E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCongress has avoided going over the so-called fiscal cliff for now -- but the solution comes at a cost of nearly $4 trillion in foregone revenue over the next 10 years.
NBC's Domenico Montanaro reports that while some are reading into the House Speaker John Boehner-Majority Leader Eric Cantor vote split, there isn't likely a Machiavellian undermining of Boehner at play by Cantor.
In Tuesday’s climactic late-night vote, the overwhelming House majority made some clear policy choices: against income tax increases for most people, against fundamental changes in the major drivers of federal spending (entitlement programs), and against cuts – at least immediate cuts – in non-entitlement spending.
So what policies and interests were the winners and losers? Here’s an assessment:
Loser: The power of “leverage.” Since they took over the House in the 2010 election, Republicans haven’t figured out a way to use their political clout to persuade or nudge Obama into what they say they most want: changes in entitlement programs and therefore a slower increase in spending. Confrontation tactics and threats to not raise the federal borrowing limit led to the Budget Control Act of 2011, but then some Republicans, joined by almost all Democrats, voted Tuesday to not allow that law to start biting.
Conversely, even with his re-election on a platform of raising taxes on single earners over $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000, Obama was unable to use his leverage to get what he really wanted and ended up settling for a partial victory.
Tuesday’s final vote that had just 85 Republicans in support, including House Speaker John Boehner but not some of his top lieutenants, also unveiled something of a split within the party that could hamper GOP success in negotiations in the next few months on the debt ceiling.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., joins Morning Joe to discuss the last-minute agreement reached by the House on New Year's Day. The New Yorker's John Cassidy also joins the conversation.
Loser: Deficit reduction. If deficit reduction is what voters want, the bill passed by the House and Senate will disappoint them.
It will cause a loss of nearly $4 trillion in tax revenues over 10 years – compared to the projected revenues if Congress had simply done nothing and allowed the law on the books in 2012 to expire.
That $4 trillion will need to be found somewhere if Congress wants to reduce budget deficits in future years and hold down the debt-to-national income ratio.
Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the heads of President Barack Obama’s commission on fiscal policy and now the heads of the Campaign to Fix the Debt, said after the House vote that “Washington missed this magic moment to do something big to reduce the deficit, reform our tax code, and fix our entitlement programs…. Yet even after taking the country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common-sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt.”
Winner: The Washington, D.C. culture of tax breaks for special interests.
Despite much rhetoric from Obama, Boehner, Bowles and Simpson, and others about abolishing tax preferences and simplifying the tax code, the bill passed by the House and Senate preserves and extends 60 specific credits, preferences and other benefits for targeted groups and industries.
In one sense, this is a tribute to the interests and lobbyists who have worked diligently to advocate for these provisions; in another sense it reflects the desire of members of Congress to use their power to shape the tax code for the benefit of favored groups.
Some of the tax breaks are minuscule in budget terms: a one-year extension of an economic development tax credit for American Samoa will cost only $62 million in lost revenue, according to the official scorekeepers for tax legislation, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
President Obama will sign the "fiscal cliff" legislation approved by a divided House of Representatives, preventing middle class tax hikes and huge spending cuts that many feared could have pushed the economy into a new recession. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.
But some of the provisions are especially significant for particular industries: a two-year extension of tax credits for blenders of biodiesel and renewable diesel is worth $2 billion.
Anne Steckel, vice president of federal affairs at the National Biodiesel Board, said, “Because of this decision, we'll begin to see real economic impacts with companies expanding production and hiring new employees."
A study conducted for the National Biodiesel Board by economics consulting firm Cardno ENTRIX found that the biodiesel industry would support more than 112,000 jobs with the tax credit in place compared to 82,000 without it.
Due to another provision of the bill, taxpayers in states with sales taxes get a one-year extension of their ability to deduct their state tax payments on their federal tax return. That’s worth more than $5 billion to them – and a loss of the same amount to the Treasury. This is especially valuable to people in states with no state income tax, such as Nevada and Florida, where much of the state revenue comes from relatively high state sales taxes.
NBC's Domenico Montanaro reviews the fiscal cliff deal and analyzes what it means for the future.
As bargaining between Obama and GOP congressional leaders plodded on into December, it seemed that there was never any real likelihood that the year-ending legislation was the moment for fundamental tax reform. That fundamental reform is supposed to come later this year, according to the chairmen of the House and Senate tax-writing committees. But the ability of special tax preferences to survive year after year indicates that old tax-favoritism habits will die hard, even if Congress embarks on tax reform.
Loser: “Certainty.” A favorite theme of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle was the need to end the uncertainty over fiscal policy so that business owners and investors could make decisions about hiring and deploying their capital.
Both Obama and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich. used the word “permanent” to describe the income tax provisions in the bill.
Obama said on New Year’s Eve that Republicans vowed they “would never agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.” But he said the bill “would raise those rates and raise them permanently.”
And Camp said after Tuesday’s vote that “We have acted to make those (2001 and 2003) tax cuts permanent – protecting middle-class Americans from the higher tax rates that were in place when President Bill Clinton occupied the White House.”
Former Rep. Jim McCrery, a tax lobbyist with Capitol Counsel in Washington and former Republican member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said “’permanent’ simply means that there’s no sunset provision… It does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that those provisions will be in the tax code forever. In fact, most people anticipate a very aggressive effort to reform the tax code in an overarching way” in the new Congress that convenes Thursday.
History argues against anything being permanent in the tax code. The top personal income tax rate has changed seven times in the past 30 years and other tax provisions have changed even more frequently.
Winners: Taxpayers earning less than $250,000, and joint filers earning less than $300,000.
Most workers won’t be paying higher income taxes. For workers in the $50,000 to $75,000 range, the bill represents roughly a $1,500 income tax cut – compared to what their tax liability would have been if Congress had allowed Clinton-era tax policies to return as they were scheduled to do on Jan. 1.
While tax rates will not go up for most, people making more than $250,000 will face a reduction in the amount they can deduct and in the value of their personal exemption. And those above $400,000 income face higher income tax rates, with the top marginal rate increasing from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.
And upper-income investors are already facing an increase in the tax on capital gains enacted in the Affordable Care Act. The top capital gains tax rate will go from 15 percent to 23.8 percent.
But overall, 92 percent of the tax increase will fall on tax filers with incomes over $1 million, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Contrary to rhetoric from some members of Congress, it’s not only the middle class who are being shielded from paying more for their government – it’s upper-income people as well. (Median annual U.S. household income is about $51,000.)
Winner: Traditional Social Security funding. There was bipartisan agreement to restore the 6.2 percent payroll tax which – in a bid to stimulate the economy – had been cut to 4.2 percent in 2011.
Going back to a 6.2 percent rate reverts to longstanding policy of having a dedicated source of tax funding for Social Security. For a worker making $60,000 a year, this decision will mean $23 a week or $1,200 a year in higher taxes. But it also means Social Security will not be borrowing general tax revenues to make up its shortfall as it had been doing in 2011 and 2012.
The original version of this story incorrectly said the extension of the biodiesel tax credit is for one year. It is extended for two years.
Leave a Comment:
The nation breaths a collective sigh of relief. The Dow goes up some 300 points?
I am sure there are always winners and losers every time the government takes an action. But hopefully the pendulum might swing next time to favor today's losers.
Deficit can be a future problem, but the US government will never go bankrupt because the US is the most powerful nation, the US government is the most stable. But I am sure you can't allow the deficit to go out of control. But today it's not yet.
If the special interests have won something, hopefully they will have more confidence to hire more to benefit others - trickle-down economics as one part of the equation can sometimes still work in the right circumstances with the right incentives.
P.S.:
Good. Don't undercut social security and medicare, especially when the babyboomers are retiring in larger numbers.
Pigotry, since you're such a economic expert at what point is the deficit out of control, I guess with Obama it doesn't really matter whether it is 16 trillion or 116 trillion, after all most of us will be dead before it has to be paid for!!!
This fiscal maneuvering is a disgrace to the country and every member of Congress should be ashamed of themselves. They had a year and a half to work out a compromise and did nothing but jockey for their own reelections. All they did this time around was kick the can farther down the road (again), continue spending like they had the money, and destroy any attempt to raise meaningful revenue. I seem to remember doing quite well under the Clinton tax structure, but perhaps I should be thankful they at least restored funding to SS. You think they'll manage to cut anything, ever? They'd rather buy votes instead of make the tough choices they were elected for.
Don't get to giddy over the market. It is normally up big-time the first trading of a new year.
On a separate issue, one that should be a no-brainer, the House blocked VAWA(Violence Against Women Act) so now the whole thing will have to be scratched and brought forward again in 2013. Until its passage, resources and funding for domestic violence shelters and victims will be in very short supply, so Women(Men, too) and children of America, you will just have to suck it up if you are getting bounced off the walls by your partner, because once again the esteemed Republican Party has decided that they just don't give a phuck about you.
Well, when foreign governments lend us money by purchasing treasury bills, the interests paid to them are only 2-4%; the returns on such borrowing for the US government averages double-digits - a good deal for us. Besides, we Americans don't want to pay mroe taxes any ways. The US government can always borrow, will never go broke, and can always pay back either through the profits or just printed money.
Talking about printing money, it's an irony because when we don't want to pay more taxes, when government once a while has to print money to cause devalued dollar, all of us suffer from lost wealth - equivalent of more taxes paid. Irony.
iowaretiree, the deficit is already reducing. The vast majority of the current deficit is due to reduced tax revenue (recession), and two unfunded wars. Bush left them off the budget. Obama added them back in. In short, Bush floated the cost on the country credit card, and only paid the interest so to speak. The majority of Obama's expenditures have been on time stimulus spending, rather than repeating expenditures which add to the deficit on an annual basis. The money didn't magically disappear from a surplus under Clinton to 10 Trillion in debt with Bush. When the economy took a dive, tax revenue dried up but spending didn't. Instead of increasing taxes during wartime, Bush instead pushed for the TEMPORARY bush tax cuts. Something no president had ever done, and we are all now paying the price.
The current deficit is already dropping (albeit slowly), and is expected to be reduced to half of it's current size according to the CBO, but only IF congress does act to do the promised second part of all of this cliff drama and address spending cuts along side the increased revenue. I have no doubt that will come up along with the debt limit and yet more drama. The increased tax revenue due to improving employment numbers has already had an effect on reducing the deficit and is only expected to improve as the economy improves.
"The US government can always borrow, will never go broke, and can always pay back either through the profits or just printed money."
Spoken like a true demoncrat... it's never try to save money, or reduce spending, it's always get it from someone else.
All we've done with this obama led congress is dug the fiscal hole deeper. When will you people understand it's not as easy as getting money from somewhere else, it's about reducing how much we spend. That racisit in the White House has you all snowed... he can't afford obmamacare, so we'll just keep spending money we don't have. That racisit in the White House wants the US to be a poor, 3rd world country so His kind can keep in power.
Americans are one of, if not THE most STUPID people on the planet. They don't care that their country is on the brink of desaster, as long as their welfare check clears this month.
Mitt had it right... 47% if the country does not pay taxes...and they're the ones that don't care how we're paying for it...
Sadden...don't be sad..be glad.
You are wrong, those 47% pay a lot of taxes: sales taxes, gas taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, and many other forms of taxes embedded in goods and services they purchase. They might not have paid income taxes, because they have suffered job losses in this recession for no fault of their own.
Pigotry,
The Government does not earn a profit, they take a percentage of profits that other people make which are taxes.
Right now the government is buying $45 billion of its own bonds every month to keep interest rates low which they can only do for so long. When they stop, interest rates are going to go up to attract more money which will cause all other interest rates to rise having a net loss for the economy.
DJ,
You do know you are talking about the yearly deficit and not the cumulative one. When Clinton finished the US Government still had a deficit. The deficit still grew at $1.2 Billion last year which was a drop from the $1.6 trillion but please know it is still growing.
Pig says don't worry, we are the best country in the whole wide world. We can't go bankrupt. DELUSIONAL. Yes we can and yes we will cuz Uncle Barry keeps writing checks. This deal was a total waste of time. NO real spending cut. With the 62 billion in new taxes(and yes, everybody is paying to including the poor) and 1.5 billion in spending cuts per year, that doesn't even cover 5% of the overspending this government has done since Owebama was elected. So more debt. This was a giant waste of can kicking time.
Perhaps you should find another news channel Jerry. As I said, unless congress also addresses spending cuts, this last bill will add to the deficit, BUT, debt outside of this is falling, in both the private sector, and in the public sector.
Debt alone is never evaluated from year to year using such a simple yardstick, and it's never a simple number on the bottom of a ledger sheet calculated using the most basic means.
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.ht
It's the kind of alarmist rhetoric that the right has been spouting, and artificial limits on the debt ceiling, that trashed our credit rating last year. Obama is actually residing over one of the lowest spending presidencies since Eisenhower. That's something you'll never hear on a conservative show because it flies in the face of the scare tactics commonly used to grab headlines.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
You'd probably be surprised to hear that Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.
and yet, spending is increasing, not decreasing . ---------------- i find it a bit amusing when people cheer the fact that spending didn't increase as much as before, but ignore the fact that it still increased.
And yet the budget is not made up of spending alone. That's why it's disingenuous to keep crying about spending and ignore revenue, which has fallen dramatically (even dramatically isn't strong enough given the recession). Our current fiscal crisis and debt has nothing to do with spending and everything to do with revenue at a basic level. When the tax revenue dried up under Bush, they should have started cutting spending. Instead, they cut revenue. This during a time of war. No president has ever reduced taxes during a time of war. It's insane.
I have no doubt congress will address the spending cuts when the debt limit debate starts. They probably decided it was too volatile to get a bill through trying to address those cuts, and the tax increases. Given the late hour, and the volatility of the GOP, and it's inability to get behind it's leader. I think they did what they had to do, or they would have faced an even angrier electorate. The GOP did this to themselves.
i hope you are correct about that, that congress will address spending when considering the debt limit. ---- and i agree, a budget is made up of revenue and spending ---- unfortunately, this budget did nothing to address reducing spending. ---- in fact, it added a little spending. ------ the problem is, is that no matter where you cut spending, it negatively impacts someone ---- and you can bet that whatever cuts you suggest making, someone somewhere will be griping big time.
No winners, only losers - America is the loser, and the world is laughing at us again for good reason. What a bunch of jerks we have running this country! The worst of all, these knee jerk morons were elected by a free People. Shameful.
I can agree with that ronpal. With reduced tax revenue, even with the Bush tax cuts expiring for part of the working class, we are still facing a reduced tax revenue due to the higher unemployment rate. As that continues to improve, tax revenue will improve (it was already adjusted upward by some 300 billion due to falling unemployment). The rest is up to congress to address spending in a responsible way, while keeping in mind that it WILL improve as tax revenue improves. They do not need to slash and burn every social program out there. They just need to be responsible in how and where they make cuts. Hopefully the 2013 congress will show a bit more common sense than the last one.
Pigotry,
Watch out for a re-adjustment tomorrow after they have looked closer at the details. Some seem to thing that the reason the DOW was up was because the cuts were "permanent".
one thing people are forgetting to factor in , in their projections, is the impact obamacare will have on hiring. ----- many businesses are planning to increase the number of their part-time workers, while reducing the number of full-time workers. ------ part-times workers don't tend to make as much, which will reduce revenue.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. A few companies publicly claimed they would reduce staff hours to save money (a few cents per employee), and they paid a pretty heavy price for it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/04/papa-johns-applebees-and-others-pay-huge-price-for-anti-obamacare-politicking/
those are big companies ----- i'm talking about small businesses, like mine, which are the majority in this country. ------ small businesses cannot afford to pay healthcare premiums. ----- most of their positions are aimed at minimum wage employees. ----- how much do you think a small retail store is willing to pay for waiting on customers ???
ronpaul
When you cut spending, you may hurt that year and maybe the next year, but when that money is focused on the private sector, new jobs appear.
