Debt ceiling

In reply to keethrax:

I think you're tone indicates a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about your position, so I'm not interested in discussing republican this or democrat that, or who's in tune with what field of view.

I have yet to see a plan proposal from either democrats or republicans cut even 10% of the deficit in one go to even try to criticise. I have the last republican congress which added non war spending of around 300 billion, and this previous democrat congress collectively adding more than a trillion.

I never said the problem had to be solved in one attack. I'm in fact adamantly against it.

I am very very upset that people try to convince me that if a problem is truly as big as they claim it is and as important as they(politicians) claim it to be...

...that they then expect me to believe in the next breath that their comprehensive reform can actually fix anything in one attempt, and that their unproven and unresearched reforms are the answer to anything.

But again, not the point i'm trying to raise. The point I'm trying to make is wether or not you feel there is a problem with taxation is immaterial because the taxation being discussed won't even make a dent in our yearly debt, or our overall debt picture.

This is not a molehill masquerading as a mountain.

Its Everest.

We have now been born into, grown up with, and died with governing politicians that think that governing from a position of debt is an okay thing. This is what we are left with. This is not small, its ridiculously big, far bigger than the debt ceiling debate.

We must correctly define the problem. We are ethically bankrupt in our elected halls, and have been for more than 3 decades. Government spend more money by several folds than what it takes in.

Until we have correctly defined the problem, a solution will elude.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Because it's not enough that they already pay the majority of the taxes for the entire country?

Well, we lowered taxes so much that half the people pay no tax at all. So of course the wealthy pay all of it. This is getting silly. We can't tax the poor! They're poor! We can't tax the rich! They're paying all the taxes! We can't tax the middle class! They're being asked to pick up all the slack.

Newsflash. Somebody gotta pay some damn taxes. Nobody likes it, but that's how it is.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: If republickans care so much about the budget then went won't they remove tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate welfare like oil subsidies? Because they support the wealthy 1% above others. With them ideology trumps logic. same with the tea party.

Because it's not enough that they already pay the majority of the taxes for the entire country?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schoenberg/how-i-paid-1-of-my-income_b_852948.html

Eric Schoenberg said: In 2009, the median U.S. family had an income of just under $50,000, on which they would have paid roughly $2,761 (or about 5.5%) in federal income tax. I, by contrast, enjoyed an income of $207,415 in 2009, but paid only $2,173 (or 1.0%) in income tax. [...] But under our current tax system, the rich don't need high-priced lawyers who exploit obscure loopholes; I wasn't even trying to minimize my taxes (and, in fact, could have paid zero tax if I was). Warren Buffett has observed that if there's class warfare in this country, the rich are winning.

I asked it in another thread, so I'll ask again here.

If supply-side economics works, why have "real wages" remained flat since it's implementation?

And I don't want to hear conjecture about gov't regulation, etc etc. Give me imperical evidence. Supply-side economics HAS created more wealth, but it's all concentrated at the top.

And as I mentioned earlier, the wealthy do pay the lion's share of taxes, but they still pay lower rates than the rest of us plebians.

www.fairtax.org

madmallard wrote: But again, not the point i'm trying to raise. The point I'm trying to make is wether or not you feel there is a problem with taxation is immaterial because the taxation being discussed won't even make a dent in our yearly debt, or our overall debt picture.

I agree. But never once did my taxation comment reference any specific taxation being discussed except to mention it (like the cuts being discussed) being unreasonably inadequate. It was only in reference to one side adamantly refuses to even consider any as part of a solution.

That position is ludicrous, and indicates to me that that particular side isn't even trying to pretend to care about the problem. That doesn't mean that the plan including a pittance of taxation adjustment good, the amount is (as you rightly point out) irrelevant and the cuts are drastically inadequate as well.

Sticking ones head in the sand and ignoring half of the equation is even more full of folly than the token amount presented by the other side. One side being worse doesn't make the other good. It just makes it marginally less bad. As I said, damning with very, very faint praise.

