly hold no weight at all.
VOTE ALL REPUBLICANS OUT
If I had it my way, they'd be tried for treason.
Personally, I believe that Saddam out to have been ousted, but in reality, it was a stupid move. For one thing, we were too focused on Iraq and not on real threats, like Iran, North Korea, or China. For another, the Iraq war drained our nation's resources. Not to mention the fact that without a strong and stable Iraq to check the Iranians, Tehran can seek to replace their unstable ally Syria with a more palatable and Shiite government in Baghdad.
Oh and by the way, America was kinda hypocritical when we fought Iraq in 1991. I mean, one of the ambassadors told Saddam to go ahead and invade Kuwait; it got videotaped.
And we GAVE (not sold but GAVE) Saddam the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds.
Then why the hell does Obama get the blame for this 16.7 trillion nightmare??? I never can recall FOX news even reporting about the debt until 3 years ago, now it's the big issue. They never had a Republican on having a fit about it 3 years ago when the debt was 11 plus trillion. It's like they had nothing to politicize after they lost the White House. Then they had to come up with something.
Paul,
I am not sure, the deficit has been in and out of the news for the last 2 decades. Part of the reason it is more in the news is due to it being above our GDP.
No, the deficit is approximately 9% of GDP (thanks to the recession and George W Bush's fiscal policies). The debt is above GDP, and that is only because we counted in intergovernmental debt; aka, the debt owed by the government to SS, to Medicare, to the Treasury.... Public debt is at a manageable 77%. You want to take about lowering the deficit and debt??? Fine, but at least offer some tax increases on the table.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
DEATH TO THE GOP 2012
I never, I say never heard Rep. Paul Ryan or the Gov. from Georgia ever mentioning the alarming debt at 11 trillion, then we enter The Great Bush Depression in 2007 when we are given a treasury check for $1425 and told to go out and spend it on something, anything. 3 Musketeer bars dammit!!! but something and 70% of Americans failed in their patriotic duty and went and paid credit cards off or put it in savings, which was the first RED FLAG that we were in for economic problems. So I challenge anyone to give me the "it was Obama's fault" scenario. So to extinguish this depression he dumped money in the form of Rooseveltian techniques to stabalize this economy so there is a reason for his substantial defecit spending in the last 3 years!!!!
laurie: you have a very basic misunderstanding of the facts here...you mention that "rehiring of teachers, firemen and police" would grow the economy because those rehired would be paying taxes...Laurie, where do you think the money comes from to pay the teachers, the firemen and the police? Those folks are paid through taxes; federal, state and local income taxes as well property taxes. These jobs are not in the private sector...private sector jobs are the ones that we need to grow...more jobs, more money pumped into the economy and these jobs are truly supported by the profits that are generated by private sector companies...remember, the government does not produce any product or service...any revenues created by government are as a result of taxes out of the pockets of hard-working Americans in the private sector. I mean no disrespect to teachers, firemen or police...we all need them too, but hiring more government workers is not the answer. Hope this helps you think this issue through a little more deeply.
juanite - I'm afraid you are the one that misunderstands.....again both private and public sector jobs are needed for our economy to grow. You can't have one without the other. I explained this in my post. You just didn't understand what I said.
Hi Laurie: I didn't misunderstand a word you wrote...of course we have to have folks protecting us and teaching us...government jobs...but although we need folks in these postions, it's the private sector that needs to grow...private sector jobs are created when a person(s) is willing to take a financial risk and open a new business...thus hopefully creating profits by selling something a consumer needs, wants and desires...a government job does not create anything...a government job is supported and paid for by taxpayers...thus, we do not need to add to the government sector until we are in a position to be able to pay for these workers through the addition of building more private sector jobs.
juanita dominguez
Actually, had the states kept their workers instead of firing them, unemployment would be at a whopping 7.2%. Government employees growth the economy just like private sector jobs do because they spend money and stimulate demand, creating more jobs.
Actually, we lost a half million public sector jobs during the recession. I'd say rehire them, add more to rebuild our infrastructure and fix our education system, and they will grow jobs in the private sector. And by the way, the government produces private sector jobs via contracts.
Actually, the government protects us, educates us, helps us when we're poor or disabled, enables us to live comfortably when we're old, and gives us the roads and highways that we drive on. And FWI, public sector employees pay taxes too. Hiring more government jobs would in fact create private sector jobs; Google the multiplier effect. Hopes this will help you think this issue through a little more deeply....
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Gives us?
Where does this money come from in the first place?
How is hiring teachers going to fix our education system?
I have been at a company that hired 6 new sales people to grow sales. That lasted about 9 months, the new hires were either laid off or reassigned. The company was sold soon after that due to financial problems.
Throwing money at problems does not fix them. You have to have a plan. Without a way to fire bad teachers and reward good ones we will never improve our public educational system.
Tax increases mostly, or spending cuts. Or a combination of both.
Well, it won't fix the system (I misspoke), but it would help. Class sizes in numerous states are going up do to teacher layoffs; hiring more teachers will shrink sizes and allow teachers to focus on a smaller number of students.
