Over the cliff on the Monday OPEN thread?
Etretat, France | Urban | Wikimedia Commons
“I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an SUV. If you’re headed for a cliff, you have to change direction. That’s what the American people called for in November, and that’s what we intend to deliver.”
Barack Obama
December 31, 2012 - 10:00 AM
So some woman who wrote a letter to the editor today was, prior to the billboard, unaware that there are some people who don’t believe in God? And thinks it must follow that they don’t believe in anything. She illustrates the importance of Justin’s group’s message getting out, regardless of how much vandalism is perpetrated.
The bloggers who have posted the hate filled, sarcastic, denigrating, skeptical remarks about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, alleging that the news about her injury (concussion) and inability to immediately testify before Congress on the Benghazi report, are once agaion being forced to eat their words by this news.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/clinton-admitted-hospital-blood-clot-015548623–politics.html
That injury appears to be be even more debilitating than was initially reported. It will be interesting to see how Frank manages to twist this one into another connection to Bill Clinton’s oval office sexcapades. I can hardly wait.
I doubt Hillary’s concussion and blood clots are related. That being said, I would much rather have her as President than Obama.
My reasoning is, Hillary has had leg blood clots previously.
hey wayne,
that incessant roaring hillary hears as a result of those days you speak of…, well…, i just can’t twist any better. poor lady. she has been saddled to her men, for good or bad, like, her whole life. And, now that she’s finished her 4 years of being saddled to barack’s wagon, by golly she’s earned her right to be “no ways tired”, ya know?
sheesh. Benghazi. who gives a rip? no libs do, that’s for sure. ol’ hill will rest, heal, and saddle up, again, to ride into 2016 as a well seasoned, experienced, dried up old …prune.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/hillary-clinton-blood-clot-hospital_n_2385951.html
“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was admitted to a New York hospital Sunday after the discovery of a blood clot stemming from the concussion she sustained earlier this month.”
But I’m sure the entire episode is being staged because of “Benghazi”.
Be respectful, Frank…you’re likely speaking of your next President. 66% approval rating. Get ready.
“sheesh. Benghazi. who gives a rip? no libs do, that’s for sure. ol’ hill will rest, heal, and saddle up, again, to ride into 2016 as a well seasoned, experienced, dried up old …prune.”
–Comment by Frank
Nobody cares about your cooked-up phony conspiracy theory about Benghazi, Frank, except you. If somebody tried to assassinate her (heaven forbid) you’d be on here in less than an hour claiming it was a conspiracy she cooked up to avoid testifying. It’s sad. . .
There is no way I would vote for the current “fiscal cliff” deal. Tax hikes only without any spending cuts? No way! Indeed, Obama won the election and he promised tax hikes of the wealthy….so be it. BUT, he also promised MAJOR spending cuts. THey have had 2 years to work on this and I find the entire process to be shameful. I have called Warner and Goodlatte and expressed my opinion…not that they care.
Visit to Lake George is over. Wife & I are headed back to Indiana. 5 days of down time to relax & charge up for a busy 2013. Traveling in Ohio currently. ETA is 6 tonite. Happy New Year fellow bloggers.
you know, even I never woulda thought of that one, dan. however, i wouldn’t put even THAT past a CLINTON, girl, ya know.
Safe travels.
Gee, AC, are you a doctor? You know the cause of the blood clot better than her own physicians? Please provide more detail on your great diagnostic powers.
HEY, notice how embarrassed Frank is that6 once again he completely and totally wrong about something he was being obnoxious about earlier. Only suzie is wrong more often than Frank.
“Gee, AC, are you a doctor?”
He claims to be a Vet. He should still be able to tie recuperating from a concussion to DVT. Happy New Year, all. Even you, Frank.
gdad,I said I “doubt” and that was based on a Doc speaking on CNN and he was merely basing his opionion on experience. His thinking was that all the time she spends flying around the globe would likely lead to clots. And I wrote that she had suffered blood clots in the past….perhaps those clots were caused by a previous concussion too? I don’t know. Her personal physicians have not given a cause, so there is some speculation out there.
What I do know, is that an Ambassador and 3 other Americans are dead, and it was an organized terrorist attack…. not a blacklash from an anti-Muslim film which we were lead to believe by the State Department and the White House for many days.
Well wishes to Hillary Clinton and her family as she struggles to recover from a concussion. Ms. Clinton has more to offer our country, and I hope she gets well soon.
And most sincere well wishes to George H. W. Bush. I consider President Bush to be one of the last, true statesmen. He was a moderate politician blunted by the moralistic neo-conservative movement that paved the near plutocracy we have today. I would have voted for him in 1980 had Reagan not been the Republican nominee. Unfortunately for Bush, he had to endure the scandals of the Reagan years, though I suspect his hands were a little dirty in Iran-Contra. He then had to remake himself as a neo-conservative to get elected in 1988. That he understood our economy needed a tax increase to make a turn around from the Reagan years shows his intelligence and devotion to country first. He well knew violating the no new taxes pledge would cost him a second term. Further evidence of his intellect was his decision to end Desert Storm before going into Baghdad. He knew when enough was enough, and he knew what was at stake – a protracted war that could not be won. Tragically, his son’s refusal to heed his father’s wisdom cost American lives and American economic stability. Moderate politicians in the George H. W. Bush mold, who understand restraint and compromise, would be very welcome today – on both sides of the aisle.
Should read … paved the way for the near plutocracy … in my post about Clinton and Bush.
“…so there is some speculation out there. “
Only in the minds of morons.
