Nuts on the Saturday OPEN thread!
Red Squirrel | Ray Eye | Wikimedia Commons
“It’s been my policy to view the Internet not as an ‘information highway,’ but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.
Mike Royko
July 30, 2011 - 10:00 AM
- Contact us |
- Customer care |
- Subscribe |
- Advertise |
- Submit news |
- Sign in
Please Tell Us
Golfers: What are your favorite holes in the area? See if our Timesland Dream 18 is up to par and nominate your favorite.
July 30, 2011 - 10:00 AM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
60 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
Royko must have found our little blog.
And that squirrel just ran into Suzie Q!!
I rarely agree with anything Joe Klein says, but in this case I think he might be right.
http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/28/republicans-dangerous-debt-ceiling-charade/?hpt=hp_bn4
Here is a debt limit issue, which I had not seen discussed before:
http://tinyurl.com/4ywumzq
**
Would it be “Unconstitutional” to Veto a Debt Limit Increase?
Posted by mstern on 30 July 2011, 10:34 am
SNIP
After all, if the Constitution requires the Congress to raise the debt limit to avoid default, it must be the case that the President is constitutionally obligated to sign the bill that would raise the limit.
SNIP
What happens then? If the president issues what Congress views as unconstitutional veto, couldn’t Congress contend that the debt limit increase is nonetheless effective? Such a theory could be tested in court. Those who were harmed by the administration’s failure to borrow money (such as Social Security recipients) would presumably have standing to challenge the alleged constitutional violation.
What a tangled web.
**
More good discussion on the constitutionality of the federal health care law, the Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama case/appellate finding and the pending cert petition @ http://tinyurl.com/3r796zv
**
SNIP
From the day in late June that the Sixth Circuit Court issued the first appeals court ruling on the constitutionality of the key section of the new federal health care law, that ruling has been fairly widely misunderstood. Even the Justice Department, in its initial reaction, claimed that the Circuit Court had upheld that provision — the mandate that virtually every American must have health insurance by the year 2014. Many news organizations and even some legal analysts, too, drew that conclusion.
But there is a difference between upholding a law’s constitutionality (a ruling declaring that the law is valid) and rejecting a claim that the law is unconstitutional (a ruling that the challenger fell short of proving it invalid). The latter does not mean the law is valid; it in fact means that the issue is still open, and that the law may yet be struck down. That is the kind of ruling the Circuit Court issued — and no more than that. And this difference may be a factor in how willing the Supreme Court may be to hear the first significant health care case to reach it, in a case from Michigan.
In a manner of speaking, the Circuit Court chose the path of judicial restraint — it, in effect, concluded that it would leave for another day the core question of whether Congress had the authority, in late 2009, to impose on most Americans the legal duty to obtain health insurance within three years, or pay a financial penalty. Under this Circuit Court ruling, the law would remain on the books, but new challenges could be brought just as soon as the government actually enforced it, in a real-world setting involving a particular individual unwilling to get health coverage.
SNIP
**
For Dan’s next contest, I suggest “Possible occupations for 0bama after January, 2013″
My entry: Capitol Hill shoeshine boy for the new GOP majority
I rarely agree with anything Joe Klein says, but in this case I think he might be right.
Ron is so naive, he actually believes we would default without a deal.
Today, July 30, 2011, likely applies to more of us than we’d care to admit — even to ourselves:
http://tinyurl.com/4xzrm5p
This is an interesting take on the “debt” issue. Wonder how much is accurate.
http://outerbanksvoice.com/2011/07/29/divining-debt/#more-39557
Well, here we go again with back to back posts. Wonder how may of you will have the guts to watch this. It’s L O N G so make sure you have plenty of time. I know someone who has been very concerned about the level of understanding the average, no make that ABOVE average, citizen has about the Fed. Most people don’t have a clue. They think Ol’ Ben is acting in the best interest of the government and that he is actually a government employee. But, sadly, this is over the head of most of you libs and even some conservatives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs
More good “what happens if” speculation on SCOTUS and 14A:
http://tinyurl.com/3fdxnd2
**
How Would the Supreme Court Rule on Obama Raising the Debt Ceiling Himself?