Throwing money does not fix things, but it helps. I have a plan; institute a performance based-wage, hire more teachers, fire ones with low results, refocus our policy towards education on things like math and science and less on test scores; increase funding for schools; modernize textbooks and teaching techniques; take advantage of the Internet to create websites like Khan Academy that help students; make the system more federalized to guarantee a steady stream of funding and expertise (yet the states still have power over schools); stop cutting public funds and giving them to charter schools; use the top 5 nations in education as a model for our own system. It will be hard, but it will help our students be more competitive and help our economy in the long-run.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Laurie, go visit the clue store. Public sector jobs will NEVER stimulate the ecomony since these are not tryue revenue producing jobs. ONLY private sector jobs can actually grow the economy.
Last time I checked, government jobs create stimulate the economy by enabling those employees to spend money, stimulating demand and creating private sector jobs as the private sector hires when demand is up, not when they get a huge tax refund like you right-wingers are proposing.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Well, how come their profits are soaring, and no job creation??? That's right, they're all overseas in slave labor markets.
No because the military bloated into an extremely obese pig.
Why aren't the republicans willing to stop all Corp welfare?
Why won't they repeal unpaid for tax cut's?
Why won't they raise tax rates back to where there were when our economy was prosperous?
Blaming the economy on the poor, working poor, elderly and children really?
Where are all those jobs from the job creators, that the GOP has been protecting for years?
Meanwhile the rich get richer, the Corporations are running the government and the elections with un limited money!
TO: hummbird-3359530 who wrote:
Republicans don't do anything about any of things on your list because those are the things that Republicans themselves profit from the most.
Obama/Biden 2012
There is no such thing as corporate welfare, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do. Corporations just collect them for the government. If you cause a company to spend 10% more, they will have to raise prices 10% to stay in business. Worse yet, it is the poor that suffers most from this. Gore could care less if gas were $10/gal, not so the average worker.
Republicans don't blame the poor, they blame incompetent democrats.
Bush/republican congress 5% average unemployment, Obama/democrat congress 9% average unemployment. Republicans created jobs, democrats destroyed them.
Hmm, Exxon got a tax refund, oil companies get huge subsidies, as do farms. They also get handouts via special tax loopholes. Seems a lot like welfare to me.
And if we pay corporate taxes, why not have them pay nothing at all??? Let them destroy our environment and outsource our jobs; as long as I don't have to pay!!!!
You do realize that Bush had a mostly good economy after the small 2001 recession. Obama entered a DEPRESSION; unemployment under him has gone steadily down, while unemployment under Bush went up. Clinton had a boom and created millions of jobs; Bush created no net jobs. Democrats create jobs, GOP destroys them.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
How do you spell Propaganda ?
ABO 2012
Obama's Dow-Jones high is 6000 points up over the Bush Dow-Jones low.
dslsca: In case you weren't joking: so, if the Dow is so much better with Owebama, why are we in a stagflation? Why does gas costs so much?, where are the jobs?, why are mortgages upside down? Where is the prosperity? Forget the propaganda tidbits, look at reality.
cal: I wasn't joking. If my figures on the Dow are incorrect, please show me the real ones.
Why stag[nation]? There's not enough inflation to call it "stagflation"; we're in stagnation because private business has $2 TRILLION sitting on the sidelines and won't use it to be the "job creators" we were told they'd be if we didn't tax them.
Why does gas cost so much? We're running out of it, we're using more of it than ever before, we're running illegal, immoral wars in the part of the world that has a lot of it and threatening to start another one there.
Why are mortgages upside down? Because bankers and financiers gambled with their depositors' money betting it on derivatives.
Where is the prosperity? In Socialist nations like Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Ecuador or in nations (like Iceland and Argentina) that defaulted rather than undergo austerity.
Any more questions I can help you with?
"The Democrat's now have another vote they can use against the Republican's"? I can't believe, even, MSNBC could write that!. The Republican's are trying to get a budget passed, something the cowardly Democrat's have been blocking for almost four years, and MSNBC is trying to tell us that? Talk about being in denial. This Administration and the Democrat's in Congress, haven't done a damn thing in four years except dump a giant pile of Obama care crap in everyone's front yard. A crap that 72% of Americans don't want, requiring us to take it to the Supreme Court, to get rid of it.
You have a delusional order, MSBC, seek help.
;;
Actually, more Americans like Obamacare when you actually tell them what it contains. They like that they cannot be shunned by insurers because of pre-conditions. And a slowing down of increasing costs is also good.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
The need to make cuts was evident 10 years ago. But Politicians gotta keep their special interest happy. Republicans are the only party that has offered realistic solutions to cutting the debt.
Democrats are like spoiled little rich girls with daddy's credit card.
No, and both parties are responsible. First, taking money from states and allowing legislators to give it back with strings attached has created a real monster. Second, look at the postal service. They have been forced by congress to fully fund their retirement obligations and their books are nothing but red ink. Does anyone think congress can draw a lesson from this? Doubtful, it's beyond they to grasp debt creating negative cash flow. Third, our birth rate is dropping. In a short time we will have far too few people paying into the accounts for all the retirees. If explanation is needed please see point two.