Benghazi was a tragedy, not a scandal nor a”cover-up”…
Hey Art, thanks for remembering my Vet skills
Happy New Year, All!!
There is no “speculation” out there. And we lose 4 Americans daily due to violence right here at home. This Benghazi nonsense is partisan crap.
gee, looks like ol’ hillary continues to give us a reprieve from “being wrong” about her mishandling of the murderous event known by knowledgable folks as ….Benghazi…, which appears to be otherwise known by libs as “business as usual…where’s the next party, eh?”
i wonder what excuse she’ll come up with next? i doubt there’ll be anything wrong with her knees.
i know! it’ll be sumptin about “hearing” things. yep, she’s gonna admit to hearing those voices which clamour, “run hillary, run”! then, she’ll shriek, “OK!” “OH, YES!” “I ain’t KNOW WAYS TIRED!!” “No mere clots will shake my teeth from the fabric of world domination that is …MINE! ….MINE! …..MINE!”
hillary and ol’ vpjoe. two-bag-carpetbagger vs. the plagerizing bagman with very white teeth.
hehe! this will be fun to watch!
hey AC, I’m with you.
The first time ol’ hillary’s clots popped up was in 1998, …at the time of the ….Lewinsky-thingy. The next time one popped up was at the time she was gonna hafta ‘splain that …Benghazi-thingy. Seems to me that ol’ hill’s reaction to personal crises is to ….throw a clot. i wonder why she’s having trouble with this, ya know? All’s she’s gotta do is follow the script that the men in her life ….tell her to follow….
I know! she just needs to steer clear of names which end in “sky” or “zi”.
Thanks, Art. Happy New Year to you as well.
Oh, Texas! You so crazy!
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/31/16271081-texas-judge-oks-ban-on-planned-parenthood-funding?lite
They’ll be taxing and issuing permits for the actual act of sex before too long.
And we think defacing billboards is bad.
http://cl.exct.net/?ju=fe4c13787661027a7c12&ls=fdf815727463037e731d7274&m=fef511737c6c05&l=febb157773620c75&s=fe2f15777164017b751273&jb=ffcf14&t=
A safe and happy New Year to all!
Happy New Year all….cheers!
gee, warren buffet killed the manassas news and messenger. must have been a non-lib newspaper.
Whhheeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
The people who deface billboards, who act uncivilly, who riot, who incite violence, who commit violence, –they aren’t the Christians or the conservatives, or the Tea Party members; they are those on the LEFT.
“Accuse your opponent of what only you are doing, as you are doing it, to create confusion, cloud the issue, and inoculate voters against any evidence of your guilt. — Saul Alinsky
I notices a bunch of fast foods had ‘now hiring signs out. It’s not because business is booming; it’s because they’re letting full timers go in 2013 because of obamacare, and they’re hiring a bunch of part-timers to fill their spots.
This is ALL brought about by leftwingers. Slowly, systematically destroying the economy, screwing the workers they claim to represent. Now I suppose the CPUSA/MSM will blame the “heartless” corporations for doing what they have to do in response to leftwing policies.
notices=noticed
Speaking of Billboards, this was a 10,000 dollar winner on AFV a while back. First time that filming a sign was an AFV winner. Hilarious
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2012/12/over-the-cliff-on-the-monday-open-thread/#comments
oops wrong link.. Here is the AFV winner…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPC47JsQpDg
It was a money-losing paper, Frank.
Frank, your posts are just so doltish.
#31 We’ve embarrassed suzie so many times recently she has to keep recycling the same old discredited crap.
Re comment #32:
No fast food restaurant ever guarantees any hourly worker full-time employment.
I don’t know if they still do it, but as recently as about 5 years ago, the McDonald’s chain here in the Roanoke and New River Valleys, that operates as MKG Enterprises, offered a limited health insurance plan to its part-time employees.
#32 Prove it, suzie.
Looks like the dems will get their way and raise taxes as well increase spending. It must be a big day for them. Wonder if more GSA parties in Vegas or subsidizing failed solar compaines will be the priority? It was a good fight GOP. You haven’t done a great job explianing where you stand, but once this action fails, and the dems ask to raise the credit card limit again, it will be clear to most people soon.
“Looks like the dems will get their way”
Baloney, Obama caved again, let’s see if Biden can sell this sow’s ear to Congress.
Looks like Reid doesn’t have the votes.
Unlikely the House passes it.
Nope. It passed and if you call raising 41 dollars of new taxes for every dollar of spending cuts caving in, I would hate to see what they really wanted. I think the Dems are so caught up in winning these battles they really don’t understand big picture wise all they are doing is raising taxes and spending money we don’t have. Don’t take my word for it, take Erskine Bowles (the democrat on the Simpon-Bowles committee) words on Face the Nation when he said this below. Hopefully soon the American people will see this for what it is: irresponsible and wreak-less. My fear is we won’t.
BOWLES: Absolutely, Bob. And first of all I love Alan, god he’s an American treasure. But, look, even if you raise the top rates back to the Clinton rates, that only creates about $400 billion over 10 years, that’s $40 billion a year. We have a trillion dollar a year deficit. That alone won’t solve the problem. We have to cut spending. Health care in this country, we spend twice as much on health care as any other developed nation, and that’s whether it’s percent of GDP or it’s on a per-capita basis. We have to slow the growth of health care to the rate of growth of the economy. The president has put $350 billion worth of cuts on the table. That’s not enough. We’re going to have to do more. We may not like it, you know, we may wish we didn’t. We simply made promises we can’t keep. We’ve got to face up to it and we’ve got to have a bold decision in order to make sure we put our fiscal house in order.
