E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSHouse Speaker John Boehner addresses possible budget cuts that are facing the U.S. government.
Senate Democrats on Thursday proposed a plan to put off dramatic cuts to the Defense Department and a host of popular government programs until next January.
Democrats agreed on an approximately $110 billion package -- half tax increases and half spending cuts -- during a caucus meeting at the Capitol. Their goal is to temporarily avert the looming sequester, set for March 1, by ending agricultural subsidies -- saving the government an estimated $27.5 billion -- and cutting defense by the same amount through 2021.
The move comes after weeks of lawmakers and the White House playing the blame game, with both sides claiming the sequester was the other party's idea. The sequester was designed as a way to force lawmakers to make a grand budget deal: It would, the theory went, so dramatically hurt the military and other popular government programs that everyone would want to stop it.
But in its current form, the Democrats' plan is likely a nonstarter. Before the details were even announced, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell dismissed it as "a total waste of time."
"This is not a solution — even they know it can’t pass," McConnell said on the Senate floor Thursday.
That's in part because it includes approximately $54 billion in new taxes on millionaires, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid's office, raising the money by implementing a policy named after billionaire Warren Buffett. It would require millionaires to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.
Also included in the plan is $2 billion from closing a tax loophole that oil companies enjoy. The Democrats' plan doesn't include any changes to entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Republicans have said they won't accept a deal that includes new taxes after the recent deal to avert the fiscal cliff included higher tax rates for wealthier Americans.
The White House issued a statement in support of the Democrats' plan.
"The American people overwhelmingly support the approach Senate Democrats are taking, especially the 'Buffett Rule,'" White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. "It's simply unacceptable that the very wealthiest Americans can pay less in taxes as a share of their income than their secretaries and other middle class workers."
House Republicans are even less likely than their Senate counterparts to accept a sequester package that includes new taxes. Republican House Speaker John Boehner has said his chamber won't act until after the Senate passes a bill.
As the March 1 deadline approaches, government agencies are increasingly sounding the alarm about the impact the budget cuts could have. Cabinet secretaries were on Capitol Hill Thursday warning that if the sequester were to go into effect, the country would have fewer guards on the southern border, face deep cuts to early childhood education and be less prepared to defend itself.
Leave a Comment:
big hairy deal!!
BRING IT ON!
Dr. Howard Dean, Dem extraordinaire, says this is the only way we will get the bloated so-called "defense" budget hacked back to some kind of reasonable size. I can't wait. Our defense doesn't lie in more bombs, more submarines, etc.
It's time to invest in REAL security: cyber-defense . . . and educating our children - the best defense is children who have been educated to understand science & tech, and to be creative problem-solvers.
The science-denying party-of-no Rethuglicans - everytime they say no to one of Pres Obama's offers, they end up saying yes to something they like even less. So, this time they will get what they deserve: increased taxes, and ALL THE BLAME for holding the economy hostage once again. . . . until we get rid of these fools in 2014/16.
.
FORWARD! :-)
at least there are adults in the room - the DEMs - who put the country's interest first.
That's a balanced approach. After Bush destroyed the US and world economy, this recession is not as bad as the Great Depression because of all the social safety net - social security, medicare, & medicaid.
I can't imagine the disastrous impact if Bush had succeeded in 'privatizing' social security in his second term. And people also resoundingly rejected reforming medicare into a voucher by Paul Ryan in Nov. 2012.
.
Why have the GOP opposed to social safety net at the same time it's GOP's economic dogma of deregulation that has made such social safety net indispensable.
.
We all have to be grateful to the social safety net during this recession
If it were not for the fact that it would put us in another recession I would be OK for letting the sequester happen. Fortunately, the Democrats are actually there to try and fix things, not bog them down in red tape like the Republicans just did with Hagel's nomination. That seems to be all the Republicans do these days is block everything. Why can't they actually come up with an original thought? Well, in 2014 we won't have to worry about them any longer.
Pig!
A whopping 110B over 8 years...WOW, that is certainly a balanced approach.
We are certainly on our way to decreasing that 16TRILLION national debt.
Cut back on the Kool-Aid....
It's better then any Republican President has ever came up with. Heck, I think the Republicans where stupid for not taking the deal, now they don't even have that anymore. Cut back on the kool aid yourself.
"We wont know what is in the plan until we pass it."
Yep, been down that Fairy Tale lane before.
110B divided by 8 = over $ 13B a year. WOW.....just WOW. There is more Fraud, Waste, and Abuse within the Congressional Halls each year than this amount.
LMAO!! The party of spend spend spend rears its ugly head once again! Thankfully the rational party put a stop to this reckless foolishness.
Ido- your quote "We won't know what is in the plan until we pass it" is so apt- thank you for reminding us of the aimless approach the dems take to resolving serious problems our country has suffered with- especially for the past four years.
It's so good to know we have people who really put the country's interests first rather than pretend to do so like some others do!
ProFreedom - The Republican part is a party of spend spend spend, they put two wars on a credit card while giving everyone a tax cut. I don't know what school you went to, but that math does not add up.
Yes, President Obama has spent allot of money and that was to keep the economy from tanking and guess what, the Republicans still want to do the sequester so that the economy does tank and then they can blame President Obama. They are willing to tank the USA just to make one black man look bad. Talk about UN- American.
brenda1964......
Com-on Brenda....we know that you can get out from under that Progressive mushroom. Time for you to see the light.
Do a little research on Mr. Obama's last four years of spending, review his SOTU speech last night, then tell the posters where you think this administration is going with it's agenda. Yep, totally Anti-American.
You are right, Mr. Obama and his "expert" Economic Advisors can't add. I really miss Mrs. Romer's smirks.
brenda- "They are willing to tank the USA just to make one black man look bad"
Instead of slinging poop at one another it's time to come together on these matters. As long as ideologies keep clashing and people work to undermine one another nothing will change.
The GOP must take a stand against this administration and the non-sense the Democrats are proposing and NOT back down.
Democrats are only responding to this administration's request on this proposal and it MUST NOT BE ACCEPTED.
It's time for the Republicans to show some backbone or risk their very survival.
The GOP leaders lack vision. They only care about moving the rich's money into their campaign funds by supporting tax cut for the rich.
These GOP leaders don't understand the basic market principle that money can make more money. By taxing a bit more, and invest into education, high tech, and R&D, the money will produce more great frontier technology to create new jobs in green technology, the next big new tech things that US tended to lead before (such as the Internet, Youtube, and GPS). But with the rest of the world quickly catching up, and with these GOP leades stuck on stuPig, the country might fall behind sooner or later. It's not like most of countries are still stuck in communism under USSR or engulfed in US-supported civil wars. 5 to 8 of the 10 fastest growing economies are now in Africa.
I think I know why these GOP leaders in congress have refused to adopt sensible policies. Because these GOP leaders are part of the establishment, the vest interest, the well-to-do. They don't want to see others also make it. They just succeeded in destroying the US and global economy for their own gains. They don't want to see more members of minorities to climb up the economic and social ladder. Tax more, invest more, and more wealth trickle down to minorities? The GOP doesn't want to see that happen!
Pig....
Why are you repeating Mr. Obama's campaign promises from 2008 ?
Don't you get it. His STIMULUS plan failed. His shovel ready jobs were a joke (he and Biden agreed). He did not cut the deficit in half. He did not reduce the unemployment rate to 5.5%. And on and on and on.
BTW: The automakers still owe the American taxpayers about $ 25,000,000,000.
So the way to avoid automatic spending cuts is to SPEND MONEY.......
Why is this idea only something a Democrat could dream up?
We can't borrow our way into prosperity. Eventually countries are going to realize that there is no way we can pay back this massive debt that we have accumulated, interest rates will eventually rise and we will either have to face default or pay off our debts through printing money. We need massive cuts now. We need to cut defense by at least 50% and get rid of most the departments in the federal government.
Amazing Satanick, a RARE rational voice here. At LEAST the Republicans are TRYING to cut some spending. All the DEMORATS are trying to destroy this country. And yes, part of this IS GW's fault, but he's been out for 4 years now. WE NEED TO CUT THE SPENDING DRAMATICALLY!!!! Or we're frigging SCREWED!!! idiot democrats. Fools, the lotta ya.
I am not a rich man. Never have been and never will be. I make less that $35.000 a year. BUT I DON'T HATE RICH PEOPLE. We all have a part to play in running this country. There are really only a handful of "the wealthy" in comparison to the rest of us. This is total BS to keep saying the wealthy need to pay more and that will fix everything. There aren't enough of them to fix it without a true balanced approach. This President and the Democratic Senate have no clue how to fix the budget problem because they are fixated with hate of a few hundred people who have more than they do.
We lack good paying jobs. We lack sound fiscal policy. We lack a non complicated tax policy, We lack the needed leadership to stop the import of goods produced by child labor and un healthy environmental standards. We lack leadership to enforce "fair" trade not free trade. We should demand ALL imports be produced by the same regulations an Amercian company would have to follow. If is's whats right for us then we should demand the same from our suppliers. To allow the pollution and mis-treatment of people that is going on to make goods shipped here is wrong IMO and it is costing us jobs.
Until BOTH parties decide that waht is best for "this country" and not what is best for each party's next election, we will remain in this mess.
Great idea on the fair trade but will never happen. We the people are the last ones any of them politicians really give a crap about. We are only here to vote for them and serve no other purpose. The unfair trade benefits the big companies, and they OWN the politicians.
www.change.org/petitions/federal-government-all-laws-pertaining-to-political-employment-need-to-be-public-referendum-2
The quote regarding the Affordable Healthcare Act is incorrect ... the correct quote is
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/video-podcast-media/video-speaker-nancy-pelosi-we-have-pass-health-care-bill-so-you-can-find-out-whats-it
What this means is that the LAWMAKERS had to pass it before the PEOPLE - not Congress - can find out what's in it. But it's been MISQUOTED so many times by Republicans that they actually believe it. If you're going to quote someone, at least quote them CORRECTLY.
Delays Delays Delays....Clank Clank Clank....Kick the can down the road until another Republican president is in office.
Once again, Congress has done nothing since the last delay to actually deal with the nations financial problems.
Delays Delays Delays to make sure Obama doesn't have to make any tough choices. You liberals are right. The Republicans have a sucky record on spending, but I'm not seeing anything productive from your liberal leaders EITHER. So my question is...why are you so proud?
A few thoughts.
* The defense budget needs to be cut. They can't even audit their own books. They themselves have admitted that they have no idea where the money goes, and we currently outspend every other nation on earth combined. Would you continue to give money to someone who doesn't even know or care where it's spent?
* Why won't the GOP put corporate welfare on the table when they are so willing to put social security and medicare on the table? They current give billions to big oil in subsidies, which said companies don't need. They make billions in profit and continue to receive billions in taxpayer welfare.
* Close tax loopholes. This is a no brainer. They shouldn't exist, as their only purpose is a 'scratch my back' payback from congress to the rich and the wealthy. These loopholes exist because they inordinately benefit the rich. Show a little backbone and do the right thing instead of doing as you are told by your donors.
* Stop the farm subsidies. Prices will go up, but the market will balance itself. Too many of these subsidies end up benefiting huge corporations as a free hand out.
Notice this part: "Democrats agreed on an approximately $110 billion package -- half tax increases and half spending cuts -- during a caucus meeting at the Capitol. Their goal is to temporarily avert the looming sequester, set for March 1, by ending agricultural subsidies -- saving the government an estimated $27.5 billion -- and cutting defense by the same amount through 2021."
What they are saying is that the government will take in $110 billion while saving $27.5 billion in agricultural subsidies and $27.5 billion from defense spending(over the next 8 YEARS, while they have an annual increas of about 4% if I recall correctly). So that other half is just..... more taxes to pay for more stuff?
Let's also be realistic about what $110 billion really means- The government spends about $10 billion PER DAY, so you are talking about a whoping 11 DAY savings. You've GOT to realize that this is a major problem when the touted savings won't cover two weeks of government spending!!
Wake up folks!
I didn't used to hate rich people when they was millionaires and I was trying to make my first million. well I didn't make it and those billionaires today that take me for granted and use me to make more piss me off. This isn't the day of William K. Kellogg, or Charley Post. Both impacted my life as family and friends of family made their fortunes there. The Kellogg foundation is world wide, gives millions every year, that was his legacy. The Koch brothers legacy will be they got ungodly rich, and give nothing. Pollute the air and put our future in jeopardy and fight to the last hired man to keep it that way so they could make more. Wouldn't it make more sense to them to invest in the future which is renewable and carbon free energy. Yes, righty's it is coming. You don't like it or want to stall it, leave earth, it is the only way you can avoid our country moving forward. Our country depends on you shutting the @!$%# up. You are wrong, you are on the wrong side, not the side America chose last election, the times they are a changin'.
Rob Peter to pay Paul its coming down just keep racking the debt up, Rome came down too and its the greedy one % that are going to do it for you, what does anyone need billions for when people are starving and kids try to go to school while parents struggle to put food on the table, what a good system we have while the rich are never happy always wanting more. Even in monopoly when the so called winner has it all the game is over.