Neither party is going to fix this. We need a crash to set things straight. It's the only way to stop them.
What about the 1 billion dollars Hathaway owes in taxes.
Maybe if Mr. Drysdale would pay her a decent salary she could pay her back taxes.
Is America in fiscal austerity yet?
IT WILL BE when Obozo gets done "fundamentally transforming" us into a Marxist nation.
You obviously have no clue about Marx or Marxism. Obama isn't trying to do anything even half that good.
Is America in fiscal austerity yet? This is an oxymoron with the current administration.
Truth is Debt don't matter.... The Federal government has not been out of debt since 1836....
The Gold standard for the World is the American dollar, the reason that we can print money and Greece cannot....Comparing the U.S. to Greece is a flawed argument.
We must keep this economy going so we can get a balanced budget, austerity measures will create even more deficits and not grow the economy, all you have to do is compare the austerity measures Europe put in place in 2007 an 2008 and the Stimulus President Obama put into place in 2009.. Our economy is growing, slow but its growing... Europe is now having a double dip recession, and the people of Europe are getting rid of the Paul Ryan's and Mitt Robme's of their government....
This election is not Democrats vs Republicans, it's corporate America vs the middle Class.....Any Middle Class person in this country voting for a Republican is voting against their future and grand kids future....
Since the start of Trickle Down economics, and The Starve the Beast Strategy started by Ronald Reagan, middle class income has been flat and the top 2% have seen their income rise by 300%.....So if you want more of that vote Republican this November.......
You think George W. policies were bad for the middle class, Paul Ryan and Mitt Robme will make George look tame.....
This election is about the takeover of our Federal Government by the likes of the Koch Bros, Wall Street, to further deregulate to allow these guys to pollute our air and water, further corrupt Wall Street and create tax laws that will further benefit the rich.... Follow the money,,,, Mitt Robme is getting Millions from the Kock Bros, so are Republican House and Senate legislators, Wall Street has pretty much abandoned President Obama will Mitt Robme getting most of their money...... I wonder why? Wake up Middle Class!
TO: Devdoc12able who wrote:
Republicans DID do it their way for 8 straight years and they caused the collapse of the entire United States Economy!
Now you want to repeat all the same destruction all over again?
Republicans are unbelieveably wrongheaded.
Obama/Biden 2012
American Girl,
The Democrats have controlled at least 2/3 of the government for the last 5 1/2 years and when did the Republicans have 8 years of control?
PDug19
Debt does matter. There are limits on it and when this country reaches its limit, our country will be no more.
Liberals just love to ignore the fact that democrats controlled congress before and during the crash. They love to ignore the fact they inherited 4.6% unemployment and doubled it through their incompetence.
TO: jerry l-1335133 who wrote:
What are you trying to say? That Bush wasn't "The Decider" after all, that Republicans bear no responsibility for implementing their own priorities and their own "Plans" and that we should clear their slates and allow them to do the same things all over again the same way, and then expect a different result?
What good is it to even have a Republicans in office when they are completely incapable of accepting or standing up for their own responsibilities, and for heaven's sake WHY do we pay them?
What Republicans want is a "free pass" on their total destruction of our economy which they caused, and it just ain't happening, which is why Republicans keep trying the next best thing, "amnesia" which is why YOU have no recollection of when Republicans were ever in control.
Obama/Biden 2012
I never said the Republicans never had control I asked you when they 8 years which is what you said, if you cannot back up your point just admit you made a mistake. I also pointed out that the Democrats have had at least 2/3's control for the last 5 1/2 years yet you choose to blame the minority party for all of the problems in the country.
I actually believe that the Republicans are responsible for many of the problems in the country, I think they spent too much, I saw no need for the war in Iraq because I look at war as something if I would send my children, and if not how can I ask somebody else to send theirs.
You say the Republicans do not stand up for their own responsibilities but I ask you where is the Democratic budget? You may not like the Republican one but at least they had the nerve to put one out. We have been waiting 3 years for a budget from the Senate and the last two from the President has gotten the same number of votes as my budget which is zero.
Well when the municipality where you live won't fix the pothole on the street you live in due to "cutting" go purchase some asphalt patch at Lowe's and DO IT YOURSELF. I know you wouldn't, you would probably call the city and gripe and whine.
Unfortunately, control of only 2/3 of the government doesn't get much done around here nowadays. What with partisanship a daily struggle and a party whose number one stated goal was to "make Obama a one-term president" (even on his inauguration day), not much gets done around in Washington. Thank you, Tea Party idiots. Thanks for the partisanship, national division, and lack of action. You're the best. I'll see you in hell...
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
The problem Obama has is his own incompetence. With huge majorities in both houses of Congress for two years unmatched by any President since WWII, he accomplished little. Perhaps we should celebrate that fact. As badly as he has hurt this country, think of the damage he could have done if he knew what he was doing. Now that is a scary thought.
Here's some... http://obamaachievements.org/
Here's a huge list... http://obamaachievements.org/list
What some call damage, others call damage control.
For Obama, stimulus equals debt crises and pushing the debt ceiling way beyond the $16.7 trillion it is now.