1919 Outlays 18.5 Billion Unemployment 4.9%
1920 Outlays 6.3 Billion Unemployment 9.5% & some say 12.5%.
1921 Outlays 5.1 Billion Unemployment drops to 7.9%
1922 Outlays 3.3 Billion Unemployment drops to 6.7%
1923 Outlays 3.1 billion Unemployment drops to 4.9%
And just for fun
1919 Receipts 5.1 Billion Unemployment 4.9%
1920 Receipts 6.6 Billion Unemployment 9.5%
1921 Receipts 5.6 Billion Unemployment 7.9%
1922 Receipts 4.0 Billion Unemployment 6.7%
1923 Receipts 3.9 Billion Unemployment 4.9%
Spending more and taxing more is the wrong direction America.
What are you guys talking about? Everybody knows that tax cuts don't make the deficit worse! Just ask George W. Bush. Or Dick Cheney. Or Paul Ryan. Or just about any Republican.
why would i want to talk to a republican ??? ---- they don't know any more about the economy than does a democrat. ------ or, are you one of those die-hard party members who believes the excrement of your party smells any better than that of the other party ???
"Pigotry....Deficit can be a future problem, but the US government will never go bankrupt because the US is the most powerful nation,"
Pigotry, I really really really hope you are kidding and being sarcastic. Too big to fail, right?
You do like any other business or household does: cut back spending on things you cannot afford. You could CONFISCATE all the wealth from all the top 2% in the country, never mind taxing them, and not even keep the government running for a year, never mind the debt. IN 1929 the wealthiest could have paid off the national debt. Now they would not stand a prayer. You don't see a bigger problem, here????
Don't forget Obama care tax which raises cap gains and dividend taxes 50% on those earning $250K.
So Obama with his "mandate" in hand, got a large increase from the class he has gone after, the "rich", a bad word in the liberal vocabulary.
In the meantime, where are the cuts to help solve our deficit?
I had hoped that both sides, the Liberals with their tax increases and the Conservatives with their tax cuts would have compromised. They did not and now we can watch the deficit grow.
The winners are the Liberals. America is the loser.
Pigotry
The reason that the US can get away with just printing money is that it is the world reserve currency. At such time as the rest of the world sees us as a credit risk, our coveted reserve status will be done. Then it will not matter how many bills we print no one will want them. It is already happening if you pay attention to financial markets. So far China trades directly with Japan in their own currency exchange rates bypassing the dollar entirely. And I honestly believe we are pressing Iran because they told the rest of the world that they would take payment for oil in gold rather than the US dollar.
The worst thing we can do in defense of this country is believe we are omnipotent. We are not.
I am with you ronpal...I run a farm and small business as well.
The insurance premiums are skyrocketing because the insurance companies are raising the premiums from now through 2014 in anticipation of Obama Care. It is crushing. If you do out the real math on the plan, you see clearly why they are doing it.
DJ...do you have your own business?
I do wish you people could post a quote in context. Mitt said "47% do not pay Income Tax." He went on to add that many of those (who don't pay Income Tax) also recieve an "Earned Income Tax Credit" i.e. the get a "Refund" of taxes, they didn't even pay. (it is called "Largesse, from the Public Treasury)
And no one but an idiot would think that Romney said 47% pay no taxes. You forgot property taxes. Whether you own your home or rent, you pay property taxes. duh.
ET. AL.
I saw on the news tonight, that the new budget bill included $74 Billion in pork. The only one I saw complaining about it was a Republican.
From US New: the big winners are;
Rum Producer: really? $13/per gallon kickback has been extended as part of the fiscal cliff
Electric Scooter Riders: REALLY???!!! This has Dumbocrat written all over it.
Wind Energy; more tax credits
Hollywood: for filming in low-income areas,
Motorsport Race Track Owners: higher depreciation schedules, (Not really a tax break, unless they hold onto the property)
Algae and Asparagus Growers and I hate Asparagus,
That's our congress. Is it just me or does it strike anyone else that these people think like women. "See, I saved a whole bunch of money, because it was all on SALE". i.e. spending money on things we don't need. but it LOOKS 'sparkley'. (oh I don't mean to belittle women as a whole, but I am sure most of you know at least one person like that)
I noticed on the national news (CBS?) Jan. 2 it was said that the tax bill just enacted contains quite a bit of new pork (special tax breaks as desired by lobbyists)
Disgusting
Americans continue to vote for those who promise something for nothing.
john-737278
Good call John. Let these idiots know, the US CAN go bankrupt. I have heard rumors that FDR did some finagling in the 30's that were the equivalent of bankruptcy, anybody know anything about it?
dumbfarmboy, your rapier like wit belies your stellar intellect, BTW where is Mitt Romney now? I thought so...
I watched the debate and vote last night and found it amazing. Three times the Pug stated that we now have a fixed income in America and must now deal with what we are taking in and adjust the budget accordingly, and that is all we will be taking in, and three times the Dumb stated that it wasn't true. I have to wonder, considering that the current tax rates were made permanent, where does the Dumb think more revenue will come from? Closing loopholes? I can get behind that because the tax code is flawed anyway. Will they attempt to tax corporations to the point that they just leave the country to live with John Galt and take the jobs with them? Or, will they do something underhanded ;-) like increase tax on gasoline and diesel fuel driving up the cost of everyones products they buy? I know many may not agree, but after watching last night I found the Pugs more trustworthy.
Personally, I hate politicians, they claim they give one thing and then underhandedly do a round-about through the fog and give it to us anally instead. I am all for a reach-around, but this is getting old.
DumbFarmBoy
I don't know if this is what you are referring to but in the mid 1930's the government demanded all gold be sold to the government for nearly nothing at risk of fines and imprisonment, then a year later sold it back to the public at three times the price. I guess that would be one way out of bankruptcy.
Loser: American people.
Everyone's taxes went up. CBO says 4 trillion in new debt will be added. Soon starvation will be reality in America. Boehner is as incompetent as Obama and needs to go.
This deal was so @!$%#ing dumb. It is much worse than the fiscal cliff. 4 trillion in lost revenues? On top of the trillion dollar deficits we're already running? This is terrible. @!$%# you Congress.
Follow the money and the corporations and their rulers still end up with it. This is all bs. Tax loop holes and capital gains tax rates will still screw the pooch while the paycheck people pay the tab. The corporate welfare gravy train lost nothing. This article twisted and hid some facts. Another illusion to placate the masses while the crooks go on with business as usual.
Once again the American People are the LOSERS thanks to the bought and paid for crooks in Washington we elect.
OBAMA and the DEMS LIED AGAIN!
The American political system is broke and the Working American Tax Payer is left holding the tab once again.
America, 77% just received a tax increase and according to the LIAR in the Presidency, not done yet.
The American Debt just increased 4 TRILLION DOLLARS with this "tax increase" and "pork".
Kick the fiscal responsibility can "down the road" just happened again.
The next great "battle" cutting SPENDING, the DEFICIT and the FEDERAL DEBT wil be interesting.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
How much MORE, will those who work for a livng have to pay for those that don't?
You reap what you sow America!
And you know what,....it ain't enough We need military spending to be slashed by about 70% and close all our overseas bases, and stop sending a mountain of cash to Israel and Pakistan every year. Lets spend it on America for once.
Anybody else having trouble with the McDonald's ad? I'd say some right-wing hackers are having a little fun at First Read's considerable expense.
Taxation while we have pork invaded inflation doesn't make any sense to me, like driving with not much air in the tires..Oh well"will see".
Lmao at GOPisextinct, really a right wing hacker is attacking you with a McDonald ad, talk about being a nut job . HAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Have another slice of mooncheese. The six hundred and fifty BILLION which Obama will force 80 percent of us to fork over won't even BEGIN to put a dent in the deficit as it is, never mind the FOUR TRILLION dollars he plans to spend on top of that. Either you flunked math back in school (which may explain why you're on these boards twenty four hours a day) or you're pontificating.
Pigotry
Deficit can be a future problem, but the US government will never go bankrupt because the US is the most powerful nation, the US government is the most stable. But I am sure you can't allow the deficit to go out of control. But today it's not yet.
Yo pig,
If you truly believe this you are dumber than a box of rocks. The deficit is a CURRENT problem. This bill does nothing to address this country's deficit/debt problems. It will allow another $10 trillion in new debt over the next ten years. America spends $.40+ out of each dollar spent to service her debt. Imagine taking 40% of your earning and using them to pay nothing but interest on your loans. So yes the deficit/debt are out of control.
So when all is said and done, Bush and his republican Congress passed a tax cut Bill that would take nearly five trillion dollars in revenue away from government while issuing Bush a no-limit credit card to pay for two ten year wars that were in the making. Did they not realize they could not cut income and still spend like drunken sailors ?
Republicans are only opposed to deficit spending when they are not the ones doing the spending
I vote Dem but I agree that we need to cut costs. from wherever possible. and since no one wants to cut medicare/medical & social security the only thing that is left is to begin cutting military spending. That will of course increase the unemployment rate but we have to cut spending somewhere. No country can keep printing up money endlessly.
Some of the spending that snuck into the Cliff bill:
It appears that there was $25 billion in spending cuts but $330 billion increase in other spending.
Ellis Baumgarner
I mean no offense, but drop the blame Bush crap. Regardless of how you feel, that does nothing to solve the problems at hand. I believe the tax cuts never should have happened, but also believe that the Congress should have a balanced budget, just like I have to. Logical people adjust expenses to income.
Satanick
It is a dumb deal and will increase unemployment by about 1 million jobs. Having a 38% increase in taxes is even dumber and would have cost 3.5 Million jobs. Given the choices less jobs lost is going to look better.
I am so relieved that Hollywood got it's fair share of the tax increase...was so worried they might go broke...but thanks to the Dems special interest in them they will be fine.
GOP Extinct,
Sorry, but there is no record of right wingers hacking websites, only Far left wing wackos seem too.
Simple Theory,
This Bill added nothing to the national debt, the continued middle-class tax cuts merely negated nearly four trillion in projected revenue...
Something republicans don't want to talk about, the Bush/Republican Congress tax cuts in 2001 took nearly five trillion dollars from the treasury while we were trying to find funds to pay for two wars, amongst other things
akron isnt it time for your lithium.there ya go.thats a big boy.things will look better in a minute.let the adults talk now
Ok Ellis, you want to continue blaming instead of dealing with finding solutions? I'll play.
"If" Clinton who knew quite well of the dangers of OBL, and had done something about it instead of sending a couple of missiles into Afghanistan hoping it would deter him, because Monica was too busy under the desk, 9/11 might have never happened only eight months into Bush's presidency. "If" Clinton had acted, maybe we wouldn't have been in two wars that have lasted over ten years. "If" Clinton had acted the tax cuts would have actually been a reasonable direction to go. "If" Clinton hadn't been wasting his time being impeached, he might have done something. "If" Clinton had done his job, the treasury would be full. Give me a break.
Blame all you want, it can always be redirected.
Satanick
It is a dumb deal and will increase unemployment by about 1 million jobs. Having a 38% increase in taxes is even dumber and would have cost 3.5 Million jobs. Given the choices less jobs lost is going to look better.
In the short run perhaps but in the long run this deal is terrible for the economy. I'm sick of the short term economic policies practiced by the government. There are consequences to borrowing trillions of dollars every year. The interest payments on the national debt will continue to rise. The government has to borrow this money from someone, usually banks, and this dries up money that could loaned out to individuals and businesses. Don't forget that this money is being transferred from the private sector to the public sector which is generally more wasteful and inefficient at spending it. The debt also acts to transfer wealth from people and businesses that pay taxes to those who hold government debt. Who holds a lot of government debt? Large financial institutions. So big deficits/high national debt means lots of money for the banksters.
John,
I will drop the blame Bush crap when Taliban teabaggers admit 3/4ths of the blame they credit to Obama was really the doing of the Bush/republican Congress.....While a balanced budget is always preferable, it is pretty hard to promote when people like VP Cheney say deficits don't matter
.....It is purely a matter of "if the shoe fits, wear it "
John, your mistake is referring to Congress as logical people
Hey Ellis
I am not defending Bush nor Cheney. But the basic fact of the matter is that if you make $30,000 a year you don't spend $50,000. And that is exactly what Obama decried as a senator, and then did as President. They are all at fault.
Oh, and by the way, if it wasn't for the original Tea Party (that got highjacked by Christian religious extremists) Our debt would be much higher because the rest in Congress only wanted to spend us to oblivion. They may have been obstructionist, but it saved us trillions that would have been wastefully spent. Most of the time it is better when Congress does nothing. Judging a Congress by how many bills get passed is like judging a Congress on how much of our yet earned money they are spending. Or haven't you noticed, that every bill that Congress passes is spending and never, ever cuts.
John, no matter how much you try to deflect the blame, you cannot disregard what did happen with what if Clinton had or hadn't done this or that.....Again, my point is, "if the shoe fits, wear it."
Pigotry: "Deficit can be a future problem, but the US government will never go bankrupt because the US is the most powerful nation, the US government is the most stable. But I am sure you can't allow the deficit to go out of control. But today it's not yet."
If you truly believe this statement then you should not be allowed to discuss economics on any level. This statement is reckless and foolish. Let's try this example: let's say you make $75,000 per year, own a home worth $350,000 with a $200,000 mortgage. Your own two cars and pay $600 per month. Your total assets equal $1,000,000. Your bank treats you like the US so you owe $3,000,000 since you've squandered the money on bad investments. Do you really believe that the bank (the world countries) are going to keep lending you money? Yet, you have to borrow money just to pay the interest on your loans. Oooops, times up. You'll be declaring bankruptcy very soon. You and the persons who run this country are fools. You should run for office, you'd fit right in.
And another liberal bed wetter heard from.
Sad, remember a large percentage of Romney's infamous 47% are retired seniors who paid ALL taxes including their Social Security taxes for 40 to 50-plus years. The extreme disrespect of our elders is a significant part of the moral and social decay in the USA today.
Ellis Baumgarner
I am not trying to deflect blame. I could blame anyone who refuses to cut spending because it might hurt some special interest.
For the record, I never agreed with the Bush tax cuts, they were simply placating the US population to go along with the wars. We did not need them in what was a flourishing economy. But did you complain when they came, doubtful. I also will not argue that part of what Obama inherited was a result of the Bush legacy, but at what time will responsibility to correct anything be taken. It is the path must be corrected, and it doesn't matter who is in Congress or the White House. The blame goes to ALL who represent us. I would vote for Kermit the frog if he would get our books in order. But blaming and whining about the past get's US no where. It is the future I care about.
This deal is truly a consolation prize for the 99% ... and Occupy Movement can claim something concrete.
.
Now let's go grassroots, and kick out more RepubliCONs in November 2014..you know...those House 151 RepubliCONs who voted against the deal last night.
You are right, only because our currency rule the world trade market we got the advantage to do so, hurting every nation in the world with a weak dollar. How can we dare to call China "currency manipulator" we are the Godfather of the currency manipulation, spreading the weakness of the dollar all over the world, in order to continue with the creation of a welfare country , where the government is the solution, not the problem. . This is why so many times ,world trade leaders are waiting for the right time and kick us out and replece the dollar for something else.
While I don't want to encourage comparison of micro economic to macro economics, you don't quit your job (cut taxes) if you don't have savings to pay your bills, like the cost of wars. Come on, it's a silly chicken-and-egg argument at best.
Ellis Baumgarner -- Rightwingers will just say the Dems had a majority after 2006 -- which: 1) disregards the years prior to that starting in 2001; and 2) disregards that the majority the Dems had in 2006 was so narrow it was worthless, especially when faced with Teapublican filibusters.
Bush/Cheney sucked and deep in their hearts they know it. But admit it publicly they cannot do.
John,
I mostly agree with your post #1.58, and do agree the original tea party was hijacked by right wing Christian extremist, the same bunch that is obstructing the growth of the economy and labors to instill Christian mythology into our schools and government.
I don't know if you have ever owned or operated a business (I owned and operated two), but sometimes deficit spending is required to save or grow a business, during hard times especially. During the late eighties recession I had to max out my credit and refinance my home to save a business, it payed off. Right now America is in a similar position, and it is going to take some cash influx to get the wheels turning again......Deficit spending is only bad when there is no foreseeable goal or progress
Have a nice evening'
citizens: And I read that of that 47% -only 28% are the real "moochers"
Bill-857242 -- Algae is a bio-fuel, motorcycles are a great export to China, and NASCAR makes Hollywood a wash (ha).