Joe, you are an example. What kind of world do you want to leave the next generation? If you cannot see the U.S. is sinking, and sinking at a faster and faster pace because of things like supply side economics. It has cost us our education system, for one thing, we are falling behind in the world in several of the subjects that matter. You blame democrats for that?
The only place we lead the world is on military spending, we spend twice as much as any other country in the world. We need to stop that it is breaking us. Welfare is a small portion of the budget. S.S. pays for itself at this time, mostly through the payroll tax but it is starting to eat on the trust fund. But not really a budget item. Medicare needs propping up and fraud taken out. Obama care will lower health care cost eventually, before you ask, 30 million new customers and the controls put on insurance companies. There is other stuff, just as important. The sad part I think most of all about you rights, you pay for it anyway, one way or the other, why not try to make it cost less?
And the rest of you rights are just haters, no matter what president Obama does it is wrong and you won't accept it anyway. You are in the minority, most of us want what is best for America and we proved that by voting Obama back in decisively last election.
You're right. But, the sequester isn't the answer because it is a blunt instrument, cutting the needed and unneeded programs equally because the cuts are, according to law, across the board.
I can't believe tha the Democrats and Republicans are arguing about who came up with the idea of the sequester. It doesn't matter because both parties agreed to it. If anyone is to blame, it is the tea party nuts who were wiling to throw the country into default rather than raise the debt ceiling. The sequester was the only way to get the Republicans to buck their own nutty wing and vote to pay for bills already incurred under an already approved budget.
I don't think "they" need to help him look bad. He has demonstrated that he is very proficient at making himself look bad without help from others. I'm not so sure that his skin colour has anything to do with his incompetence.
How is that any worse than when the entitlers are never happy, always wanting more of what others have worked for?
What's worse yet, is how the GOP berates and belittles those who are struggling the most in our current economy - the sick, the poor, the disabled, our seniors. All those who are the least amongst us, 'the least of our brothers'. You know, the ones we should be taking care of that are demonized by the GOP as being the moochers of our society living off of the taxpayer's dime. The GOP minions have been so solidly brain-washed by GOP leaders that these people are the root of all evil in our society. You know, it's socialism to help these people. God forbid these righteous so-called Christian GOPers should have to stoop to 'help the least of their brothers'. But do the math on the amount of taxpayer dollars going to corporate welfare, corporate entitlements, and tax breaks and credits only the wealthy and big corporations can take advantage of, not to mention our military industrial complex and aid to countries that hate us, add in all the tax revenue lost to hidden personal and corporate income and offshore accounts; and then, compare that to what's spent on the least of our brothers. Then walk a day in the shoes of 'the least of our brothers' to see how well they are living off the taxpayer dime to compare.
False Christians these GOPers.
Here we go again blaming each other for the problems. Both have been voting in Washington, both have had the majority over the past 8-10 years at some point, so both parties are at fault. Democrats have wealthy friends lining their pockets just like the Republicans. If any of the uneducated sheeply who post these garbage comments would open their eyes, they would see. As far as voting them out next time, give me a break, the opportunity was there a few months ago and it didn't happen. The military cuts would be simple if they would go after the money hogs: a new fighter that has sucked hundreds of billions out of the budget that no one likes or trusts, new uniform design boards that suck millions out, it seems like, every year. Foriegn aide to countries that hate us in the billions. We build a road in Afghanistan, while being shot at, and the blow it up the next week. We send money to the shieks to help their people and they put it in their pockets. Saw it happen in Iraq. Millions to Pakistan?? They were hiding Bin Laden.
Since when is medicare and social security an entitlement program? Sorry to bust that bubble, but I have paid into both involuntarily for my entire adult life as a loan to the United Stated government. Call it what you wish, but it is my money and over the course of a 50 year working career there should be a damn good return on my money when I reach collecting age. Problem is the government does not invest wisely and they have been taking money from these programs whenever they feel like it with no plan to return it. Those two programs were set up as retirement investments, not entitlements. They owe us that money, should be, at the same interest rates the crooked banking system charges us for a loan.
We never get anywhere with the blame game. They look like a bunch of kids and bullies running around the playground in Washington. Are they going to lose one payday per week during this sequester? They should since they are federal employees. Gives them one more day to not do their job and the people that keep the country running less pay. Not paying people reduces the amount of taxes received to pay down this deficit and makes the economy worse, not better.
JohnTho
So you didn't meet your goal in life of becoming a millionaire? Too friggen bad!!! Now you are just a bitter progressive? And just who are we supposed to blame for our failling schools? The left owns the education system in this country. I drive by our local education administration building every day on my to and from work. The windows are full of "vote for democrats" signs. And I must admit I envy their excellent brick building with all the best landscaping. I sure wish I could afford that same quality construction and care at my PRIVATE business where I work my ass off to send them the money to build such mansions.
You say Obamacare will lower health care costs in this country? How can anyone be that pathetic to make a statement like that? Unless you are one of the 30 million who are waiting for your free care. Please enlighten us and tell us just how many people have had their cost go down in the past two years. I also hear that we still have about the same number of Americans without health care now as we did two years ago.
Open your progressive/liberal eyes. You are living in Obamaland, where nothing really gets done but it sure sounds good.
The original debt clock was moved from the Reagan library to GWB ranch for all to see, this is our problem !!!
Quick Answer: No.
Because tax revenues are nearly the highest they have ever been (note: many don't know this but 2007 we had the HIGHEST tax revenue ever - so this nonsense that we have this "massive" debt due to the Bush Tax Cuts are simply not true) so no more tax increases. Obama played that card in December and got it.
Sorry, this president is spending about 40% MORE than we did just about 5 years ago (2007). No, when spending INCREASES 40% then spending must decrease. The sequester FINALLY forces the government to reduce their spending.
No change to the sequester and no more tax increases. Government made the bed they are currently sleeping in - now sleep in it.
Seaskip: I suggest you actually go the Department of Budget and Management and look at the historical data. Many like to say Bush created this "mess" but that is because they repeat things that just aren't true.
In 2007 due to the Bush Tax Cuts the economy had recovered and due to tax revenue increases from the economic growth we were less than $200 Billion away from a balanced budget.
I suggest you actually look up data before you speak because not doing so makes you look (because you are) uninformed.
Name a reliable source for your revenue claims of being the highest they have ever been ProBS.
Otherwise, it's all BS.
JustSlapMe: The BEST way to help the lower and middle class is to grow the economy.
A rising tide rises ALL ships. Yes, some ships are bigger (i.e. some people are wealthier) but grow the economy and EVERYONE benefits. You criticize GOP like there is a "fixed" size to the economy and the GOP wants to "take" from the poor and give to the rich.
No, what the GOP says is rather than taking from the rich and giving to the poor leaving the economy stagnant and one size why don't we let the rich invest their money in new or expanded businesses that will create jobs and the economy grows?
This president has (intentionally?) kept our economy stagnant. It is not growing. We are not creating jobs. People have given up looking for work. We have more people on Food Stamps and Welfare. We have punished businesses and consumers. Businesses are having to layoff workers due to the increased costs of taxes, regulations, and ObamaCare.
A growing economy helps EVERYBODY!! The economy is not a zero-sum game where for one person to "win" another must "lose". No, the economy is "win - win". When the economy grows everybody wins. THAT should be the focus. Grow the economy and the ONLY way to grow the economy is in the private business sector and that is the very sector Obama has attacked and has disdain for.
For the endless blame heaped upon Bush by liberals for over spending, there isn't any attempt being made by Obama or the Senate Democrats to do anything but reapportion where the money goes. Everything to due with spending is the fault of Bush, because the most powerful leader in the world is being stopped from being able to correct it. Obama is trying so hard to get our fiscal house in order, sure he hasn't put anything in writing, but he thinks about it and talks about it all the time. There is just nothing Obama can do to get around all these imaginary roadblocks everyone else keeps putting in front of him. Liberals call him the smartest person to ever sit in the Oval Office, and yet he has no clue how to get anything done unless he can find a procedural loophole. There is no doubt that Obama can talk a good game, but talk solves nothing. You can take community organizer off the list of qualifications to be president.
Justslapme - someone should just slap you. The republicans to not berate the sick, the poor, the disabled or our seniors. They berate those that are gaming the system and are demanding more and more. Your fearless leader and his democrat minions want to eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions chripling organizations like St. Jude or the Shriner's Children's hospital. They want ever increasing government borrowing which is leading to ever increasing inflation that is starrving our seniors.
You all don't care that you are hurting millions as long as you get yours.
Rememnber that Obama got what he wanted with the recent change in the tax laws but just like last year he is reneging and coming back and asking for even more.
JustSlapMe says:
I hope you will consider the white house website itself as being a credible source. The white house website includes the Office of Management and Budget.
Go to this link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Then select Table 1.1 - Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (1789 - 2017)
It will open in Excel. Scroll down to 2007 and you will see Revenues (meaning tax revenues) is $2.567 Trillion (the HIGHEST tax revenue in history) and Outlays (meaning government spending) was $2.729 for a budget deficit of only $161 Billion.
I HOPE you will accept the white house website and the Office of Management and Budget as a credible source? I suspect you will be forced to agree it is not "BS".
Of course facts are to liberals what sunlight is to Dracula - I think it burns their eyes..........
The seeds of our current fiscal problems were sowed in early 1900's when we started allowing the federal government to monetize its own spending. We dumped fertilizer on those seeds August 15, 1971 when we completely abandoned the gold standard.
The last 80+ years of fiscal and monetary policy are based on a theory (Keynesian Economics) that was known by its author (John Maynard Keynes) to be a theory that would wreak havoc on our civilization:
-John Maynard Keynes
The fix to our current fiscal problems will not occur through the Keynesians on both sides of the isle that we currently have in political offices. The change will occur when you abandon your silly two party paradigm.
Dingle: Good post and I agree.
Some may think I am a Republican - I am not. I am a conservative. I left the Republican Party last year because I saw they were no different than Democrats. They BOTH look at what keeps them in power and the people be damned.
Monetizing our spending with a currency that is not tied to anything but "the good faith of the United States Government" is a recipe for ultimate collapse. I don't trust our government any farther than I can throw them (EITHER PARTY!!) so why would anybody trust the currency they are manipulating.
It has often been said that all a government needs to enslave the people it to control their ability to purchase (currency), control their health (now ObamaCare), and their food (also ObamaCare because we all know what will be next: taxes if you don't eat the right foods and taxes if your doctor decides you need to lose weight, have high cholesterol, have high blood pressure, etc.). Our government now has complete control of the people and what we do or say is now dependent on the government.
I agree that no change will occur until a party develops that actually represents the people and not the self-interest of the politicians. Of course that can't happen so we are all screwed. Just plan accordingly and be prepared for if (or when?) our currency and economy ultimately collapses.
How about the Senate generatign a friggin Budget...... It's been over 1,000 days since the Senate has put forth a budget.
We all know that we (AMERICANS) have a problem. I don't care if your Democrat or Republican or Independent. We have a PROBLEM that cannot be solved by blaming eachother and shuffling funds from one program to another.
We have to get our spending under control. We need a major reform in our tax policy. We need to re-evaluate the programs that are being funded and we certainly need to re-evaluate every last penny that is being spent on foreign aid.
Finally, our Senators and Representatives need to understand that they are sent to Washington DC to conduct the BUSINESS of our country. That does not mean that they have to introduce a steady stream of bills and proposals that have no purpose other than bringing home pork or making people feel good.
Unfortunately, I agree. All mal-investment eventually corrects itself. The mal-investment in this case being the complete faith and power we have put in the hands of the Federal government and the Federal Reserve to manage and manipulate something so complex as the economy.
To paraphrase the old saying, absolute power has absolutely corrupted itself.
Someone wrote "I am not a rich man. Never have been and never will be. I make less that $35.000 a year. BUT I DON'T HATE RICH PEOPLE. We all have a part to play in running this country. There are really only a handful of "the wealthy" in comparison to the rest of us. This is total BS to keep saying the wealthy need to pay more and that will fix everything. There aren't enough of them to fix it without a true balanced approach. This President and the Democratic Senate have no clue how to fix the budget problem because they are fixated with hate of a few hundred people who have more than they do."
It is not the number of people, it is the wealth. The top 1% make 35% of all income. The top 1% owns 37% of everything. The IRS reports that over half of all capital gains goes to just 0.1%. This is a historic skew that is bad for the nation.
Meanwhile, the collective wealth of the bottom half of the nation is a tiny 2.5%. That's all. It is just mathematics that if you want to collect money, you should collect it where it is.
*********
Aside: It is instructive that conservatives say "lower taxes and regulation on the job creators, and they will create more high pay jobs." Carnival Cruises is a poster child for why that is a stupid idea. Carnival Cruises pays no taxes are are virtually unregulated (they are not an American company). They pay their employees less than US minimum wage.
The idea of free markets leading to higher wages is an obselete 19th century school boy myth that fails to consider human nature, greed, and what happens when too much power is held by too few.