Considering Obama's warning about raising the debt ceiling and how that waring is coming into play in our economics and Nation, something has to be done. See for yourselves what Obama had to say about the risk to our economy and Nations his actions are causing.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.
Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, (Senate – March 16, 2006). Page S2238 of the Congressional Records for the 109th Congress.
For you Obama supporters who are looking for an excuse for the above speech, I have one for you.
Obama appeared on Good Morning America and told the audience that this speech was only political rhetoric, but that doesn't change the fact that this speech's message was warning we all need to heed.
For our States, Cities, Townships, Villages, School Districts and our pockets are all feeling the impact of Obama's debt crises just as he stated they/we would in this speech.
Your quoting facts after we have discovered that in 2007 we entered into what is call The Great Bush Depression.And of course the Obama administration used Rooseveltian methods to stop the gushing of economic blood as opposed to the Gingrich/Romney approach which they claim they would have let everything fall into bankruptcy and then let Darwinian economics take over the the pure free market would supposedly surface. Our 401K's wouldn't resurface, but who the hell cares about my life savings according to Republicans. That's according to your prescription drug addict radio guru Rush who claims free market capitalism always does the right thing, unless you ever watch American Greed.
Paul,,,ready for some facts,,I doubt it but here they come,,,,
When this president took offiice the economy was bleeding 750,000 a month
We have added 4 Million job in the last 3 years,,,800,000 in the last 3 months
Gm has become the number auto manufacturer in the World
This president added to the deficit the cost of the 2 wars he didn't start which no other administration has done, this alone adds trillions to the budget
The lists goes on and on, but of course FACTS don't matter,,,,,You made up your mind, and I use that term loosely, to hate this black president three years ago,,,,hope your hate doesn't choke you someday!!!!
omega, i voted for obam because he was black, i will vote him out because he sucks.
rightisright,
You don't even understand why you should vote for a candidate...Voting for a person because he is black was wrong, and now unless you are in the top 1% of income in this country voting for a Republican is wrong.....Take my advice you made the right choice the first time...
Omega,
You show what the problem is with Obama supporters. The last three months are:
Feb. 259,000
March 154,000
May 115,00
Total 528.000 not 800,000.
Also that 4 million number is a made up number because it is jobs created and jobs saved but there is no way of proving this. They also do not separate long and short term jobs so if a job was created for one week they consider that a created job but it does not help the economy and the person is still unemployed.
You should look at labor participation which is at a 30 year low as a better indicator or the number of people working which is less than when the President took office. I understand he took over a mess but I believe that his policies have help to create one of the slowest recoveries ever.
TO: PDug19 who wrote:
Very well said!
Those number are inaccurate as they contain summer hiring and holiday hiring that are temporary part time jobs that don't exist after a short period of time. The fact that these jobs have been counted 3 times in 3 years is shameful and a deliberate attempt to deceive the voters.
What this country needs is long term permanent employment of which Obama produced 0 in his first 3 years.
GAL: spell white guilt.
GM’s sales totaled $136 billion with $4.7 billion in profit, while Toyota’s last 12 months’ sales were $242 billion on which it earned $6.1 billion.
Guess you made up all of the rest of your post as well. liar.
bfitz, With that said, did you know that Japan has 89% of their Market Closed to the U.S.A., So much for fair & bal., trade. Asian countries like Japan are slowly, quietly tightening the noose around our neck by crippling away our ability to produce for ourselves. Buy American Native made Auto's and save a Country called United states of America or we are going down and we will be finish as a Nation !!!
Proof???
You prove it. Where are the jobs? How many jobs are there compared to when Obama took office?. I have never seen a president against business and any job and business production as much as when compared to Obamas failed record. It is just amazing how closed minded Obamas supporters are and how much they support his failure after failure. Now soon there will be another class of college graduates and I think that half of them will be looking for jobs in fast food...and applying for food stamps. But, keep the faith baby.....Got to support that first socialist president.....At this time the country is ready to grow beyond the recession...There is only one thing holding the country back and that is Obama and his left wing friends in government...
J.A-522495
You are talking about Obama, right? You know, the guy that bailed out Wall Street? He bailed out the auto industry too.
Gee, it's going to be hard to convince people that the president is anti-jobs when he's saved so many of them.
Romney is running on Obama's economic policies. Too bad the president's policies are working. Maybe Paul Ryan's Medikill Budget bill will get him elected, everyone loves a coupon. Maybe his plan to end planned parenthood will give him the boost, those mammograms hurt. Maybe if he sings, "Bomb, bomb Iran", it will give him the support he is going to need, we all love a good long war. Maybe the Blunt/Rubio bill will help him get those women votes since everyone would love to get permission from their boss for medical services. Perhaps enough immigrants will self-deport before the election so they won't be able to cast a vote.
Since all my prefered nominees have dropped out, I'll be forced to choose Ron Paul. If we are going to go big on digression, we might as well go all the way back to the 1800s. Maybe Donald Trump will get back in. He could take all the anti-Romney votes. Maybe we can run another Bush, where's Jeb? Speaking of which, has G.W. given his endorsement yet? We all know how valuable his endorsement is.