SNIP
In fact, it’s far more likely that the Court would refuse to hear the case. And even if the justices did agree to hear it, the conservative justices would be torn between their dislike of Obama and their commitment to expanding executive power at all costs. If all the justices are true to their constitutional philosophies, the Court would rule for Obama by a lopsided margin.
SNIP
The conservative justices have long required clear evidence of legal “standing” before opening the courthouse door—something they showed in their recent 5-4 decision rejecting a taxpayer’s challenge to an Arizona school vouchers program—and it’s hard to imagine who could establish enough of a legal injury to establish standing in this case. Individual senators and representatives wouldn’t have standing to sue on their own, according to a 1997 Supreme Court precedent, and although the House and Senate could, in theory, pass a joint resolution asserting that the president has injured Congress by usurping its power, they’re unlikely to find the votes to do so. (If the House alone passed a resolution asserting a constitutional injury, its legal status is less certain.)
When it comes to individual taxpayers, they’re likely barred from establishing standing to sue by the definitive precedent on the debt clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the 1935 Perry case.
SNIP
**
Just finished up an enjoyable day in an NRA handgun class, it was one of the better ways to spend a Saturday.
OJ, I applaud you and your wife for taking the training and wish everyone who handles or carries a gun did so.
Dave H, I think that argument is exactly why some are urging the President to go that route if the Congress cannot pull their heads out in time for the needed compromise to get a decision. The greatest nation on earth cannot default and I think the Courts would know that and take it into consideration. This is all political not necessary and most of us know it.
LOL Dave H #8, yes I think it applies to several of us here!
Hannity was a riot today. You could hear the fear in his voice as he claimed over and over again the US was going to be able to pay its debts if the tea party held firm and didn’t give in to the Reid Plan. The man is insane, What he’s not telling his listeners is that even if the SS checks and Military checks go out, who gets left out in the cold?
Here’s the truth:
“Payments prioritization” is probably the best term, if a dry one, since it conveys the real sticky heart of the matter. Treasury is going to need to decide who gets paid and who doesn’t—making temple-rubbing, flinty-faced, increasingly bedraggled Timothy Geithner the most economically powerful person in the country until Congress resolves this.”
“The choices would be difficult. In August, the United States could use its cash receipts to make its interest payments ($29 billion) and pay Social Security benefits ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), defense contractors ($31.7 billion), and unemployment insurance ($12.8 billion)—all considered of vital importance.”
“But that would leave about half of the bills unpaid. Federal employees, from the zookeepers to the prosecutors to the prison guards, would have to make do without their salaries. There would be no transfers for food stamps, housing programs, the IRS, the EPA, or the troops either. The Bipartisan Policy Center notes that “the reality would be chaotic.” The results would be unfair. Treasury would be picking “winners and losers.”
“So we might not have a great term for what we have inaccurately termed the big “default” after Aug. 2. But we know its risk: a recession. And we know how we got here: idiots.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2300207/
Let’s be reminded that it has been the republicans who have out spent the democrats 3 to 1 on the debt department since the end of WWll. The conservatives need to be held acccountable for the lies being told by each and every one of the scat hatters.
We are screwed and everyone in the world knows it except the dumbscat 50% of the voters lapping up the TP and Republican propaganda. The lid is about to blow off the crapper and it ain’t gonna be pretty.
Polls show the majority of Americans blame Republicans for this mess. Invoke the Fourteenth Mr. President, and give the Obstructionists nothing. Most legal scholars agree SCOTUS will not hear the case but even if they do, voters will see you as the one sane person who rose to the challenge. This will require you to grow a pair. Are you up to it?
Art @17
That’s exactly why Obama’s approval ratings are falling… He needs to get a backbone and do what the people elected him to do. We are tired of his all talk/no action stance. We want to see results.
I bet you if congress passed legislation to raise taxes on the top 2%, raise the debt limit, and cut spending, his ratings would go through the roof. That’s what the majority wants. Isn’t that how a democracy works?
18 ” Isn’t that how a democracy works?”…….sure but only if obama will allow us to continue with democracy, doubt that.
You people are hilarious. If 0bama tried the 14th Amendment stunt to go over Congress and the people’s heads to further his reckless spending plans and destroy the economy, not only would he lose 49 states, he might well brought up for impeachment.