TruePatriot-445959
I disagree. If you are forced to take a pay cut from $50,000 to $30,000 You either get a new job(which I wish most representatives would do) or you cut costs to survive until times get better. No one in this world has an unlimited credit card, and at some point the US will find this out the hard way sorry to say.
And by the way, isn't what the Congress just did your example? Cutting taxes without savings to pay bills?
Ellis,
Actually I do own my own business. I started it with nothing and one contract. With that I paid cash for equipment to do the next. And so on. My business has excellent credit of which none I use. Cash is king. I have taken out loans, but never for more than I could pay back, and when times were good I paid them off in a hurry. That is exactly opposite of what our government is doing.
Spoken Like a true liberal, Change the Subject, Ignore the Facts, and Name Call.
And your lack of anything challenging my intellect tells me you are too ignorant or of a sufficiently diminished mental capacity to formulate a cognitive and cohesive argument to support your position. And you must revert to parroting what others have said, even though you fail to fully comprehend what was said. But hey, you're cool, right? You sure told me off.
Yes, Romney lost the election. (that is to say, Obama did not beat him) However, that in no way changes what exactly he said now does it? Or are you one of those Idiots I mentioned earlier that actually believes what the MSM reported and Romney said, "47% pay NO taxes".
AWOL-blah blah (what's with the numbers by the way) kinda gives impression you escaped from a mental ward somewhere. OH, there's the guy, he's AWOL.
I wish the deal were as good as the idiot who wrote the article believes (or pretends).
For one thing, if by "entitlements" he means Social Security and Medicare, as I'm sure he knows, they don't contribute one dime to the deficit.
They are separate "trusts" that are forbidden by law from running deficits and SS at least has a huge surplus.
You'll notice he doesn't mention "defense" as a a place to cut even though we spend more on it (the amount we know about, some of it is "black" and not reported) than all over industrialized nations combined.
What about all the tax breaks and "incentives" and outright give aways we have doled out to corporations since the late 1970's?
What is that contribution to the deficit?
If those tax breaks were supposed to help the economy and generate jobs then, considering the state of things, I don't think they have done a very good job.
Here's some information that was ignored in the article:
Cutting Social Security will not fix the national debt
"…Contrary to the widespread myth further forwarded by the commission, Social Security is neither going broke nor causing our federal deficits. It never contributed and, unless the law is changed, never will contribute a penny to the debt. It is self-financing, has no borrowing authority, and cannot pay benefits unless it has the income on hand to cover the entire cost.
Today, Social Security is running surpluses and will be in sound financial shape for nearly three decades. Even after that, its long-term shortfall can be addressed easily without cuts. If a corporation could make such claims to its shareholders, it would be cause for champagne, not gloom and doom…"
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1228/Cutting-Social-Security-will-not-fix-the-national-debt
Lies Linking Social Security to the National Debt
By Jeanine Molloff
Most Americans don't understand how Social Security and Medicare are funded, and as a result have been bamboozled by a curious assortment of corporate network 'talking heads,' (yes this includes CNN), and astroturf organizations whose sole purpose is to muddy intellectual waters--allowing corporate interests to reign supreme. They con us by crafting and massaging several myths regarding public programs.
Lie#1: Social Security is Broke....
This national myth is my all time favorite. Not only is Social Security NOT BROKE--IT IS THE ONLY FEDERAL PROGRAM WHICH IS FULLY FUNDED. I repeat--SOCIAL SECURITY IS FULLY FUNDED, ALWAYS HAS BEEN. The problem lies in the fact that the government has continually raided the monies all of us have paid into the system, to subsidize corporate tax breaks, unbridled military spending and what have become routine Wall Street bankster raids on the public dime. In fact, this raiding was discussed during the alleged 'surplus' years of the Clinton administration. In a heated congressional testimony by then Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and US Senator Ernest F. Hollings--the ongoing use of Social Security monies for general revenue projects was exposed. (Source: click here) If anything, the Fed Reserve 'owes' monies to the Social Security Fund.
Lie#2 : Social Security and Medicare Contribute to the National Debt...
Even a fiscal conservative like Sen. Max Baucus has testified that Social Security does not belong in deficit reduction talks. Baucus, as the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, held a hearing entitled "Perspectives on Deficit Reduction: Social Security" just this May. Baucus explained that:
"Social Security benefits are financed only through payroll taxes and the Trust Fund." Baucus further explained that Social Security, ..."is not responsible for the deficits we face in the general fund today. Therefore, I believe Social Security should not be part of our efforts to reduce these deficits." (Source : http://www.advisorone.com/node/20983) In fact the federal law FORBIDS any mingling of Social Security monies with general revenues. Baucus himself clearly stated that, ..."Social Security must remain separated from the rest of the Federal budget and the program cannot borrow money from the general Federal budget." (Source : http://www.advisorone.com/node/20983)
So, how can any Congress or any President LEGALLY sponsor any bill which would MANDATE across the board spending cuts including to Social Security? Well, both democrats and republicans came up with a few very sneaky plans. The two most prominent plans are the Corker-McCaskill CAP Act (S. 245), and the Cut, Cap and Balance Act (H.R. 2560).
First I'll describe the Corker-McCaskill bipartisan compromise. Another presidential 'buddy', Sen. Claire McCaskill co-sponsored a bill benignly dubbed the 'Corker-McCaskill CAP Act or S. 245. It has a 'companion' bill in the House of Representatives, which is now the 'flavor of the month,' namely the 'Cut, Cap and Balance Act or simply, H.R. 2560 in the House and S. 1340 in the Senate. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/2?c112:H.R.2562:)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lies-Linking-Social-Securi-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110724-711.html
Galbraith is a son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith and Catherine (Kitty) Atwater Galbraith and is the brother of the former diplomat and commentator Peter W. Galbraith. He earned his BA, magna cum laude, from Harvard in 1974 and Ph.D from Yale in 1981, both in economics. From 1974 to 1975, Galbraith studied as a Marshall Scholar at King's College, Cambridge.[1]
Federal Spending Is Not Trapped by the Social Safety Net
AUG 2, 2012
James K. Galbraith
Setting the record straight on the math around entitlement programs.
The nub of Bill Keller's recent essay on why Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid must be cut is a graph – taken from a report by a group called Third Way – that compares federal “investments” with “entitlements,” showing that one is in decline and the other is on the rise. As a baby boomer, former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee, and an economist concerned with military matters (I chair the Board of Economists for Peace and Security), my antennae went up immediately.
Note, as Keller acknowledges, that the federal budget counts weapons systems as “investments.” Back in the 1960s, we were building nuclear bombers, submarines, missiles, and warheads; today we are downsizing that arsenal, happily unused. Does Mr. Keller really think that those “investments” had anything much to do with economic growth? If so, he's misinformed.
Even today, military procurement is around 40 percent of total federal “investment” – $221 billion out of about $540 billion in 2011, according to the Special Analyses in the Budget. Whatever you think of the F-35 and F- 22, it's just silly to add that number to (say) federal aid to education, another component of investment. The sum is not a gauge of anything.
On the budget, Mr. Keller then asserts that “the arithmetic simply doesn't work.” He does not explain, but no matter; he's again misinformed. How do we know? Partly because the markets have full confidence in the US fiscal position – evidenced by record low long-term interest rates. And if you don't trust the markets, you can also look at the numbers, as I do here.
In reality, an older population is partly the result of the great success of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which have since the early 1970s protected elderly Americans from destitution. Naturally, they live longer. And as the elderly become more numerous, the payout of the programs that support them must rise. There is nothing wrong with this. And it is wholly sustainable. The right measure is the share of total spending on this population in total GDP; Social Security (OASDI) was under 4.5 percentage points in 2009 and is projected to rise to 6.5 percent over the next 75 years. By what conceivable argument is this a crisis? (For a detailed discussion of the question of “burden” see my testimony to the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, February 25, 2009, co- authored with Warren Mosler and Randall Wray, available on request.)
Mr. Keller's proposal for a higher retirement age deserves a word. Today, a very high share of Social Security recipients take the early retirement option at 62. Raising the “retirement age” is just a benefit cut for these most vulnerable, lowest-paid workers. It's the cruelest and most dishonestly presented of all so-called Social Security “reforms.”...
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/federal-spending-not-trapped-social-safety-net
Democrats are so smart looking to bring to America failed ideologies from Europe and the Soviet Union ( Russia ).
Republicans are projected to make larger gains in Congress than they did in 2010. I can't wait to hear the gnashing of teeth.
Wow, the hacks in the corporate media really have the knives out for seniors and anyone not rich. Apparently they won't be happy until retired people are dining on Kibbles and Bits or Friskies again like they used to before those dreaded "entitlements" were fought for and enacted.
Unfortunately, contrary to a lot of misinformation, Obama is on their side so anyone who wants a half way decent old age should remain vigilant.
"...The “deal” was not all about cuts, as Matt Stoller writes, the deficit cutters were very generous to Goldman Sachs: “Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.” Another gift to big finance and multinationals: a provision was included that allows U.S. multinationals to not pay taxes on income earned abroad at a cost $1.5 billion to the budget...."
JANUARY 02, 2013
Fighting Austerity
Fiscal Cliff Averted, Now the Attack on People Begins
by KEVIN ZEESE
Last night, Congress passed a watered down fiscal cliff package that will raise taxes on everyone, but the worst is yet to come, and this “deficit cutting” measure contains some surprises.
Economist Jack Rasmus highlights Obama’s comments after passage which signal what we can expect: “I am very open to compromise . . . Medicare is the biggest contribution to the deficit.” In fact, Medicare does not contribute to the deficit because it is funded by a separate tax, but Obama has signaled – expect cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Obama has been laying the ground work to cut social insurances since 2010.
The “deal” only cut the deficit by $620 billion of the bi-partisan goal of $4 trillion so there are a lot of budget cuts ahead and they will not come from the military or national security state, they will come from the necessities of the people. Even if the U.S. had gone over the cliff cuts to the military were minimal, DoD cuts scheduled to take effect in 2013 were only $24 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, much less than the oft-mentioned $500 billion reported in the media. The $500 billion are cuts over ten years, mostly backloaded to the out years. Thus these are cuts the military would likely never see.
The reason that the deal cut the deficit so little is because Obama backed off his campaign promise to raise taxes on the top 2%, and instead only repealed the Bush tax cuts on the top 1.5%, those earning over $400,000. As a result, rather than raising $1.2 trillion in revenue, the deal only raised $600 billion and part of that came from working people as payroll taxes were re-instated. The result will be more cuts on the rest of us – so later this year the bi-partisan cut to corporate tax rates can be passed.
The “deal” was not all about cuts, as Matt Stoller writes, the deficit cutters were very generous to Goldman Sachs: “Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.” Another gift to big finance and multinationals: a provision was included that allows U.S. multinationals to not pay taxes on income earned abroad at a cost $1.5 billion to the budget.
And, the people will need their circuses as austerity hits so NASCAR got $43 million in tax breaks over two years to build race tracks and associated facilities. Hollywood studios received $150 million in tax breaks for 2010 and 2011.
People facing foreclosure and living in underwater houses lost the small foreclosure relief programs that existed and tax laws were set to treat any write-down on a mortgage as income (i.e. if a mortgage was written down by $100,000 the tax payer had to pay taxes on $100,000 income) but the cliff deal delayed that tax change for one year.
Taking care of ill family members at home was dealt a set-back with a provision in the Affordable Care Act designed to let millions of elderly and disabled people get help at home rather than be placed in institutional care being repealed.
There was good news for Green energy in the deal. Roughly a dozen provisions would extend credits and incentives for plug-in electric vehicles, energy-efficient appliances, biodiesel and renewable diesel, and other alternative energy initiatives.
Budget debates are how government sets its priorities and the fiscal cliff package shows were h government’s priorities are: low taxes on the wealthy and corporations, giveaways to business and take-aways from the American people. People can expect much worse in the months to come unless they get organized and mobilize against austerity in a big way. Elected officials will need to be scared by the public in a big way to stop the bi-partisan assault on the people.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-averted-now-the-attack-on-people-begins/
Pigotry, you are a self-serving numbskull. You would sacrfice the future of your and our children to save a few bucks in your own pocket. You make me sick.
Enjoy the self-serving attitude that would bankrupt this nation. GFY!
John,
I too believe in cash, when possible. But if you run your business on a cash basis, it is a very small business.
Something you seem not to comprehend about the differences between home, small business and government functions is small business owners can walk away at any point with little responsibility. Small businesses do not have to find a way to fund wars, a work force of ten million, care for the elderly or poor or insurance funds to cover people's bank deposits, vaccinations to prevent a pandemic or terrorist attacks....it is not as simple as one dollar in, and one dollar out when you have ten middle men to also satisfy...........Personally, it amazes me that a government the size of ours can function at all, but like you, I will continue to complain in order to entertain myself
frank president romney agrees with your projections for more republican victories soon
Some people posting here seem to be under the illusion that the U.S. is overly generous when it comes to development assistance (foreign aid) to other countries.
In fact we give less than 1% of our GDP, less than many other developed nations.
Here's the graph:
http://masbury.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/screenhunter_001.jpg?w=700
This is one of the best articles I've seen on the so-called Fiscal Cliff and the media and political class' role in it:
The fiscal cliff deal
3 January 2013
The bill passed by Congress averting tax increases and spending cuts dubbed the "fiscal cliff" sets the stage for a campaign by both parties and the US media for sweeping attacks on social programs that provide health coverage and retirement income for the elderly, the disabled and the poor.
A small increase in the income tax rate on the top 0.7 percent of households in the bill passed Tuesday will serve as window dressing for an assault on the basic social reforms of the 1930s and 1960s. The bipartisan deal worked out between the Obama White House and Democratic and Republican congressional leaders delays for two months $110 billion in military and domestic spending cuts. This sets up a new crisis deadline in March that coincides with the legal need to raise the federal debt limit and the expiration of a “continuing resolution” funding the operations of the federal government.
With the tax side of the issue having been resolved in the fiscal cliff bill, the corporate-controlled media will demand that the “debt limit cliff” be averted by massive cuts in social spending, targeting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
The use of artificial deadlines and phony crises to manipulate the public has become a basic modus operandi for managing the political affairs of the American ruling elite. The so-called fiscal cliff debate was from the start a cynical and stage-managed exercise, reflecting the inability of the political system to address the concerns of the masses and its complete servility to the financial aristocracy.
Part of the process is the creation by the media of a synthetic “public opinion” that has nothing to do with the real concerns and views of the population. Already on Wednesday, the morning news programs were speaking of a groundswell of popular anger over the failure of Congress to enact “real” deficit-reduction measures and serious cuts in social programs—this in the face of repeated polls that show a large majority of the population opposed to such cuts….
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/01/03/pers-j03.html
ArchStanton
You really should read what SCOTUS has to say about
still would have preferred going over the cliff... it would have been a better position to negotiate from. Right now, we simply stepped up the timing for the Republican Fracture by a few months.
To you dope smoking hippies, and Commie Socialist who say that SSI does not add or account for deficit and debt, go watch this: (ps. I can not post direct links, yet, the Gestapo here, hasn't deemed me worthy, so just copy and paste then delete the spaces (I add these instructions because one of the more intellectual liberals I was having a discussion with, could not figure it on his own)
w w w.michael-reese.com/blog/why-our-government-cannot-balance-the-budget.php
w w w.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/26/social-security-iisi-ponzi-scheme/#ixzz286WBQvR6 (
so what,? it is Fox News, get over yourself, the article was actually written by Judge NAPOLITANO.(One could argue, although not successfully with a liberal, that he may be something of an expert on the topic)
The real losers are our grandchildren who will forced to pay the debt. I am so glad they passed Obamacare and the death panel. Thirty years from now when the get control I'm sure they will remember who screwed their future and they get pay back when they tell you it is too expense to keep you alive.
Miss Pigotry.