If we're not creating jobs, whose fault is that? When the Tea Partiers campaigned in 2010, it was on a platform of job creation. Yet, when they got to DC, they spent their time on social legislation and endless (and pointless) votes to kill healthcare reform.
Congress doesn't have to wait for the president to make proposals. If members of Congress feel that the president isn't doing what needs to be done, they are free to proposal their own programs. After all, it is Congress that ultimately has to approve everything. Yet, the only "job creation" proposal coming from the GOP has been cutting taxes. Nothing about improving our educational system, modernizing our infrastructure, penalizing companies that shift jobs overseas, etc.... Just as increasing taxes doesn't solve all problems, nor is a tax cut a magic panacea for this country's problems.
Unfortunately, the tea partiers have poisoned politics to such a point that reasonable compromise no longer seems possible.
Now having just whined about the modern system that favors the rich to an excess, I will turn around and defend the Fed. The federal reserve is not the boogie man Rand Paul makes it out to be. When you need money, you borrow it from a bank, and the bank gets it from the fed. The fed can lower rates, making it easier for you to get money, or raise rates, making it harder. This provides benefit in hard times and a regulator (in the mechanical sense) in good times. That's all, no massive fraud or hoard your ammo and canned food paranoia required. The fed has functioned incredibly well for over 80 years. A great graphic of that is presented at g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/291/recession1_0928_large.png . That is a chart of recessions back to 1860 from the motley fool. The densty of depressions before and after the fed is striking.
Our great period of expansion and prosperity (1945 - 1980) was partly due to the fed. We've had the fed all our lives. American greatness is compatible with the fed. It works.
And the gold standard? Most people don't recognize, that just means a world currency if the whole world went on the gold standard. Do you want your currency tied to Mexico? Greece? There is a very good reason we abondoned that idea in 1933, and we've had much better prosperity ever since.
Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Calling for a return to the gold standard and an end to the fed is repeating the very worst of economic history. It would be even worse than voting for George Bush for president.
Noncoms.
Once again you try to make this argument regarding wealth in this country.
There is plenty of money to earn in the country and world.
If you want to be more wealthy, MAKE YOUR SELF MORE VALUABLE, and work harder, take risks, increase your skill set and make sacrifices. PEOPLE DO IT EVERY DAY..
Crying that the rich make more capital gains is ludicrous. Of course they do, they have disposable income, more often than not gained through their own efforts, to make those investments, thus increase their wealth.
Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE BEING ABLE TO DO THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a nice schoolboy understanding of economics: Fred is a handy fellow. He decides to open a hardware store. He goes to the bank and borrows some money. He hires Jim and Larry. They all work hard and the store prospers. Jim and Larry are valued employees, so they get a great raise. A nice Republican president lowers Fred's tax rate, and so Fred says "Now I can afford to hire more people." So he hires Joe and Tim. And they live happily ever after.
That may have been how it worked in 1890, but that is not the modern world. Here's the modern world.
Fred goes to the bank and asks for a loan to start his store. "What?" says the bank manager. "You think you could compete with Ace, TrueValue, Orchard or Home Depot? You couldn't in a million years, you don't have the volume. That's why virtually every hardware store you see is one of those four chains. Go to work for one of them." So Fred goes to work at a chain store for $10/hr next to Jim and Larry. On the first day he signs a paper agreeing to a "fire-at-will" policy that allows the store to fire him with no warning, reason, or severance. But Fred and his friends work hard. After a year, Jim gets too sick to work. He gets fired and loses his health benefits. In two months, he's lost his life savings and struggles in poverty with unemployment income. Larry says that seems unfair and maybe they should unionize. Larry gets fired. Fred puts his nose to the grindstone and works harder. But he's never sure from week to week how many hours he will get, because chain stores use 40-hour weeks as "prizes" for the hardest working. Still, Fred gets by, although he is depressed because he can't seem to save, no matter how hard he works, and his tiny raises only get him to about $18/hr by age 45. But then he is moving a little slower than the $10/hr kid half his age, so he is fired. He discovers that no one wants a middle aged guy for $18/hr, so after months of depressing searches, he takes a job at a fast food restaurant at $8/hr. Meanwhile, a nice Republican president gives his corporate board a sweet tax cut. They use the money to buy corporate jets, yachts, mansions, media networks and politicians.
That's what they ought to teach in economics class. Because that it the truth today.
Govt slave - you attack me, making assumptions, but ignore what I am arguing. I am not arguing for myself. I am quietly confident that I'm the richest person on this board. I am talking about the financial well being of the nation. Take me out of the equation and look at the truth - we have a greater skew of wealth than since the 1920s (and I think it is worse than the 1920s, because back then the poorest had nothing, today they have debt). So try to address my arguments without attacking me, without using the "jealous of the rich" nonsense, and look at the well-being of America in a time when CEOs earn 300 times their employees salaries and not just 17 like in the 1960s. Look at Carnival Cruises and see billionaires richer than God and untaxed at the top insisting on paying their employees $5/hr because they can. That is not a good system to emulate. It is not good for America. Try to think about that without the defensive shield of "oh, he must be envious."
Jeez, even at the highest revenues of 2007, the Bush administration was still spending more than it was taking in and doing so without accounting for 2 wars and his Medicare Rx program. At least Obama put those on his tab.
P.S -I used to be a Republican voter also, thus my moniker. So I agree with you - quit the spending, but also quit giving away all our tax dollars to the wealthy and corporations that don't give a hoot about the people - no jobs.
Spending is out of control - by both sides, but you can't put all of the burden of controlling spending on the backs of middle and low-income taxpayers whose taxes take the biggest bite out of their income and can't afford it.
noncoms
I suppose by that statement you recognize the contradiction in deriding a system that favors the rich and then defending the fed. Where do you think all that QE money goes? The answer is that it goes to the rich who sit on it as excess reserves while the fed pays them interest on it. Where does all the deficit spending go? You guessed it. It goes to the rich who didn't get there through free market capitalism providing consumers what they want. They got there through some inside track to a system that continually props up mal-investment and increases wealth/income inequality.
Let's suppose I were a biologist and I came to you with what I reported was a mathmatical model which explained every aspect of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska (16.5 million acres). I told you that my model was able to explain the distribution of every tree, the behavior of each animal, the exact weather patterns, etc. If you had the authority to do so, you would fire me on the spot. This is exactly what we're led to believe that the federal reserve can do with our economy which is every bit as complex as the forest ecosystem. Were we to flood the river in the forest to help the fish, it would certainly have a negative impact on other aspects of the forest ecosystem. Similarly, when we allow the federal reserve to intervene and distort the natural balance of the economy it also has negative impacts. The primary one being the debasing of our currency.
American greatness was achieved despite the action of the fed and the federal government. Our greatness was achieved through global market domination by American business.
Your political bias is showing.
I want to suggest the Republicans to do something extremely unsavory but that phrase is not allowed in a public forum.
Question to Repugs:
Why is the Buffett Rule so bad? 30% tax on millionaires income? I earned less than 10% of that last year, and I paid 35%... so what the hell guys?
Also, closing loopholes for energy companies... really, this is some horror facist nightmare?
Comeon jackasses, pick your battles.
After all, you've all been bitching for a flat tax for decades, a flat 30% tax for millionaires sounds right up your alley, unless you've been full of sh@# this entire time and just postponing handling the issue because you want to keep the loopholes and deductions you've ironed into the tax code... but no, that can't be it, right?
"I suppose by that statement you recognize the contradiction in deriding a system that favors the rich and then defending the fed."
The fed does not inherently favor the rich. My proof is the period 1945 to 1980, in which the middle class of American had both the economic clout and political power to make themselves "what mattered." The federal reserve system worked fabulously in that period. What also worked fabulously was a cap on wealth (via very high tax rates for very high incomes) and worker power through unions, and just in general a societal and political emphasize on the middle class. Today "what matters" is the wealthy few at the top.
"American greatness was achieved despite the action of the fed and the federal government."
This is what many conservatives do. They spend half their time creating abstract theories, and the other half of the time explaining why experience goes 180 degrees from their theories.
And again - what conservatives do not do is address things like the loss of social mobility. That is measurable; once upon a time if you were born in the lowest quartile, you had a real shot at rasing into the second, third, or even top quartile. Today our social mobility is among the worst in the western world. Americans born poor live poor and die poor. I do not accept that it is because they are lazier or stupider than in the past. It is because our system does not work the way it worked in the past. The power at the top is too great (it is also true that once upon a time, those born rich often ended up poor; that is extremely rare today. We are locked into social strata like at no time in our nation's history, and it has less to do today with how much merit the person has or hard work the person does).
We have factual, measurable data to show us these terrible trends. What we also have is a large block of conservatives, largely misled by factual errors, that prevents awareness or correction of this evil. I do have political bias, I admit it, my bias is against stupidity, and right now, that means against the Republican base.
Cat-1200657
The quote regarding the Affordable Healthcare Act is incorrect ... the correct quote is
What this means is that the LAWMAKERS had to pass it before the PEOPLE - not Congress - can find out what's in it. But it's been MISQUOTED so many times by Republicans that they actually believe it. If you're going to quote someone, at least quote them CORRECTLY.
Cat,
It doesn't really matter if the quote is correct. Palin didn't say she could see Russia from her house. The problem is that that sh*t was supposed to be debated live on C-span so the whole country would know what was about to get shoved down their throats. Didn't happen that way, though, did it? Just another lie from the current administration, another campaign promise that didn't happen.
Taken in full context of the economy, and as the chart below the one ProB referenced me to, and in correction of how I previously stated revenues:
Current revenues as a % of GDP are at all-time lows since 1950.
Noncoms: I understand what you are saying but there are those that can amass and create wealth and have done so. Taking away the incentive or ability TO create wealth is not the solution.
It is been hypothesized (whether you believe it or not is up to you) that even if we were today to throw all of our money in one "pot" and completely divide it up equally to all in the economy that within 10 years there would be the same distribution of wealth.
The belief that wealth is distributed "unfairly" is just not true. We WANT wealth in the hands of the people who can increase that wealth. There are many I could give $100,000 to and they would create a business and make ten times that in 10 years. There are others I could give $100,000 to and within a year they have nothing left (just look at lottery winners and you see the same phenomenon).
So to say the "top 1% make 35% of all income" is irrelevant. It is that way because they CAN make that income.
Please don't misunderstand me: Some will read this post and think I "don't like the poor". That is not the case. What I am saying is they are poor because of their decisions and not because some "rich" person took it.
We want those who CAN create wealth to have the wealth. They are the ones who have proven they have the ability to make more money and to make more money you need more employees and more entrepreneurship.
So the "skew" that you speak of and say is "bad for the nation" is actually false. The "skew" as you call it is actually GOOD for the nation.
JustSlapMe: As you noted the comment I made is true.
The tax revenue in 2007 was indeed the highest tax revenue ever received. Sorry, but we can't distract now to spending. That is a separate issue. But I agree with you Bush spent too much money too. But THAT has nothing to do with tax revenue. Tax revenue is "income" and spending is "outgoing".
If a person made $50,000 in 2006 and in 2007 he made $60,000 and I tell you that $60,000 is the most he ever made what he SPENT in 2007 is irrelevant for the conversation. Don't get me wrong, he may have spent more than he should have (and so did Bush) but when I tell you that in 2007 we had the MOST tax revenue in the history of the U.S. and you call "Bull#$@#" and I prove that was indeed a correct statement then that part of the conversation is over.
Now if you want to complain Bush spent too much as well then I'll need you to stand to the side to make room for me complaining right next to you. I agree with that. And although I was YELLING and SCREAMING that we CANNOT continue to borrow $250 Billion a year (for example). However, I would take that any day over the $1+ Trillion we have borrowed per year now going on 5 years but Bush did spend too much too.
But tax revenues were the highest they ever were in 2007.
JustSlapMe: Sorry, current revenues are NOT lower as a percent of GDP since 1950. They are the highest they have been since the New Deal and FDR. They are nearly 25% of GDP which is unsustainable.
What also worked fabulously was a cap on wealth (via very high tax rates for very high incomes)
Yeah they had a tax rate of 91% but no one paid it! There were so many loopholes and ways to get around it that they didn't have to pay it.
noncoms
What does your factual, measurable data show has been the result of fiat currency? The data I see shows $16 trillion in debt and an additional $1 trillion every year. The data I see also shows a staggering devaluation of the dollar and a decline in real incomes for several decades.
The Keynesian experiment has failed, but your solution is for more of the same.
ProBusiness,
Your government spending as portion of GDP is way off. the numbers have been over 30% GDP for the past 30 years. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
Also, yes, we do take your statement that only the wealthy can earn money with a bit of a grain of salt. You essentially said that we need to give the wealth to the rich, because if you gave it to the poor, they would waste on things like food and housing.
The rich get richer, not because of special breeding or inherit genius, but because wealth begets more wealth. If you have have a $5 Million networth, with even conservative investments you can easily earn over $250K per year. This is by not doing any work, not contributing anything to society, simply milking the societal teat. Sorry ProBusiness, but this current system is simple communism for the wealthy. It's designed to redistribute (and invent) wealth from the workers and the poor into the hands of the wealthy.