Although, he might try. Lord knows he has nothing to lose. He knows he has no chance at re-election. And history has shown he doesn’t care what happens to his party when it comes to advancing his socialist agenda. A desperate man like this might do a General Sherman. Slash and burn and damn the consequences.
As his situation gets more dire, I look for 0bama to lose it one day soon, a la Howard Dean.
Sandi, I do too. I believe that to qualify for a CHP, which we are both applying for, that a person should have to go through a class like the one we did. We went over all the parts of handguns, and how to break them down and clean them. Also went through ammunition, firing stances and techniques, an hour long video, and a very rigorous safety portion that was also reinforced continually throughout the entire day. We got into legalities and regulations in Virginia as well. Then, we also had the live-fire portion to demonstrate the skills learned in the class for both bench firing and standing positions, proper stance, grip, breathing control, trigger control, and aiming, and got instructor-provided correction and assistance to fix shooting errors.
And at the end of it all, there was a 50-question test to pass before getting the class certificate. The class in its entirety ran from 9am-630pm, with an hour for lunch. We got quite a few handouts on firearm safety and basics to take home, plus books were available with regulations for all 50 states. I don’t know how much the 1-hour web-based classes cost, but our far more comprehensive class was $60 a person, though, in order to take it you needed to have your own handgun and ammunition. We used a Glock, while 2 older ladies in the class had .38 and 357 Magnum revolvers.
I love it. Suzie can’t even rustle up reactions with her racism.
The good works some evenagelical Christians do, and lo and behold it was written by a liberal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/kristof-evangelicals-without-blowhards.html?ref=opinion
I don’t care whether you are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, or which side of the wing-nut fence you fall on. Is no one else here bothered by the fact that we as nation are so outspending our means that we are borrowing about half of our financial obligations each month? At some point we have to recognize that we can’t keep spending at the current pace when it requires us to borrow more and more money just to pay the debts we already have.You can come back with all the condescending quotes of “you just don’t understand governmental finance” you want, but that type of ‘borrow and spend’ policy is just not sustainable. And yes, before someone asks, I have borrowed to buy a home and a car. However, I didn’t then turn around and borrow more money to make the paymnts on the first loan, and then borrow more money to make the payments on the second loan. I think that’s where that oft-used analogy falls flat. What some don’t seem to grasp is that the current federal financial policy is more akin to using one high interest credit card to make the minimum monthly payment on another high interest card than it is to getting a mortgage for a home and then paying it back with real income.
I’m not against raising the debt limit this time to keep the economy from lapsing back into a recession, but both sides need to get their heads out of their rear ends and realize this has to change. Cuts alone are not the answer. Taxes alone are not the answer. I believe the politically loathed art of compromise is the answer – increase revenues and cut spending.
“Cuts alone are not the answer. Taxes alone are not the answer.”
Chuck, your position is the one held by most of American on this issue. But unfortunately there’s a small but loud and well-funded part of the GOP that refuses to countenance any increases in revenue, at all. As in…none.
And no, long term spending has to be addressed at some point, maybe when a recovery has taken better hold and unemployment is closer to 5 than 10. But you don’t massively cut government spending in the face of recession unless you’re looking to throw the country into a depression. Personally, I think the TP goal is to bring a depression about….I have zero doubt that their hate for Obama far outweighs any specious love for their country. They feel like a good old-fashioned depression improves GOP changes in the coming elections. There’s no other explanation.
Chuck sometimes I wonder if you are even reading the other people’s comments here. Of course, all of us “here bothered by the fact that we as nation are so outspending our means that we are borrowing”, that is not a smart way to run a nation beyond a certain extent. It is also however how this nation and many others have run for a very very long time.
Many of us did “recognize that we can’t keep spending at the current pace when it requires us to borrow more and more money” and including Obama, we have been saying so for a while now. You have agreed with what the majority in this nation have said they want, cuts, reform AND revenue increases so I am wondering why you think anyone will give you “condescending quotes” of any kind? We are finally in agreement, now all we need is for the Congress to get in that line with us.
This nation should not have to be in this situation and we darn sure should not be having to wade through a minefield of dishonesty and political shenanigans. Dems have been compromising and working on a solution the entire time. Honest people on both sides of the aisle know what you have admitted and that has been our goal the entire time.