IMO your outlook is naive. You simply cannot continue to spend in this fashion without doing harm to the economy. There's no amount of taxation that can cover the yearly deficits, much less the debt. It will one day reach an untenable level and what seems draconian now will be looked upon as the good old days when the $hit finally hits the fan. If we cannot reasonably come up with a common sense tax code along with responsible spending habits now, then we are in serious trouble.
John, I was referring to this:
Here's the link
w.afn.org/~govern/bankruptcy.html
ArchStanton:
The Federal government has repeatedly raided the entire SS fund and replaced the money with special social security bonds, ie IOUs. Whenever the government collects insufficient FICA money to pay the monthly SS checks, the government sells one or more of the special SS bonds to the banks and the proceeds are used to balance the check book.
But this is a clever ruse to fool the people about the solvency of SS. It is just an accounting trick. Instead of selling a special SS bond, the government could have easily sold a general fund bond, and the resulting federal deficit and SS check book would be the same.
Social Security is insolvent. Except to those who are blinded by smokescreens manufactured by the government.
Ellis,
Yes it is that simple and that is what caused the situation we are in. We can't save anyone if we can't save the republic. I agree, spend money when we need to, but we have been overspending when we don't need to. Any accountant in the world will want checks and balances. While there are justifiable financing of certain things, you can never justify financing 43% of all operations perpetually. And that is what we are doing.
I am glad the discussion changed from blaming to conversation though, thank you.
ArchStanton
I agree with much of what you have stated about SS and Medicare, but I have some points.
Over 90% of this countries wealth resides with those over 55. You are justifying people who clearly don't need the system being able to use the system. It should be need based. It was never designed to protect the retired riches assets. It was designed to keep the elderly above the poverty level. If you want it to entitle everyone, then eliminate the cap on payment. That is where SS and Medicare changes need to begin. I take that back. It needs to begin with the Congress not being able to use the fund, but need base is necessary.
The next real change should be to deal with Medicare. When a couple who is retiring on an annual salary of $90,000 and has paid $114,000 into Medicare, and will pull out over $300,000 there is a problem. Again, need based. But follow the money. The problem is where the money is going and it isn't to the actual care-givers. It is going to the mafia of drug companies and industry. That is not health care. in fact it is not care at all. The true problem with Medicare is lobbyists jacking the price of care. Deal with that and the problem will heal itself.
The third thing that needs to be done is to remove the welfare system from using the fund. Last year the US spent over a trillion dollars on welfare and healthcare for welfare. That is $3,300 for every man, woman, and child in the country. There is something in that math that doesn't work for me. I realize that these systems are necessary for some for the common good, but really, $3,300 per person. I would like an audit and to be able to see the money trail.
I have always believed that it is the lobbyists that are sucking this country dry, and would like to see the money trails. But I think the spending has gotten so out of control, the government doesn't even know where it is going.
As far as your comments on the military go, I say cut it. How many more ways can we invent to kill people. In my view, and it is kind of sick, we are creating weapon systems that can kill while we are safe 4000 miles away and watch it like it is a video game. There is no threat to us so we feel no remorse, or question the morality of the decision to do it in the first place. I do value our soldiers lives and appreciate their service, but sometimes I would like to see our generals lead the troops into battle to see if there is still resolve among them that it was the right thing to do in the first place.
Go occupy a job. Contained in the friscal cliff is a special tax cut from the Democrats for Goldman Sachs. It was not the GOP but the democrats. Just wait until you parents have to pay taxes on their health benefits that y'all have been sucking off of. Unless there is a massive entitlement reduction within 60 days then it will be welcome to the Weimar Republic withour the beer. Cut out the student loans and return it to the banks.
John you are obviusly never been comabt in arms or otherwise you would understand disarmenment in not the answer. learn to live within our means is the answer.
To sum it all up, we may have avoided going over the cliff in the short term, but we are still going down the tubes in the long haul. Don't let the politicians in DC near the flush handle, or we are in big trouble.
Nathan:
Do you have anything mature or intelligent to add to the discussion?
John Q Public: A nonsensical argument. We have by far the largest military in the world with a navy that exceeds the tonnage of the next 17 largest navies combined. And 1000+ foreign bases. The argument that military adventurism constitutes defense is untrue.
The article was lacking in identifying the biggest losers in the tax deal - you, your children, your grandchildren ....... who will be eventually need to pay increased taxes to address the current $16 Trillion National Debt and the additional $4 Trillion in deficits this "deal" will add over the next 10 years. Based on the Democrats interest in spending reductions and addressing the deficit , we can expect a National Debt in excess of $21 Trillion by the end of Obama's 2nd term.
No one can play Kick the can better than congress.
Deficit reduction from Obama? Good one. Also never going to happen. Nothing about deficit reduction that Obama talks about even takes place while he is in office, so why he wastes time spewing about it no one knows. Obama already touts that he has cut all sorts of spending, and yet the deficit has never come down. How is that even possible? One thing for sure, fiscally responsible will never be mentioned as part of the Obama legacy. An ability to talk a good game certainly will be, huge spender absolutely, but fiscal responsibility never.
Pigidiot - The US CAN and WILL go bankrupt you moron when no one will buy our DEBT, OR WHEN we CANNOT PAY IT, OR WHEN THE DOLLAR IS WORTHLESS. Stupid statements like you made that "the US will never go bankrupt because it is the most powerful nation" PROVES you are a complete fool about economics.
Earth to Ms. Piggy, you have no clue what you're talking about, "the deficit isn't a problem right now", give me a break. I've never heard such an asinine statement in all my life. Wait until Obama's 4 more years are up, the deficit will be at least double what it is right now and this country will basically be down the crapper.
Larry:
You wrote: "John Q Public: A nonsensical argument. We have by far the largest military in the world with a navy that exceeds the tonnage of the next 17 largest navies combined. And 1000+ foreign bases. The argument that military adventurism constitutes defense is untrue." Larry, you are the master of nonsense. You claim that the United States has "by far the largest military in the world", but you fail to explain why. I believe that you are purposely avoiding this issue, because it destroys your argument. The United States has the largest military in the world, because it has the most assets to protect, which are spread over a wide area.
Your argument that the tonnage of The United States "exceeds the tonnage of the next 17 largest navies combined", is a deceptive appeal to weight distribution. The other 17 navies may have thousands of fast, light ships that hit and run, and do a lot of damage, whereas the United States has fewer, heavier ships that are built to last longer, hit harder, and strike farther.
Larry, in order for your arguments to have any discussion value, you have to define what constitutes a "military base", as opposed to a base camp, and you have to explain the connection between legitimate military bases, and your definition of "adventurism".
John Q you are correct. Only a few select, including Goldman Sachs... are getting these bonds the Dems inserted in the fiscal cliff deal, that were meant for 9/11 reconstruction over a decade ago. They can borrow at Tax exempt rates, which is lower than corporate rates that most everybody has to borrow at. And people think just the Reublicans are wall-streeters. Ha!
It kills me some of you don't think the debt and deficit is a problem. Anyone know what we have historically borrowed money at? .......Over 4%. Know what we pay now due to artificially held low rates? ....1.75% Now get your calculators out and figure Obama, unless held in check, will easily pass 20 Trillion in debt by the end of his term. At some point we will go back up to normal rates. Assume we get back to 4.5% (Clinton era rates) and JUST THE INTEREST on that is around a Trillion dollars a year. I want you people that don't want to cut anything from any program to think about the consequences that will have on our country. Revenue we get from our citizens (not business) is around 1.2 Trillion.
Greece, Spain etc are all paying 6-7% to borrow money. We pay 1.75%. This is the fiscal cliff when rates go back to normal. And the more upside down we get the higher the rate we will have to pay on interest on our debt.
To put in perspective ... we take in maybe 2.5 Trillion and OWE 16.3 Trillion. 7 times what we get. If you brought home 50k NET and owed comparitively what the govt does you would have a credit card balance of 350k. Think about that next time you talk to your congress-person.
We have passed the point of paying this back. Only way out is to debase the currency, printing money, which will lead to $10 gas and milk. Then the poor will truly suffer.
Arkius,
Our military is a disgrace and should be cut in half at least. Ending the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will help as well! Oh, I guess one has ended in defeat already and we are just waiting for the same to happen in #2. Thank you bush for the $4,000,000,000,000 cost and 7,200 wasted lives!
Frank B,
Where did you make that up about republican gains. There are 11 fewer teabuggers coming to Congress today and all my neighbors who are republicans now sound like they never were!
DB,
Again your words are in error. Spending more and taxing more is the wrong direction!" Your right about the spending, but the population has increased tremendously. Taxes? Way out in right field with that one. Your tax rates are the lowest they have been since the 60's. Result-Deficit! Stop Making up your own lies!
clwyd, one can argue merits of size of the military... but to call our military/boys and girls in uniform a DISGRACE? Really????
And the top rate was lower in the 80's at 28%.
Really? Unbelievable.
Pigotry:
"The US government can always borrow, will never go broke, and can always pay back either through the profits or just printed money."
"It's a future problem".
Do you not have a moral compass? Do you not know RIGHT from WRONG? Or are you just that damn self-centered and absorbed that you simply don't care about the next generations? Do you want to be remembered as the generation that f**ked it all up, because they were selfish? You know, the EASY WAY, is usually the WRONG WAY!
Congress has just figured out how to get the US out of debt.
They are going to start a new tax for just wiping your ass and monitored by how many times you flush your toilet. Tampon users will be double dipped.
Once the entitlement mentality has driven Americans well past the point of safe return, foreign lenders will cut the U.S. off.
@ Pigotry
can always pay back either through the profits or just printed money.
It's the futures problem.
-
Wow, you are as ignorant as they come.
Did you know that a well known tactic by aggressive countries is to counterfeit a target country's money in order to undermine trust in the currency and cause hyperinflation which weakens the economy?
Printing currency to fix our debts is the work of domestic terrorists in the White House.
The only "losers" in this little game are future generations who will be forced to deal with the excesses of the current generation...
Spoken like a true Republican.
Mitt didn't have it right....that's why he disavowed the statement...but only after it was pointed out that the 47% Mitt pointed to as freeloaders are really 1%. the rest are working poor, the elderly on SS and veterans, but why let facts get in the way when you can call someone racist.
The President is the one making others look like fools (just look at the polls). When you really look at things it's healthcare that's driving this Country to the poor house, just what the President said.
How much did it cost to replace a heart valve for Ravi Shankar at 92 years old! "Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the surgeons and doctors taking care of him, his body was not able to withstand the strain of the surgery," his wife and daughter said. Whoda thunk a guy 92 years old couldn't withstand major heart surgery?
How much did it cost taxpayers to hold former President Bush in the hospital for over a month, and in ICU for part of that time? How much are we going to spend to keep someone alive, in constant pain and distress, while we ignore the price?
Obama is trying to reduce the biggest spending problem we have...healthcare....without balancing that on the backs of the elderly.....by promoting preventive care and putting in incentives by paying for "outcome" services rather that paying for more services. Meanwhile, we have ideologues griping about anything and everything the President does....no matter whether it helps (in the short or longer term) or not.
Like it or not, the biggest driver of legacy costs for every organization is healthcare. Until we get a handle on that, no amount of spending cuts are going to fix the problem. We either need to pay more premium dollars into Medicare/Medicaid, or find another way of delivering healthcare services. The President realized that years ago. It's too bad we're going to drag people along kicking and screaming (calling people stupid), until they realize that.
Now, who's the stupid ones again?
In other words the Big Policy Losers are the country and economy - but the Democrats and Obama don't care about either so what's so unexpected........
Losers : All Americans
Winners:
Obama “ green friends” $59 million in tax credits for algae growers, who are trying to find a way to produce a bio-fuel from the plant.
Congress voted to continue to give 10 percent of the cost of the electric vehicle - up to $2,500 in tax credits to individuals who purchase plug-in wheels
For Obama friends in Hollywood $15 million in breaks for filming in the U.S., $20 million for filming in low-income areas, an incentive for Hollywood that costs the country about $430 billion to maintain.
For Obama’/Tim Gaithner / Wall Street friends. Sec. 328 extends “tax exempt financing for York Liberty Zone,” The Fine Print, Goldman Sacks got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.
The Hurricane Sandy Relief scam, coming from the Democrat Controlled Senate is not different
The pork-barrel feast includes:
$8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments.
$150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska
$2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.
An eye-popping $13 billion would go to “mitigation” projects to prepare for future storms.
$207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center.
$41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
$4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida
$3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center
$1.1 million to repair national cemeteries.
$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land
$197 million “to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy.”
$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief.
Stop the madness.
Let me add a little to the first conversation:
The Republicans will insist on spending cuts for lifting the debt ceiling. The President will say, "pound salt".
The Republicans will reply, "Well then, we won't raise the debt ceiling". Obama will reply back, "Go ahead". Republicans will then say, "But we will". the President will say "OK, go ahead". The Republicans will say, "We'll get back to you".
Then, we'll get on to the Sequestration cuts and Continuing Resolution. That's when we FINALLY will get a Grand Bargain, or, another kick down the road (by Republicans) until tax reform can enter the picture. See, the Republicans think they can get the rich some goodies when they do tax reform.....but we'll see about that.
As long as the sequestration cuts are around-something the Republicans want less than the President- (and the Presidency and Senate are in Democratic control), the President still holds all the cards.
Now, who's the stupid ones?
Pigotry says:
I have often wondered how this country has fallen so far and how can we have so many uninformed and unintelligent voters that could vote for someone like Obama - then I read Pigotry's post and realized the ignorant exist and exist in droves.
How can what I assume is a rational person with an IQ at least 10 points above a turnip make a comment like the U.S. CAN'T go bankrupt because it is the most powerful nation? Did Pigotry learn that in public education?
Newsflash: History is FULL of once was powerful nations that are no longer powerful or extinct.
And then to say the U.S. can never go bankrupt? Well, there is just a small bit of truth to that - the U.S. CANNOT go bankrupt and that is because we have our own currency so can simply print money and pay off our debt. But the dangers to printing money is it devalues the money thus costs more to buy goods. How much more? Depends how much is printed.
But the preferred way to go is to borrow the money with a promise to pay it back. But what happens when global financial markets no longer feel comfortable lending the U.S. money? Then the last resort is the U.S. MUST print money to pay its debts and that is ALWAYS the last resort and ALWAYS leads to economic collapse.
So we currently owe over $16 Trillion and have an Unfunded Liability of nearly $125 Trillion. But we are still borrowing about $1 Trillion a year. Where are we getting that money?
Another newsflash: the global financial markets ALREADY have decreased their desire to lend us money. So I ask again - WHERE ARE WE BORROWING $1 TRILLION A YEAR?!?!?
We are printing it: That's right, the Federal Reserve is printing $85 Billion a month and using printed money to buy Treasury Bonds (i.e. we are printing money and lending it to ourselves). Just for fun multiply $85 Billion a month by 12 months. I'll do the math for you $1.02 Trillion.
So do you get the point yet? We are printing money and lending it to ourselves. So the deficit this year (and last year and the year before that) is primarily printing money and lending to ourselves.
So, yes, Pigotry is correct: We cannot go bankrupt because we can print our own money and pay off our debts - but then the currency becomes worthless.
Get ready for the financial and economic collapse of what WAS the most powerful nation in the world. Printing money to pay debts ALWAYS leads to economic and financial collapse. But when you have public educated people voting for Obama and have NO IDEA how an economy works or how fiscal and monetary policy works the end result is collapse - and it is coming sooner than many think.
Cannibal, Obamacare isn't going to save anything. Already 200% higher than what he told us. Not balancing on the back of seniors huh???? He cut about 200 billion from Medicare advantage. My moms doc stopped taking it and after 25 years she had to go find another doc. She told her she may stop taking it after this year and the medigap insurance increase will be close to 100/month. What you are saying and what my mom is living is 2 different things.
He also reduced payouts to Medicare/medicaid which will cause more docs to stop taking it and it is going to get hard for people to find it.
And just because one party has more control and the cards ...doesn't relate to anyone being stupid. Only ones spending habits are stupid when it comes to debt/deficit.
And Red, who complained the most when the bill was held up?