Now - this will sound odd - but that's just how capitalism works and I can accept that. What is unacceptable, however, is the fact that the wealthiest are skating by contributing the least portion possible to the system that enabled them to gain great wealth. The tax system is so heavily skewed in favor of the wealthy is laughable.
The fake, and genuinely stupid, idea that the wealthy are simply a better caste than the working (thanks to Fox News and people who share your opinion) is simply ridiculous and insulting. Those that are born into wealth are not better than the rest of us. Those that have the system rigged in their favor are not better than the rest of us. The fact that they demand additional privileges, special considerations, and lower contributions to the same system that we're all paying into is infuriating.
Many say Keynesian economics doesn't work but I want to clarify: Keynesian economics DOES work but the term and concept has been raped over the years and what some people call "Keynesian economics" is actually not the case.
Keynesian economics says that Aggregate Demand (AD) is too low and producers (businesses) will only produce to what is being purchased (consumers). Okay, both liberals and Conservatives are in agreement so far.
Keynes said the AD decreased due to reduced spending by the economy (primarily consumers that make up 70% of GDP) so if that happens government can "make up the difference" and keep the economy and production at its potential GDP output. Okay, both libs and consv STILL in agreement so far.
But here is where it breaks down. Keynes went on to say that if government spent where the consumers weren't it would make up the difference. NOT just to spend but spend on the same goods. Just to build a road is not stimulus. Just to use money to pay build a "turtle tunnel" in Florida is not stimulus. Just to "shore up" a deficit in pension plans is not stimulus. It IS spending but not stimulus spending. Just to SPEND money is NOT Keynesian economics. To spend money on the SAME goods and services is. We didn't do that in 2009. That is partly why the stimulus was ineffective.
Secondly, all other aspects (such as taxes) must stay the same. Obama increased taxes due to ObamaCare and threatened increased taxes from the wealthy (and now we have the increased payroll taxes). Keynes said NOT to do that - but Obama did. So that is another reason why the stimulus in 2009 was ineffective.
But it gets worse. Keynes said that during GOOD economic times government spending should decrease and taxes should increase. That less spending and more taxes creates a surplus. This surplus becomes a "rainy day" fund. So then when an economy declines (like in 2007/2008) you take, say, $800 billion FROM THE RAINY DAY FUND and spend on the SAME goods and services. If you don't have the rainy day fund Keynes went on to say you can borrow in the SHORT RUN and once the economy recovers gvmt spending decreases and taxes increase and the surplus pays off the debt so you are debt free and prepared for the NEXT downturn. THAT spend will have a slightly smaller effect because it is borrowed money but as long as it is paid back after recovery it is still a beneficial spend.
Keynes went on to say that if a country is already in debt borrowing more money to spend as a "stimulus" it has very little effect because consumers and businesses know that borrowing is simply a FUTURE tax (to pay it back) so they actually reduce a portion of their spending to anticipate the higher taxes down the road so the effect is limited.
So we borrowed money while already deep in debt (called a crowding out effect) so that hindered the stimulus affect. Then we spent the money on non-stimulus items so that hindered the stimulus effect. And we raised taxes and costs at the same time as trying to "stimulate" the economy which offset more any benefit.
End result is the stimulus didn't work. It did not work BECAUSE Keynesian economics doesn't work, it didn't work because it was not Keynesian economics. What Democrats (and many Republicans for that matter) call Keynesian Economics is not. All they hear is "if I spend money the economy gets better". No, that is NOT Keynesian Economics. It is important to know WHAT you are spending money on, WHERE are we getting the money, and HOW will it be spent.
What we have done over the last several decades is NOT Keynesian Economics and why it doesn't work.
So hilarious watching the liberals go end of times from less than a 1% decrease ins pending despite the increase of 30% since 2009. OMG, a 29% since 2009 is surely the end of times. Here are the plain facts.
Between 2007 and 2012, annual federal spending went up from $2.7 trillion to $3.5 trillion, an increase of nearly 30 percent. Inflation over that period was 10.8 percent, meaning government grew at almost three times the rate of inflation. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP increased from the 40-year average of about 20 percent to more than 24 percent. And that’s before you factor in the president’s new health care law.
Meanwhile, the tax revenue coming into the Treasury is increasing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, revenues will increase by roughly 25 percent between 2013 and 2015. Revenues as a percentage of GDP will hit 19.1 percent in 2015 and will average 18.9 percent of GDP over the next decade, a full percentage point above the 40-year historical average of 17.9 percent. Revenues increased by 6 percent in 2012 and will increase by 11 percent in 2013, according to the CBO. Simply put, tax revenues are increasing, and as a percentage of GDP, will exceed the 40-year average over the next decade without any of the Democrats’ proposed tax increases. Yet Washington has been running trillion-dollar deficits the last four years and the national debt will balloon from $16.5 trillion today to $26 trillion ten years from now.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AD2B3546-B3A7-49AF-865E-34884481CADE
The truth of the matter is that spending is at an all time high and continues to grow faster than inflation by 3x. This is insane increases to the level of spending. With the ACA bill, revenue will already be above historic averages. Yet the liberal solution is to increase revenue even more and leave in place a nearly 3% increase in spending (relative to GDP) as the future baseline. It is asinine that this calls for a 1 for 1 split when the deficit is almost solely caused by the increase in spending baselines since 2009. Government should not grow at 7% a year, it is unsustainable.
Furthermore, the longer spending keeps up, the worse it gets. Liberals are in for a true shock once interest rates increase. Pretty soon debt payments will eat up all discretionary spending. If you actually adjust the deficit to pay down the debt to the nominal 60% of GDP, you would be able to raise spending by almost 85 Billion with no effect on GDP, this would be made up from non payments on the debt. But liberals are too ignorant to realize this fact.
Travis: You are wrong. That link shows TOTAL government spending which includes state and city. We are talking about the Federal spending only. THAT is the issue. Federal spending has exceeded 25% for the FIRST time since the New Deal and FDR.
Then you resort to name calling. You can always tell when a liberal is losing an argument when they resort to name calling.
I NEVER said the wealth should go to the "rich". I said those who CAN create wealth do. So wealth ACCUMULATES to certain people.
Then you make incorrect statements like the rich "skate" by not contributing and quite the contrary. The top 10% paid over 70% of all income taxes. I don't know what makes you think that is not enough or that is not fair (actually I think it is unfair - as a percent of income they pay too much).
Then you say "those born into wealth are not better than us". True. But what is your point? Do you know that over 80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires? That means they EARNED it - it wasn't inherited. They took an idea or a skill and EARNED their income.
Taking their income reduces their ability to create additional businesses and that hurts the economy AND the lower and middle class.
I really think you need to take a step back. Your like a bull in a china shop with all this grand ideas that would create much more harm then good.
You might think I am defending the "rich" - to be quite honest I don't give a tiny rat's behind. But I DO understand economics and the very people you are trying to punish (the "rich") will not be the ones ultimately punished. It will be the poor and middle class.
You see you can't punish the "rich". They are already "rich". The question is what will they do with that money. Will they create more jobs. Or, if you try to take it, they will use their time and effort to PROTECT their money (aka they won't "invest" it anymore).
So why do I support the concept of the free enterprise system? Because I want YOU to have the opportunity to become rich with hard work and sacrifice. You won't hurt the rich. You will hurt those that MIGHT become rich because you hindered their ability to succeed.
When you punish success you get less of it.
DingleB
The two problems with the Keynesian Economic Model are that there is no method to FORCE the self serving politicians to ever pay back what they borrowed from the future, and that Keynesianism was never intended to be a "forever" system.
First, Keynes theories were only intended to be implemented during times of crisis to use government spending to make up for what was not being done in the private sector. It was supposed to be a "life preserver" to be used only when you were sinking in deep water, not a system that has been in continual use since the 1930's .
But, more importantly, there is nothing to FORCE the self serving professional politicians to ever pay back what they borrowed and spent from the future. When times got good again, those politicians used the excess cash to spent on things that would buy them favor with the voters rather than pay back the future. That is why we are $16 Trillion in debt with another $100 trillion in under funded liabilities and the clock keeps ticking.
The problem that I have with the Democratic Plan is that they continue to come back every week for more taxes, but refuse to look at any politically unfriendly cuts. Don't they realize that one day the FED will hold a debt auction and no one will come? What are they going to do when the dollar is on par with the yen and they have to start distributing them on a roll in a 12 pack? What will a gallon of gas cost or a pound of ground beef? Will salaries keep up with this hyperinflation? I dare say that they will not.
Can you tell me what the magic tipping point of debt to GDP is where the lenders start charging credit card interest on sovereign debt? Is it 180% like Greece, 140% like Spain and Portugal, or around 100% like the US? When will the lenders just say "This is too risky; I'm out'ta here"? It has happened before; just like in Zimbabwe. Another occurrence in recent history was called the Weimar Republic and the outcome of the ensuing little bar fight that followed didn't turn out too well for about 50 Million people. Don't they understand this is what really took Greece down? It wasn't that Greece couldn't borrow money, but that the lenders were charging loan shark rates because of the risk. The cost of short term borrowing went through the roof and it pushed Greece over the edge as it is now doing to Portugal, Italy, and Spain.
Perhaps they've also missed it, but for the past 50 or 60 years, we have raised generations of people that think corn and peas grow in a "Green Giant" can. In the 20's and 30's we were a mostly agrarian society; it ain't that way anymore. We have created a large portion of society that is dependent on the government's stipend in order to just survive. Don't believe me? Just go to any major city . What do you think will happen when the stipend goes away or inflation is so high that it won't buy anything? Do they really think these people will just sit on the curb and cry or will they turn into an angry Athens style rioting mob complete with torches, pitch forks, and a 1911A1 .45 Automatic for everyone? I wonder what the riots in Athens would have looked like if the rioters had been better armed than the police like the gangs in Chicago or LA are today. My money is 10 to 1 on the mob if the dollar tanks.
It has been my experience over my almost 65 years that civilization is a very thin veneer that we CHOOSE to wear. If you place people into the wrong situations and apply enough pressure, most of us will both quickly and cheerfully strip off that veneer faster than the dancer on stage at the nudie bar. Necessity, Hunger, and Survival are the most ruthless of our natural instincts and it won't take much for us to revert to the animals from whence we came. We as humans will do whatever it takes to survive at the expense of anyone or anything else. We are not a very kind or attractive species when the going gets tough. Western Governments as a whole have, for the past 60+ years told their constituency, "We will always take care of everything you need, no matter what"; What happens when they can't?
When people can't feed their kids and it takes a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread, normally sane and rational people will start doing some really friggin' crazy things. I have several very good friends from Germany. My friends are an intelligent, kind, thoughtful, and generous group of people, but about 80 years ago they, as a collective, followed a really crazy little bastard (literally) straight into the pit of hell for just that reason. They have told me stories about what their parents and grandparents endured and did that would curl your hair.
I served with the 3rd Marines in Quang Tri and Thua Thien provinces of Vietnam and have seen with my own eyes just what my fellow human creature is capable of doing when the going gets tough or the pressure too great. Do they really want to see what he looks like too? If they continue spending like that Drunken Sailor in the whorehouse with no responsibility and accountability and printing money with both hands and they will probably get a chance to see it for themselves. I can guarantee them from experience that it won't be too damned much fun.
Nice post ProBusiness. Much of your post I agree with, but since there's no fun in people being simply agreeing with each other all the time:
I guess this is where you and I see differently on the success of this strategy. An Austrian sees correction of poor investment as a natural part of an economy, and that the long term health of an economy is best served not having the federal government intervene and prop up mal-investment. At what point is is no longer acceptable for government to "make up the difference?" It seems we passed that a long time ago. Also, the unintended consequences of government intervention are sometimes more severe than the correction itself. At what point does the government actually stop? As I said before, absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
My main beef (other than what I just stated) with the Keynesian philosophy is that in General Theory, Keynes essentially gave the world the green light to begin printing money at will and set us into a course of persistent inflation. At least this is how it was interpreted.
Chris-382117 Well said.
Well, now that we have one plan coming from each side they need to put their heads together and meet somewhere in the middle.
If Republicans refuse to move to the middle, then we'll have not choice but to go with the Sequester.
TO: ldo who wrote:
If Republicans are going to take the position that nothing will satisfy them it's only because they want the Sequester to take affect in hopes of doing more damage to the economy and try to pin the blame on the either Democrats or the POTUS.
Ido - Gotta stop the copy and paste you do on every Post by Piggie or myself. You are sounding like a broken record. You start with the same thing over and over again, "Why are you repeating Mr. Obama's campaign promises from 2008 ?"
Come up with an original thought once in awhile.
Dingle: I'll concede your point.
I wasn't necessarily agreeing with all the Keynesian theory but rather making the point that what many are being TOLD is Keynesian economics is not. Spending by itself is not always Keynesian. And spending initiated with borrowed money basically is useless and does no good.