Chuck
Often you and I don’t agree. But this time we do. Of course the long term spending has to be brought under control and a way has to be found to get us back to a balanced budget and begin to pay off some of the debt. Because of the current economic mess, it cannot be done over night. They have to make a start, probabbly spend some money in the short term, but establish and stick to a long term plan for accomplishing this with targets in 3 years, five years, ten years and 15 years. And it makes absolute sense that there will have to be cuts and revenue increases.
If you actually read carefully the posts made here by people like Sandi, DaveH, Ron, Kristen, Lyndak and me, all of us have acknowledged consistently that there must be cuts but that there must be a balanced approach which also iuncludes increases in revenue. That is not the position being taken by the Tea Party and House Republicans. It is the position that has been taken by Democrats, both in the House and Senate, and by Barack Obama. There are disagreements over what should be cut, and in what proportions and where the revenue should come from. But these are issues that should be compromised by people who have a real interest
in sustaining America.
Kristen
I don’t believe that all TPers feel that way. What I do believe is that many of them do not understand the ramifications of the actions they are demanding because they have been gullible and have allowed themselve to be sold a bill of goods by the extremists who really do have an agenda
mainly outfits like the Koch Bros., Arms manufacurers, health conglomerates,
and insurance companies who put their profits above the national interest.
These are the people who are financing the multibillion dollar attack ads and sound bite camapigns that have replaced a real discussion of issues for far too many Americans. Raising the debt limit should never have been made hostage to the debate over how to control spending and get deficits under control. Doing that was cynical, destructive, and a big mistake on the part of Republicans. And I think John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and other
Republican congessional leaders wish they were anywhere but in the position they have been placed in now. The eception to that is Eric Cantor who is nothing but an opportunist looking for a pathwway to power.
“I don’t believe that all TPers feel that way. What I do believe is that many of them do not understand the ramifications of the actions they are demanding because they have been gullible and have allowed themselve to be sold a bill of goods by the extremists who really do have an agenda mainly outfits like the Koch Bros., Arms manufacurers, health conglomerates, and insurance companies who put their profits above the national interest. These are the people who are financing the multibillion dollar attack ads and sound bite camapigns that have replaced a real discussion of issues for far too many Americans.”
dave speaks the truth
Re: #24
“Is no one else here bothered by the fact that we as nation are so outspending our means that we are borrowing about half of our financial obligations each month? At some point we have to recognize that we can’t keep spending at the current pace when it requires us to borrow more and more money just to pay the debts we already have.You can come back with all the condescending quotes of “you just don’t understand governmental finance” you want, but that type of ‘borrow and spend’ policy is just not sustainable.”
———-
Yes, there are folk here who are bothered by it and have discussed the issues at length.
As I have posted before, we need to look at all expenditures — both on the appropriations side and on the collection side of the tax ledger.
We need to look at reducing all entitlements and make wise choices as to how to reduce the expectations of Government subsidy — regardless of how intrenched the idea of “I am due….” and regardless of the government’s accounting method used to support those “entitlements.”
During the last two fiscal years combined, the U.S. collected $1.85 trillion in personal income taxes and allowed $2.17 trillion in income tax breaks to individuals and corporations.
During the current fiscal year, the U.S. is projected to take in $1.12 trillion in personal income taxes while allowing individuals and corporations $1.66 trillion in breaks — to which the recipients assume that they are “entitled.”
NOTE: Uncle Sam is exempting more than he’s taking in.
In congressional and tax parlance it is called “tax expenditure.” [BTW, the term "tax expenditures" is neither my invention nor a new concept. Tax expenditures are defined under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the "Budget Act") as "revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability."
IOW, the issue has been known about for a good while. But what public debate have you seen? What in-depth news coverage have you read/seen about the many-many "tax expenditure"? Criticisms of tax expenditures appeared when the term was first coined. Stanley Surrey, the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy in the Johnson Administration, argued that tax expenditures were inferior to direct expenditures in achieving various social and economic goals, and were a barrier to tax reform that would restore fairness to the tax system - see: Stanley S. Surrey, Pathways to Tax Reform (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973)]
As I have posted before, we need to get all those tax expenditures out of the collection side. We need to get them on the appropriation side and deal with them for what they are “expenditures”/spending. The appropriation bills are gone over with a fine tooth comb annually and are sunsetted by the very nature of the annual appropriation process. OTOH, the “tax expenditures” are seldom reviewed unless each bill establishing them are sunset — which most are not.