Eddie, the House has yet to vote. They’ll either pass it, or well go over the cliff and Pelosi will bring legislation to the floor to cut taxes on people making less than $200K (or $250k if she’s feeling generous), and dare the Republicans to go on record against it. The House GOP has painted itself into a corner with their Norquist idiocy. It’s their own fault
Kristen, please explain how an insignificant tax increases addresses any real fiscal problems? Revenue will only grow significantly in a rapidly expanding economy and even if that ever happens again, we are spending far to much for that to matter significantly. Spending is THE problem. Obama and the Dems are just spitefully punishing success in grand Robin Hoodian style.
Eddie, you’re exactly right. We have a society that believes that as long as they get in their Prius, go to Starbucks for a latte, and hit the mall for a new pair of shoes, that there is no problem.
It’s either not-so-pleasant sacrifice NOW on our terms or ugly hardship later on someone else’s terms.
“Looks like the dems will get their way”
Baloney, Obama caved again, let’s see if Biden can sell this sow’s ear to Congress.
Comment by Art Hill — January 1, 2013 @ 1:19 am
Looks like Reid doesn’t have the votes.
Comment by Art Hill — January 1, 2013 @ 1:43 am
Art. I think you’re way off base here. There has to be some give and take to get anything done. I think Obama and Biden have negotiated a good beginning to getting this done and getting the economy on track. And it passes 89 to 8. The key now will be in two months when the rubber hits the road on decisions on spending cuts and the debt ceiling. Who caves then will determine the success of the strategy.
“Revenue will only grow significantly in a rapidly expanding economy and even if that ever happens again, we are spending far to much for that to matter significantly. Spending is THE problem. Obama and the Dems are just spitefully punishing success in grand Robin Hoodian style.”
–Comment by Another Chuck
-
AC, the first flaw in your argument is your statement “Spending is THE problem.” Spending is not the problem, and YOU know it. If revenues exceeding spending, spending would not be a problem AT ALL. The problem is there’s A GAP between revenues and spending.
If you lost your $100k/yr job tomorrow, AC, but you still had $40k/yr in obligations such as a mortgage, utilities, grocery costs, and transportation costs, spending would NOT be THE problem. It wasn’t a problem when you had a paycheck with more than enough revenue to pay those bills. The problem would principally be a REVENUE problem.
You are saying that if someone came along and offered you a $30k/yr job, it would be asinine to take that because it doesn’t nearly cover all your bills. That’s total BS. You would be better off taking it and then finding away to close the remaining gap by cutting your spending. In other words, you need to address BOTH. It’s not black-and-white, one-or-the-the-other, my-way-or-the-highway.
The Republicans are playing that game, while the Dems are trying to fix it.
Obama has compromised. He DOUBLED the income level at which tax increases will happen. He’s offered (altho the offer seems dead now because of GOP intransigence) to reduced SS spending via chained CPI. There are other cuts in the offing — AND, LET’S NOT FORGET, from a spending perspective he’s the biggest presidential tightwad since Eisenhower.
And now, if the House Republicans don’t go along, they’re soon going to have to later vote AGAINST a bill that extends the tax cuts on earners making under $200k/250k a year (98 percent of the populace) and for them, that’s a worse option than the one on the table now. If they vote against both it’s going to kill them politically in 2014 and they KNOW it, which is why they’re grumbling so loudly. Obama compromised and NOW he’s got them cornered.
Finally, a word about tax increases and the economy. It has been shown over and over and over again that there is NO correlation between tax cuts for the rich and economic growth, AND that growth is highest when the wealthy are taxed at levels HIGHER than they are now. Ben Stein, a conservative Republican, has explained this ad nauseum on Fox News, much to the horror of the other talking airheads on that network. It’s indisputable.
However, this DOESN’T mean that we should put a 100 percent tax on the rich, as sarcastic RWers are fond of facetiously suggesting. What it means is we have to find the RIGHT level at which to tax the rich, which will bring in more revenue, and help the economy grow, which will bring in EVEN more revenue, as the politicians in Washington ALSO figure out spending cuts to further close the GAP between revenues and spending which is THE problem.
You, however, would solve this ALL on the spending side, which would REDUCE economic growth and put this economy is a downward spiral, if not a depression, which would worsen the problem. If you want to kill your own business AC, (I know you’re not a veterinarian) THAT is the ticket.
The wrangling over the “fiscal cliff” bill resulted in a win for President Obama, the Democrats and middle class Americans. What was gained?
The Bush tax cuts are preserved for incomes up to $400,000 for individuals, $450,000 for couples.
The Senate bill spares tens of millions of taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax;
extends unemployment benefits;
extends the Earned Income Tax Credit for five-years;
provides for the continuation of the Child Tax Credit; and,
restores green energy tax credits.
For small businesses – the Research and Development (R&D) tax credit was extended through 2013 and made retroactive for 2012;
continues the American Opportunity Tax Credit; and,
provides for Accelerated Depreciation for businesses.
There were no cuts to safety net programs and no tinkering with Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.
If this “fiscal cliff” bill is passed by the republican House, this deal would achieve about $600 billion in new revenue.
Additionally because the republicans in the House tabled the Farm Bill and left it languishing – the Democrats, as usual, provided the relief farmers needed by including a 9 month extension to the Farm Bill. One result is milk prices will not double…
Of course it’s the gap between revenue and spending. The action the Senate just took will raise a project $40 billion in revenue. The problem is that our projected deficit is $1.33 trillion this year. So, our powers that be just solved .03% of our budget “gap.”. That only leaves us 99.97% of the gap to worry about. Additionally, I wonder how many jobs will be lost due to this increase plus Obamacare?