Governor Chris Christie (Republican)
Peter King (Republican Rep)
It should have read: The Hurricane Sandy Relief scam,
coming fromgoing to theDemocrat Controlled SenateRepublican Representatives' Districts is not different.The bill was held up because Boehner asked Reid to take all of the big pork spending out and he refused. Christie wasn't telling the house to just pass anything that comes their way. If Reid would have taken all that pork out it would have been voted on and passed already.
Amazing - An article by NBC that is actually 'balanced', and not its usual demonizing of Republicans and glorifying of Democrats.
I'm sure this is just a temporary excursion into real journalism by NBC.
We have a 2 part problem - Spending has 'skyrocketed', and tax revenues have 'tanked'. The Debt Commission recommended that Federal spending be set at about 19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Tax Revenues be set at about 19% as well, which would create a balanced budget at some time in the future.
In 2011, Spending was 23.9% of GDP ($15.094 Trillion), which amounted to $739 Billion of excess spending.
In 2011, Tax Revenues were 15.3% of GDP, which amounted to $558 Billion in fewer taxes.
If we're going to get to a healthy financial condition, we need to have both Spending cuts AND Tax Increases. I would suggest a target of getting to Spending and Revenue Parity at 19% of GDP over 10 years – Call it a 19/10 Plan - described below.
Obama's 2013 Budget Projections calls for a GDP of $25.488 Trillion in 10 years (2022), so the Spending would be limited to gradually increase from $3.55 Trillion in 2012 to $4.893 Trillion in 2022 – an average increase of 3.3% per year.
Revenues from Taxes would also be targeted to gradually increase from $2.47 Trillion in 2012 to $4.893 Trillion in 2022 – an average increase of 7.1% per year. In 10 years, we would have a 'Balanced Budget', and the National Debt would be capped at about $22 Trillion in 2022.
Since the Democrats accuse the Republicans of 'protecting the rich' from tax increases, and the Republicans accuse the Democrats of 'spending us into oblivion', I would suggest that the Republicans be required to structure a plan to raise taxes, and the Democrats be required to structure a plan to cut spending. Then the Republicans would have to make the tough decisions on tax increases, and the Democrats would have to make the tough decisions on reforming spending (entitlements).
Comments are welcomed.
"Our citizens are still trying to put their lives back together. Our states are still trying to rebuild vital infrastructure," Obama said in a statement, noting how we worked with local leaders like Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to come up with an "urgent," $60 billion aid package.
"The Senate passed this request with bipartisan support. But the House of Representatives has refused to act, even as there are families and communities who still need our help to rebuild in the months and years ahead, and who also still need immediate support with the bulk of winter still in front of us," Obama said.
When tragedy strikes, Americans come together to support those in need," Obama added.
"I urge Republicans in the House of Representatives to do the same, bring this important request to a vote today, and pass it without delay for our fellow Americans."
Our citizens are still trying to put their lives back together. Our states are still trying to rebuild vital infrastructure," Obama said in a statement, noting how we worked with local leaders like Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to come up with an "urgent," $60 billion aid package???????????????????
Deadly combination.
Pigotry, if you think Medicare hasn't been adversely effected than you need to take a look at comment #365...that should open your eyes to what's happening and it will get worse, the plans already in place.
Your plan will never work Roy. Because.. it makes sense :-) I had looked up some St Louis Fed numbers and if i remember right our average Revenue as a percentage of GDP was ...1950-1975 averaged 17.6% and 1976-2008 was 18.3%. Top rate was from over 90% down to 28% and back up yet revenue/gdp always averages around 18%. It goes over and under of coarse, and rarely touches 20% but always comes back to that average.
Someone had actually proposed a 19% GDP limit, with some exceptions for war, disasters etc, and it was quickly thrown out. No matter the rate if you spend more than 18 or 19% of GDP you will have deficits. Over 60 years of historical data tell us that.
What you describe is close to Boles/Simpson which is as good as we can get probably. Two good guys doing good work and were basically thrown to the wind.
Roy:
2007:
Tax Revenues: $2.4 Trillion
Federal Government Spending: $2.7 Trillion
2012 (Projected):
Tax Revenues: $2.4 Trillion
Federal Government Spending: $3.5 Trillion
You ask for comments regarding a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to balance the budget and I agree. Reduce government spending to 2007 levels and I can get on board with tax increases across the board to make up the difference of $300 Billion. Problem solved.
Cannibal, Obamacare isn't going to save anything. Already 200% higher than what he told us. Not balancing on the back of seniors huh???? He cut about 200 billion from Medicare advantage. My moms doc stopped taking it and after 25 years she had to go find another doc. She told her she may stop taking it after this year and the medigap insurance increase will be close to 100/month. What you are saying and what my mom is living is 2 different things.
ATC, I'm not sure what you mean by "already 200% more than what he told us". I purchase the health insurance for our organization and premium cost increases have actually decreased over the last two years. THAT'S in line with what Obama promised (he never promised that premiums would go down, only that the increases would level off).
With the population aging so fast, a doctor won't be able to make money soon unless they take Medicare patients. Medicare advantage cuts would be worse under Republicans and Republicans would like to shift ALL the costs (above inflation) to people like your mother. But perhaps you think that's better.
Cannibal i base that off of what the President told us would happen. He said our premiums by this point would be $2,500 lower on average if we passed it. They are $2,500 HIGHER on average. A guy lives a couple of houses down just got his premium notice with a 19% increase for his business. He had the same argument with another neighbor. He took his premium notice from this year and last year, made copies, and put them on the guys windshield. LOL All in good fun as we are all friends.
A cardiologist i know said he LOSES about $60 for every Medicare patient he gets now. Not sure how that encourages anyone to take more? Just the opposite. Thats why docs are dropping MA because of the reduced funding. He said what the family doctors make now are mostly the deductables they collect.
In the discussion preceding Obamacare passage the Republicans were argueing against the cuts to medicare Advantage. Not sure where you get that from.
I can't get my family doc to talk about it, although he never has a good look on his face when i bring up the subject :-)
There are several ways to balance the budget:
1. You can reduce spending
2. You can increase taxes
3. You can grow GDP while keeping taxes and spending the same
Or, any combination of the three
Obviously, #3 is the least painful but no one seems to be concentrating on that the last 2 years (remember the "Path to Prosperity" slogan the Republicans used to win a majority in Congress in 2010?). Instead we complain back and forth over the first 2.
ATC, i think we both had a few points wrong:
From FACTCHECK:
Health Insurance Premiums
Romney appears to have mixed up two statistics here: Obama’s promise to reduce health insurance premiums by $2,500 (an optimistic claim we have questioned several times, ever since the soon-to-be president first made the promise on the campaign trail) and the actual rise in insurance premiums. As we reported in March, the average cost of a family policy rose by $1,300 between 2010 and 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey (Exhibit 1.110). (Even if you include the year before — so 2009 to 2011 — the increase was $1,700, not $2,500.)
Moreover, the $1,300 rise in premiums between 2010 and 2011 is the total cost for both employers and employees — not $1,300 out of pocket for the average family. In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation report said that the increase in what workers contribute wasn’t “a statistically significant increase over the 2010 values.”
Romney often implies that Obama’s health care law is to blame for the rise in premiums, but when we looked into that issue last October, experts told us it was only responsible for a small portion of the increase. Specifically, they said, more generous coverage requirements in the law caused premiums to go up by 1 percent to 3 percent, while all told, premiums went up 9 percent. The bulk of the increase was tied to rising health care costs.
I will say that Obama probably meant "healthcare costs" rather than "premiums", but it won't be the first time a politician has been criticized for his literal statement and I'll concede on that one.
Shifting costs to seniors, Obamacare...
Increases the percentage to qualify for medical deductions from 7.5 to 10%...increasing costs to seniors.
Caps Flexible spending account deductions, used to be none
No longer covers post op infections
Decreases rehab funding
Taxes devices such as wheelchairs, walkers, etc
New drugs have a 2.9% new tax
Can't buy over the counter meds with FSA
Decreased Medicare and MA funding
Eliminates employer provided med part D deductions on retirements.
These are some of the things in Obamacare. These all have a big effect on costs to seniors. Did you know these were in there? While the concept of insurance for all may sound appealing, what is actully in the bill is quite the opposite.
It also doubled the penalty for taking money out of a medical spending account from 10% to 20%.
It also added something called "codification of economic substance doctrine". Has to do with the IRS being able to deny legal deductions if in there opinion it lacks substance.
Some kind of an escise tax on charitable hospitals if they don't meet certain criteria set forth by the administration.
Cannibal, i agree that growing the GDP/economy is the main way to get us healthy. If we increased our growth from 1.5-2% to 4%, which all recoveries usually do, we would get much more revenue than changing tax policy upwards. I think the main focus should be on business growth, period. What can we do as a federal govt to make our businesses as competitive as we can. Of course we will differ on that probably, but all our guys in DC seem to treat that as an afterthought. They do minor one-off temporary things, but that does nothing for long term growth. 100% same year expensing would be a start, instead of the multiple year.
My premiums went up 9% this year.
The increase i mentioned above for medical expense deductions are a percentage of ones adjusted gross income. And what read "flexible spending account DEDUCTIONS....should have been contributions. Now capped at $2500 per year.
ATC,
Most of the items you point out (FSA's, medical savings, retirement benefits) benefit the wealthy and they already have money.
The rest effect providers more than beneficiaries. I know some trickle down to beneficiaries but they are small in comparison to the benefits if you get very sick. People do have to realize they need to pay for services too.
Not sure what you want. You want to cut costs but then complain about any, that even marginally affect people. That's a typical trick to dissuade people from doing anything.
You have to try and adjust for issues instead of kicking the can down the road at every problem.
BigATC: Correct. Many forget that the reason Clinton was able to balance the budget in the late 90's was NOT due to tax increases NOR spending cuts - it was due to an expanding economy (remember the dot net bubble?).
But grow the economy 4% to 5% with reasonable government spending (and not adjusting tax rates at all) and we could have a balanced budget in just a couple years.
But the new Obama recovery where 2% GDP growth and 8% unemployment is considered "acceptable" will do nothing but continue to damage our economic potential.
StoptheCannibals: The goal of government SHOULD be to grow the economy and not to determine how best to punish the taxpayer at the expense of damaging the economy. In order to HELP the lower and middle class you must have a growing and strong economy but that can't occur when the goal of government is to punish success and redistribute income and wealth actually hindering expansion and investment.
Margaret Thatcher said it best when she said "Socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money".
For 2012, my organization's health insurance premiums, for a family plan (and the other options) went up about 1.44% (from $22,828.08 to $23,156.44 per year).
The employee's share (for that same family plan) went up 1.26%
The premiums actually went down the year before (we changed carriers).
Before Obamacare was enacted, the rates were going up 20% a year. We had to look to other carriers (and limit some of the benefits) to get it down to about 9 or 10%.
And remember, we now get rebates if the carrier spends too much on administrative costs. figure that in too, and the fact that NO ONE SHOULD GO BANKRUPT FROM MEDICAL EXPENSES ANYMORE.
What's that worth?
Cannibal, most of the items in Obamacare affect EVERYONE regardless of income level. You say i'm complaining of the cutting costs and i'm not. I'm merely pointing out that people claim Obamacare doesn't affect seniors and it does, quite a bit in fact.
Pro, i think spending did have a big effect in the late 90's. Although you can't say its the only thing for sure. The late 90's had the lowest SPENDING/gdp we have had since the 70's. In the 19% range where it should be. Government produces nothing, it is a consumer of wealth.
Not sure how Obamacare fixes not going bankrupt? It only guarentees you health Insurance, not healthcare. Say in the above example you get a post op staff infection under medicare and have to stay an extra week. Big bill. Obamacare now disallows any post op infection funding. Plus if you run up a huge bill, instead of being able to deduct those costs above 7.5% of your adjusted gross income, Obamacare increased that threshold so now you can only deduct those expenses above 10% of you adjusted gross income.
You could indeed go bankrupt from this scenario because of Obamacare.
ArchStanton,
Really?
Do you happen to research before you post? The SS Trust is required by law to loan the Government money when it is running a surplus. So in affect the ability for the US government to borrow from the SS Trust fund enables deficit spending. By the way. Your long copy and paste posts are extremely annoying.
@Svenolafson
@ArchStanton,
did you guys read my post? THERE IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY "TRUST FUND". PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE.
In 1934 the SCOTUS said that the Federal Government could not operate a Trust Fund, they decided to allow it as a tax, made into the General Fund, the Government could then using accounting techniques to "Keep track" of the money for individuals, but it is NOT a separate entity. It is just like all the money in your checking account, you may keep track of what you need to make a house payment or car payment, but it is all the same money.
In the words of Glen Beck, don't Believe me, go look it for yourself.
I have not been able to find that in the law. Please give a source for that. There are some penalties to hospitals for re-admissions, but I don't see anything about disallowing coverage.
You shouldn't run up a huge bill under Obamacare for any legitimate cost. If you're talking about some elective cosmetic surgery, that's on your own dime.
BigATC: You are right. The Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich forced Clinton to reduce his desired spending but that was not as significant as the tremendous economic growth we had (ironically fueled by an economy that felt increased debt was not expected to be a problem AND 'certainty' which the current president has done the opposite).
StoptheCannibals: In economics we say "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch". In other words if everyone has access to healthcare, and they don't pay for it themselves, then someone else has to. And that "someone else" are those that actually EARN a living and invest both time and money in the desire to succeed. If you take away those incentives then you have an economy like we have now.
And, before you say "how can you say they don't pay for healthcare themselves" the logic is easy: If they DID why would we need ObamaCare? The SOLE purpose of the law is to have someone ELSE pay for those who "supposedly" cannot afford it themselves. The SOLE purpose of the law is to redistribute income.
Therefore ObamaCare, by definition, hurts the economy because it is reducing the investment in new and existing businesses due to its requirement by those who DO make enough money to have some of it taken from them to pay for those who "can't" afford it. It is called economics.
clwyd:
There is nothing disgraceful about the American military. According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, it is already functioning at it’s minimum manpower level.
Next, in case you haven’t noticed, the war in Iraq ended two years ago, and it ended in a U.S. victory.
Clearly, you haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about; you just bable your subjective opinion incoherently, and expect it to be taken as gospel. That doesn’t work with normal people.
Here’s a suggestion, the post you’re responding to had a number of well thought out arguments; how about you choose one, and try to compose a coherent, adult argument supported by verifiable evidence. If you’re not willing to do that, then please do not respond to any of my comments in the future. I already have an assshole I don’t talk to.
ArchStanton said:
If you are going to link an article just for integrity sake how about an article that is not more than two years old? That was either intentionally misleading or ignorant - I'll let the other readers decide.
So where do we go to get more accurate information? I have an idea: why don't we go the the Social Security Administration.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
It states we no longer have a surplus (more coming in than going out) since 2010. Ironically when your "article" stated otherwise - I think I will trust the SSA more than some left wing article.
So now the next question is how long will the "trust" fund last. Let me see if I can explain this to you - the trust fund is empty. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Gone. Empty. What other words can I use? Oh yes, here is another word: Screwed.
You see our government, the ones you trust so much to "fix" everything, has even spent the trust fund. Like an uncle who doesn't give a damn about his cousin and drains THEIR trust fund to buy boats and trips so did our government spend the Social Security trust fund for "stuff". What they spent it on is irrelevant. THAT they spent it all is more important and that there is nothing left is the critical information.
So what about this trust fund we hear so much about? Where is it? Well, the trust fund has about $3 Trillion in it BUT there is no money - our government borrowed it. So the trust fund is filled with Treasury Bonds. So if there is more going "out" than coming "in" we just go to the trust fund for the difference - right? Yes, but there is no money in it. To get to the money SSA must go to the federal government and "sell" some Treasury Bonds to have the money to make up that difference but we don't HAVE the money to buy that Treasury Bond so we must borrow more money to pay that money back (i.e. borrow from Peter to pay Paul). You see the trust fund is empty: It has an asset of $3 Trillion BUT the federal government has a liability of $3 Trillion (because of the Treasury Bonds) thus the VALUE in the trust fund is zero.