Tax expenditures operate essentially like direct expenditures, even though they appear as tax breaks. They designed support social and economic agendas and hundreds of different types of activities and individuals. They currently account for one-fourth to one-third of all benefits and subsidies granted to the public.
Like mandatory programs (or entitlements) on the spending side of the budget, most tax expenditures do not go through a direct appropriations process each year. They continue and often expand with no congressional vote; for example, the value of charitable deductions automatically rises with an expanding economy.
IMHO, no one really knows where all the tax expenditure is going and what it is being subsidizing. For example, why do we subsidize thoroughbred racehorse owners?
Both policymakers and the public need to understand all the uses for which government resources are used. IMHO, there should be public debate the tax and economic policy consequences that follow from any implicit or explicit choices made in fashioning legislation. That does not happen when tax expenditure are hidden in a tax code that has grown beyond belief.
IMHO, it is time we, as a nation, had a good honest public dialogue about this mess.
Why all the hidden subsidy? Both political parties like to provide subsidies and expenditures in the form of tax breaks, because they cause the measure of net tax revenue to fall without increasing the measure of spending. Thus, they give the false appearance of reducing government’s size. For this reason, tax subsidies have strong political appeal. In fact, however, tax expenditures can actually expand government’s interference in the economy, partly because they induce changes in taxpayers’ behavior. Also, like direct spending, tax expenditures in one place must also be paid for through higher taxes elsewhere.
FWIIW, generally, deductions and exclusions are most valuable for high-income households because their value is the amount deducted or excluded multiplied by the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate — so, a $100 deduction or exclusion typically saves $35 for someone in the 35 percent top income tax bracket, but only $10 for someone in the 10 percent bracket (assuming that they own something like a racehorse).
IMHO, closing down the sense of entitlements in tax expenditure will also help recover the United States’ losses of some $100 billion in tax revenues annually because of offshore tax abuses.
It has been estimated that the US losses as much as half a trillion in unpaid taxes every year because of the complexity of the tax code as a result of tax expenditure — which makes our budget deficit far worse.
Simplifying the Tax code by moving all tax expenditure to the appropriation process would allow an additional reduction in the IRS budget need to review, audit, litigate collection, etc.
“They feel like a good old-fashioned depression improves GOP changes in the coming elections. There’s no other explanation.”
This issue is being used by BOTH sides for political leverage. I realize that most here are staunchly anti-conservative, but the liberals are just as desparate make political hay here as are the conservatives. You can paint the senate dems and Obama as the reasonable ones advocating compromise, but why is it that the only line in the sand Obama has drawn is to guarantee a veto of anything passed that doesn’t push this at least past the 2012 election? As far as stretegic economic improvements go, even that isn’t far enough down the road to really guarantee that a recovery takes hold. IT is merely a ploy to get him through the election without having to actually address the problem. Obama himself argued the points of his currrent opposition a few years back when he, then Senator Obama, voted against increasing the debt limit. To date not one commenter here has actually offered any explanation as to why it was unnecessary and the wrong course to take then but is now the prudent and needed step. Do you think it is possible that people might have been playing politics with our economic well-being for their own political benefit back then too? Cantor may not be the only one to have used economic issues as a pathway to power.
Sandi, I would expect condescension because the last time I commented about the folly of borrowing your way out of debt or to economic recovery, and in that specific thread, on the naive notion that a socialist system could never truly go bankrupt because the country is always producing a GDP, I believe it was you who dove in with those very questions. You asked if I paid cash for everything including a home or cars, or did I finance it and put off paying for it for several years. That analogy is simply not germane to this issue as that is not what is happening here. When you finance a home or a car you borrow money to pay for the item and then make payments on the loan. Fiscally responsible people don’t borrow more than their real income can sustain paying back. We as a nation are seeking to increase our self-imposed credit limit so we can borrow more money to make payments on existing debt.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again, our current course is nothing like taking out a mortgage on a house. A better personal finance analogy would be to consider our current economic policy as being similar to paying all your monthly expenses (mortgage, transportation costs, college tuition, utilities, clothes, groceries) with a credit card. Now it’s maxed out. We’ve seen it coming for years but no one on either side of the aisle addressed it and now we are trying to figure out how to pay next month’s bills. Unfortunately no one seems to have an answer except to ask the credit card company for an increase in the credit limit.