Now whether "true" Keynesian economics would really solve the problem I agree not entirely. I think free enterprise is the piece that is necessary. However, if the government saved a "rainy day" fund then dumped that in the economy, in the correct sectors and not with borrowed money, would indeed help a great deal.
But what is being "sold" as Keynesian economics today is so far removed from what the John Maynard Keynes theory stated it has very little resemblance.
So the improvement in the unemployment numbers, the growth in the economy, the reduction in the deficit, the record profits of American companies and Wall Street being near record highs is all an illusion. Got it.
So the improvement in the unemployment numbers, the growth in the economy, the reduction in the deficit, the record profits of American companies and Wall Street being near record highs is all an illusion. Got it.
The improvement in the unemployment is masked by the way that the numbers are collected. The big companies might be making record profits but look at small businesses, where most of the economy's strength resides. Its hurting. Wall street being high is a result of inflation and the federal reserve's actions. Its a phony high. Our economy is barely keeping its head above the water. Think about this, the highest interest rate our economy can afford right now is 0%.
No one is hurting those who MIGHT become rich than those who take apart the social security net.
Give them a strong social security net and you give the entrepreneur much more fear of failure because he or his dependents might suffer due to not being able to afford proper healthcare, or whatever else. Give him a strong social security net and if he falls flat on his face, he can just pick himself up and keep on going, till he succeeds. Or she. Whatever gender.
That is why liberal policies encourage entreprenuership and why liberal-leaning states and liberal leaning countries and states are the most prosperous. For example, California has generous unemployment benefits. When the Internet industry collapsed in 2000, the engineers just started cashing their unemployment checks and kept on working, except they were working for themselves. Eventually, it led to another resurgence in the Internet industry. These were young people - they had no savings, so if they hadn't had the unemployment benefits, they would have all probably been working in grocery stores and fast food joints.
The biggest benefits of Obamacare are not even being measured. One, they will be realized in the ability of individuals with young children to start companies. That of really intelligent and capable young folk who are tied to working for a larger company simply because they cannot afford to pay for their family's healthcare on a private plan.
All of the above I have written is speaking from personal experience and knowing people who were in the positions and succeeded the way (or haven't) in the way described. The second advantage of Obamacare is not something that I have witnessed firsthand but I still think it is valid so am mentioning it. A number of workers, especially those of advancing years in physically demanding jobs suffer from chronic pain. Give them healthcare, and it is likely that a sizeable proportion of them will be more productive because they will be able to work harder. If they work harder, they will make more money, which improves the economy and also helps pay down our deficit and debt.
The totality of our economy's strength is measured by GDP. Which is increasing.
Umm...do you know what inflation is?
Aren't you getting tired of this argument?
As a matter of fact, the PE of the S&P 500 is completely within historic norms. Wall Street is near a record high because company profits are near a record high.
So when we were paying 22% interest rates, we were doing roaringly well?
Our economy shrunk last quarter. What are you even talking about? Do you know what inflation is? The federal reserve printing money is the definition of inflation. Our economy isn't producing more, we are just consuming more and going deeper into debt. Sure this might benefit the economy in the short run but over the long run it will be disastrous for the economy.
Byron: Yes, the data you gave does not show any signs of improvement.
For example:
1) "So the improvement in the unemployment numbers". What improvement? Unemployment rate is HIGHER today than when Obama took office. We have more people who LEFT the labor force than found jobs in the last 4 years. Our labor participation rate is the lowest in nearly 50 years. Sorry, that is pathetic.
2) "Growth in the economy". What growth? Last quarter we DECREASED!! All indications we are worse off today than when Obama took office. The only growth we had (which was temporary) was on borrowed money. That is like a "mom and pop" convenience store borrowing $100,000 and spending it in their store then saying their sales went up $100,000. No it doesn't work that way. Virtually the ONLY GDP growth we have had the last four years is from borrowed money. That is unsustainable and the minute THE MINUTE we stop borrowing $1 Trillion and throwing into the economy we are back into a severe recession. So we have had virtually no growth in the economy over the last 4 years.
3) "Reduction in the deficit". Really? Did you say that with a straight face? This president is spending $1 Trillion (that is ONE TRILLION!!) more a year than George Bush did. Without getting into a lengthy explanation Bush passed TARP which added about $1 Trillion but was intended for one year. Then Obama takes office and passes "stimulus" which was about $1 Trillion. Now he SAYS he didn't spend more than Bush but that last Bush year was intended to be a one year spend. Obama kept it each year. That is like telling the spouse in 2008 they can spend $20,000 for a new car. But then EVERY year they say they have that $20,000 to spend. That the spouse this year spends $18,000 is NOT a reduction in spending (or deficit). No, go back to the traditional spending. This president has borrowed $6 Trillion in only 4 years.
4) "Record profits by american companies and the stock market". Boy, you don't understand finance do you? Keep in mind the government is spending an EXTRA $1 Trillion a year over traditional spending. That money hits the economy. Where? Much of it to businesses. So businesses are selling stuff but it is the government buying it with borrowed money. So profits DO increase because the government is BORROWING $1 Trillion to buy these goods. But the businesses are not REINVESTING it because they know once the $1 Trillion borrowing per year stops (and must stop soon) their sales will plummet. So no reason to expand business or employees. This fictitious money train will stop and stop abruptly.
So why is the stock market increasing? Same reason. Since these companies are getting profits from the borrowed government spending (and not reinvesting because no need) then stocks increase. Savvy investors are taking advantage of the reckless spending by our government. But the minute THE MINUTE it looks like the borrowing will stop there will be a massive selloff. I am already out of the stock market. It is going to collapse. Why? It is being held up ONLY on government borrowed money. That is unsustainable. So savvy investors are milking this money train as long as possible.
But it is NOT improving the economy and quite the contrary. This president has severely damaged this economy being held up with smoke and mirrors and the Federal Reserve PRINTING $1 Trillion a year and then LENDING it to ourselves. This house of cards economy is getting ready to collapse.
So the improvement in the unemployment numbers, the growth in the economy, the reduction in the deficit, the record profits of American companies and Wall Street being near record highs is all an illusion. Got it.
Do you know how much our economy shrank? And why? Let me help you out here. It shrank 0.1%. And it shrank that much because Obama reduced the size of government - specifically, there were defense department layoffs.
So? The Federal Reserve has printed money throughout its existence. That is what it is SUPPOSED to do.
GDP is rising, except, as you aptly pointed out, the very slight dip due to Obama's smaller government. We are not consuming more; household debt hasn't gone up, with is the definition of "deeper into debt." The deficit is also dropping, because as the economy has recovered, people are making more money and so paying more taxes.
What I have said, they are all verifiable facts. Check out household debt, GDP growth and the shrinking of the deficit. They are all easily obtainable from Google. "We are all going to die" is a nice story, but the trends in the numbers do not bear you out.
@ Pig
That Bush crashed our whole economy statement you post all the time, is about as ill informed and asinine as it gets. I think your problem was school. Try the library, you may actually get a real education
Byron: Read my post at #1.80. Then when you take an economics course let me know and THEN you can carry on a valid conversation about how an economy works.
Household debt is almost equal to GDP. The average household has lost thousands of dollars in income the past few years, inflation has been going up, health care costs are through the roof, student loan debt is through the roof, etc.
Actually, each of the data points that you cite has shown improvement since Obama took office. Yes, the economy crashed as he was taking office.
For example, yes, I did say "Reduction in deficit" with a straight face because for each of the years that Obama has been in office, the deficit has gone down.
For each of the years that Obama has been in office, except his first one, unemployment has steadily ticked down.
Really? And you claim to understand finance? You keep saying the government is spending $1 trillion, do you even know how much government spending increased in real dollars between 2008 and 2009? Let me give you a hint, it's not one trillion. It's not even close to one trillion and it has never been close to 1 trillion.
If you are so gung-ho on "traditional spending", can you also tell us what the government was spending during the Bush years, not just "traditional spending" but also emergency spending, which is the category used to tabulate the costs of the longest wars in US history.
Let's look at your numbers. Your hysteria is tedious.
I am sorry, but hysteria and a superior attitude, coupled with a total lack of demonstrated knowledge about the actual numbers under discussion, does not constitute an argument.
I am sure that you believe that since I am a liberal, I am by definition wrong, but your prejudice cannot be used in an objective argument. If you want to live in the lovely fantasy where Obama is a Communist, sure, but you are there with your other right-wing buddies, I am not following you there.
I wrote:
Actually, I am pretty sure that Mr Pro Freedom has no clue whatsoever what the actual numbers are, as he keeps jumping up and down while screaming "ONE TRILLION!!! ONE TRILLION!!!!" So I might as well offer up the numbers.
In real dollars, from 2008 and 2009 government outlays went from about $2700 billion to $3175 billion. That is an increase of about $475 billion, which is very much exactly not like a trillion dollars. Due to the economy shrinking, tax receipts went from about $2290 billion to $1900 billion, which is a decrease of $390 billion. If you add up the two numbers, you get about $865 billion, which is somewhat closer to the $1 trillion, but I'll bet that he has no idea what any of these numbers actually come from.
I am not sure what he all his buddies screaming about expenditures expect us to do. Should we just stop paying bills and turn out 1/3rd of the government workforce? While I suppose they would resoundingly answer "yes", the simple fact is that the shock doing THAT would cause the economy is far worse than anything we have experienced so far.
The deficit is already down. As the economy continues to recover, people make more money, tax receipts are projected to rise, along with a corresponding decrease in the deficit. We DO have a spending problem. Although we have wound down the wars, Republicans insist on a "strong defense", so defense spending is not going down. If we could get this under control, we could close the hole and actually start paying off our debt much sooner.
I simply cannot grasp the thinking of those who advocate far more drastic solutions. Throwing government employees out or cutting off Medicaid or any of that stuff - well, the economy is a closed loop. Cut people out, and you are shrinking the economy, which means shrinking tax receipts, which then means increasing the deficit.
It just so happens that the liberal position - taking care of our own - reasonably high but not onerous tax rates - a strong social safety net - all of these contribute towards a strong economy in different ways, and from there to paying down our debt. Maybe that is the problem for these people. I don't know. But the simple fact is, I am a liberal because I want to make more money and to live in a prosperous country. Not the other way around.
Brenda:
Stop evading Ido’s arguments with your sophomoric “copy and paste” bullshirt. Address the arguments or admit you don’t know the answers.
1) Obama’s stimulus plan failed.
2) His shovel ready jobs never happened.
3) He did not cut the deficit in half.
4) He did not reduce unemployment to 5.5%.
5) The automakers still owe the American taxpayers $25, 000,000,000
These are five solid arguments that you keep evading. Put up, or shut up.
TO: kkwilson who wrote:
Wow, you make it sound like Democrats are the enemy, which is why Republicans are Domestic Terrorists. Instead of waging a war on poverty and trying to find to get things done, Republicans' answer seems to just be "No, fcuk everybody!"
Republicans really allow their personal greed to dictate.
TO: Arkius who wrote:
But what the supreme failure was that took us to the 2nd Great Depression was Republicans' so-called "Economic Policies" that didn't amount to anything more than "make the rich, richer; and the poor, poorer, and regardless of what devastating failures Republicans are, they can't seem to control their minds long enough to realize they need to change it.
And, by the way, President Obama has been very successful in his Economic Policies with is the only thing that kept the American People, and the United States from a total economic collapse.
"The American people overwhelmingly support the approach Senate Democrats are taking, especially the 'Buffett Rule,'" White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. "It's simply unacceptable that the very wealthiest Americans can pay less in taxes as a share of their income than their secretaries and other middle class workers."
Just thinking out of the box;
maybe the middle class & Buffet's secretary are being taxed too much and this government is the one with a spending problem. This government is making it a crime to be prosperous.
That's just me.
If another country has a nuclear weapons program, why would this government feel the need to give them billions in U.S.A. tax payer money.?? Go figure.!!
To Ido: According to Forbes (Aug 2012) the debt the auto makers have left to pay to the government is 5.9 billion, all owed by Ford Motor Co. Where do you get the info for your ill-informed screams?
To Pro Business: For the last 12+ years this economy has been run by using the GOP's policies. I don't think any poor or middle class person has to take a course in economics to understand that whatever the GOP did to pass the laws they did, for a prosperous United States economy, has FAILED miserably. The GOP has taken this economy to the brink of destruction. This was the worst depression since the Great Depression and without critical action taken from the Obama administration it could have been much worst.
Do you want to double down and continue to pass the GOP platform after this? You must be insane.
And to top it all off they make a pledge to not do anything so they can make the President look bad?
Pro Business
That is the best short explanation of Keynesian Economic Theory I have read. But, the problem with the theory is the same problem with political dogma. The load you up with a whole lot of truths, and then force feed you something that acutally makes the whole thing fall apart.
BTW, I'm a conservative who is registered republican. The whole reason is that if I don't register in Ohio as a democrat or republican, you have no say in who runs for office in the first place. The Republican party is the closest fit for a conservative or actual moderate, just like the Democratic party is the closest fit for a socialist or Marxist.