You can sit there and say it's not enough, and I'll agree with you. But you're going to get some version of one of them. I'd prefer the one that does even slightly more to fix the problem even if it's still woefully inadequate.

And I apologize if you took my "'fixing' it all at once" being stupid bit to include you. It wasn't meant to. It just wasn't worth a separate post. I was under the distinct impression (which you have confirmed) that you were not one of those idiots.

The washington post says the big deal may still be on the table.

As part of the deal being discussed to raise the debt ceiling, leaders on Capitol Hill are forming an especially powerful congressional committee that would be charged with drawing up a new “grand bargain,” possibly by the end of the year. Key elements for a big deal remain in place. Obama has been clear that he wants one and has started making the case to skeptical factions of his own party that getting the nation’s fiscal house in order is in their best interest. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) also remains committed to an ambitious plan, having told his troops that he didn’t become speaker to do small things. And, perhaps most critically, the markets are demanding it. The credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s says Washington must agree to reduce the debt by $4 trillion over 10 years to avert a downgrade.

keethrax wrote: I agree. But never once did my taxation comment reference any specific taxation being discussed except to mention it (like the cuts being discussed) being unreasonably inadequate. It was only in reference to one side adamantly refuses to even consider *any* as part of a solution.

Normally under ANY other topic. I would agree with you.

This is the exception. The circumstances are significantly different that it is, in my view, colossally immature of politicians who didn't govern responsibly in the first place for an entire generation now to expect some kind of intellectually dishonest "balanced approach" when a RIDICULOUS pattern of imbalance is what brought us here.

Sticking ones head in the sand and ignoring half of the equation is even more full of folly than the token amount presented by the other side.

I object to, even if a turn of phrase, being called half of the equation when its not.

It's just not even equal. I believe the folly is mis-identifying the problem, either by lack of information(ignorant 'pay your fair share'), or intentional obfuscation (our current tax code).

But I'm not opposed to attacking it a piece at a time if i truly believed we had people in power who were now responsible and mature.

But I don't view politicians as people. They aren't. They're tools in the toolbox of government. Quit using and get rid of tools that don't help you build the project. So regardless of party, I don't believe in them as people to trust that they are responsible and mature now. I can't anymore.

And I apologize if you took my "'fixing' it all at once" being stupid bit to include you. It wasn't meant to. It just wasn't worth a separate post. I was under the distinct impression (which you have confirmed) that you were not one of those idiots.

np. When we use the royal 'you' online, sometimes its hard not to feel as though you're being identified individually, i've noticed. ;]

JoeyM wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Voters are holding politicians accountable and they (the pols) are starting to pay attention - at least on one side; the other is still playing to it's fringe base and is becoming increasingly out-of-touch with reality.

Obama is trying to appeal to his base - all politicians do - but he doesn't view the liberal fringe as being part of that base. If he did, he would not say things like this:

Obama has turned over a new leaf, as of this week. His rhetoric for the previous two and half years has been a "bit" less centrist-oriented than his current position.

You, sir, are wrong. Obama has been playing to moderates for a long time. He started disappointing the left before he was even in office, and he has not stopped doing it. 2008 Prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents criticized President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday for choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration next month. 2009 Obama angers liberals by governing just like Bush In what has to be the most ironic, and potentially implosive, development of his nascent presidency, Barack Obama is being dogged more by criticisms from liberals than from conservatives. Obama angers gays with marriage law defense 2010 The left has been honestly disappointed in Mr. Obama. He did not come through as they think he should have in myriad ways—the public option, closing Guantanamo, war, now the tax plan. 2011 Obama is not the Liberal Liberals thought he Was

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, the President has disappointed the uber-libs, but his policies and governance have alienated voters who are more centrist than he. He has put himself in that "rock/hard place" situation.

His rhetoric has changed in the course of a week.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425

Hopefully the link works if anybody bothers to listen to it.

Joshua wrote: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425 Hopefully the link works if anybody bothers to listen to it.