Of course, there's always the propaganda machine. We could crash the GLOBAL economy, shed 700,000 jobs a month, and blame the new president for everyone being on food stamps.
Boss...Sorry, but I think your appeal for socialism under Obama will be lost in this election....You cant fool all the people all the time....especially those who have been without a job for a very long time....and there are no jobs coming up....untill Obama slinks and slithers out the back door....
J.A-522495
I'm sorry, I missed the statement where I appealed for socialism. I even missed the part where I was fooling people.
Perhaps I have been misled somewhere and my post has flaws.
Or... you don't care about what I posted because it doesn't fit your politics. I'm just another socialist trying to push an agenda of socialism. No dispute about my points, you turned it off, not willing to comprehend it.
The fact remains, when your political party was in the White House, we crashed as a nation followed by a global market crash.
Somehow, in your thinking process, you seem to think that getting the same people back in power that got us where we are today will solve the problems they created.
What would they do differently? What plans have they put forth to convince this nation they wouldn't go back to the same policies that collapsed our nation?
So far, we got no new taxes, abolish financial reform, abolish obamacare, abolish executive orders, abolish planned parenthood, abolish medicare.... do you see a pattern here?
That's right. Take us all the way back to the same place we were when it all came tumbling down.
We need innovative thinkers, not the same old tried and true failures of the past.
Boss, I think the problem is we have tried to give both sides what they want. And that my dear is why we love America!!! But the fact is S.S if you just think about it is a flawed system, how in the world can you reason putting away $100 a month for 40 years and then being paid $2,000 a month for 10 to 30 years working? No amount of interest would ever give you that much per month with only a $100 a month investment. Think about it 40 years of $100 a month equals $1,200 a year to equal $48,000 total put in and then you turn around and withdraw $2,000 a month to equal $24,000 a year for an estimated $240,000 to $720,000 until you die. How does that math work out? Then you tack on immigrants who say work for five years, and give $6,000 into a system which will pay out between $240,000 and $720,000. If my math is correct, which it may not be, that would be IMPOSSIBLE to pay for!!
This doesn't include medicare cost, which if you think about being older would not only triple but with inflation tacked on, the $100 a month you put into that shouldn't pay for 10 to 30 years worth of healthcare cost.
We tried both ways, sort of, we tried letting people be held accountable for their own retirement and healthcare and when people stopped wanting to be held responsible, the govt stepped in and created programs to help and now those programs are not working and are in fact costing loads of money!! And since we can not just drop the elderly who paid into the system, we have to probably eliminate the system for new workers. I think the best way for the govt to help is to stay out of the business of taking our money and should instead regulate all businesses to contribute to retirement funds and there are many safe places to put those funds and they could insist those wealthy owners contribute the same amount their employees contribute. That way the people ARE getting their fair share from the wealthy. We have tried forcing businesses to pay a higher wage and prices for everyday products just increased,so they increased the wages again and prices went UP again, totally defeated the purpose, so maybe a WHOLE new route will work out better or worse. But like you said we can not keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. It truly is insanity!!!
And I am not for abolishing Planned Parenthood, it really does have its great advantages, but what we really need is a real LOW cost clinic, not one that is supplemented by the govt but one that doctors can volunteer to work at, free of charge, maybe make it add to their C.E credits they have to obtain and they are not paid, one cent, nurses to bc they need C.E credits as well. There are all sorts of ways to have a real low cost clinic without using taxpayer funds or just not so much of the funds. Newbie doctors could start interning at V.A clinics and maybe receive little loan paybacks from the govt, nothing ridiculous, but maybe say for 2 years worth of work in a V.A hospital they get $10,000 toward their student loans!!! Might be a drop in the bucket but it sure would help our vets AND look good on a resume. Then they could get membership to V.A doctor association or something like that and patients can see that they are seeing a doctor who dedicated his/her time to the Veterans. I would pick that doctor over the one who interned at the rich hospital down the way. I would even donate to his student loans if I was made aware he was still paying them off and he did not charge me mega bucks to cure my ills. May not be more than $10 dollars but hey if you have 300 patients who donate $10 a visit, he just earned $3,000 to pay off his student loans and now he can keep his rates low bc his patients support him!! But people are more giving when they know you are keeping your rates low to help them out!!!
Your statement about immigrants working for five years is wildly inaccurate. Social Security payments are based on both income and number of years of paying into the system, so anyone working only five years would qualify for a tiny annual benefit at best. If you're speaking about undocumented workers here, they pay into the system but are not eligible to take benefits from it, as Rudy Guiliani repeatedly pointed out during his presidential campaign.
Boss...You didnt appeal for socialism under Obama?? It appears to me that every post that you make does that....