I teach college economics and I explain it this way to my classes:
Say a family puts $50 a week into a cookie jar for 30 years and currently has $46,800. So the husband tells the wife for their 30th wedding anniversary they should go on a great cruise to Alaska and also take the family. It will cost $46,800. The wife asks where will they get the money and the husband says they can "borrow from the cookie jar". So he writes on a piece of paper "IOU $46,800" and puts it into the cookie jar and takes that money to buy the cruise. So they go on the cruise and have a wonderful time.
But then the month after they get back the husband says it is time to retire. The wife asks how will they afford it and the husband says "we have $46,800 in the cookie jar"!! Sorry, the jar is empty. We borrowed it and since we are the ONLY ones that can pay it back the jar has an asset (the $46,800 IOU) but the family has the liability (the $46,800 IOU). This family has nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Empty.
THAT is what our Social Security system is right now - empty. And only the uninformed and unintelligent are convinced otherwise. We have a deficit every year now in the Social Security system AND we must BORROW money every year to make up the difference. In other words "unsustainable". In other words "we are screwed".
The quicker the uninformed and unintelligent realize this the faster we have even the REMOTE chance of coming up with at least a partial solution. But this country is bankrupt. We owe $16 Trillion, have unfunded liabilities of $125 Trillion, and continue to borrow $1 Trillion a year with a PART of that borrow just to cover Social Security and Medicare payments.
BTW, how are we borrowing $1 Trillion a year? We are printing it and lending it to ourselves. THAT is for another economics lesson but the end result is "we are screwed". This country is collapsing both financially and economically before our very eyes and the vast majority of the public have no idea.
That's alright Pro, at least when the economy collapses I won't have to pay for my retirement (401k), my grandparents retirement (SS), and my children's college any more. Ahhh sweet sweet release... Maybe we can fit a Zombie Apocalypse in there somewhere so I won't have to worry about starving to death either...
- Brought to you by the Millennial Generation
Love: LOL!!
Amazing how liberals are the ones who keep demanding "stuff" but in the time of crisis couldn't last three days. I have an emergency food supply, have been buying precious metals for years (primarily silver and copper), stocking up on ammunition, and own a little over 3 acres in the mountains of Tennessee I can build a quick small cabin when necessary all "just in case".
5 years ago I thought an economic and financial "collapse" was an extremely remote possibility but thought "what the heck" and at least be prepared. About 3 years ago I starting thinking "Hmmmm, I don't like where this is going" and kept building my emergency stash. Last year I thought "I don't like where this is going" and started building my stash a little quicker.
Now I believe an economic and financial collapse is a good possibility and so glad I starting preparing several years ago. When the "writing is on the wall" and "we better fix quickly or else" is so clear but we STILL have people who want to believe there is money in the Social Security system and that we can continue printing $1 Trillion a year to make up for our annual deficits while owing over $16 Trillion AND unfunded liabilities in excess of $120 Trillion and say "don't worry, we can fix it later" then boy am I glad I started preparing several years ago. Because we are not very far from a total collapse.
No it is not. The purpose is to get EVERYONE included in the pool of insured so that we just don't subsidize sick people. The cost is then spread amongst a bigger group, lowering cost for everyone. the theory is that there are more healthy people uninsured than unhealthy ones. If we pool all of those uninsured, we will get lower premiums than if we only insured those who are sick.
It is true that it does cost money, especially up front, but the idea is that over time, with people getting care before they get sick, and not having to treat people when they show up at the emergency room with diabetes, hypertension, and a heart attack, the costs overall will be reduced.
Stop: And how do we get EVERYONE included in the pool of insured?
If Obama wanted to pass a law that says everyone must have insurance or pay a penalty that could have been done. But why all the increased taxes WITHIN ObamaCare? Even the ObamaCare website ITSELF talks about "21 New Taxes" (http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes.php).
Taxes when you sell your house, 0.9% tax on Medicare for those above $250,000 a year, 2.3% tax on Medical Devices, 10% tax on tanning, excise tax on hospitals, Blue Cross Blue Shield tax, and so on and so on and so on.
Why all the taxes? If it is not necessary for ObamaCare to redistribute taxes to help others pay for THEIR health care then we wouldn't need any taxes - right? Simply pass a law that says you must buy insurance or pay a penalty. This is a one-paragraph law and not 2000 pages. So no taxes should be needed if everyone pays for their own insurance - right? That is just logical (sorry, didn't mean to confuse you with the word "logical").
So the ONLY reason for 21 NEW taxes due to ObamaCare is to create an avenue for the government to pay for health insurance for those who "cannot afford it". How can you dispute that concept? For two years all we heard about were the "millions" of people without insurance and Obama wanting government to pay for their insurance. THAT is the SOLE purpose of the law to have someone ELSE pay for those who "supposedly" cannot afford it themselves. The SOLE purpose of the law is to redistribute income.
And how can I say that? Because there are taxes that only "wealthy" pay for and credits that only "those who can't afford" get. I don't see why you are disputing that? That was the GOAL of ObamaCare and was not only the way it was sold but also the way it works. How can liberals NOW say that it is NOT redistributive? THAT was the goal and the REASON for taxing the wealthy to give BACK to those "less fortunate".
I would think you would WANT to stand up and scream from the rafters that you succeeded in redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor to pay for their health care. THAT was the plan and THAT is the law. How can you NOW say that is not what is occurring?
Problem is that when tax cut was provided to the wealthy and the businesses, it did not spurr growth as President GWBush suggested. Instead it sped our economy toward our 1st depression since the the Great Drepression. The Republican WhiteHouse and the Congress dished out tax cuts while not accounting for the costs of 2 wars and lost industries. In the end, the best solutions that the Republicans can provide are to ask the public to go out and spend more money and to create more boogey man.
Fortunately, the world ran out of Boogeyman, and realized who were the people behind those curtains, and realized that they used up all of their savings (plus more). So the Republican's solution of hyper spending to get out of debt is dubious. Today, average Americans are no longer spending beyond their earnings. Credit debt is no longer the greatest debt for Americans. The American spending habbits are changing. Is it better or worse for our economomy? that is something to be seen in years to come. Unfortunately what we don't need to wait to see is that we have already lost much of our mfg cabilities through our poorly managed taxation system.
We opened up our consumption without properly insulating our busineesses. However it is absolutely rediculous how people ProBusinesse direct the blame toward specific administration. Our industries were lost not by President Obama, but the previous 4-5 President and Congress. So POOH to your BS tax analogy of suggesting redistribution... If you look at the strength of the American economy, it was during the 50, 60 and early 70. It was during time when businesses and the wealthy were VERY HEAVILY TAXED. It is exactly opposite of what you and other Repbublican/Conservatives spout.... We had wars druing those times, so don't BS with that, because since WWII we continually increased our military presense throughout the world...
TAXATION, force people to divert their excess money. It is not about what is being taxed, but what is about to be taxed!!! Majority of the businesses and wealthy people chose to re-invents their profits, because otherwise they would have to pay 50% to 75% tax if they took it out of their companies! So they simply use those profit and
No, they did not come because of the name AMERICA... you jackasses.... your parent, your grand parents, your great grand parents came because they can improve themselves, and through their work and their indirect contirbutions, you are where you're at. However, the selfserving Repbulicans and ingrates like ... and many others take opposing views.... F'YOU, because it is about me and me alone!!! YUP, that is exactly what these freaking self hating SOB are saying, because they believe they own their half of the oxygen they breath, and F'YOU ALL.... If they want to pay taxes, then it is up to them, and if they want to donate during Thansgiving or Christmas, then it is their choice!!!!! F'YOU for suggesting that your children need education!!! Because their children are already grown and they no longer need the system any more!!!
Taxes are going to rise and not just on the High dollar earners. The facts are just now coming out.
Stop the ridiculous addition of any item to a bill that is NOT Relevant and littered with wasteful spending.
Work together and get this @!$%# handled or get out of the office! ALL OF YOU!
I am glad that payroll tax cuts are phased out...medicare and social security need more infusion of cash. There should be a balance between future needs and today's needs.
Yes, I think there should be policies in place. It is horrid to discover the nasty details of waste on the backside. It is suprising to see some other responses that did not think anybody BUT the High dollar earners were going to taxed.
I am glad that the middle class is a winner - I hope it's true. The economy has so far recovered on the backs of the middle class and the poor who have suffered job losses for no fault of their own.
The Middle Class taxpapers bailed out automakers and bankers who used the bailout money to pay themselves outsized bonuses after screwing up the US and the world economy.
Pigotry, an infusion of cash so congress can spend it and write an IOU to place in the trust fund.
grab... they need to stop that @!$%# too. It is hideous to know that government is syphoning from one established program in order to fund a massive suckling one.
I'm not sure there are any winners in this deal. We got a 2 month reprieve and then the debt ceiling has to be addressed again. All of the big empires have fallen. Why are you (Pigotry) so sure it can't happen to us?
Linda, a good point about enpires rising and falling. But since world war II, most countries have been stable, empires rising and falling no more (except for USSR). Super majority of empires rising and falling are only commercial empires rising and falling inside or cross national borders.
Rest assured that the US is secure, very secure. God Bless America. God is on our side.
Having my taxes go up $150 a month- I don't feel like a winner.
My taxes go up $1,200 this year according to MSNBC. I sure as hell don't feel like a winner. Most of this $1,200 they point out is to cover for the costs of Obamacare.
Just awesome. Everyone pays more taxes this year to cover for illegals and other welfare scroungers who don't bother to get their families health insurance like the rest of us.
Not to mention the Washington Post claims this deal will cost the American economy 500,000 jobs.
Winners? Illegals & Welfare cases. Like always. Losers? Middle class people like me stuck paying an extra $1,200 a year while struggling already to put a kid through college.
And this is only the beginning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__VQX2Xn7tI
laker steve, I don't know of anyone that makes $250,000 or above wasting their time on these blogs. You say we will loose jobs when all the indicators are actually saying they will hire more. Troll, Troll, Troll,
Next dude in line. after the fiasco of the middle east over a stupid movie you want to say there is truth in U-Tube. It is entertainment and nothing else, like FOX News.
Laker,
Everybody's payroll taxes are going up, because Obama's tax cut on FICA withholding is going away. That was a two year stimulus deal, which is now ending. That's wasn't part of the Fiscal Cliff talks. Nobody ws trying to extend that, Democrats or Republicans. Neither to blame then (or both to blame).
BTW, OBamacare is designed to pay for a means to get all those healthcare deadbeats PAYING for their own healthcare, with a TAX PENALTY if they don't get it. Obamacare MAKES people be responsible, it doesn't make any "welfare scrounger"
You got the "free" $1200 the last two years for nothing. Does that make you a mooch?
We are the losers. The only hope, the tea party, crumbled. Come on Texans let's get off this ship, it is going to sink, soon! Secede!!!!
Which is it, are you an American or a Texan?
When I was a lad, I was an american and a liberal. I thought that Dwight Eisenhower was a stupid old man for trying to balance our budget. It's been a long time since I was a lad.
There is no longer a majority in Texas. Perhaps, with the new blood, we could become a robust nation that we could be proud of, I would like to be a part of that. before I die. I think it would be fun .
No longer a majority in Texas? Majority of ..... what?
Good thing California or New York doesn't think like Taxas (or Alaska) secessionists. We're still proud and patriotic for these United States, to stay part of our country, part of the Union. Otherwise, why bother to care about any of this fiscal business?
Secede? lol.. Texas, like most red states, take more from the federal government than they contribute. They boast some of the lowest wages for workers in the nation. Oil, agriculture, military bases and NASA are the mainstays of Texas. Good luck on your own without the federal government there to prop up those industries and institutions.
Linda in Texas-469280
I'm not sure there are any winners in this deal. We got a 2 month reprieve
@linda, now that's funny. These inept losers in Congress couldn't deal with this even knowing they had over a year to do so. So what makes anyone think they'll solve this in two months, esp. with a battle looming over raising the debt ceiling in early February. These morons will be back by the end of February telling us they need more time.
I hope the Teaparty get elected for the next President Man,Woman,American( whatever ethnic background for all you racisist baters) And Im not even a member or card carrier if there is such a thing,Im just SICK and tired of this BLOATED GOV,they need to be swept out and start anew,and stay to the Basics,America can get off its Azz and create,provide,and work hard to get self sufficient,The Gov is not and never has been here to provide anyone with Birth Control,Medical,Monthly moneys or food except for the disabled and elderly there are exceptions but not what we have today,it's insane we have and allow illegals from all over to bust thru our boarders and we do squat,Obama promised the Hispanics in 08 he would make it priority no.1.....
Government should not run car Co.
it should not bail out and pick and choose who is too big to fail.
They should not be in most of the BS it's in And the ONLY reason it is,Is because everybody or a very large sum of people make Billions,millions and they all work for the Gov or are VERY close to someone who is,So we have a Fat Cat Gov and a Bunch of Crooks killing America and using the Media to keep Americans duped and pointing fingers at the partys when its really all of and both of the Partys...Segments of America.....Are very Useful idiot's if you will.
Rest assured that the US is secure, very secure. God Bless America. God is on our side.
....hahaha I hope that you are kidding. This whole fiscal cliff ordeal has convinced me that this country is finished. We are just slowly circling the drain. The American empire is decaying away in front of our very eyes. Its quite interesting to observe.
John Crybaby Bonehead Boehner now epitomizes the image of the republican party. Soulless and mindless politician who lies to his own party members as well as all Americans. Remove this idiot from the Speakers Job! The Party is in its death throws. Tread on them!
Christie has even attacked him and then he tells the leader of the Senate where to go and what to do with himself he is just more republican scum!
You do realize we just had an election don't you? You do realize republicans returned to the house with a far greater margin than Obama's paltry 3% don't you? You do realize they got re elected based on what they did the past two years don't you?
Get a clue bud.
ValhallaPhil:
But the Republican lost the majority-party status in the Senate.
C'mon people, do the math. While the highest tax rate on clearly wealthy individuals goes up a few percent, only those wage earners under $110,000 will be paying Soc Sec and Medicare taxes on ALL their income this year. At $110,100, suddenly the paychecks get noticeably larger. Between $110,000 and $400,000 is actually the lower tax bracket than the "average" wage earner at $51,000.
Now do you have an idea how to fix "entitlements"? ALL earned income--perhaps ALL income, at some percentage--should be subject to SS and Medicare withholding.
We pay these costs anyway. When millions go every year to the emergency room and never pay we do with higher medical costs which will eventually decline with Obamacare. Obama got big pharma, hospitals and doctors to agree with 716 billion in lower costs to drug and treatment as part of Obamacare. Better to get vthe true cost of health care in the open.
pigotry-all i can say is wow! oh and DUMMY!
Ask yourself, if those in Washington already knew this country was going to collapse under the weight of our fiscal crisis, who would they tell? Well for sure those politically connected would be given the inside information so they could prepare for the inevitable by securing their wealth. But would they tell the American people? Never. All they would want to do in Washington is secure their own futures, and be long gone before it actually happens. We are well past the point of no return, which is why Obama doesn't even care about the debt or the deficits. Obama will be gone when this nation collapses, and he like everyone else in Washington will be the ones who were prepared. Just think about what Washington uses to secure our debt, and who when the end comes is going to own it.
uhh.. no it's not?!?
Your taxes are going up cause the 2% cut in payroll taxes is ending. It has nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do with Obamacare.
Where the F do people get these nonsensical notions?!?
And you DO realize that the Democrats in congress got more than 50% of all votes cast for the members of the house, right? And that only gerrymandering after the 2010 census saved the Republican majority in the house, and will do so for the next 10 years at least, right?
The Democrats won a majority of votes for President, a majority of votes nationwide for Senators, and a majority of votes nationwide for House seats. The Republicans were lucky, and relied on pseudo-shenanigans to maintain their "majority" in the house.
The media never mentions the taxes in Obamacare, 23 i think. 300-400 Billion. Only 25% are on the rich, which makes their rates higher than the Clinton era. Who do you think pays for the other 75% of tax increases? ALL INCOME LEVELS.
The bill was supposed to help those in need medically. A favorite in there is people with high medical bills used to be able to deduct all medical bills over 7.5% of their adjusted gross income. Which is a good thing. So in order to help pay for his bill BO INCRESED the threshold to 10%. Nice. So people with high medical bills can now deduct much less thanks to Obamacare. Wonder why we never hear anything of this in the media?