I agree to an extent that revenue needs to be increased because some programs realistically cannot be cut. I am bothered by the parts of the conservative platform that wants to slash all government services and programs across the board and that refuses to even consider any tax increases. However, I am equally bothered by the liberal platform that seems to think tax increases are the first, best solution to every problem and that also seems to think this issue can be solved simply by taxing the rich at a vastly disproportionate rate without recognizing that everyone will feel this pain.
In our household, when we have faced financial trouble, I have sought ot both increase income and cut spending. It isn’t fun to eliminate things we spend money on, but it can be done. Generally we have more control over what we spend than what we make, so that is often a more realistic alternative. So again, I would like to see a realistic, genuine approach from both sides. An approach wherein the GOP acknowledged that tax increases may be needed, but also wherein the Dems realized that there is not a bucket of money that can be re-filled as simply and easily as turning on a light by merely increasing taxes on the citizens whenever the government wants or needs to spend more. Right now, neither side gets it.
“Now it’s maxed out.”
Why now, Chuck? Reagan lifted the debt ceiling 17 times, Bush 7. Why are we suddenly maxed out RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE? You’re too smart for this, dude, or you’re playing us for fools.
Dave H, You can copy and paste the Oxford English Dictionary if you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the top 5% earners pay more federal income tax than the bottom 95%.
Only morons or crooks believe these few should have an even greater tax burden.
Why now, Chuck? Reagan lifted the debt ceiling 17 times, Bush 7. Why are we suddenly maxed out RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE? You’re too smart for this, dude, or you’re playing us for fools.
Because our credit rating is now poised to be downgraded for the first time in history, duh.
I swear to God, these people seem obliviou that their hero, Boy Zero, has already increased the deficit more than any president in history.
One thing I’ve noticed among all liberals from 0bama to Kaine, to the Roanoke City board. When they supposedly “cut” spending the never cut it quite enough; they ALWAYS need more and it’s always (Shazam!) necessary to raise taxes.
My question is, Why the hell can’t leftwingers do the complete job of cutting spending so that taxes do not have to be raised? This to me proves they’ll use ANY excuse to engage in their class warfare and to grow government.
“I don’t believe that all TPers feel that way. What I do believe is that many of them do not understand the ramifications of the actions they are demanding because they have been gullible and have allowed themselve to be sold a bill of goods by the extremists who really do have an agenda mainly outfits like the Koch Bros., Arms manufacurers, health conglomerates, and insurance companies who put their profits above the national interest. These are the people who are financing the multibillion dollar attack ads and sound bite camapigns that have replaced a real discussion of issues for far too many Americans.”
There is no awaiting crisis. We heard the sky-is-falling routine for TARP, the Stimulus, 0bamacare, and immigration. All these measured had to be passed RIGHT NOW or there would be calamity. We dnid’t even have time to read it all. Pass it NOW!! It’s a lie and fear-mongering to frighten the stupid.
But…if the situation is so dire, why don’t the Democrats say, “Balanced budget Amendment? Fine. Whatever. We just need to get this done”. Notice they aren’t saying that. I guess not even a catastrophic crisis gets precedence over politics for these people.
Wow, Chuck, you’ve really let yourself go…
“the top 5% earners pay more federal income tax than the bottom 95%.”
That’s not hard to do. Compare 5 people who make 100 million a year and pays 1 percent, and 95 people who make 50,000 but pay 30%.
thats 5 million vs. 1.425 million
Maths are hard.
I agree Dave, the TEA folks have bought a bill of goods and are being as played as a fine fiddle.
There is no need to once again attack the ignorance of those who whine about people with more paying more in a progressive tax system. DUH! But for crying out loud, yes “the Top 1% of tax payers pay 38% of all income taxes” However, “the Top 50% of tax payers pay practically all of the nation’s taxes (97.30%)” which as has also been proven, the “bottom”, meaning those who live on less than 30K per year (40-45% of Americans), pay zero federal income taxes because they do not make enough income to live on much less pay taxes on.
http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/
It is also worth noting for those with an honest bone in their body as the saying goes, that the top 5% controls approximately 40% of the wealth and net worth in this nation and the bottom 80% controls approximately 7%!