JA: appealing to Obama for socialism would be like appealing for mercy to Attila the Hun! As Obama has repeatedly "done the business for banks" (watered down banking reform, declined to appoint Liz Warren as Consumer Protection chief, filled the Treasury Dept and Council of Economic Advisors with Wall Street cronies, using exclusively PRIVATE insurance in the Affordable Care Act, etc.), there's no socialism in him to appeal to (sad to say).
dslsc...The only thing you are telling me is that you dont think that Obama is as radical as you would like for him to be. For the rest of us he is very much the socialist radical.
patriotic american 25.8....I think that you are correct. We are the worst world trade negotiating country in the world. We make all these trade agreements and we enforce none of the countries to live up to their responsibilities. Mexico has many or our products that they charge us a 30% import fee with many phony excuses and yet we give and give to Mexico....This is rampant in our trade with Asia, Central America and S America.....Our people in government appear to be blind and deaf and dumb when it comes to negotiating and enforceing....We should fire them all and get some new people who put the US first.....I really think that our government looks at this as a form of "sharing the wealth" while our jobs and economy fades away.
Wow, you're just FILLED with internal contradictions. On one hand our moderate President is a dangerous, Socialist radical. On the other hand you rail against the very deregulatory approach to trade that's been championed by every Republican since Ronald Reagan.
The irony is all very entertaining...but very illustrative of exactly what's wrong with the Conservative Movement.
John B, the anti american socialist.....Unlike you, when I see a program that is not working, I dont only blame one party. Demcrats and republicans have not met their responsibility concerning our trade agreements and enforcements.....I see the irony in your attitude that the dems always do the right thing and repubs always do the wrong thing. If those in government would stick to the honest sensible conservative operation of our government and trade, we would not find ourselves in these unbalanced unfavorable situations.....And, of course, you think that is a criminal statement...and greedy that we would hold our trading partners to the rules....Are you now more, or less, entertained by a real commonsense approach???
My conservative approach is fueled by my years of experience of what has worked for me personally and in business. I have seen so many go down to bankruptcy caused by their overspending and flashy lifestyle. They seem to all have in common the attitude of free spending and the lack of realization of true value and how much that true value is worth....But, keep up that attitude of spending beyond what you have while thinking that surely it will work out because liberalism is "good".
JA: your evidence about liberals "spending beyond what [they] have" is merely anecdotal. I'm a lifelong Socialist (since I was big enough to understand what that meant). I own my modest home (no mortgage--paid it off in 2/3 the life of the loan); I own my car; I have no credit card or student debt at all; I modestly (even austerely) retired at age 50 two years ago. How have I spent beyond what I have?
dsls....You know of course that you are claiming to be a conservative in your personal life?? You know of course that being a conservative while supporting a liberal socialist government is not compatible thinking? If being conservative in your personal life works for you, why wouldnt it work for government?? You know that you have more at the end of the year because you didnt foolishly spend it and now you have that money for real important things in life.....But you dont see that in gov operations???
I had a relative who was much more conservative in his personal and business life than I was....But, he always talked like he should be voting for liberals....It was a real problem for him and most often he ended up voting for the more conservative candidate...He operated a business and probably paid more into employee benefits than he should have...and he ended up very bitter towards his employees who by habit had a bad attitude towards what they thought were greedy business interests....He gave them much more than they deserved and they didnt appreciate it....Just as the left doesnt appreciate this country and the opportunities that it has given us....
I am most certainly NOT being a conservative in my personal life. I made a decision a long time ago to live my life while having the least possible interaction with or contribution to the capitalist system.
My argument here is that we have enough money for EVERYONE to live like I do (modest home, education, early retirement) but we don't have enough money for a handful of people to get filthy rich unless we reduce huge numbers of people to destitution. I agree we should not spend money foolishly (on rich people) but rather should spent it on the real important things in life (food, shelter, education, warmth, health care).
Technically, Obama is at a net positive for jobs, as he created more than 4 million compared to the 4 million that were lost during his turn. It's a small positive, but a positive nonetheless. And while Obama has his failures, his accomplishments go farther than his shortcomings. And as for Obama being anti-business, how is giving businesses tax cuts anti-business????
Alright, J.A., you claim that Obama is a socialist, and I'll admit that I can be socialist at times. But let me ask you one important question: what is socialism??? Do you know what socialism is, or it's main principles??? If you do, you would realize that Obama is NOWHERE NEAR BEING A @!$%#ING SOCIALIST. For God's sake, this guy is a moderate!!!! NOTHING that he has done is anywhere near the tenets of socialism. For God's sake, show some sense of rationality, J.A.
"Conservative principles," you say. Tell me, what are conservative principles??? Keeping tax increases off the damn table while putting education and the poor on the chopping block???? Axing social programs while allowing the wealthy to soak up all the wealth and income in this damn country??? And calling a fellow citizen anti-American??? Are you insane????
You argue for a commonsense approach; Obama offered a commonsense approach. $2.8 trillion in spending cuts, and $1.2 trillion in revenue increases. A deal favoring the GOP by a margin of roughly three to one. Would a socialist president compromise??? Would a socialist president offer to cut government spending that benefits the poor and the seniors??? Damn it, J.A., have you no decency??? At long last, have you no decency????
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
I'm SICK of these right-wingers who keep calling Obama a Socialst. On EVERY SINGLE MAJOR POLICY except gay marriage equality, he's to the right of Richard Nixon.
