Woo-Hoo we're on a roll now. Yee-Ha! Edit - Dow sinks

[Chattanooga Mark]

All the rating agencies told the Federal government they needed $4 Trillion in cuts to keep the AAA rating. There are actually NO meaningful spending cuts on the debt increase legislation just passed. The overall budget goes up over $7 Trillion in 10 years. The $2.1 in 'cuts' over 10 years is mostly end loaded and no future Congress has to abide by them. The $2.1 Trillion was taken from the proposed $10 Trillion increase over 10 years. But the increase in the debt ceiling was immediate.

Blaming the 'far right' is simply blind hateful partisanship and ridiculous. Every politician that voted for that mess are a true threat to this country and should be voted out or recalled asap. Anyone, Dem, Rep, Ind. calling for a balanced budget should be supported.

No home, city, county, state or nation can spend their way to prosperity.

Mark
 

[RoadKill]

Because you answered my questions with another question...I will answer yours with a statement.

S&P knows that the spending cuts agreed to were not enough to pull this off and the ones stalling the 'rape and pillage taxpayers program' do not have enough power to demand more cuts and they should have held out for more. That would have made S&P job easier when we defaulted. They have no faith in our corrupt system either !

[Bob E.]

All the rating agencies told the Federal government they needed $4 Trillion in cuts to keep the AAA rating. There are actually NO meaningful spending cuts on the debt increase legislation just passed. The overall budget goes up over $7 Trillion in 10 years. The $2.1 in 'cuts' over 10 years is mostly end loaded and no future Congress has to abide by them. The $2.1 Trillion was taken from the proposed $10 Trillion increase over 10 years. But the increase in the debt ceiling was immediate.

Blaming the 'far right' is simply blind hateful partisanship and ridiculous. Every politician that voted for that mess are a true threat to this country and should be voted out or recalled asap. Anyone, Dem, Rep, Ind. calling for a balanced budget should be supported.

No home, city, county, state or nation can spend their way to prosperity.

Mark
 

You mention the balanced budget amendment...I go back and forth on this idea.  In theory, it would be great.  No debt.  But in times of crises like war, natural disasters, and yes even economic recessions, a BBA would really tie the hands of the government to do anything.  And I hate it when the conservatives say that normal people have to balance their budgets, live within their means, etc.  But reality states that nearly everyone who owns a home has a mortgage (debt), dearly everyone who buys a car gets a loan (debt), most people who go to college get student loans (debt).  Reality is that most people have or had some debt, but that doesn't mean they aren't living within their means and paying their bills.  So I think that's a poor analogy.

But lets say the BBA did get passed.  What would be the cap on spending?  What would it be based on?  Even the BBA supported and passed by the Tea Party in the house set spending at something just over 20% of GDP.  The Ryan budget was around 18%.  The government is currently only bringing in revenues at a rate of about 15%-16% of GDP which is a 60 year low, by the way even with the reduced GDP due to the recession.  So either the republicans are going to have to support raising taxes to make up the difference, or they really aren't all that concerned about balancing the budget after all.

[Bob E.]

The AAA credit rating for the US was just downgraded to AA+. NOT because we don't tax enough. Because we SPEND too much. If you actually confiscated 100% of the richest Americans total wealth, you would only have enough spending money to run the country for 18 days.

The biggest problem I had with the Bush tax cuts is they removed 10 Million taxpayers from the roles. Anyone who thinks "the rich need to pay their fair share" are simply stupid or worse, they're out right liars. Just like in your household, it's not how much money you earn, it's how much money it takes you to live that matters.
 The TEA Party wants the government to only spend what they take in. And people call them the problem. I guess the education system in this country is even worse than I thought.

Mark

Actually, if you read the statement from S&P, the downgrading has little to do with the economics and a whole lot to do with the political brinksmanship carried on by the far-right, and the promises of future brinksmanship by republican leaders like McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor.  Furthermore, the statement goes on to state the fact that increasing revenues which would help reduce the deficit is less likely due to the republican intransigence against tax increases, and that the rating could be restored if the tax cuts for high-earners are allowed to lapse in 2013 as scheduled.

So basically S&P dont care where the money comes from as long as it comes . We should be more concerned with where it is going than who the Gov't can extort cash from next !

Actually, no.  What they are explicitly saying is that the risk of default has gone up because some in congress are willing to use it as a bargaining chip for ideaological and political gain when this has never been the case in all of the times the debt ceiling has been raised since first enacted in 1917 (I think that was the year).  Also, they are acknowledging that we do have a debt problem that we need to address.  However the outlook for growth in our economy, and therefore reduced deficits, has been hampered by the significant spending cuts enacted this year between the budget and now the debt deal, rather than increasing revenues.  They are recognizing the fact that cutting spending in a down economy results in fewer jobs, slower growth, and increases the risk of falling back into a recession, all of which reduces revenues and consequently increases deficits and debt in a viscious cycle that feeds on itself.