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Scott thinks “the rich” all make $100 million a year. Brilliant example, Scott.
The Republican Party used the debt ceiling to blackmail the president with the threat of economic collapse if he didn’t give in to their demands to cut social programs. This isn’t governing, folks, it’s a shakedown. They put people in jail for that, or at least they should.
Chuck, I still refuse to tie the government’s hands with the “balanced budget” BS edict. There are projects and needs that require borrowing and long term debt repayment (comparable to our mortgage system) and this is how our government has been run even in St. Reagan’s time. It is how nations run. There is no shame or wrong in it unless it is abused. The only time it is a real problem is A) when the revenue does not meet the obligation and B) when the spending is made into a political cause. It is a cudgel both sides use. The booms and busts too were sustainable when they were not based on financial chicanery as this one was and the economic crisis response was further hobbled by the debt being used for political promises and unaccounted for wars. I remain adamant that blaming all of this on Obama, acting like it is some new event or situation and pretending the drama was anything more than political posturing is dishonest. As far as I can see it is your position that has moderated and I hope that is because you saw the evidence in spite of not wanting to agree with me on anything.
The so-called “deal” struck tonight doesn’t sound very good. Boehner is letting Idiot Boy off the hook past the 2012 elections. And the cuts are too paltry. We’ve already seen our leadership is out of touch. I’m hopeful the Tea Party Congressmen will scuttle this ‘agreement’ tomorrow. Stronger GOP leadership could have gotten everything conservatives wanted.
Americans are blaming 0bama for the impasse. Jeezus, let’s keep him in the frying pan.
If I were politically selfish, I too, would want the TPers in the house and the right wing fringe to vote down the compromise tomorrow. What thaat would do is put the possibility of economic meltdown squarely on the shoulders of the Republican party where it belongs. It would give Obama reason to use the 14th amendment and would absolutely insure his reelection in 2012 and a Democratic resurgence in the House. I do not
wish for that,however, because I think it would be bad for the country
and would set us up for at leas another year and a half of chaos aqnd
instability, which our fragile economy does not need at this time.
For once I agree with Suzie Q. The cuts were not big enough. Congress should have cut all those tax expenditures. Don’t believe me? Here’s a comment from a leading conservative economist from the Reagan administration.
Harvard economic professor Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, put it this way in a July Wall Street Journal column: “When it comes to spending cuts, Congress is looking in the wrong place. Most federal nondefense spending, other than Social Security and Medicare, is now done through special tax rules rather than by direct cash outlays.”
If the TP wants to hide behind claims that they’re not thugs, they’re stupid and easily manipulated…ok.
“Scott thinks “the rich” all make $100 million a year. Brilliant example, Scott.”
Nope, I was just showing a flaw in your math logic complaint. There are plenty of rich people making more and less.
This issue is not the gross amount of tax being paid but the end percentages after all the loopholes and deductions afforded the ultra-rich (who ultimately influence the tax laws.)
Brilliant Example indeed.
#47 Everybody else on the blog can easily see what you meant, scott. Just ignore our resident troll when she misrepresents what you say, which she does with great regularity.
When you look at it, the Tea Party congressmen are the only ones who are NOT being partisan. They refuse to be bought off, they can’t be cajoled with committee assignment promises, they aren’t beholden to the leadership, they don’t care what the media says. In short, these are exactly the type of people you liberals claim you want serving us. They know America needs to shed debt and fast, and they are the only ones putting America ahead of party or politics.
Let’s imagine the Tea Party scuttled the deal today and forced the Democrats into a balanced budget amendment. Ten years hence, you leftwingers would be proclaiming “0bama brought us a balanced budget” and omit the fact that he fought it tooth and nail.
Does this revisionism sound familiar?
The only reason the Tea Party congressmen were able to throw a wrench in the effort to pass Boehner’s bill was that he didn’t have any support from Democrats period (they had all agreed to vote it down), so he needed full cooperation from House Republicans, which he was not getting courtesy of the Tea Party members.