Therefore, I will let my original statement stand that these increases were a punitive and a class warfare maneuver by Obama and the Dems ….and no real issues (spending) have been addressed.
Hillary, that’s $600 billion over 10 years vs $13.3 trillion of deficit in 10 years assuming the deficit doesn’t go up. 0.045%! Yay! Hats off to our elected leaders.
AC, watch the video (Fox News) I linked to featuring Ben Stein. I think you’ll learn something. He’s a sentient conservative.
AC, tell us why you think Obama only wants to punish those among his supporters who’re super rich, and why they supported him if he does indeed want that?
It is quite apparent that some of you do not have any leaders. I think Obama has given more than he had to and raising revenue is part of the shared sacrifice this nation has voted for, voiced support for and repeatedly asked for. Sorry you cannot accept the voice of the nation unless it agrees with you.
Comment by Another Chuck — January 1, 2013 @ 2:00 pm
AC please point to any news story by reputable media which shows savings made by the republicans over the last 4 years or deficit reductions they have legislated.
Thanks…
Dan, I have seen that piece with Stein and I watched it again. I really don’t have a problem with his analysis. But, I also agree with Laura Ingram who pointed out that the increased revenue by taxing the rich more is only a “drop in the bucket.”. Stein also said that the taxes from the rich should go directly to debt reduction and I wouldn’t have a problem with that either. The fact that 50% of our citizens pay zero in federal taxes was front and center in their conversation.
The problem is that BOTH parties have dug a hole so deep, that band-aids and kicking the can further down the road are no longer possible. The top 5 spending categories must be reduced.
Sandi, fair share and shared sacrifice is fine as long as it solves a problem. How does a .03% increase in revenue solve any problems when 99.97% of the deficit remains? Let’s assume there are no jobs lost or hours cut due to this increase, please point out ANY significant benefit of these actions.
Warren Buffett suggests that taxing the rich more will “improve the morale of the middle class.”. I’m sorry, that’s just to vague of an answer for me.
AC, tell us why you think Obama only wants to punish those among his supporters who’re super rich, and why they supported him if he does indeed want that?
Comment by Warren — January 1, 2013 @ 2:13 pm
Super rich is not making $250k a year…and I know, it went to $400k. Warren, you tell me what this little class warfare exercise just accomplished? 99.97% of the problem remains.
Hillary, if I could have a day or too to rifle through Harry Reid’s desk where House legislation goes to die, I might be able to give you a better idea what “savings” have passed in the House!
AC,
The tax increases on the wealthy are a first step. EVERYONE knows that. They’re not the only step, as you are pretending they are. Not only will the higher tax rates bring in new revenue as taxes, there’s a good chance they will spur the economy as they did in the Clinton years and THAT will bring in more revenue, too. And yes, there will be spending cuts.
Here’s one that Democrats in their wisdom have advocated and that Republicans in their anti-wisdom have rejected: Allowing Medicare to negotiate prices on seniors’ prescription drugs JUST LIKE THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION AND EVERY PRIVATE HEALTH PLAN ALREADY DOES. It’ll save the federal government $156 billion over 10 years — and it is a SPENDING-side step, not a revenue-side step.
BUT, if we are to believe that you honestly believe what you’ve written here previously, you would REJECT this idea. Why? Because you would argue that it’s not enough — it’s $15.6 billion (per year) drop in the bucket of a much bigger problem. By your logic it’s EVEN LESS WORTH DOINGS than the tax increases, on the wealthy ($400 billion over 10 years) because it closes the gap less than that one does. (This is gonna happen; if you short Big Pharma now you can get ahead of that curve and make a score).
The fact is, there is not one single step that can solve this problem, AC. There simply isn’t, and you KNOW this. There are a series of steps that will solve it — and the intellectual dishonesty you’re displaying here only hurts the possibilities that they’ll ever happen.
All areas of spending and revenue must be examined. Obama went after the so called wealthy for the FIRST 0.03%. In terms of intellectual honesty, why did he do that, Dan? You KNOW the answer to this one…..he is a class warfare warrior and he wants their money first. Why not begin by tackling a real spending issue like Medicare or Defense?
Sorry AC, I was clumsy in my phrasing. What I want to hear from you is why you think, if Obama wnats to “punish” the super rich, he has the support of the very richest Americans, Gates and Buffett, and many others of the very rich (by any definition): Winfrey, Geffen, Allen, Speilberg, Rubin, etc.
wants
“The top 5 spending categories must be reduced.”
Why?
“All areas of spending and revenue must be examined. Obama went after the so called wealthy for the FIRST 0.03%. In terms of intellectual honesty, why did he do that, Dan? You KNOW the answer to this one…..he is a class warfare warrior and he wants their money first. Why not begin by tackling a real spending issue like Medicare or Defense?”
–Comment by Another Chuck
We’re making progress, folks! A little while ago here, Another Chuck was proclaiming the issue as purely A SPENDING PROBLEM. Now he’s admitting it’s a spending AND revenue problem.
AC, you ask, “why did Obama go after tax rates on the wealthy first?” I would ask you, why shouldn’t he? This is a (so far unfulfilled) campaign promise that dates back to the 2008 campaign. For 4 years, the GOP was desperate to make sure he could not deliver on this promise. They couldn’t stop the health-care reform, or Dodd-Frank (two other campaign promises he made and delivered on). This is one of the last big ones, and it’s significant in terms of his political legacy.