I'm calling your post Bull Sh*t until you provide the sources for your interpretation. From what I have read, the S&P mentions nothing regarding ideology, bargaining chips, political gain, brinksmanship, far-right etc. It cites the government's inability to make meaningful cuts to the debt.

Below are two quotes from the S&P statement and corresponding links:  Lets see yours.

“More than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, U.S. policymakers have still not agreed on how to reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures,”

"The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-sps-downgrade-of-us-ratings-outlook-2011-04-18

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/05/national/main20088944.shtml

I posted actual excerpts above in my response to roadkill.  I'm not sure you noticed, but your marketwatch link is to an article from April...not today.  Try this one:

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/sp-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-press-release/

[Chattanooga Mark]

Raising taxes takes more money out of the economy and actually shrinks it. Same with adding more and more regulations and fees. Why not add more tax payers. The 10 million George W let off the Federal tax roles should be brought back on immediately, along with the rest of the 48% who don't actually pay Federal taxes. 18% to 20% above GDP is perfectly acceptable. Currently our debt is nearly 100%.  More than 20% should require both houses vote to approve it with a plan to pay for it.

Blaming one party or group is simply wrong headed, blind, hate filled partisanship. Every Congress in your lifetime is actually to blame. Democrat, Republican, and Independent. Support those who understand simply arithmetic and economics 101, regardless of the letter after their name.

Anyway, did you here how great Des from Ultimate treated me at Inzane and how much I love my new King Big Boy Interstate seat?


Mark

[Bob E.]

Raising taxes takes more money out of the economy and actually shrinks it. Same with adding more and more regulations and fees. Why not add more tax payers. The 10 million George W let off the Federal tax roles should be brought back on immediately, along with the rest of the 48% who don't actually pay Federal taxes. 18% to 20% above GDP is perfectly acceptable. Currently our debt is nearly 100%.  More than 20% should require both houses vote to approve it with a plan to pay for it.

Blaming one party or group is simply wrong headed, blind, hate filled partisanship. Every Congress in your lifetime is actually to blame. Democrat, Republican, and Independent. Support those who understand simply arithmetic and economics 101, regardless of the letter after their name.

Anyway, did you here how great Des from Ultimate treated me at Inzane and how much I love my new King Big Boy Interstate seat?


Mark

See, we actually do agree.  I like my Ultimate Seat as well.

I also agree that increasing taxes does take money out of the economy (just like cutting spending and not extending unemployment benefits, by the way).  Your statement sounds like keynesian economics...lol!  This is why it is important to craft/target the tax increases in such a way as to minimimize this effect.  I recently read an article that showed the top 400 richest earners paid an effective tax rate of about 18%.  The wealthiest earner (John Paulson...a major wall street dude) made something like $4.7Billion (with a B) and paid an effective rate of just over 15% because his earnings are from dividends and filed as capital gains rather than income.  Low income people generally pay about 16% while the middle class earners pay around 25%.  

As for the 48% who pay no taxes...I just keep coming back to the question of who makes up this 48%?  Students who are in school?  Seniors living off of SS and/or IRA's with little to no taxable income?  The disabled?  Corporations like GE and Exxon-Mobile who paid no corp taxes but rather claimed a tax benefit?  I even read an article from Politico just today that over 1400 tax filers with over $1million in earnings paid ZERO income tax.  And what about those guys like Mr. Paulson above who actually pay capital gains tax rather than income tax...are they included?  I guess that 48% that the republicans like to say pay no taxes aren't all just poor people.  And by the way, even poor people working crappy jobs for min wage that is too low to pay federal income tax do in fact pay Payroll taxes for SS and Medicare, plus sales taxes, property taxes, state and local income taxes, etc.  So to say they pay no taxes and do not contribute to society is disingenuous.

As for government spending, I believe the current level of spending is about 25%-27% of GDP, not to be confused with total debt which you correctly quoted at close to 100% of GDP.  The biggest problem is that due to the recession and high unemployment, GDP has shrunk which results in a higher spending ratio.   Also, the high unemployment and increasing numbers of folks falling below poverty level results in increased spending on unemployment insurance and welfare payments.  And lets not forget the fact that we are in 3 wars which are costing us alot.  If we ended the wars and our economy was solidly growing and unemployment was closer to 5%, our spending ratio would decrease without the need to either increase taxes or cut spending.  This is why we had surplusses in the Clinton years...high growth and nearly full employment and more historically reasonable revenue levels close to 20% GDP.

[Bob E.]

Because you answered my questions with another question...I will answer yours with a statement.