Good listen. Thanks.

oldsaw wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Voters are holding politicians accountable and they (the pols) are starting to pay attention - at least on one side; the other is still playing to it's fringe base and is becoming increasingly out-of-touch with reality.

Obama is trying to appeal to his base - all politicians do - but he doesn't view the liberal fringe as being part of that base. If he did, he would not say things like this:

Obama has turned over a new leaf, as of this week. His rhetoric for the previous two and half years has been a "bit" less centrist-oriented than his current position.

You, sir, are wrong. Obama has been playing to moderates for a long time. He started disappointing the left before he was even in office, and he has not stopped doing it.

Yes, the President has disappointed the uber-libs, but his policies and governance have alienated voters who are more centrist than he.

I don't disagree that he has "alienated voters who are more centrist than he" ....in fact, this link (which I included before) says the same thing. My point, though, is that Obama is not playing to his "fringe base" as you earlier stated. He's far more moderate than the fringe expected him to be.

Obama is certainly not as conservative as the current republican party would like, but neither was Ronald Reagan.

Joshua wrote: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425 Hopefully the link works if anybody bothers to listen to it.

Thanks. It is good to hear an honest person for a change. David Stockman is the guy behind "Reaganomics", and he tells the truth even though it annoys both the left and the right

Now these days, he's still a conservative and still a Republican, but he doesn't think his party is taking a responsible position on taxes any longer. At the end of this year, the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire. Republicans want them renewed; Democrats want to keep the tax cuts for the middle-class, but not for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Now, Stockman says they're both wrong. And he says extending either of those cuts is tantamount to the government declaring bankruptcy.

Can't spell Cantor without "can't". From now on he will be know as Can'tor (tm). Goes along with my trademarked "Tea Hatters(tm)" Two days slow, that's what they are!

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I'm not saying they're victims, really... just that sheople like to point fingers at them for their assets. It just sounds like "They have more than me, so let's go after them and let me completely off the hook." It's disgusting. But on the other hand, should they pay more? Yeah. They have more. So more, is a good thing on an absolute.

No one is getting completely off the hook. All will pay higher taxes, as they should. No benefits cut for the poor while the rich get off scott-free. We're all in this together. All will need to sacrifice. The poor will eat less and the rich will have to buy smaller yachts and pay taxes on their private jets. Oh the humanity.

oldsaw wrote: Yes, the President has disappointed the uber-libs, but his policies and governance have alienated voters who are more centrist than he. He has put himself in that "rock/hard place" situation.

Do you consider yourself a centrist? Your rhetoric on this board doesn't reflect that. Course, neither does mine.

Great article in The Daily Beast today.

The GOP Has Double Amnesia

Article says said: George W. Bush and his congressional allies pushed through tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, added more than $2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. In 2002, when National Economic Council director Lawrence Lindsey suggested the Iraq War might cost $100 billion to $200 billion, he was rebuked by Office of Management and Budget director Mitch Daniels and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and then fired. According to the CBO, the war has now cost more than $1 trillion. In 2003, the Republican Congress passed the Medicare prescription-drug bill, which former U.S. comptroller general David Walker has called "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s." When Medicare’s chief actuary calculated that the legislation would likely cost more than $500 billion, a Bush appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services threatened to fire him if he released the information.

Queue the "But I didn't like Bush!" Well, you don't like him NOW. Back then, couldn't cheer hard enough as you drove around with your faded. Bush/Cheney bumper sticker for the last 3 years. Want me to search the archives for your pro-Bush posts?

I guess this is a good question- do many people argue that the debt issue isn't worse due to the Bush tax cuts? Every credible source I've seen says we'd be in less of a hole if we hadn't had them. And it would be difficult to argue, I would think, that they boosted the economy. I mean, regardless of what you think about Obama has handled it, there's no question that the economy was crashing hard before he was elected.

I don't really give a hoot about polotics, but it seems like they're only fighting over it to make it a last minute affair to cut funding to different places.....