There’s another reason though, that actually has something to do with the spending cuts you so fervently wish for: fulfilling this promise is going to give the president political capital he can spend to get some tougher spending cuts down the road. It’ll be seen as a win for the middle and lower classes, who will kick up less of a fuss when spending cuts that impact them come down the road.
The true intellectual dishonesty here is you proclaiming that tax increases on the rich shouldn’t happen AT ALL because they don’t solve the entire problem. No one thing solves the entire problem, AC.
From Reuters;
“”My recommendation would be not to take a package put together by a bunch of sleep-deprived octogenarians on New Year’s Eve,” said Representative Steve LaTourette, a moderate Republican from Ohio who is a close ally of House Speaker John Boehner.”
Progress!
Warren, I believe the super-rich like the guys you mentioned are trying to leave a philanthropic mark on this world and that makes senses. Their wealth is a far cry from the folks making $250k (or400) in large metro areas especially. The problem with Obama is that he dumps the married fireman and school teacher living in San Fransico in the same category as Buffett.
Dan, I have never heard or seen Obama propose a significant spending cut….in his proposed budget or otherwise. What makes you think he is going to start now? Answer: He isn’t unless forced too. The upcoming debt ceiling issue is going to be the battle for the ages.
Hillary, by the way, sadly, you new grandbaby is $51,857.95 in debt to the US government. Debt clock attached.
http://usadebtclock.com/
Bottom line, from my perspective, is that getting our economic house in order will take a long time (probably a decade or more), and it will entail many initiatives to create the correct balance of spending cuts and revenue opportunities.
I just want to say that I am pleased with President Obama and Vice President Biden. They could have taken us over the cliff and later negotiated an adequate package of tax increases and spending cuts. A part of me wanted them to do so. Instead, they worked very hard to create an opportunity for compromise. They gave ground on the tax cut threshold for the rich to save key benefits for the middle class and the unemployed. Republicans find themselves solidly between a rock and a hard place and could save a little face if they compromise as well. Good of the President to extend that opportunity, however narrow.
President Obama told us he would work for all Americans. He has taken a small but significant step in that direction. I call this leadership.
“48.Eddie, you’re exactly right. We have a society that believes that as long as they get in their Prius, go to Starbucks for a latte, and hit the mall for a new pair of shoes, that there is no problem.”
Change “mall” to “Zappos” and you’ve hit it. Maybe you just need a latte, John.
AnotherChuck, we already know low taxes don’t do anything to “stimulate” the economy. We’ve tried that and it’s spent the last 10 years failing. Generating more revenue under no condition is a bad thing, and as for spending, the last thing we’re going to do is take a piece out of the people who’ve spent the last 5 years shouldering the worst of the troubles.
Some have already “sacrificed” plenty. Time for those who have grown rich on their backs to start kicking in. And again, I don’t buy into the GOP’s manufactured hysteria over the deficit, when that’s not our biggest problem at the moment. They sure haven’t considered it a problem up until Obama kicked their asses. Twice.
I guess anyone or any country that spends too much can blame it on revenue.
Living beyond one’s means could be due to the lack or revenue. Sometimes individuals and countries realize that they can and should only spend equal or less less of what is brought in.
There are two issues I have with tax increases, one is that the increase in revenue is never used to reduce debt, instead any additional revenue is used to grow spending.
Two, the government often ignores ways to grow the economy and increase the base, instead the focus is on the rates and increasing the burden of those currently paying taxes. Get the economy growing, get people back to work and revenue will follow.
@ Dan.
“The true intellectual dishonesty here is you proclaiming that tax increases on the rich shouldn’t happen AT ALL because they don’t solve the entire problem. No one thing solves the entire problem, AC.
“Comment by Dan Casey — January 1, 2013 @ 3:26 pm
The fact is Dan is that the tax increases you speak of equate to a very small, fraction of a single percent solution to the deficit and debt.
What about the true intellectual dishonesty that focuses solely on taxing the so-called rich to solve the problem? It sounds great for the rich to foot the bill, and it sure looks great with Obama continually repeating this as a solution on TV to the uniformed voter, but truth is we need real reform.
Who is going to push this and when will it happen? I fear not anytime soon.
You keep trying to make every step in this process the entire process Another Chuck. Why that serves your point I cannot fathom. No one thing will fix the issues we face, but all, taken as a process, will. Part of the reason you see a “Spending problem” is because there is also a “Revenue problem”. There are not enough cuts, which primarily hurt the rest of us, for there to be no sacrifice or effort to gain more revenue. Sure, we could have tried for enough revenue to fix the deficit, but that is not the approach anyone is supporting. Massive cuts will harm the struggling economy, they have to be incremental. Huge tax rate increases also harm the economy. This is mutual sacrifice and gain and it is the path that America supports. This was not an overnight collapse and it will not be a quick turnaround.
“. . .Their wealth is a far cry from the folks making $250k (or400) in large metro areas especially. The problem with Obama is that he dumps the married fireman and school teacher living in San Fransico in the same category as Buffett.”
–Comment by Another Chuck
Complete, unmitigated horse manure and RWer myth. There’s no rank-and-file firemen or schoolteachers in San Fransisco who are earning $400k/yr from their jobs, unless they they inherited A LOT of money and supplement their pay with a nice chunk of passive income.
Please someone check the salaries of a school teacher and NYFD in Manhattan. Combined it’s not $250k.
“I don’t buy into the GOP’s manufactured hysteria over the deficit”
They certainly had no problem when they were busy spending like drunken sailors in a Shanghai cathouse. Debt-trolls like AC blather on about burdening our children. Hey, too bad! We inherited a big ball of crazy and we figured it out. How about some jobs, Gopers? Someone should tell the big orange Yeti there are real people out here. How can we burden the kids if there’s no paycheck to feed them?