Pigotry and GreatlyDeceived:
In a recent Forbes on-line article, reporter Grace-Marie Turner details the latest round of Obamacare taxes to slam into businesses and individuals.
On January 1, the Medical Device Tax began sucking the life out of small "entrepreneurial firms making equipment such as heart valves and hip replacement parts" (Grace-Marie Turner: Forbes, Get Ready For An Obamacare Tax Onslaught, 2013) "They face a 2.3% profit on gross sales – a tax they must pay even if they have no profit at all. Many firms say this tax – slated to collect $29 billion over 10 years – will soak up virtually all of their research budgets" (ibid).
According to Turner, this tax promises to destroy a unique American industry, and put thousands of high-tech American workers on the unemployment line. Turner writes: "the medical device industry employs more than 400,000 people in 12,000 factories across the country, often small, entrepreneurial firms with a small product line. Many say that to survive, they will have no choice but to relocate abroad – taking much-needed, high-tech jobs with them. These lost jobs will be more casualties of ObamaCare. And the tax means that medical devices will be more expensive, driving up health cost even further" (ibid). Piggy, does this sound like a victory for the Middle Class to you?
How about the Flexible Spending Account Tax, which "limits the amount of money that workers can set aside tax-free for medical costs. ObamaCare sets the cap at $2,500 in order to collect another $13 billion from taxpayers. (Previously there was no cap; however some employers limited the amount worker could set aside.)" (ibid). "Those who find the accounts most valuable are those with the greatest health needs – parents of special needs children, people who have had organ transplants and who must take maintenance drugs, and others facing major medical expenses" (ibid). This is a real triumph for the Middle Class parents of very sick kids; now an Obamacare tax that takes money out of the pockets of parents struggling with the emotional trauma of a special needs child.
Then there's the family's of folks who've had organ transplants; now they have to dig a little deeper to spread their Middle Class wealth. Obama doesn't feel this pinch, because he has over $11 million. These are real Middle Class families that earn between $50,000 and $250,000 per annum. How big does that quarter million look now?
I really think that Obama is the Manchurian Candidate. Either that or he is mentally ill, because no one in their right mind could impose this burden on people with a smile, and tell them it's for their own good. He is not one of us.
Larry you are incorrect on your assumption ER visits and costs will go down. Happened in Mass. which is mostly the same model. Reason... people can't get in to see their doctors because average appointment times, the highest in the country there, are almost a month and a half. Now even INSURED people are going to the emergency room in Mass.
And if your doctor takes medicare/medicaid your waits will eventually be worse. BO has cut M/M payments to doctors which mostly lose money now on them and will cause more doctors to quit carrying it. The seniors will find it harder to get care. He also devistated the Medicare Advantage plan by cutting almost 200 Billion from it. My Mom just had to find a new doctor because hers quit taking MA. She had been going there for 25 years. One of the few times in my life i have heard Mom let fly a expletive filled tirade ...towards BO for causing this.
Arkius... another thing on the flexible spending accounts, i have one, you can no longer by over the counter meds with it. I thought this was supposed to help the medical environment? DOH! Infact all but about 3 of the 20 something taxes in Obamacare... tax medical things to pay for medical things. another DOH! I wasn't suprised he put a bunch of taxes in there, but was shocked that he is taxing medical things to pay for medical things.
To your point of the medical device industry...in my home state of Indiana Cook medical canceled plans to build 5 new plants because of this tax. How many jobs did that cost? How many in the construction industry? Support industry? Tax revenue lost to Local, state and federal coffers? It will kill the industry just as it did the boat industry when the same thing happened in 1990.
Pigotry:
Seriously? Since WWII? You're going to ignore thousands of years of history, because the last 70 years have been fine? WTF?
"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it". What I've learned from history is the empires who THINK they're too big to fail, do.
Arkius 2.31 I do not know why you feel you must resort to changing names (unless you can't read then comprehend the words you are trying to formulate) however I do know and research the changing regulations and new taxes that are going into effect.... thus what is your point? If you want grade school antics seek it somewhere else.
Also, why are you NOT making comments on all of the wasteful spending that IS going on along with all of those NEW taxes????
Greatly Entitled:
I changed your named, because you chose it to either imply that you are entitled to more of something then anyone else, or you are disparaging people who are receiving assistance of some kind, i.e., an entitlement benefit; or some other reason that you will eventually explain. In any event, you are deceiving yourself, you are just an ordinary human being. Do you get the point now?
You will determine who wants "grade school antics" when you explain your screen name. Do you get the point now?
I've discussed wasteful spending on other threads; I'm sick of discussing it. There is nothing we can do, but discuss it, because 50.6% of the American voting public put that bum back in the White House.
Now, do you have anything useful to say about my arguments, or are you just going to waste my time whining, because I broke your balls a little bit?
Losers: The US economy and job creation. The debt is now projected to exceed $20trillion by 2016. The experience of Greece, Spain, and Italy makes it clear that when the debt to GDP ration exceeds 100% economic growth is not possible.
Winners: Big government and government employees.
Dear Congress,
Yes, cuts are in order. However before you touch your so called entitlement programs lets address some additional costs.....
1. Runaway spending by Home Land Security
2. Runaway cost of Public Sector Workers
3. Runaway costs of Foreign Aid
4. Runaway cost of Military Hardware
5. Runaway cost of CONGRESS
6. Runaway cost of EPA
7. Runaway cost of TSA
When this is done then we can talk about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, and Unemployment…..
Some people posting here seem to be under the illusion that the U.S. is overly generous when it comes to development assistance (foreign aid) to other countries.
In fact we give less than 1% of our GDP, less than many other developed nations.
Here's the graph:
http://masbury.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/screenhunter_001.jpg?w=700
Stanton:
If we're giving away such a small amount, then cut it all and invest it in Medicare.
Solvency, another loser in the Voter Buying Bill of 2012.
Wrong. It's called the Special Interest Bought Bill of 2013.
"Big policy losers in tax deal: deficit reduction and 'certainty'"
No problem, Obama still has checks in that government checkbook.
We need to take it away and burn the checks into ashes. Too bad our Congressmen are just as bad as he is, otherwise they would have said NO.
yes, we are ALL losers in this bill,with this new rash of uncertainty my business(which i have had going for twenty-five years)last year was the worst(yet) i am probably looking at the NEW worst year now. it is time to outlaw lobbyist in the government and set limits on our cogress,there is so much pork in EVERY bill that goes through that we will NEVER go back to the way it was. spending has killed the certainty that people had,now alot of the "rich" are just holding their money for themselves and not hiring or doing anything to help out others. before people slam me i SEE it,the "rich" were a large part of my business and they are not spending anywhere near what they were spending before,one of my customers alone spent 80,000 a year for my services and last year only spent 10,000.what does that equate to? less work as i had to lay off 3 people.this NO BUDGET GOVERNMENT WILL COLLAPSE EVERYONE(exept the takers that is). thank you my inept representatives for crushing a decent small business with your bull!
got to find a job now,and will probably make alot less per hour then i paid my lowest earning employee(10 dollars)
Checks mean we have money in the bank to cover it. Obama is all about plastic, we can borrow until there is nothing left to secure the debt. Then everyone gets new landlords.
Tammy, have you been out of the country for the last two months?
The polls have been ripping congress to shreds for opposing Obama's spending spree; they call it "obstructionism."
Every time a Republican wants to hold Obama's feet to the fire, and force him to keep his word of a balanced approached to budget deficit reduction, his propaganda machine goes into over-drive and demonizes Speaker Boehner, or some other Republican Congressman that has the balls to expose his obfuscation.
Like I said in another post, I really think Obama is mentally ill.
Looking back at all this silliness...there are friends of mine on the left that are upset that Obama wasn't able to get more revenue because "the GOP will be able to use the debt ceiling for negotiations". How is it possible that we are accepting either party is using the debt ceiling as a negotiation tool? Prior to the last congress, it was unheard of that the debt ceiling was used as a negotiating weapon. Why? Because everyone knew the damage that could be done to the economy and US credit rating by defaulting on bills we have agreed to pay through legislation.
Now, somehow we are to accept that the GOP can routinely use the debt ceiling as a sword of damocles?!?! The media should be absolutely blasting the Republicans for even threatening this again. If the GOP wants to cut spending....great, convince the public and convince others in congress that it is the right thing to do and propose legislation. But this hostage taking nonsense has to stop. I am disappointed in some of my friends on the left that are too willing to accept it as routine.
The debt ceiling is this countries last line of defense against the government plundering hoards.
Common....
Before this last congress, tell me when in our history the debt ceiling was used as a threat to blow up the world economy to get a party's ideologic way? Don't bother.....it never has been before.
Dr. Logic,
The President when he was a Senator voted against raising the debt limit saying "it is a failure of leadership", so you are wrong on the negotiating part and actually every Democrat voted against it.
Do you realize that the federal government reached the debt ceiling two days ago on Monday? Now Tim Geithner is forced to play the same types of accounting games he had to do in the summer of 2011 to avoid a default, because he is no longer legally allowed to sell new U.S. government bonds. On Monday, the Treasury suspended the issuance of new debt for two government retirement funds -- because it had no choice.
The media keeps talking about the next debt ceiling showdown happening at the end of February, but that's not the real deadline. The end of February keeps getting mentioned only because Geithner says these accounting tricks can avoid issuing new debt for "about two months" before the government if forced to default on some of its obligations.
To make matters worse, both the sequester (mandatory spending cuts) and the temporary budget authorization that allows the government to function are coming up in March.
The only thing our Congressclowns accomplished with yesterday's fiscal cliff deal was to kick the can down the road by maybe 8 more weeks on the debt ceiling issue and 12 more weeks until the government shuts down due to the expiration of its legal authority to spend any money at all.
The recent battle over the fiscal cliff deal was little more than a fist fight, with a few bloody noses. The upcoming fight over the debt ceiling, the sequester cuts and a new budget authorization is going to be like a civil war -- with the U.S. economy and the American people all on the losing side.
You are no Logic Dr
The Debt ceiling is to keep the Prez and the rest of the turds from spending us......NVM talking to you is like clapping with one hand.
You know not of which you speak,And please don't take this personal,I put this out to any other miss informed poster here that would be for raising the DEBT ceiling!!!
Someone out here put it quit eloquently..If your sewage pipe were to break in you home and fill almost to the ceiling, would you A : fix the leak ?
B: raise the roof,and how high should you go....?
C: Vote present and hold your nose till somebody bail's you out ?
D : Blame it on Bush or the Republicans for not guessing you wouldn't be smart enough to buy home insurance?
DoctorLogic wrote: "Common....Before this last congress, tell me when in our history the debt ceiling was used as a threat to blow up the world economy to get a party's ideologic way? Don't bother.....it never has been before." This argument fails on three counts:
1) It is a slippery slope argument. Since a specific cause did not produce a specific effect under particular circumstances in the past, it does not mean that the same cause cannot produce the same effect under similar circumstances now.
2) It is a straw man argument. The idea that the Republican Party would threaten the president with destroying the global economy to achieve a Pyhrric victory, is an exaggeration, and a distortion of the truth.
3) You beg the question. You assume that the Republican Party has threatened the president with destroying the global economy. The president does not negotiate with Republican Party officials; he negotiates with Republican Congressmen, who may be Conservatives, Centrists, or Tea Party Republicans.
Screen name, DoctorLogic: a misnomer.
The biggest losers are the taxpayers of the United States. Biggest winner? Democratic Party, which will still be able to funnel tax dollars to its big campaign contributors.
What a stupid comment....what big campaign contributors are you talking about.....oh yeah, the middle class.
Hollywood producers who got to keep a big tax break.
http://www.film.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/Section-181-12-4-08.pdf
Hollywood, hedgefund mgrs, unions to name a few -- Mr. O's biggest campaign bundler was John Corzine, you know the fund manager that managed to bilk over a billion dollars from people that trusted him with their money. He's still walking around a FREE man thanks to his connection to the WH. So Dr. Logic it's actually YOU that made the stupid comment. This is the most corrupt admin that money can buy! Do you remember Solyndra (and 13 other "green" companies that were given taxpayer $$$$ and went belly up), the CEO was a donor to Mr O's coffers!
definately IRONIC that your name is dr logic,you sir are a fool
Illogical Doctor - All kinds of specific tax cuts to companies such as General Electric, to Hollywood, the extension of the production tax credit for wind turbines, etc. You appear to be completely clueless. Or a disingenuous Democrat shill. Perhaps that is redundant.
We can never give the government more money than they can spend. This bill is a temporary fix. We are in trouble and I can't see it getting better as the debt spirals out of control. There are no provisions to even try to pay it down.
Now let's see if we can get spending under control and IMO, that includes Defense, Social Security and all the other sacred cows from both parties.
leave social security alone! fool, we have been stealing the money put in that account and writing iou's to it for years.it WAS a self sustainable entity until then(how about we put the money BACK that we took out?) it was NEVER an entitlement,my parents and everyone else's that worked their asses off paying in CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE for these morons WE THE PEOPLE ELECTED taking their money! another thing IT DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE NATIONAL DEBT(unless you figure in the PAYMENTS we should be making for those iou's) and even then it should not be considered as a "DEBT",we took that money for the REAL entitlement programs,PAY IT BACK AND LEAVE IT ALONE!
dtrx:
Drop the self-righteous game plan, the writing in caps and the name calling, they are unnecessary, and detract from the validity of your arguments.
You arguments should either stand or fall because of their truth value. Everything else is superfluous.
It seems to me that we will all be losers if the budget and deficits are not addressed in the next couple of months. The House should address the spending and look at cutting the spending in the following:
1. Defense: This can be cut by 15% to 20% and not hurt our defensive posture, so long as we concentrate on support of our frontline troops and a reduction in some of the large research spending.
2. Corporate subsidies: A cut to the subsidies paid to profitable companies, i.e., oil companies, mining, and banking will greatly help the situation.
3. Education: Cut the funding to local school districts and set up a reasonable subsidy from the Federal Government to State government earmarked to education. There will be a temporary issue for local boards, but that will be balanced out by the local people.
4. Foreign Aid: The money sent overseas can be cut by 25% to 35% and that saving used to offset some of our debt.
5. Infrastructure rebuilding: We need to take money out to rebuild roads, railroads, airports, electric grids and internet. The money spent on the products returns to government in the form of taxes and to the economy in greater spending power by the people employed in the projects.
This seems to me to be a logical approach to this matter.
James
The record has always been, to get the spending cuts, you have to hold revenue increases or the debt ceiling as leverage to get spending cuts.
Even if you get spending cuts to programs dear to the democrats hearts, the do things like the 27% cut to payment for medicare doctors. Included in this bill was another 1 year block to a cut made about 10 years ago. Why not block only 20% of the cut and actually get some savings.
The other is the Dairy price supports. Why not cut the support so the price of a gallon of milk goes up only $1 instead of from $3.50 instead of $7.00?
You could do that with many other federal programs, especially with those out of control ones. If you are going to raise taxes on the Rich, then the programs should take some modest cuts too.
The Republicans are correct, there is no balance, but giving away the revenue increase without spending cuts is silly.
Infrastructure is the responsibility of state and local governments. The electric grid is the responsibility of local power companies and communications are the responsibility of communications companies.
As for defense - there is a lot of duplication with DHS and the like. Just do away with the ABC agencies like that and return that authority to the US military. Our military cannot take another cut, it hasn't recovered from the Clinton years when it was last cut. Many do not realize that the Department of Defense entails much more than just the military.
Education - get the federal government out of every aspect except setting graduation standards. Let the states determine how they will meet the standards.
Welfare and other entitlement programs are a HUGE drain, comprising 60% of the budget - none of it mandated by the Constitution - they need to be gutted.
Actually some of the companies that are said by popular politicians to benefit from corporate subsidies are some of the highest tax revenue sources to Government including State governments.
David: Really? Which corporations are those that provide revenue to our Fed and State governments?
Some people posting here seem to be under the illusion that the U.S. is overly generous when it comes to development assistance (foreign aid) to other countries so it is a good place to cut.