Technically, the systems are running dry, but there is a long-term solution to fixing the problem. There is no need to do away with Social Security or Medicare. The best way to fix the problem is the raise the cap on the payroll tax to 90% of income, edge the estate tax on estates that are at least $2 million, use progressive indexing, raise the payroll tax rate to 15% gradually, raise taxes on benefits, and adjust COLA. That would eliminate a surplus and assumable cover much of the Medicare shortfall. Eliminating those programs would have a negative effect on our economy, as many people rely on those benefits. And as most people don't invest enough into their IRAs or investment portfolios, SS is necessary to cover many of their costs. SS has also reduced poverty among the elderly by two-thirds; eliminating it could increase the poverty rate among seniors. Many would have to look for a job, and with rampant age discrimination it's not going to be easy.
Unfortunately, people are also getting jilted by the wealthy. The top fifth of Americans earned roughly half of the income earned in the US in 2010. Income has skyrocketed 275% for the wealthiest Americans (whose overall tax burden dropped by roughly 37%) while the middle class has gained perhaps 40% and the lower class gained 18%. America has the highest level of income inequality in the industrialized world. Millions of Americans lost billions of dollars in investments, stocks, and IRAs because of the banks, who crashed the economy.
Actually, the minimum wage has worked, and raising the minimum wage could created thousands of jobs via increased consumer spending. Prices have always increased due to inflation; yet the minimum wage has not gone up with inflation. The best way to ensure that the minimum wage increases at a steady pace is to adjust it for inflation and perhaps making a law stating that employers should adjust their workers' salaries to inflation. Essentially, employers are required to raise their employees salaries every year by the rate of inflation. Or that any pay raises must be adjusted for inflation (if an employee wants to give a raise of 3% and inflation is 2%, the raise will be 5.5%). That is how we can solve this disparity in income.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
I knew there was a reason I liked you!!! See folks, this is a decent solution laid out if very simple form and easily understood!! This is what we need from out governmental leaders!!! GO FRESHIEEE!!! Even if you are a democrat, LMBO!!!
Every time we chat I always see Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday, laying his guns on the table and saying " there, now we can be friends again!"
Thanks, Fighter Gal. Always a pleasure debating you.
Use some commonsense, logic for a minute....How does it help the economy to make life tougher for the middle class? Who is going to spend money? Who is going to buy products and services? Driving the middle class into poverty will not bring this country back....
Even money paid for Welfare, unemployment gets back into the economy, every dime, and helps the economy, helps everyone, instead of giving tax breaks to the rich that end up in Swiss bank accounts....
The Paul Ryan budget does nothing to create jobs and boost the middle class....His budget also does nothing to make the richest Americans pay their fair share of income tax... We need to invest in our country building our infrastructure, not only to create good jobs, but for the future growth of our country.... his budget does not do this either...
Paul Ryan's budget is Nuts! Wake up middle class, vote these corporate puppets out of office....Take our country back from Wall Street and the Koch Bros...
I just cannot believe that ALL OF THE MIDDLE CLASS cannot see what is going on in this country....Would it help if you looked at President Obama as White, he is as much White as Black..... Wake up!!!!!!!!!! Do some research, get informed, know that the republican party is NOT on the side of the Middle Class....Didn't 8 years of George W show you that?
Ryan's budget is the only one rated by the CBO to stop the bleeding. Obama's was so pathetic it was voted down in the senate 97-0, not even one democrat voted for it. Democrats are too cowardly to come up with a budget because any realistic one would look like Ryan's.
Let's see, be responsible even if it alienates the base, or let the country go bankrupt to buy votes, what's a democrat to do! Until democrats field a budget, liberals can just STFU about somebody that is at least courageous enough to actually attack the problem.
The ONLY reason democrats haven't had a budget since Obama was elected is because their lies would be exposed and that would be political suicide.
well said VP: the debt is spiraling out of control, the dollar is loosing value. The costs of goods and services keeps increasing, look at the gas pump. This tax and spend mentality is directly to blame for our national Debt. Common sense dictates that we must stop this out of control spending. Controlling the budget will infuse confidence in the market and provide needed jobs.
VP,
Your are full of crap....Ryan's Budget will increase the deficit and the CBO never said no such thing....
Watt, are you willing to drug test Congress, Oil Company executives, Farmers, and any other corporate entity that receives federal subsidies?!!! I thought not. Money goes out from the gov't in many ways, be careful what you say about the poor. Many of them are there because of health care issues, losing a job, or a disability, and long term poverty is much more complex than saying they should be drug tested and volunteer work ??? Hello, if you lost your job tomorrow, without having any options, how long would it be before you were in poverty? Not long I would say. How do you think a family of four gets by on minimum wage jobs, where both parents work, kids are in a horrible school, educational options for those kids are very limited or non existent, no college for those kids and the poverty loop continues. You need to understand the mechanisms for poverty, and you do not as of yet!
However, there is one thing I do agree with you and that is the hurt need to be felt across the board. Ryan's budget dumps it on the poor, children, women, and the elderly. By taking away from them, and giving it to the wealthy in the form of more tax breaks is NOT SHARING the BURN!!!!
Ma,
78% of all welfare recipients are either, handicapped, kids, or the elderly.... Are these the people we should drug test, LOL.....