@ 74 Dan,
Rank and file fire-people or schoolteachers may not cake $400k per year individually in these areas, but as a family of two incomes many were falling between the $200 and $250k that Obama defined as rich.
Hillary, by the way, sadly, you new grandbaby is $51,857.95 in debt to the US government. Debt clock attached. http://usadebtclock.com/
Comment by Another Chuck — January 1, 2013 @ 4:08 pm
and AC what part of that dollar figure is from Bush’s two unfunded wars?
BM & others,
Just as you can’t balance the budget solely with tax increases, you can’t balance it with spending cuts. Increasing taxes too much too quickly would put the country back into a deep recession. The same will happen should our political leaders choose to make deep cuts in federal spending too soon in the process of attacking our budget problems. The article linked below talks specifically about what Paul Ryan proposed as a solution to the federal budget. It is long and somewhat wonky, but it clearly outlines what deep cuts to our federal budget would do. What most of us weren’t aware of is how much state spending is dependent upon federal appropriations. The other challenge many people have is that they believe we can suddenly turn off the spigot and solve the problem. It just isn’t so.
The truth is that we, that means all of us, are going to have to accept some major changes to how our government functions over the next few years. It means that people like me, who are eligible for Social Security and Medicare, are going to have to accept a different compact that what we expected. Because I have been particularly blessed in my lifetime, that is not going to be a major problem for me. However, there are a lot of people of my generation that aren’t in the same boat as I am. We have to protect them. ( I can hear the conservatives screaming now) My children and grandchildren will have to also plan for and prepare for different arrangements in Social Security and Medicare than I did. With Social Security there are several options that can relieve the current pressure. Among them is raising the amount of income subject to SSI tax and indexing it to CPI so that we don’t rely on Congress to solve the problem again sometime in the future.
We are also going to have to rethink our Defense Department. Our military industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned us about, has to be restructured to meet the kinds of security threats we face today rather than the kind we faced in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc. That also means that many companies that now employ 10s of thousands of people will be shut down or at least downsized. That is not going to be easy or painless.
Federal spending has to be refocused on activities that protect us and provide for the general welfare of the people. That is a big shift in thinking. Doing so however, in my view, would produce the most robust economy in the world.
Finally, we all have to understand that solving the financial challenges we now confront is going to take as long, if not longer, than it took us to get into this mess. It started in the early 1980s. It is likely that I will be pushing up daisies on my family farm in Indiana long before we have it totally under control, if we ever do.
We need different political leaders and a different political system than we have right now. Our political leaders from all parties have failed us. I’m not suggesting something other than democracy. I’m saying we have too many special interests controlling our political system. Money talks and you know what walks. We have to change that.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3816
“Rank and file fire-people or schoolteachers may not cake $400k per year individually in these areas, but as a family of two incomes many were falling between the $200 and $250k that Obama defined as rich.”
–Comment from BM
OMG more BS from the know-it-all-because-they-watch Fox-News crowd. Is this idiocy ever going to end?
BM, what are you smoking? After you put down your pipe, please define “many” in a nation of 320 million people. Are you talking about 1? Or 2? or 19? I know for a fact that you cannot name 19 married couples in which both are firefighters, both are teachers or there’s one of each, who have incomes that exceed $200k/yr. You simply cannot do it. You may believe it, but your silly beliefs are not backed up by ANY facts.
Granted a firefighter in a high cost-of-living urban area can make $100k, if he/she works 20 hours a week OT every week of the year. But there’s little to no OT for public schoolteachers, and absent a fat trust fund income from an inheritance, you would be hard pressed to find more than a few who exceed $90k, and those FEW live and teach in the highest cost-of-living school districts in the country. So they ain’t getting rich off those salaries; it’s more likely that they’re barely making their rent or mortgages.
And BY THE WAY, Obama’s original cutoff (the one he COMPROMISED ON, unlike the Republicans I mean) level was $250k for couples, NOT $200k. The latter was for single people. I challenge you to name ONE rank and file firefighter or schoolteacher in the nation, out of 320 million people, who exceeds that. You cannot do it. And for that reason you should pipe down (and I am being as polite as I can with that verbiage).
Happy New Year!
“…focuses solely on taxing the so-called rich to solve the problem? It sounds great for the rich to foot the bill, and it sure looks great with Obama continually repeating this as a solution”
comment by Big Momma
Who’s focusing solely on taxing the super rich, Big Momma?
Certainly not Obama, he’s never said that the solution was to solely tax the rich.
You said “solely”, so that’s what we take you to mean.
Name one serious voice who’s said that’s solely the solution to budget stabilization, Big Momma. Emphasis on “solely”.
The fact is Dan is that the tax increases you speak of equate to a very small, fraction of a single percent solution to the deficit and debt.
What about the true intellectual dishonesty that focuses solely on taxing the so-called rich to solve the problem? It sounds great for the rich to foot the bill, and it sure looks great with Obama continually repeating this as a solution on TV to the uniformed voter, but truth is we need real reform.
Who is going to push this and when will it happen? I fear not anytime soon.
Comment by Big Momma — January 1, 2013 @ 5:01 pm
BigMomma I challenge you to find one single speech or interview given by President Obam in which he says ONLY that increasing taxes on incomes above 250000 will solve the financial crisis. EVERY time he speaks, he talks of a balanced approach which includes other revenue increases, targeted spending cuts, entitlement reforms, reforming the medicare presription drug program, long term savings from the implementation of the ACA (not short erm), revamping our militqary strategy and making it more efficient thereby cutting military costs. He put on the table the rtevision of the social security cpi formula. The problem with you and others is that all you seem to heaqr is the tax increase on incomes over 250000. The knee jerk reaction to that makes you tone deaf to the other proposals he makes and to the fact that he constantly emphasizes the need to compromise and have a balanced approach. You need to open your ears and listen.