In fact we give less than 1% of our GDP, less than many other developed nations.
Here's the graph:
http://masbury.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/screenhunter_001.jpg?w=700
Arch: The graph does or does not include Israel? or is the U.S. generosity to Israel under a separate category?
James:
The defense industry is so diverse and widespread that even a 10% cut would add tens of thousands to the unemployment lines. Keep in mind that many defense industries, like Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonnell-Douglas, manufacture aircraft for our allies. Cutting their contracts would cause layoffs that would have repercussions elsewhere. Moreover, defense cuts generally have a negative affect on Wall Street, and we don't need that.
Cut oil subsidies, and gasoline prices go up and the Middle and Lower Classes have to eat the increase. Prices for cosmetics, tires, home heating oil, many prescription drugs, etc, etc.
Education is a great place to cut. Other then Pell Grants and school construction loans; the federal government should get out of the education business; they have done enough damage.
Cut all foreign aid. Ask that last years grants be repaid with interest.
Infrastructure rebuilding will only work, if it reaches the greatest amount of workers in the construction industry as possible, including non-union construction workers. It should also be done in as many small towns as possible, because they appear to be the hardest hit by the economic downturn. A local construction project brings money to local businesses.
Ask large grocery chains to give Social Security recipients a 5% discount on their food bill; even folks with food stamps, and not raise prises to cover the cost. It's their gesture of public service during hard times. You make a profit when times are good, you give back a little when things are bad. What goes 'round, come 'round.
A little good will, builds a strong, faithful following. Shop-Rite, Walmart, Target, are you listening?
Losers - all the American people especially income tax payers. winners- none
deadbeats and government are the winners
Deadbeats..............
That would be republicons.
27 of the 32 states that take more than they give to Uncle Sam are republicon states.
14 of the 18 states that give more than they take are Democrat states.
It is us hard working tax paying Democrats that are supporting you worthless republicon welfare queens. Or deadbeats as you call yourselves.
Red State Socialism | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
@Miklkit...problem is that you are talking out you liberal talking points a$$ That is the problem with you whiny liberals. You brag and resort to name calling whether you win or lose. You can't debate without getting ugly. Heaven forbid you start losing the argument. Working hard??? I doubt that you even know what that means. I have supported your lousy welfare collecting a$$ for 32 years and frankly I am tired of it. You don't care about the fiscal cliff because most of you deadbeats aren't affected by it.
i love this red state statistic,where did you find that? oh yeah on a democrat owned entity,up here in mayun chelie pigrees' husband bought her almost ALL of the newspapers,guess she likes to read huh? hows that for a little BIAS? dat funneee rite dare mista!
miklkit:
When you use childish jargon to express yourself, like republicons for example, then anyone reading your comments with an once of self-respect, will think that you're immature, and your comments are meant to impress a younger, less experienced reader, say, an eighth grader.
Now, if the Bevis and Butthead crowd is your target group, then I think you've made some inroads.
The USA will default when the debt hits 20 trillion.
The dollar will go down at least 5 to 1.
China will be holding trillions of dollars of toilet paper.
Other countries have suffered the same and survived, so will we.
Due to the fact that was NO SPENDING CUTS America's credit will probably be down graded once again. Eventually, America will reach its credit limit on its credit card, then what? Congress and this president can raise the debt ceiling all they want but if no one will lend to America it won't matter.
Well, by then the DimocRATS will be out of power and what's left of the Republican Party will have to pick up the pieces and start the cleanup
JamesA - You make too much sense. I mean the governments (collectively) putting people to work actually doing something to help the American people. And collecting taxes on the paychecks, which would basically do a lot toward helping with paying for those jobs.
Now, if only our elected folk, they sure hell ain't got nothing official about them, would get it through their pointy heads that sometimes spending wisely while cutting wisely actuallt pays off. Of course, thats a concept that's so far above their heads it might be in the clouds rather than where the sun don't ever shine.
Sorry for the Southern aphorisms, but what the hell, I'm Southern.
If you read MSN you'd think the average taxpayer won on this deal. It's what they want you to believe.
To refuse to rein in spending in the face of massive skyrocketing deficits and assume you can simply keep taxing “the rich” is a bankrupt idea at best and pandering for votes at the very least. Giving away money to buy votes will not do anything for the economy or the creation of jobs. Unless you are a Solandra, what business in its right mind would invest in a new plant, for example, based on temporary “stimulus” spending. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are clueless ideologues.
So true.
Loser: Our children and grandchildren who will have to pay for our poor spending habits.
Loser: The future of the United States of America.
Winner: China as they hold most of our ever growing debt.
I suggest you do some research before posting. China holds about 6%, the US taxpayer holds the most.
Gee, after reading that article carefully, it sounds like what the author was really saying is, "Washington D.C. is filled with nothing but corrupt and/or incompetent politicians."
Caffeine:
Apparently, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
The banks are bulging at the seams with money. Cut their subsidies and find ways to tax their profits. Or maybe this would cost to many votes.
All you clowns can think of is taxing something. The money you are referring to belongs to the DEPOSITORS. What subsidies are talking about?
Eagle:
Bank subsidies? This is news to me, and I'm up to date on current events. Please name or describe these bank subsidies you're talking about?
You wrote: "The banks are bulging at the seams with money." Are you talking about profits? If so, can you cite some sources to support this claim? It just doesn't sound right.
So what's new or surprising about this? Deficit reduction and "certainty" have been the big policy losers throughout the Obama administration's first term.
True. It's really hard to know what Obama is going to do from one minute to the next. One thing is certain, however: No matter what Obama does, Candy Crowley and Todd Bridges, et.al., will be right there with him.
100% correct and lets not forget Pres.Obama's speech at the Democratic convention. He said "it's going to get harder but in the end we'll be better off" So this little 2% increase in payroll taxes to SS is probably not the big one yet to come.
I say "don't worry be happy" Cheap oil will run out in about 30 years. The human race has quadrupled in 100 years it will quadruple again in about 50 years. We will kill each other for a scrap of bread. Don't worry keep printing cause it really doesn't matter anyway!
Better known as the tribulation period and the rise of the Anti-Christ
jinde: Do you have a point, or are you just going to talk stupid shiitt?
Camp said after Tuesday’s vote that “We have acted to make those (2001 and 2003) tax cuts permanent – protecting middle-class Americans from the higher tax rates that were in place when President Bill Clinton occupied the White House.”
Remember the Clinton presidency? That's the last time the federal budget balanced, and even ran a small surplus that could be used to reduce the debt. Remember the debt? That's right, its still around, still growing despite everything Congress can do to hold it down. Well, maybe not so much... sometimes I amuse even myself! Those two-faced hypocrites in Congress continue to want to have it both ways -- they will neither allow meaningful spending cuts (the sequester) to happen nor allow meaningful revenue increases to happen. That leaves only the debt, continuing to grow. And they will fight over that, too.
@JimB
You need to check your facts. Clinton NEVER ran a surplus. His best year the national debt still went up by $18 billion. It is accurate to say that Clinton AND the Republican Congress together had things very close to balanced. We also had this disruptive technology called "the Internet" causing massive investment in re-engineering our society and dramatically expanding the availability and timeliness of information to the mass population.
The bottom line is that it is now necessary that we stop the spending binge and get the situation turned around before it is impossible to do so. The national debt is now bigger than the country's GDP! We are borrowing close to HALF OF EVERY $1 WE SPEND.
THAT IS INSANE!
There need to be serious cuts and pain at every level of our society now, or there will be in the not too distant future.
jim -- the national debt has risen ever year since 1958. the clinton surplus wasn't. with the help of the republican congress he did come close though.
You people are lying again. The national debt went down under every President after WWII until your Saint Reagan came along. The last Presidents to pay down on the national debt were Presidents Carter and Clinton.
U.S. National Debt Graph + Voodoo-Economics Slides
Actually, it is you who needs to check the facts. The graph shows national debt as a percentage of GDP. That's an important disctinction, since GPD is based upon economic activity.
End of Fiscal Year US Debt (in billions)
2012 $16,066
2011 $14,790
2010 $13,562
2009 $11,910
2008 $10,025
2007 $9,008
2006 $8,507
2005 $7,933
2004 $7,379
2003 $6,783
2002 $6,228
2001 $5,807
2000 $5,674
1999 $5,656
1998 $5,526
1997 $5,413
1996 $5,225
1995 $4,974
1994 $4,693
1993 $4,411
1992 $4,065
1991 $3,665
1990 $3,233
1989 $2,857
1988 $2,602
1987 $2,350
1986 $2,125
1985 $1,828
1984 $1,572
1983 $1,377
1982 $1,142
1981 $998
1980 $908
1979 $827
1978 $772
1977 $699
1976 $620
1975 $533
1974 $475
1973 $458
1972 $427
1971 $398
1970 $371
1969 $354
1968 $348
1967 $326
1966 $320
1965 $317
1964 $312
1963 $306
1962 $299
1961 $289
1960 $286
1959 $285
1958 $276
NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!good thing we'll never have to pay it back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
maybe we can get the GM payment plan......
You know wipe the books clean of all debt and China can then give us a Bail-out!!!!
You thought Reaganomics was silly, Obamanomics is just plain insane!!!!
Woo-Hoo success!!!!
Higer taxes. Ignoring terrorism, the technology boom, a farce of housing loans and over stated values is the only reason Clinton came close to balance budget by ignoring his responsibilty while Monica did the only dirty work!
miklkit:
Hair on your palms much?
Loser = anyone under 40. Go tell your children their nation may just collapse on them.
Winner = Media. People actually believe what the reporters & "pundits" say.
$20T debt. Money supply exploding. Weak Dollar. Recipe for collapse.
The one holding the 'notes' win. Remember those, Congress & Wall Street, sub-primes were "no worry" are now telling us debt and weak dollar are "no problem." Wrong again. Same people running the nations finances. When inflation starts, and it will, the wheels come off the cart, and Fed govt has no equity to respond with. These cards have been stacked by "progressives" of both parties for many years. Entitlements will eat all discretionary spending unless modified. And, as a nation, one needs a stout defense, or all the rest falls. OBTW, get back to the "law" WRT process. Administration submits a budget proposal, Sen and House develop their version, then it goes to Conference Committee. 3 years w/o a budget is simply UNSAT. No glide slope to fiscal balance is UNSAT. Any incumbent who doesn't get a budget passed should be voted out.
Miss Piggy says,
The deficit is NOT out of control yet??? What bank would continue to lend to a private citizen with a balance sheet the equivalent of the US Government's who is already borrowing $0.46 of every $1 they spend.
You've been spending too much time getting drugged/slopped in the OWEbama pig sty and don't have the first clue about the basics of responsile borrowing and finance.
At present, the Fed is the one who is "buying" the vast majority of all new US Treasuries and it will ultimately lead to the same hyper-inflation that every country who has ever done this before has experienced.
The US is at the precipice of a massive fall from greatness. It's taken decades of irresponsibility to get us here, and those who are in power now are not fools. They know we're in trouble, and rather than admitting it, telling their supporters "no more" and fixing the problem they have decided to enjoy it while it lasts and leave the mess for others to clean up after they are gone.
The debt ceiling is going to be the last stand. It's a lose-lose situation. If the debt ceiling is not raised then the US government will have to prioritize all spending based only on what has already been spent and the revenues that come in. Roughly 1/3 of all government spending that has been authorized by Congress but has not occurred yet would be cut. It would drive the US, and the world, into a massive depression. On the other hand, if the debt limit is raised without real, meaniful spending cuts against current levels of spending then the SPENDOCRATS will just continue their irresponsible binge and commit ecoomic suicide for our country.
In either case, when the government handouts from OWEbama dry up, you and those like you will finally understand that you have been played for the fools that you are BUT IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR EVERYONE!
Today we are enjoying the lowest interest rates on record....or close to record. The only reason we are seeing low interest rates is because the Fed is artificially keeping them low. Eventually, when the Fed steps back from its manipulations of the interest rates and allows the free market to work like it is intended, we will begin to see record interest rates.
Why? Because the government will have put severe competition for every dollar that is available to be loaned. The borrowing power of the government will gobble up a significant amount of those dollars to fund its operations and defict, thus putting a huge demand pressure on the lending markets.
We will all pay. The cost of our personnal borrowed money will increase, the federal deficit will grow even faster because of the interest portion of the government's budget will increase. Taxes will have to go up, the housing market will be destroyed, industry expansion will be at a stand-still, the cost of living will go up. In a nutshell, the overall economy will sink into a severe recession, or more likely a depression.
The only true solution to this is to bite the bullet now and drastically cut governmental spending. We don't need a balanced budget....we need a surplus budget, with the surplus funds going to pay off the debt. But we all know this will not happen.
There are too many selfish citizens and special interest groups/industries who will not be willing to part from the subsistance the government provides to them. We have too many congressmen who are too eagar to spend money that doesn't belong to them. No one will be willing to endure the short-term pain (several years) that will be needed to ensure our long-term (decades) economic health. So the real solution is to do the next best thing and strive to keep things in check by not increasing the deficit any more than what it already is. The only tool that would ensure this would be a balanced budget amendment to our constitution.
Had enuf of our elected ones,
I find it most laughable you would assert Democrats as outspending Republicans when it is the opposite according to math at US spendining.com Federal Deficit figures;
FY 2009 (July 2008-July 2009) Federal deficit as Bush left W.H. Jan 2009 at $1.4 trillion
FY 2013 (July 2012-July 2013) Federal deficit after 4 years with Obama at $901 billion.
The Federal deficit has decreased by $499 billion from FY 2009 to FY2013.
By the way, we had a Federal Budget surplus in 2000 after Clinton issued line item veto of Newt's unfunded Coporate tax cuts (Federal Budget expnditures) within provisions 15-34 in HR 2014 Balanced Budget Act on 8-11-97................
Democrats tax and account for their spending............
Republicans deny taxation and don't account for their spending from denial (as they spend the most)................
The problem with Republicans like yourself remains buried within the stupidity of not understanding differences between US Public Debt and our Federal Deficit................case closed.
In watching the news tonight on how people voted and 2016 the comment was made that no one is going to want to follow Obama's continued spending because we will be at the point of no return. This after election after election voting against the dumber of the two.
My taxes just went up $1000.00, my healthe insurance premiums just went up $2000.00 ( Hmmm ), was just 720 a year, now $2,562.00 a year and that is only what I know about two days into the new year. I am middle class retired, damn good thing Obama was protecting my taxes from going up. NOT
Yes the cost of healthcare is probably going to quadruple by 2014. Few will be able to afford it, so they just won't pay it, and the IRS has no real way to collect the "required" amount of money as mandated by this academic exercise/impractical plan. So either the government pays (like right now) or the insurance company pays, and in either case if you are responsible and pay taxes and or health insurance YOU are going to pay
When the general masses of us see what the new AFA costs in reality few will be able to sign up. The voucher covers a plan with a huge co-pay so most doctors will not accept it. Good luck.
We can't fix stupid but voting them all out of office would be a good start
You mean your taxes went down before Obama? That is a NOT.
That's funny. We had absolutely NO CHANGE/INCREASE to our healthcare - whatsoever. (our employer has always provided 100% paid healthcare - no matter how bad times have gotten) hmmmmmm. And my daughter noticed a reduction in her healthcare.
Perhaps because you and your daughter are on welfare and 2 of 40 million on food stamps! No wonder the left os so right for you
Means test social security. You'd be surprised how many folks in retirement make more money than working families.
Means test medicare....and introduce some kind of "death panel". We spend too much money on end of life for those over 80.
Do not raise eligibility age for medicare or social security.
Cut defense to 2000 levels plus inflation. Would mean budget of $420B instead of $700B.
Did your parents have any children that lived???
If SS is not an entitlement then it cannot be means tested. The left claims SS is an insurance contract. How can you take away the consideration that a party to a contract is entitled to receive if they have already complied with their side of the contract?
On the other hand, if SS is an entitlement then means testing is an option.
YOU JUST CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
Settersperch,
Yes. Instead of snide remark, do you have any practical suggestions to offer? See, this is what happens when you go first and put forth an idea. You get shot at. This is why politicians don't like going first.