Actually Pig is informed quite well since Bush did crash the economy and then handed the whole mess to Obama. I was there and kept hearing President Bush come on TV saying "Economy's fine" over and over again even though everyone was telling him it was not. Then the bubble burst just as he was leaving office. How convenient that. So you are the ill informed person and that is as asinine as it gets.
democrats' plan is better for the economy and the country than the sequester -- so let's do it!
Fix the tax code by getting rid of tax loop holes, it is just plain stupid that companies like Facebook and GE did not pay taxes after making BILLIONS of dollars in profits.
Johntho....."You are in the minority, most of us want what is best for America and we proved that by voting Obama back in decisively last election."
Uhhhh, Johnny.....49% of the American people DID NOT GIVE Mr. Obama an agenda NOR A MANDATE for more Progressive spending. Winning by ONLY 51% is NOT A DECISIVE win.
Yep, Mr. Obama is now on a vacation trip in Florida getting golf lessons, while Mrs. Obama is in Aspen on a vacation with the kids getting ski lessons while America is facing a Fiscal Cliff. How much did these TWO VACATION TRIPS cost the American taxpayers (includes Progressives). How is that working out for you and your Progressive friends ?
Max from Scottsdale
Get out from underneath that cactus mushroom:
I won't get into Mr. Obama's "Go Green" FAILURES which cost the American taxpayers BILLIONS of DOLLARS (sure were paybacks to his campaign fund raisers).
The Republicans, nor anyone else, has to do "things" to make Mr. Obama look bad. He and his Progressive Cabinet members is doing a great job of that. Heck, he can't get his "figures" correct at his continuous town hall meetings on the campaign trail again, and his Cabinet members continue their Deny, Deflect, and Blame during Congressional hearings (Hillary, DOD officials, and Napolitano most recently).
As if no other President ever took a vacation while being President. No, Bush never took any right? WRONG! Also Congress is doing more in the way of cost to tax payers by working only 6 days out of the month and then vacationing the rest. Just about to have a sequester and Congress is going on a vacation? Wow, Just goes to show how much you hate a Black Man as President that you ignore everything else going on and complain because the President is on a vacation like any other President.
Wow, I would have that looked at, seems like your menstruating or have a yeast infection, because you whine more then women do.
Nothing more than an opening salvo. The house passed its usual republican controlled "cut everything that helps the poor."
However, the senate and president are reminding the GOP, "hey, we control the senate and the white house. dream on. this is what WE want. another tax increase to go along with cuts."
This is simply the majority of government (recently elected by the people to do EXACTLY what they are doing. asking the rich to pay more to help control the debt) and telling the GOP that they haven't a prayer to get what they want. They MUST compromise.
So the democrats will take less than what they have opened with. Without a doubt. They may drop the Buffet rule. They may drop the oil kick-backs. They may allow cuts to medicare in the end. This bill is simply reminding Republicans that if they don't want to see massive cuts in defense spending, they had better remember that they control only 1/3 of decision making process, and the democrats were placed into power by the people to do exactly what they are doing.
compromise should come next. we will see if Boehner can actually get the tea party to do something this time, besides sabotaging the GOP and making them look like morons.
Trynka, what they are trying to change was passed into law, almost all democratic language, and was passed a year and a half ago. This was passed from the debt deal in 2011. This isn't an ongoing debate on pending legislation it was already passed. Now the democrats are trying to change it at the last minute. You know whose idea this was 2 summers ago? Obamas.
Did you know BO already has passed 3 tax increases? Proposing this one and also another for the next debt ceiling? We gonna tax our way into prosperity? LOL I'm sure the govt is more efficient with that money than you and I?????
We wouldn't be going through all this time after time if they would pass a freakin budget. You know, the one that is REQUIRED BY LAW that is just ignored.
Reading these posts, one can easily see why our country is going in the sh!t hole. Liberals honestly know nothing about economics. They dont know that Bush's policies had nothing to do with the recession. They dont know that liberals voted for and called for both wars including Clinton. They blame Bush for the tax cuts while wanting them to still be in place as long as the rich pay more. They dont know that taxing the wealthiest at over 50% will not balance the budget, even if you completely cut out all military spending. They think a slowing down of spending is a cut. Honestly, take an economics class and a statistics class. Are you libs really this ignorant? Its sad that you are ruining our economy because of your jealousy of the rich, and your desire to milk the system for all its worth. Leeches bleeding us dry.
Sequester was Obama's idea......eat it ya donkey...........
Can't bully conservatives. King George of England tried to. Where did that get him. LOL
I blame YOU LIBERALS for voting in idiots, but then again, it takes one to know one. :-P
Democratic have not given a balanced budget in 6 years.
Reading these posts makes one realize that our most egregious problem is not the deficit, taxes, loopholes or spending. It's monumental ignorance. Many of those expressing their opinions here try to appear intelligent but miss the mark by a wide margin. By far the majority of these are conservative, but not exclusively.
Slashing spending across the board as the so-called sequester proposes to do was a bad idea when it was first proposed by Boehner and his tea bag supporters. They knew it, and the Democrats knew it but they both thought nobody would be dumb enough to actually go through with it. Well, guess what.
Sitting in Congress right now is plenty of evidence that it doesn't take any brains to get elected; it just takes a brainless electorate, of which there is clearly a plentiful supply.
I don't profess to know the answers to our current dilemma, but I do know that slavishly parroting proven lies and misinformation about the issues is a waste time. That definitely is what the Republicans are doing. All they have to do is repeal the sequester and come to grips with solving the problems. Instead, they dream up an idea that is too stupid to be actually carried out, use it to force an agreement on the debt ceiling, then blame the President for going along with it.
John Boehner claims the fault lies with the Senate Democrats for not coming up with a solution, but any balanced solution they propose is immediately rejected out of hand by his party. The sheer idiocy of their position is hard to accept by anyone except the Republican base.
I wouldn't count on any sweeping changes to the situation in 2014, or 2016. There are too many gullible, ignorant, misinformed and granite minded conservatives in this country who will send the same fatuous blowhards back to Congress that put us in this mess in the first place.
Pigotry
The GOP leaders lack vision. They only care about moving the rich's money into their campaign funds by supporting tax cut for the rich.
These GOP leaders don't understand the basic market principle that money can make more money. By taxing a bit more, and invest into education, high tech, and R&D, the money will produce more great frontier technology to create new jobs in green technology, the next big new tech things that US tended to lead before (such as the Internet, Youtube, and GPS). But with the rest of the world quickly catching up, and with these GOP leades stuck on stuPig, the country might fall behind sooner or later. It's not like most of countries are still stuck in communism under USSR or engulfed in US-supported civil wars. 5 to 8 of the 10 fastest growing economies are now in Africa.
yep invest more into education send more to collage and have more very educated people working at Mcdees Oh but they will get $9 per hour now so that is good.
Dems to the rescue... yeah, right!
that's a positive attitude - the DEMs are there to the rescue.
Thank GOD for that.
Amen.
Amen
Thank God for the Republicans putting a stop to the dems ignorant attempts to spend our way out of debt!
Hey Pigotry, when you're massively in debt personally, do you thing the answer is to SPEND MORE? You're name is so appropriate. I always see you posting on here. You OBVIOUSLY don't have a job, and just the rest of the democrats, want everyone else to pay the bills. Go get a job you pathetic loser.
Dave, Piggy is just showing her lack of imagination. The democrats have been doing the same crap for 5 years. The present a "plan" that the republicans have already indicated would be totally unacceptable and then blame the republicans for being the party of NO for not accepting it. That's the tactic that lacks imagination. It is not an attempt at bipartisanship, it is blatant brinkmanship, blatant partisan politics and overwhelmingly blatant stupidity. The only thing saving the democrats is that the republicans do exactly the same thing. They should ALL be sent packing. What Piggy and her friends refuse to accept is that the 1% that she hates so much, contributed just as much money to democratic campaigns as they did to republican campaigns. Do we not think there are at least several hundred Hollywood liberal fatcats who contributed to Obama's campaign?
INEPTOCRACY!!
(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy):
A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
GOP-TP are Blockheads for Blocking everything, two can play the same game !!!
well, dave-4342450, so typical of conservative talking points about family analogy in this debt debate. The US national government is the most powerful, not your typical family ... in fiscal matter at least. The family analogy show how simplistic the conservatives are. And you conservatives don't want to pay more taxes anyway, thus even more debt. How can anyone square all this??
well, only conservatives when a Democrat is in the White House. Dont want debt? Support tax increases which the President has called for in the SOTU address.
Pig,
Support tax increases is your solution? Ludicrous. It's a spending problem, not a paying problem. I don't want to be robbed any more by the irresponsible government we have running things now.
KCBones...well..throwing bones to a pig doesn't work. When you talk, first understand your audience. If you see a dog, throw bones. I am Da Pig.
@ Pig
You must be full by now? The garbage you've been fed by the government, I'm guessing you weigh about 1 trillion lbs
To guylittle:
Nice word definition you gave us. Please define what the last 12 years have given us under GOP policies? It's easy. Failure!
Why would anyone want to continue down that road? One reason: Big business and the wealthy. Certainly not the poor and middle classes. Trickle down has and will never work for the majority of us.
To Zap: Have you been entertained by watching the FOX Entertainment Complex News? Talk about eating garbage.
Max, you could not possibly back up anything you said. 12 years under GOP policies? What fantasy world do you live in?
Budget Control Act which Obama signed into law in 2011.
US House is in charge. All revenue bills are originated in the House with GOP majority. And the understanding is that they would work out a sensible deal so that the sequester doesn't have to take effect. So there is massive leadership failure by the GOP majority in this.
With the massive failure of GOP majority in the House, we are in for a sequester.
That's your opinion. I think it's a massive failure in the leadership of the President.
And that's your opinion that most of Americans do not agree with. That is why he got re-elected by the Popular, Majority, Electoral, and all the swing states. Your Opinion is on the Minority side Jane.
Bring on the sequestration. It will be a decent start towards reducing the size of our marxist govt.
Pigotry....."With the massive failure of GOP majority in the House, we are in for a sequester."
Correction, with the Progressives not coming to the table with significant spending cuts, America will go over the fiscal cliff.
That might be a good thing, since it will HAMMER Mr. Obama's spending thirst and Progressive agenda. So, the only thing he will be able to do from the Oval Office (since he said he couldn't get anything done there) would be go out the door to Marine 1 for a flight to the nearest golf course.
Hah! Libs want a BIG government to take care of them- the whiney babies they be! What they don't get is that big gov't equates to loss of freedom since BIG bro is there making the decisions for you. Talk to someone from mother Russia and find out what life's like under such a regime then your tune will change.
brenda1964
Your Opinion is on the Minority side Jane.
_________
Your opinion means nothing to me Brenda, you see I've read a few of your prior posts.
post 3.4
Owebama won the election when Mittens said:
"He wanted everyone in America to be employed".!!
The House passed a bill to avoid sequester, the only failure is that Obama and the Democrats haven't passed anything. Now the Senate Democrats want to pass another kick of the can paltry 110B to prevent 1.2 trillion in spending cuts? Pathetic. Get the Senate Democrats busy passing a budget and overhauling our tax code and quit pretending that kicking the can again is a solution for anything.
Larry the car doors are open! Please jump out and get real grip on what you call liberty and you want to call others out with your non facts about the posters here on this forum. You should not be allowed to post your anti-american post that you post on this and ever other post you have done in the past. You called me out the other day and you don't even know me, but after all the rants you post and your own profile show how un-happy you are here in america, So move and don't look back because no one will really care that you are no longer here in this country!
The SPENDOCRAT cabal can take their additional proposal to increase taxes AGAIN and SHOVE IT!
They already got $600B over 10 years last bloody month! That is money now. All of the $2.5T in cuts that they claim to have made are not actually cuts at all. They are reductions in the amounts of FUTURE spending growth. That is pure BS!
On a $3.6T current budget they can't come up with 3% budget cuts on current spending that does not tank the economy? That is a crock of $hit!
If you look at all the advanced industrial western countries, the more spending, the better the economy, the better the living standard, and the higher level of happiness.
Those conservative leaders in Congress don't have imagination. All they see is money in front of them from the rich - they have to choose (1) if they can save the money through tax cuts for their rich donors and allow the money to flow into their campaign funds. Or they can choose (2) to invest in education, science, and R&D ... to make more money which the rich will benefit more from but all others can also benefit from.
GOP choosing the first (1) is so predictable. Choosing (2) requires common sense and imagination which these GOP leaders don't have.
Pigotry....."If you look at all the advanced industrial western countries, the more spending, the better the economy, the better the living standard, and the higher level of happiness."
Yep, Greece is a very good example of "more spending".
Riots in the streets is really an indication of them being very "HAPPY".
Heya Piggy.....what are you going to say when the U.S. is downgraded AGAIN because of Progressive spending ? Oh yeah, it is the Republican's fault since they would not allow an unlimited National Debt Ceiling limit.