Ron May@ 6:38
Unfortunately Ron, your analsis makes too much common sense to be accepted by the ideologues who think it has to be all one way or all the other. And those are the people with the bucks who are driving our political engine right now. The single issue, extremist philosop[hy politicians make all the noise and get the backing from the Karl Roves/Koch Brothers/ Sherman Adelsons, George Soros, and Lawrence Friess’s of the world. They rely on the social/evangelical/ issues to dupe gullible voters into backing candidates who do not have the best interests of the vast mnajority of the people as a priority. Its’s all about power and getting reelected.You are absolutely right. It is going to take strong legislative./and /or constitutional action to limit the influence of big money in politics. Term limits would be a start.
Legislative redistricting reform would be another. And it is essential that we turn around the current majority on the Supreme Court that has gone overboard in protecting the power of corporate America.It’s not all Republicans. There are plenty of Demokcrats who are also feeding at the corporate trough. But of the two, the Republican policies and philosophy seems to be more dominated by the interests of only the mnney.
The Tea Party movement has one thing right. We do need revolutionary change. WShat thry have wrong is the kind of change that needs to be and that the movement they started has been taken over by extremists.
BigMomma, please address how the House has gone on record as rejecting any and all tax increases. On anyone. The only absolutists in the conversation are the House Teapublicans. Obama is, if anything, way too eager to make concessions.
Dan and others, have you ever heard of a trillionaire? They don’t exist. You can confiscate all the income from the super-rich and we couldn’t even operate for 6 months. We will never have the revenue to support the CURRENT deficit. We have a SPENDING problem at the federal level. So Ron and others, revenue is only capable of producing a marginal contribution to the “gap”,without major entitlement reform. Kristen, we have no idea what the NET revenue would have been without the Bush tax cuts…at least there was some more money in the private sector producing tax income. And, most importantly as us boomers get older, this will be the BEST year we will ever see unless serious steps are taken to control spending.
When I say control spending,I believe it will be necessary to means test MC and SS which is not fair to the “RICH” people that paid into it their entire lives, but it could be part of a real solution as opposed to what is going on now. Defense spending must be streamlined and cut. These are real ideas…Obama and the DC crowd are playing games trying to apease voter blocks and lobbyists.
Obama just used an executive order to raise the pay of Congress and high-level government workers, and you expect ANYONE to believe spending cuts are important to him?
Tip in 2013: Short the $ against the Aussie $ and the Kiwi.
“Dan and others, have you ever heard of a trillionaire? They don’t exist. You can confiscate all the income from the super-rich and we couldn’t even operate for 6 months. We will never have the revenue to support the CURRENT deficit. We have a SPENDING problem at the federal level. So Ron and others, revenue is only capable of producing a marginal contribution to the “gap”,without major entitlement reform. Kristen, we have no idea what the NET revenue would have been without the Bush tax cuts…at least there was some more money in the private sector producing tax income. And, most importantly as us boomers get older, this will be the BEST year we will ever see unless serious steps are taken to control spending.
When I say control spending,I believe it will be necessary to means test MC and SS which is not fair to the “RICH” people that paid into it their entire lives, but it could be part of a real solution as opposed to what is going on now. Defense spending must be streamlined and cut. These are real ideas…Obama and the DC crowd are playing games trying to apease voter blocks and lobbyists.
Obama just used an executive order to raise the pay of Congress and high-level government workers, and you expect ANYONE to believe spending cuts are important to him?”
–Comment by Another Chuck
This is just so WRONG on SO many levels that I don’t know where to begin.
1. Forget the phantom trillionaires. Nobody’s talking about them, and NOBODY’S claiming that increase taxes on millionaires or billionaires or even half-millionaires is gonna solve the gap between spending and revenues. But, we need both high revenues and less spending to solve the problem. Higher taxes on the rich is the beginning, not the end.
2. We should means test MC and SS AND we should lift the cap on SS payroll taxes so that those are not the burden of the poor and middle class like they are now.
3. Obama’s executive order, to the extent it matters, was canceled by the Senate’s action, WITH Obama’s AGREEMENT. If the house doesn’t go along with that, that’s on them. They are controlled by the GOP. We’ll see shortly.
Warren and Wayne – I guess technically you’re right, a 41:1 ratio of increased taxes to spending cuts is not solely reliant on taxes. By my math, it’s only 97.6 percent reliant on taxes. Now that’s what I call a balanced approach.
BTW – where are we as a society when we call a group of citizens whose sole purpose is to decrease the size of government and spending “extremists”? How is giving up power extreme?
Dan, basically you agreed with everything I said in terms of revenue and I added in defense cuts too. Ok, we got .03% covered. 99.97% to go. NEXT!
Why did Obama XO the pay raises if he planned not to implement them? Games people play.
AC,
Have you actually read the comments I made on this topic? While I have said that the budget cuts proposed by Paul Ryan are too draconian, I’ve not said we don’t need to cut spending. I have said that cutting spending is the only answer. I’ve also said that people like me are going to get less from Social Security & Medicare that we were promised. I can take such reductions in benefits, because of my personal financial situation. Most folks of my age can’t afford those kinds of cuts.