Welfare is the least of our problems.....
Finally, someone with insight enters the forum...
I worked on a federal contract and I WAS required to pass a drug test. I would be more than happy to have anyone who takes from the government take them, including all those leach bureaucrats.
So Valhalla,
you want old men and women, kids and the handicapped to get drug tested...... Take the time to do research on this experiment by the Governor of Florida, he required welfare recipients to get drug tested.... Well here are the results.
Btw, you reason for having to take a drug test has to do with quality of work, safety, and reasons that don't apply to Grandmom and kids and the handicapped...
Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows. The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed —Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana.
The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.
The state's net loss? $45,780. Good Job Rick....
Does this really make sense? Does anything Tea Party extremist do make sense?
I tell you the key in life is balance. Not too much this way or that. But mr grover, the gop, the rushbo, & romney do not believe in balance. Not in the least. Take the last time. For every $10 cut in spending, $1 increase in taxes say the democrats. Very lopsided. Don't you agree. But not lopsided enough for mr grover, the gop, the rushbo, or romney. No. No. They said $10 cut in spending is fine, but $0 increase in taxes period. What kind of balance is that. What kind of compromise is that.
It was a case of give an inch & they want a mile. The bushman got tax cuts because of clinton year surpluses when the democrats controlled govt. Then after the bushman caused the surplus to vanish, the gop refuse to raise taxes again. They want the tax rates they had in the 1950's. But want modern day public services. I tell you it doesn't add up. They need to specify what will be cut. Medicare, medicaid, planned parenthood, social security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, environmental protection.
Marshall, it's time for a reality check:
Our National Debtis OVER $15 TRILLION DOLLAR$ and has has Surpassed our GDP.
For Every 1 Dollar we $pend we must BORROW $.40 cents.
This analogy puts our financial state into prospective.........
Why S&P Downgraded the US:
U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent [April] budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Budget cuts: $385
Smmithlg,
Debt doesn't matter.... We have been in debt since 1836 and most Americans will be in debt their entire lives.....We need to invest and grow this economy, make our dollar stronger since the American dollar is the Gold standard world wide, the reason our debt is not like Greece's debt, we can print money, they can't....Keeping our dollar strong, stimulation and growing our economy in the short term is much more important then to cut, cut ,cut and stop growth... If debt matters why has the Republican party since Ronald Reagan raised the debt at record levels? Democratic Administrations have raised the debt by a much smaller margin then the republican party...well its not close....How can you be for a party that has been so fiscally irresponsible....?
Austerity measures will only raise the debt even further.....just look at Europe.......We need to invest in this country and tax the rich to do it....Money given to welfare, unemployment does get back into the economy in full, unlike the tax cuts to the rich that end up in Swiss Bank Accounts....
We will never cut our why back to prosperity, Never!!!! anyone that believes that is a Fool...
Debt doesn't matter? I should say IT DOES when it Exceeds out GDP!
You say, "We will never cut our why back to prosperity, Never!!!! anyone that believes that is a Fool..."
We will never TAX, Print Money and SPEND our way into Prosperity, anyone who believes that you can spend more money than you take in and not eventually go BANKRUPT is an Idiot.
So Bush's deficits didn't matter? Wow, that's a first!
Americans will be in debt all their lives only if they want to. There has been a huge debt free movement going on in this country for years, I'm one of the debt free crowd.
It's tough to make the dollar stronger when it's Obama's policy to devalue it. Printing money just means we won't technically default, but we will default by making our dollar worthless. There is no difference between telling your creditor you will pay 10 cents on the dollar or paying him with a dollar that has been reduced in value to 10 cents. China is accusing us of a devaluation default now.
"If debt matters why has the Republican party since Ronald Reagan raised the debt at record levels?"
That's a lie. Obama holds the record by a wide margin. No president has come close to a trillion much less $1.3 trillion. Minor deficits don't matter major ones do. It would take a century for $100 billion deficits to rack up $10 trillion in debt, it takes less than eight years under Obama's deficits.
Austerity measures lower debt, spending raises debt, no wonder liberals are incompetent in economics. The EU has promised austerity but they are fighting it. Greece is in trouble because they are refusing to incur austerity, not because of it.
Money given to unemployment does not create wealth, it destroys it. Welfare does not create wealth, it only destroys it. There aren't enough rich in the world let alone the US to make a dent in our debt. Gates and Buffet are two of the top three wealthiest in the world, their entire fortunes combined wouldn't even run this country for a week. Again, the math doesn't add up.
The rich invest their money, nobody in his right mind would bury it in a bank. Inflation, would make it worthless over time. Do you think Buffet has his money in a Swiss bank account? Gates? Soros?
smmith: you want to compare the federal government to a family budget. OK. If a family were in financial trouble, would it cut the kids' education and the old folks' health care or the breadwinner's BMW? If a family in financial trouble could increase its income, wouldn't it???
NOT ONE DIME for tax increases. We will work hard to see any member of Congress defeated who votes for any increase in the income tax
Yes, but not by stealing from others.
Larry: you seem to have confused taxation with theft. A quick check of the two words in any dictionary should set you straight.