Agreed, build from the middle out. Works better for everyone. Rich Companies need to start building in America and stay out of other Countries. They can buy our stuff for a change. It is getting to the point that nobody can buy anything in the USA because nobody has a job, they all went overseas.
Pig says: If you look at all the advanced industrial western countries, the more spending, the better the economy, the better the living standard, and the higher level of happiness
That same philosophy is about as wreckless and irresponsible as they come. Sure, stick a credit card with a large credit limit and spend spend spend. Buy all this crap and then spend some more to pay the plastic surgeon to remove that smile from your face.
Eventually, the bils ache to be repaid somehow- spending more is not paying back those bills! You only dig the hole deeper! Apparently the libs are really struggling with the logic of 'you can't spend what you don't have' and take a very short-sighted view of things.
... and All conservatives have to point to as their punching bag for government failure ... is ... Greece...so sad.
Greece adopted the euro, can't print money, as an independent nation with an independent treasury is able to. When Greece joined the Euro zone, Germany moved quickly, dumped tons of German goods into Greece and other naive new EU members who foolishly believed it's free money and became easy victims of the German 4th Reich (the EU).
.
...and the Euro is politicians' dream without proper skills to make it work...at least in this short run.
Pigotry....
I see you didn't mention GOLDMAN SACHS' Greece hedge funds (which was the primary reason for Greece's current financial crisis) in your comments.
Oh, that is right.....Mr. Obama has his administration chocked to the gills with Ex-Goldman Sachs employees who probably wrote the recent Financial legislation against those Wall Street Fat Cats, which Mr. Obama hammered on for the past several years but still took their campaign funds at those $ 50,000 plate dinners during his date nights.
Don't forget to mention Mr. Obama's promise to get an agreement for Trade with the EuroNations. That....will....be.....interesting.
Pigotry
"If you look at all the advanced industrial western countries, the more spending, the better the economy, the better the living standard, and the higher level of happiness."
RANCHO ASK'S
Care to list those countries?
That is the problem with our economy. So many just don't seem to understand basic economics and they think the answer is just to print more money. They don't understand that is why the national debt is so high now, the government has just been printing money with nothing to back it up.
The result of putting more and more money into the system with nothing to back it up is inflation. Since items like food and energy have been taken out of the Core Inflation calculation, they don't realize what is happening because they either do not buy those items or maybe they get their groceries with their EBT card and don't care. Real inflation now is approaching 10% and the more money we borrow (print) the higher it is going to go.
print mo money! spend mo money! buy mo votes! blame someone else. Great leadership Obama.
Keep playing to your 51%, and not caring about the other 49% this could get ugly. Let the sequesters happen. Try and take our guns.
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE
Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she
would do the best.
This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her
future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social
welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These
solutions are just common sense in her opinion.
This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18,
2011
PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star
cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of
rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul
away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to
get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll
test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce
or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a
military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state
of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions
will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and
your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job
each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the
roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find
for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your
blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights,
realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept
our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their
"self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone
else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self
esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we
should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The
current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can
VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest.
You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
That's hideous - totally un-American. Let's just suspend the Constitution because we think poor people deserve to be abused.
What an @!$%#.
Having witnessed oh, too many times these huge overweight people use their Ohio direct Cards on steaks, Frozen dinners, Shrimp, and other luxuries while I have to buy cheep hamburger, cheap Sauce, and spaghetti or Ramen Noodles because we make too much money to qualify for food stamps.
For the first time in over 30 years, we qualified for the Federal earned income credit, but still have far too much income to qualify for food stamps.
On the flip side.
I do know a lady who is disabled, single with a daughter who spend a lot of time trying to take care of her mother. They would starve if it were not for food stamps.
Side note:
Coinciding with our nations increasing waistlines is the increase in number of people on food stamps. Here's the hypocracy in the food stamps. There are no restrictions on fat content or sugar quantities that are purchased on food stamps, yet, there are severe restrictions on those items in our schools menu's. The teen population is not the ones with the expanding wastlines so much as the middle and older age groups.
Government isn't the solution to our problems, it makes the problems worse!
Tim
This is marxist thinking.
Before the depression, people starving in America was practically unheard of. That is because if you didn't have, your neighbors or the church would step in. The only people who were starving to death were people too proud to ask for help or had a mental issue .
It would be far more accurate to say under nourished or malnourished rather than starve. Again, these two problems while often generated by poverty are more from pride or mental issues.
Tim,..
Imagine if American citizens were made to be responsible for their own actions. If it were up to each consenting adult to make sure that their children, that they themselves created, were fed daily.
Think what a terrible country this would be if all it's citizens had a productive job.!!
I do agree with DB Akron that some folks are on the "down & out" with one health problem or another and cannot work that TRULY need assistance.
However their are many perfectly healthy citizens that are taking advantage of this systems good nature.
Stop these posers, and let them become a member of the producers in this country instead of being a drag on our society.
No it's not. That's utterly idiotic. Objecting to people treating the poor as if they deserve to be abused is not Marxist. It's Christian. It's human. It's called Charity.
You made that up entirely. Please cite a source for this ridiculous assertion. There have been hungry, malnourished and starving people in the U.S. from its inception.
Again, where do you come up with this idiotic idea? Poverty is not a matter of pride or mental issues, nor is the hunger that comes with it. Splitting hairs between malnutrition and starvation is a waste of time.
Cite some authentic source for these asinine notions, if only to show you didn't simply make it all up.
'
The so-called Buffet Rule to raise taxes on the rich has nothing to do with getting our fiscal house in order as admitted by the Obama administration. And revised analysis by the CBO shows it would only generate 30 billion over 10 years. Less than ½ of 1% of the added debt we will incur.
The Obama administration is emphasizing “fairness” over deficit reduction in its renewed pitch for the “Buffett rule” ahead of next week’s scheduled Senate vote.
Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74975.html
The Joint Committee on Taxation, the bipartisan arm of Congress that calculates tax revenue estimates, said the tax would raise $46.7 billion over the next decade. That is less than 1 percent of the $6.4 trillion in deficits Mr. Obama's budget will notch over the next 10 years, according to a score of the budget released by the Congressional Budget Office last week.
The Buffett Rule would impose a minimum 30 percent tax on individuals with incomes of $500,000 or couples with incomes of at $1 million or more.
The $47 billion figure is actually revised upward. On Monday JCT had said the Buffett Rule tax would raise only slightly more than $30 billion over the next decade.
But late Tuesday the committee issued a new analysis saying it had not properly adjusted its models to account for how investors would respond to the law.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/mar/20/buffet-rule-tax-would-lower-deficit-less-1-percent/#ixzz2DXwEcjTU
If it is such a paltry amount, why are you so worried that rich folk can't afford it? Seems to me CEOs like Buffet may have a little bit extra they could contribute:
Pay for CEOs in the U.S. rose 725% between 1979 and 2011. Worker pay rose 5.7 percent
during the same time period, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
As a worker, better them than me. Or do you think that math is off too?
Of course the GOP rejected it. They were going to do that from the start. This has all been showmanship from them. Pure theatrics. Now the Senate should just tell them to come up with thier own plan. Which is something they refuse to do.
NO MORE TAXES!!! Get these marxists who are addicted to stealing from others out of Washington!!!
Tar and feather them
The House passed a budget and sent it to the Senate last Fall. The Marxist Dems refuse to allow a vote on the bill
Exactly right Larry. The progressive a holes think they are somehow entitled to the rich man's earned money, just because he can "afford it", then re-distribute it to the po' folk to buy votes with. Well, f u ba rock.
And make them pay back the money they stole from our SS fund that our gubmint thought they were entitled to and not us!
Who stole money from the SS fund - some of you seem to have completely lost touch with reality.
Lyndon Johnson
President Bill Clinton completely replenished the Social Security Trust Fund and when Clinton left office there was a $40 billion dollar surplus in Social Security.
If anybody "stole" money from Social Security, it had to have the last Republican Administration (GWB).
American Girl. You realize that is a complete lie right? He didnt replenish anything. It was going bankrupt then, and is continuing to do so. Stop putting ignorance as fact. That is why you libs are so damaging. You believe everything your fearless comrades tell you.
Nancy Pelosi wins The Gay quote of the week " The DEBT is a false narrative" congratulation Nancy you still have it......
I still like "We have to pass the bill without the fog of debate to find out what's in it" best.
Or, "It is not a debt problem, it is a Priority of spending problem".
"Time to clean the swamp" of ALL Progressives this next Congressional election.
Or Dick Cheney - 'deficits don't matter!'.
Dick Cheney left the vice-presidency in 2009.
TO: Not Charlie Sheen who wrote:
Yes, but look at HOW he left it, in compete shambles and on a downward spiral.
Are the rich and Republicans nutty. Whats wrong with paying 30% in taxes, taxes are lower than the pass 60 years. make 1000000.00 still have 700000.00 how about making 25000.00 and paying taxes and be poor.
IT'S NOT THE GOVT'S MONEY! Keep your slimy marxist hands off of our money.
If you are poor it's your fault, not someone who is successful.
Why are liberals such brain dead marxists who want to steal from others?
And keep my taxpayer money from going toward corporate welfare and entitlement subsidies! And stop these incessant tax breaks and credits that only the wealthy and rich corporations can take and I can't! And while we're at it, reduce the spending that is funding our military industrial complex and all the contract-rigging that pays for $500 hammers that come out of the pockets of taxpayers. That'll keep 'em from comin' to take away my guns!
Brain dead neo-con Marxists.
What are you complaining about. The wealthy are now paying 40% in taxes.
TO: Larry Robinson-1323081 who wrote:
If you live in the United States, you have to pay taxes.
If you don't want to pay taxes, go live somewhere else.
TO: Not Charlie Sheen who wrote:
That's a lie and you know it, Mitt Robme himself told you and everybody else he's paying 14% NOT 40%.
Moron.
....and you have the nerve to call someone else brain dead.
Amazing.
Taxes are not 'stealing'. Taxes pay for the services without which you could not survive in a modern society. And you talk about brain dead.
What are you complaining about. The wealthy are now paying 40% in taxes.
That's a lie and you know it, Mitt Robme himself told you and everybody else he's paying 14% NOT 40%.
Moron.
I know math is tough sweetie, but try to pay attention. The point is that the top taxpayer pay 40% of the taxes, not that they pay 40% of their incomes.
no one in this country should make less than 50000.00
Let's raise the minimum wage to $75.00 an Hour.
The progressives are running out of time. When the currency crashes; the Chinese, Japanese, British etc. refuse to loan more money; obama and the liberals will be seen for what they are: liars, cowards and marxists. They do not care about our Republic. Be prepared people. There will be a short period of total chaos. Then, with Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio and Rand Paul in charge, we will restore our Constitutional Republic. Go ahead progressive socialists. Ignore and laugh at your own risk.
There is nothing PROGRESSIVE about liberals and everything REGRESSIVE. So call them for what they are REGRESSIVE LIBERALS not Progressive Liberals.
Rancho - I prefer to call them Left-wing conservatives.
TO: Paul from NM who wrote:
Really, then I'm glad President Obama controls our weapons.
And the Republican plan is???
Hahahahahahahaha
Multiple solutions have been offered
1. The House budget which was sent to the Senate last fall which Reid refuses to allow a vote on
2. The plan bill proposed by Senator Rand Paul which the Democrats refuse to vote out of committee
3. The proposal to freeze all spending at FY2008 levels until the budget is balanced.
If they did all of the above Larry, severe defense cuts would be part of it, and you and many others may lose the opportunity to put on that uniform. Our extended family has most branches of the service represented - thank you for your service!
I don't think we want to go there. Just doing spending cuts alone will make our economic situation worse.
JustSlapMe, do they allow Looney Tunes like Larry in our military?
That guy sounds like he's really spaced out.
You do know that every bill and budget the GOP led House has sent to the house, had the repeal of the AHCA in it, right?
You do know that the Senate is led by the Democrats, right?
You do know the odds of the Senate repealing the ACHA, right?
So tell me the point of the GOP led House intentionally sending bills and budgets to the Democrat led Senate that they know will be rejected.
By the way,,,,,Marx was a self described Conservative REPUBLICAN born and raised in the Weimar Republic, His Communist Manifesto is almost a policy by policy road map of the RNC handbook
No FDA
No EPA
No OSHA
No minimum wage
No Government retirement benefits
No Government healthcare
Huge taxcuts for the wealthy and corporations
Huge subsidies for corporations
WAKE UP!!!!
more liberal stupidity
1. Marx died 36 years before the Weimar Republic existed
2. Marx was NEVER a Republican,much less conservative. He never lived in the US
3. He certainly NEVER was conservative
Marx's theories about society, economics and politics—collectively known as Marxism—hold that all societies progress through the dialectic of class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class which controls production and a lower class which produces the labour for goods. Heavily critical of the current socio-economic form of society, capitalism, he called it the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", believing it to be run by the wealthy classes purely for their own benefit; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism.[9] He argued that under socialism society would be governed by the working class in what he called the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the "workers' state" or "workers' democracy".[10][11] He believed that socialism would, in its turn, eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless society called communism. Along with believing in the inevitability of socialism and communism, Marx actively fought for the former's implementation, arguing that social theorists and underprivileged people alike should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change
As to your laundry list, they are polar opposite of the Communist Manifesto and especially Section II, Proletarians and Communists
The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
http://www.constitution.org/tyr/com_mani.htm#Proletarian
The repukes aren't going to win
Get lost losers
Obama won,you lost now die already
Actually the Dems won, and the American people LOST. Obama doesn't want to cut ANYTHING! Even a fool could see we're drowning in debt....even a fool bulletman.