I would rather see everyone who is on welfare get re-evaluated, I'm tired of seeing people around here living off of it and selling drugs instead of working(that would save the taxpayers a decent chunk in all honesty)

The impossible math of our debt-based monetary system is catching up with us. The world is saturated with debt. The Republicans and Democrats both worked really hard for a lot of years to dig us into this hole. They both work to maintain their power and to satisfy the folks that run the show. Neither party serves or really even represents the people. As I said earlier, this whole thing is kabuki theater and is all about the 2012 elections and it has nothing to do with solving our nation's problem of a collapsing and unsustainable monetary system.

Plant a garden, grow as much of your own food as you can, get to know your neighbors, and be ready. The next 10 years will be totally unlike the last 10 years.

Xceler8x wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Yes, the President has disappointed the uber-libs, but his policies and governance have alienated voters who are more centrist than he. He has put himself in that "rock/hard place" situation.

Do you consider yourself a centrist? Your rhetoric on this board doesn't reflect that. Course, neither does mine.

Yes, I consider myself a centrist with strong Libertarian-leanings. Regardless of Obama's '08 campaign rhetoric and media efforts to convince the public, his record spoke for itself.

As far as your apparent politics, you may be an Obama-style centrist with an orientation further to the left than I'm willing to veer.

YMMV.........

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I guess this is a good question- do many people argue that the debt issue isn't worse due to the Bush tax cuts? Every credible source I've seen says we'd be in less of a hole if we hadn't had them. And it would be difficult to argue, I would think, that they boosted the economy. I mean, regardless of what you think about Obama has handled it, there's no question that the economy was crashing hard before he was elected.

The problem with your statement isn't whether it's correct or not, but that at this point it's meaningless, because what is done is done and can't be changed. Obama could have done the right thing and tried to make up for whatever loss the Bush cuts may or may not have produced, but instead he spent trillions more, mostly in the wrong places. Since when does two wrongs make a right? What we need to do is solve it, and to do that, we need people in Washington that are willing to make the hard decisions. Blaming doesn't acheive that objective.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I guess this is a good question- do many people argue that the debt issue isn't worse due to the Bush tax cuts? Every credible source I've seen says we'd be in less of a hole if we hadn't had them. And it would be difficult to argue, I would think, that they boosted the economy. I mean, regardless of what you think about Obama has handled it, there's no question that the economy was crashing hard before he was elected.

Yes, the ecomony was crashing hard. But it was also the result of political policies applied by both parties over the course of five, six, seven (pick one) decades. We had some relief during Clinton's two terms, but only after a Republican-led Congress reigned-in his desires.

But, the current Administration wasted time and political capital by NOT focusing on the economy. Pushing through an expensive and unpopular healthcare program, deferring the "stimulus" program to the political whims of Congress and unsuccessfully pushing for a skeptical "cap and trade" legislation has left the President in a hole.

Regardless of what one may think of Obama's handling of the economy, it is his problem and he's done little to reverse the trend.

Wether or not the 'bush tax cuts' continued had made things worse is irrelevant in my view.

Wether you believe they were right or wrong, the amount of direct revenue that could be generated by those cuts upon expiration or removal would not account for the annual deficit we are weilding today. They became irrelevant after the previous congress passed the new spending levels and no budget plan to go with it; they may have been relevant before that at the levels prior to those actions.

(This is absent any discussion also about any possible positive market benefit such cuts may have represented too, just a straight comment on the revenue level.)

Xceler8x wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I'm not saying they're victims, really... just that sheople like to point fingers at them for their assets. It just sounds like "They have more than me, so let's go after them and let me completely off the hook." It's disgusting. But on the other hand, should they pay more? Yeah. They have more. So more, is a good thing on an absolute.