Additionally, if you impose, immediately, the spending cuts some are proposing you will collapse our economy for a generation. Additionally, because much federal spending props up state level spending, even in Virginia, in such a way that most states would either have to increase taxes or shut down major portions of what they do. That’s a part of this mess that most of us have missed.
Finally, neither you nor any other economist nor anyone else say what growth rate the economy might have produced had the Bush tax cuts not been put in place. That’s a paper tiger the right wing likes to talk about, but can provide no data for. We know what the tax cuts cost us between 2001 & 2011. They may have cost us even more. We just don’t know & neither do you.
We have a spending problem because since the 1980s we’ve been operating on the philosophy that reducing federal taxes would produce a deluge of federal revenues due to increased economic activity. That hasn’t proved true and Republicans & Democrats continued to spend money like they believed it would.
So we know have to pay the bill for that mistaken belief. That will require both a reduction in the rate of federal spending and raising taxes to produce more revenue. Not just one or just the other.
Eddie:
“BTW – where are we as a society when we call a group of citizens whose sole purpose is to decrease the size of government and spending “extremists”? How is giving up power extreme?”
Join the club, Eddie.
From Morgan Griffith’s newsletter:
“Griffith Statement on Fiscal Cliff
Tuesday January 1, 2013 – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) released the following statement on the Fiscal Cliff:
“Tonight I voted NO on the Senate amendments to the House bill, H.R. 8. As many people know, I review every legislative proposal independently and work to make the best decision I can on behalf of the people of the United States and the residents of Virginia’s Ninth District. After reviewing all major aspects of the bill, I felt I could not support the Senate amendments.
“Reasonable people can disagree whether or not to support this Senate compromise. In fairness to those that voted yes, there are some good things in the bill. However, increasing spending for programs and paying for a two month delay of sequestration in part with new “revenues” were items that I could not support. In reviewing bills, I look at the short-term as well as the long-term consequences because they will affect our children and grandchildren for years to come. Passing a bill that raises revenues with only minor cuts is not a balanced approach, and is an approach that adds to the debt our children and grandchildren will be responsible for paying back.”
Ron, yes I do read your posts. We just disagree philosophically. I believe that money left in the private sector does more for the common good than in the hands of the federal government. An individual who gets to keep more of THEIR own earned money will either spend, save or invest it. In my opinion, many individuals managing their own money for their own benefit is much better than sending more of it to a wasteful bureaucracy.
As far as the actions over the weekend, I have listened to Obama talk about a “balanced” approach to the budget and deficit process since his re-election. A 41 to 1 ratio of new taxes to spending cuts is not balanced. I know many on this blog are Obama supporters, but please be aware that many are not . The example described above is why many of us dont trust him or see any real leadership out of him His rhetoric of “balanced” approach does not correspond with his actions. Why didnt he begin this process in a balanced way? Obama won this battle and by doing so became more polarizing to the citizens and Congress.
AC,
Budget cuts are coming. This is a one-step-at-a-time process. The GOP can help it along if they want to act responsibly. Or they can play the same old obstructionist games they’ve been playing for years and suffer the political consequences. That’s the route Reps. Bob Goodlatte, Morgan Griffith and Robert Hurt took in the latest fiscal-cliff vote.
It takes Democrats to bring spending back into line. Republicans have NEVER done it and they NEVER will.
Eddie and John Wilburn, I think you leave a whole lot out of your simplistic change. People who believe we can “decrease the size of government” at this time are called “extreme” because it is not YOUR power you are giving up, it is someone else’s power you want to take away. It is extreme when done TO you but not extreme when done BY you? How does that work exactly?
In a nation of over 300 million it takes a bureaucracy, whether you like it or not. That YOU believe this or that in the government should be “eliminated” is your opinion, that does not make it fact.
AC
You ignore the fact that in 2011 in negotiating with Boehner Obama ofrfred
a grand deal which had 2 trillion in cuts for i trillion in increased revenue . You also ignore the fact that in recent negotiations, Obama offered another 800 billion in spending cuts for 1.2 trillion in new revenue and was willing to further negotiate. In bioth cases Boehner and ther House Republicans walked away from the deal. So it is not accurate in any fashion to claim that thee President is unwilling to make any cuts or that he doesn’t understand that the crisis can only be solved by increased revenue. Once again you serem to have a selective memory. This deasl is not designed to be the definitive solution. It is a stop gap measure to prevent immedaite harmful changes that have the potential for slamming us back into a recession. Of course there is more work to do. But until the Republicans get real and recognize that they can’t immediately, in one year, cut 1.5 trillion from the federal budget without calamitous consequence for our citizens and our economy and come to the table to give and take on those issues, nothing will get done.
The cannot and peopole will not suppiort eliminating the department of education, eliminating the epa, slashing medicaid in half, making people wait until age 70 to get social security, or turning medicare into a voucher system. There are ways forward. But the kind of slash and burn that many Republicans seem to want is not realistic and will not happen.
I watched Shark Tank one night when a really smart guy “negotiated” his way down from a $1 million offer to $200K…and had to take it. He reminds me of the House Republicans.
Obama should have stuck to his $200K number.
Just as you can’t balance the budget solely with tax increases, you can’t balance it with spending cuts.
Of course you can. You’re acting as if the two numbers are equal. We spend several times more than is taxed.
___________
(Our country would be put back into a deep recession) should our political leaders choose to make deep cuts in federal spending too soon in the process of attacking our budget problems
That’ baseless nonsense. Shoot, I’d settle for stopping the spending increases. How about back to 2008 levels? This issue isn’t cutting. The issue is or our so-called president to stop spending like a crazy man.