Yep, so we can become a socialistic country, right comrade, but first we have to get rid of those crazy patriots that stand in the way of the king and the DNC!!!
Repukes
You fakers blow snake balls,that's how low you are
Hillary 2016
Eat sh1t hahahaha
Bulletboy, do your mommy and daddy know that you are up this late and are playing with your big sister's computer?
Its about time. Bring on the axe and gut govt.
If all of the Politicians, including the President, were to pay their fare share and live by the standards they require of the general public, there would be lots of money. They not only draw a salary, but have a medical plan we could only dream of and the perks they receive surpass most of their salaries, not counting the backdoor profits. Politicians are crooks without masks. "Both sides are equally guilty of not carrying about the "People." Plus when someone says they are getting something for free............guess what all the rest that are working are paying for it. Come on people wake up. Printing money to pay bills is a farce. Try doing it at home, you will be arrested quickly. Why are the "people" being told to cut back, live simple and the President spends almost $20Million dollars on a 3 week vacation. Yah that is a bright one?
...and, he's on another tax-payer subsidized vacation starting today.....
....tomorrow, actually. He worked all day today, and he's taking the three-day President's Day Weekend off.
Anything for an excuse to bitch about him, though...
Petty, childish, and irrelevant as it may be.
The Republicans WANT THE "ENTITLEMENTS" CUT, meaning Medicare and Social Security. This is not a very popular idea with the voters so they want to hang this Albatross around Obama's neck. The Repubs. have been after Social Security and Medicare for quite some time. Their main interest is pandering to the rich. All the smoke screens they throw up to cover up their agenda are full of scare tactics, lies, and slander. When the unemployment was 4.5 GW Bush he gave them all a tax cut. Did they create more jobs? Sure they did, in foreign sweat shops. They have and will sell us all out for a dollar in their pocket.
The average American puts in 100K of money into Medicare in their lifetime. The average American takes out 300K during their lifetime. Do you really think that's FAIR to all the young people who have to pay that back? If you do, then you must be a Democrat. If you don't, you must be smart.
What part of the math is hard to understand? There isn't enough money to pay for Medicare and Social Security at the current rates of growth and taking 100% of all the income of all the "rich" people in the country would not be enough to pay for it. What is your proposed solution? Just wait until it crashes, as apparently the Dems want to do? And for the record, the Repubs do NOT want to cut entitlements. They want to cut the rate of growth in entitlements, something quite different. Why is it unreasonable for social security payments to grow based on increases in the cost of living--the Repub proposal? Is that what you consider a "cut" in entitlements?
Bush gave tax cuts after unemployment went up past 5% due to the recession caused primarily by the collaps of the dot com bubble. Unemployment did not go below 5% until 2006 almost three years after the Bush tax cuts. Unfortunately, unemployment went wild after the democrats blocked efforts by the republicans to reign in irresponsible lending practices.
Some of you need to get informed.
Shhhh, the liberals don't want to hear or believe that, their king and the DNC can do no wrong.
why don't they ever talk about raising capital gains taxes? why always income tax... the income tax will trickle down to middle class americans. if you really want to tax the rich, increase capital gains taxes for every penny over $250k. the dems can't do this because they already have obamacare surtaxes on capital gains... but income tax hikes will inevitably hurt the middle class.
Have you been under a rock? The capital gains tax was just raised as of 1 January by 33%
Thanks Chuck!
Not for 98%+ of people. From MarketWatch.com:
So, which rock were you under?
this is what liberals democrats want. half in reduced spending - and half in raised tax. isn't this +1 and - 1? this doesn't make sense. it is like removing half the content of a glass of water and filling it back up with the same amount removed. the liberal objective is simple: - whatever is saved as a result of reduced spending will be added to tax revenues raised = plenty of spending money for liberal democrats and their liberals cronies to support their liberal dependents = welfare recipients + unions + collecting long term unemployment + food stamps dependents + all kinds of albatross to the economy of the nation.
No, it's not. You just don't understand what they're talking about. In order to reduce deficit spending (a negative number) the Democrats are proposing to reduce spending and raise taxes - both of which will result in reducing the amount that we spend that currently exceeds the amount that we collect in taxes.
The government gets more income and spends less of it, so the deficit will go down.
Get it?
tim, I hope you don't hold your breath believing that, you'll die... Lies on top of lies, they don't plan to cut anything, but raise taxes so they can spend more and add more minions to the payroll (government handouts) to keep them in power, man some of you people needs to stop drinking the kool-aide and switch to coffee.
What I would like to know is where Jay gets his Info from
This is the FIRST time I have even HEARD of this 'NEW DEAL' So HOW can the American People Overwhelmingly Support it?
Oh Yeah, I forgot, if the master says it is Good, the Flock will crowd and push to eat at his troth.
Well I see some big problems with the plan they have but I do agree with the last statement. If the secretary can pay 30% so can the CEO. Apparently its bad to help the poor but the rich we need to coddle or they will leave. Who are we kidding they still wont pay 30% they don't get taxed on the money they got hidden in other countries.
On the surface this appears a valid point, but dig deeper and it's more complex. Maybe Mr. Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary on his personal income tax return. But, that's because his income is mostly from capital gains. the thing about a tax on capital gains is that it is the "second" tax" Mr. Buffet is paying on that money. While he may be paying just 20% in capital gains tax (up 33% from last year), his company also paid corporate income tax at a 35% marginal rate, one of the highest rates in the industrial world. So, although somewhat simplified, Mr. Buffet really is paying about 48% tax on his investment that year that he sold some of his stock; 35% percent corporate income and 20% of the 65% remaining after taxes (13%), which is, actually, a higher rate than his secretary's income tax rate.
"What I would like to know is where Jay gets his Info from"
Probably from the same place Susan Rice got her talking points...which means we'll never know.....
Chuck - If Warren Buffet's secretary is paying a 30% rate that means she in making in the neighborhood of $200,000/year. Seems like a lot of bloggers like to leave out little details like that.
This is not true - he is not being double taxed. He's paying 20% on the profits he accrued from his investment, and that's all. If he put the money into some other investment, like a savings account and was paid interest by the bank, that interest would be his sole income from that particular form of investment. The taxes that the bank paid do not count as part of his tax burden. Any investors return on earnings only accrues after earnings after interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Ask an accountant.
If he bought bonds and was paid dividends, those dividends are the sole income from that investment, and not the taxes that the corporation that issued the bonds.
Corporations are NOT people, my friend.
And although marginal corporate tax rates in the U.S. are very high by international standards, effective tax rates - the rates that corporations actually pay - are among the lowest in the world. 35% is an irrelevant number even if it did apply to Buffet's tax rate, which it does not.
Your entire comment is basically standard Corporate double-speak.
My Fellow American, we are headed for a CATASTROPHE. We're drowning in debt, and this president doesn't want to cut ANYTHING! All their so-called spending cuts were cuts way into the future, and they weren't cuts at all, just decreases in spending increases. People have to stop voting for unconstitutional government. People like Rand Paul who follow CONSTITUTIONAL government are our ONLY HOPE for prosperity. God help us all with these fools in charge. The 3 G's people, Gold, Guns, and a Getaway plan.
Don't kid yourself he is just like all the rest of them. They should all have to wear patches so at least we know who owns their vote when they run for office.
Where do you get this **** from? Let us have a real conversation about spending and cuts.....
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2013/01/08/49137/the-deficit-reduction-we-have-achieved-so-far/
.....now, knowing the right wing, they'll see the source it comes from and call it left wing propoganda. But, if you look closely at all the data shown in this article, it is all derived DIRECTLY from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
The Obama you people believe in is a myth....he does and never has really existed. He is no more real than bigfoot or the loch-ness monster.
It all depends on how you define propaganda. Most of the spending cuts are like the 700 billion in medicare cuts that the president insisted were savings during the run up to the election. Much more comes from the end of the Iraq war that Bush schedule while he was still in office and the end of the war in Afghanistan. Much more of it is money that they would have spent had they decided not to do so.
...that would be the same $700 billion in cuts in the Ryan plan that he proposed be used to pay for yet another tax cut for the rich, right?
...and those would be the two wars that Bush launched without ever funding either of them, right?
Got it.
Just so we're clear...
Take everything -every penny- from the billionaires and millionaires and the country will still be on track to go broke from over-spending. These tax-the-rich schemes without any effort to restrain entitlement spending are the worst possible form of demagoguery.
Worse things would happen if you concentrated only on spending cuts. Can't make enough cuts alone to get out of our debt without crashing the economy.
This is the same mistake as the inappropriately named "austerity" programs in Europe. When you cut government spending drastically and increase taxes at the same time is when you have economic disaster as Greece, France, and Spain are proving. You need to cut government spending gradually so that it is not crowding out the private market and keep taxes the same or lower and look at what you can do to make it easier for small and medium companies to do business. No amount of taxing and spending cuts will get us out of our current debt problem. The ONLY way out is through economic growth that increases the tax base by putting more middle class workers back on the job, so you need to do what need to be done to incentivise business growth, which is simply to keep taxes as low as possible, and move unnecessary regulatory burdens out of the way. Look up "Laffer curve" to see how this happens and how cutting tax rates leads to greater tax collections.
Look at simplifiing the tax code by getting rid of many of the deductions and then you can even lower income tax rates for all, as President Bush did, for one of the things he did right (those were the "Bush" tax cuts that were saved for low and middle class folks in December). No tax credits for inefficient and uncompetitive products (read "green energy" and ethanol). Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction (Canada has no such deduction allowed and their home ownershuip rate is higher than the US home ownership rate), and get rid of the dreaded oil company subsidies as well. Of course, the best solution would be to go to the Fair Tax, then there wuold be no income tax form to fill out and millions of accountants and tax lawyers could go out and get productive work rather than spending their lives filling out government paperwork.
You know, even though it may seem like it, government spending doesn't just vanish into the ozone. It pays for people to do work for the government either directly or indirectly, and it pays for things that the government buys from even more people who work.
Cutting government spending is, by definition, cutting jobs.
The Obama Administration has done more to cut spending than all 3 of the last GOP Presidents combined. The clown show on the right would rather see funding cut for poor people than the billions in tax breaks given to the oil companies? Why? Do they really think that an oil company who netted billions in profit last year needs MORE tax dollars as opposed to a family who works for minimum wage but is still in poverty? This is twisted.
This has nothing to do with jobs.....nothing to do with fiscal policy....it has everything to do for their hatred for one person.
These unreasonable jackals on the right are the true unAmericans that are willing to subvert our democratic system simply for spite.
..and who benefits from tax breaks for oil companies? The teachers' unions, firemen, and police whose pension plans own stock in those oil companies. One of the greatly underreported stories of the GM bailout was how President O screwed the Ohio teachers' union that owned a big chunk of GM bonds in order to benefit the GM union workers. Was that "fair?"
Doc, if I have told you once, I have told you a thousand times - don't exaggerate so much. They don't want to cut funding for the poor, they want to cut funding for those that refuse to help themselves. If Obama is so great, why do so many of his supporters feel they have to lie for him?
Great the democrat's plan is only 110 billion, most of which republicans wont accept.
The republicans don't have a plan other then blame the democrats.
And we get absolutely nowhere. So sick of our congress running for the next election instead of doing their job. They never stop running for political offices anymore. I mean come on, the republicans already started running attack ads for an election 2 years away (almost), I'm sure the democrats have done something along the same lines. And none of them want to vote fr anything unpopular because eventually they will be running again.
Maybe we should do with congress what we do with the pres, 2 terms and your out. Say what you want about Obama, Bush, or Clinton; But at least in the second term when they don't have re election in mind they grow a larger pair of balls. Since congress are always worried about running, none of them have the guts to do what they need to because their base wont like it.
All these politicians talk about how they love and admire the troops. Well time to follow in their footsteps and put your azz on the line to do what is needed.
www.change.org/petitions/federal-government-all-laws-pertaining-to-political-employment-need-to-be-public-referendum-2
Where is the GOP's plan to cut spending? Why don't they put out a plan...and have it scored by the CBO to see what type of impact it'll have on the economy?
They run the House of Representatives....they are in position of power. Supposedly, that's why they are there for God's sake.
....................
are you kidding me Dr Logic??????? They have put out 3 - yes, 3 plans...and guess who won't let the Senate vote on it??? Won't even bring those plans to the floor???? Harry Reid...
Stop listening to just one side of the argument...listen to both sides for a change..