No one is getting completely off the hook. All will pay higher taxes, as they should. No benefits cut for the poor while the rich get off scott-free. We're all in this together. All will need to sacrifice. The poor will eat less and the rich will have to buy smaller yachts and pay taxes on their private jets. Oh the humanity.

oldsaw wrote: Yes, the President has disappointed the uber-libs, but his policies and governance have alienated voters who are more centrist than he. He has put himself in that "rock/hard place" situation.

Do you consider yourself a centrist? Your rhetoric on this board doesn't reflect that. Course, neither does mine. ************** Great article in The Daily Beast today. The GOP Has Double Amnesia

Article says said: George W. Bush and his congressional allies pushed through tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, added more than $2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. In 2002, when National Economic Council director Lawrence Lindsey suggested the Iraq War might cost $100 billion to $200 billion, he was rebuked by Office of Management and Budget director Mitch Daniels and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and then fired. According to the CBO, the war has now cost more than $1 trillion. In 2003, the Republican Congress passed the Medicare prescription-drug bill, which former U.S. comptroller general David Walker has called "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s." When Medicare’s chief actuary calculated that the legislation would likely cost more than $500 billion, a Bush appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services threatened to fire him if he released the information.

Queue the "But I didn't like Bush!" Well, you don't like him NOW. Back then, couldn't cheer hard enough as you drove around with your faded. Bush/Cheney bumper sticker for the last 3 years. Want me to search the archives for your pro-Bush posts?

The medicare bill pissed me off to no end. Didn't get it then, don't get it now. That was the last time, until recently, that I wrote my congressdouche. The way the fiscal conservatives were ignored really pissed me off.

bravenrace wrote: What we need to do is solve it, and to do that, we need people in Washington that are willing to make the hard decisions. Blaming doesn't acheive that objective.

Obama, himself, isn't blaming Bush. He's trying to reason with an unreasonable Republican "other side". If you're serious about lowering the deficit as quickly as possible you increase revenue (raise taxes and cut corporate welfare like Oil subsidies) while decreasing expenditures (cutting defense and other Republican sacred cows). If the Republicans will compromise on those things O has already stated he's willing to cut social safety net programs. Again, Exxon has to pay their own way without government handouts and G-ma has to pay more for her medications to live. Fair? Not hardly. But we all know Republicans are more concerned with the money'ed elite than they are about G-ma. No surprise there.

oldsaw wrote: Yes, the ecomony was crashing hard. But it was also the result of political policies applied by both parties over the course of five, six, seven (pick one) decades. We had some relief during Clinton's two terms, but only after a Republican-led Congress reigned-in his desires.

Read these 3 paragraphs please.

George W. Bush and his congressional allies pushed through tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, added more than $2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. In 2002, when National Economic Council director Lawrence Lindsey suggested the Iraq War might cost $100 billion to $200 billion, he was rebuked by Office of Management and Budget director Mitch Daniels and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and then fired. According to the CBO, the war has now cost more than $1 trillion.

In 2003, the Republican Congress passed the Medicare prescription-drug bill, which former U.S. comptroller general David Walker has called "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s." When Medicare’s chief actuary calculated that the legislation would likely cost more than $500 billion, a Bush appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services threatened to fire him if he released the information.

Had Republicans wanted to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, as they’re demanding now, they could certainly have tried during the Bush years, when they pretty much ran Washington. But they didn’t. Given their remarkable success at unbalancing the budget, such an effort would have been absurd.

Source

How then did the Republicans reign in any spending? You're logic isn't holding up here. Those 3 paragraphs cite many examples of Republicans being "fiscally conservative" when they were in power. Note my sarcasm. Also note how these programs actually work against the working class, you and me, in this country.

If the Republicans cared about you don't you think the would've thrown you a tax cut while they were getting a tax cut for their rich country club buddies? They didn't. The Republicans just aren't that into you.

It's the Federal Government. Facts ,sanity or reason do not apply.

When I want to raise my debt ceiling, or do anything else related to finances, my wife provides a wise counter-point to my spending. She also helps keep me out of fights and smoothes relations with my neighbors.

What the US Government needs is a wife.