Now that an agreement has been reached amongst the leadership of both parties, I expect that enough Democrats will fall in step with their party leaders and vote for the new bill. The Tea Party won’t have nearly as much sway on a bill that both parties have come to an agreement on.
50.Let’s imagine the Tea Party scuttled the deal today and forced the Democrats into a balanced budget amendment. Ten years hence, you leftwingers would be proclaiming “0bama brought us a balanced budget” and omit the fact that he fought it tooth and nail.
Does this revisionism sound familiar?
Comment by Suzie — August 1, 2011 @ 9:21 am
Please notice highlight # 4 in the article linked below.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43967946/ns/us_news/
For those of you who believe a “Balanced Budget Amendment” is a good idea you should read the article below.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3543
So now we’ve supposedly gotten some kind of deal to raise the debt limit. This is a good time to figure how to really reduce deficit spending, starting with cuts for War Department budgets (I contend that the military-industrial complex really got rolling shortly after the War Department was renamed, thus…). Bring our troops home and let the Middle Easterners do their own fighting, with their own weapons. Come down from there to real entitlements–and I do NOT mean SS and Medicare, which are programs their participants paid for (the fact that over the years administrations have peed away the money is really irrelevant). Then start the real cuts: cut Congressional staffing by 75%. Cut vehicle supplies for office-holders by 50%. I know that will really put a sag in GM–government seems to buy most of their hog-fat SUVs now. Life is tough. Knock off most farm subsidies for farms with annual sales above xxx amount (let the experts set the amount).
Reform the Tax Code in a manner that spreads the load more equitably than at present.
Knock off the nonsense claims that raising taxes cuts into job addition. If memory comes close to serving, Clinton raised taxes in ’95, and turned over a surplus to GWB, who quickly lowered taxes and turned over…a mess of epic proportions. Raise taxes on anyone making over half a million a year.
Re: #53
Good one, Ron.
I’m way behind on my RSS feed and hadn’t gotten to that one, yet.
BTW, with in the last week, I read that the US is one of only two countries in the world that has a statutory fixed value debt limit. Hum? I believe Denmark is the other.
There are others, Switzerland, Germany, Chile, Sweden [I believe] which tie their debt target to their GDP but have exceptions for economic emergencies. Worth thinking about, IMHO.
“The cuts were not big enough.”
If Standard & Poor agree, the U.S. could be in trouble anyway, agreement or no agreement.
S&P had indicated that we needed to have a plan to reduce our debt by at least $4 trillion. The agreement reached by Congressional leaders doesn’t come close to that. So, even though they will almost certainly pass the bill to raise the debt ceiling today and avoid default, that doesn’t necessarily mean that our credit rating will remain intact. At least that’s my understanding.
#55 Denmark is the only other one and it keeps it ceiling so high that raising it never becomes a political issue.
Charlie Self@10:44
Way too much common sense in that post. Nobody in the tea party will understand it and none of the establishment Republicans can disconnect from sucking at the corporate trough long enough to hear it. But keep on saying it as loudly and often as you can. Who knows when one of them might come up for air or have a lucid moment and hear you.
Ron @10:24
Outstanding link. Of course it is obvious to us all that Michelle Bachmann, Bob Goodlatte, Eric Cantor, and the Tea Party Republicans
have a vastly superior grasp of economics and know much more about how
these proposals would affect the economy than this distinguished panel
of experts. It is a virtual certainty that once the BBA is enacted,
those Republicans who proposed and advocated for it will all be granted
Nobel prizes in economics, just as soon as their magic bullett finishes
killing off the federal govt. and the American economy.
S&P had indicated that we needed to have a plan to reduce our debt by at least $4 trillion. The agreement reached by Congressional leaders doesn’t come close to that. So, even though they will almost certainly pass the bill to raise the debt ceiling today and avoid default, that doesn’t necessarily mean that our credit rating will remain intact. At least that’s my understanding.
Exactly VT Hokie. It is unbelievable to me the leftwingers in here back a bill of such modest cuts as to make our credit rating suffer which will result in billions of dollars in wasted interest.
Could one of the libs in here please try to defend that? My guess is crickets as usual. Again, the Tea Party seems to be the only group with any trace of common sense.