S&P knows that the spending cuts agreed to were not enough to pull this off and the ones stalling the 'rape and pillage taxpayers program' do not have enough power to demand more cuts and they should have held out for more. That would have made S&P job easier when we defaulted. They have no faith in our corrupt system either !

I don't know about the "rape and pillage taxpayers program" you mentioned...I hadn't heard of that one.  But I do know that S&P was looking for 4Trillion in deficit cuts over 10 years...not specifically spending cuts.  So they were looking for some combination of revenues and spending cuts that would total $4T in deficit reduction.  Now, as I posted in my response to Mark above, we are in a period of 60-year lows in revenues as a portion of GDP.  Additionally, non-defense discretionary spending (like roads and bridges, education, food inspection, etc.) is also at 50-60 year lows as a portion of GDP.  Other spending like military spending is out of control due to 3 ongoing wars...the pentagon budget has tripled since about 1997.  Additionally, we have the baby-boomers coming of age, so SS and medicare spending is increasing rapidly.  And with the recession, GDP is lower, which has the effect of increasing those ratios.  So, the idea that we shouldn't raise revenues at all when we have 3 wars and rising social safety net costs is ignorant.  Also, lets not forget that nobody at the negotiating table was talking about increasing tax rates in the whole debt deal debate.  The revenues to be raised were from closing loopholes.  And to think that they could squeeze $1.2T (or even $800B according to Boehner) just from loopholes should tell us all something about the state of our tax code.

[Trynt]

The AAA credit rating for the US was just downgraded to AA+. NOT because we don't tax enough. Because we SPEND too much. If you actually confiscated 100% of the richest Americans total wealth, you would only have enough spending money to run the country for 18 days.

The biggest problem I had with the Bush tax cuts is they removed 10 Million taxpayers from the roles. Anyone who thinks "the rich need to pay their fair share" are simply stupid or worse, they're out right liars. Just like in your household, it's not how much money you earn, it's how much money it takes you to live that matters.
 The TEA Party wants the government to only spend what they take in. And people call them the problem. I guess the education system in this country is even worse than I thought.

Mark

Actually, if you read the statement from S&P, the downgrading has little to do with the economics and a whole lot to do with the political brinksmanship carried on by the far-right, and the promises of future brinksmanship by republican leaders like McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor.  Furthermore, the statement goes on to state the fact that increasing revenues which would help reduce the deficit is less likely due to the republican intransigence against tax increases, and that the rating could be restored if the tax cuts for high-earners are allowed to lapse in 2013 as scheduled.

So basically S&P dont care where the money comes from as long as it comes . We should be more concerned with where it is going than who the Gov't can extort cash from next !

Actually, no.  What they are explicitly saying is that the risk of default has gone up because some in congress are willing to use it as a bargaining chip for ideaological and political gain when this has never been the case in all of the times the debt ceiling has been raised since first enacted in 1917 (I think that was the year).  Also, they are acknowledging that we do have a debt problem that we need to address.  However the outlook for growth in our economy, and therefore reduced deficits, has been hampered by the significant spending cuts enacted this year between the budget and now the debt deal, rather than increasing revenues.  They are recognizing the fact that cutting spending in a down economy results in fewer jobs, slower growth, and increases the risk of falling back into a recession, all of which reduces revenues and consequently increases deficits and debt in a viscious cycle that feeds on itself.

Is that what you do ?  Do you increase revenue every time you spend a bunch of money ?  I knew a pimp that did that until he had too many prostitutes to keep track of 'em all. How do you do it?  

I posed no opinions of my own.  And since I know I won't convince you that you are wrong, I am choosing not to try at this time.  I merely cited the S&P's report that explained their decision.  Here are a few excerpts of what I read:

[...]The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

[...]It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.
 
[...]The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.
 
[...]Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

You tell me where I am off base here.

You conveniently omitted excerpts that contradict your left wing SPIN:

"We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."

Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures."

" In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

The "brinksmanship" was ancillary to the debt.  Had our debt not been at such an insane level no amount of brinksmanship would have lead to a downgrade.  This whole saga illustrates the left's stubborn refusal to get serious about cutting spending. The Democratic controlled senate rejected two House proposals that would have made deeper cuts and yet you blame the the right. That's rich!

[Chattanooga Mark]

Why is it so difficult to understand that if you're spending 42% more money than you're making, you need to stop spending? You and I can't just go to our employers and demand they give us more money because we're spending 42% more than our income. Our employer would rightfully think we're nuts.

The fiasco bill they just passed really only said we'll limit ourselves to only spending 48% more than we make instead of the 50% we wanted to spend. That's no cut, it's increased spending. Any rating agency that doesn't downgrade the US isn't to be taken seriously.

Mark 

[Bob E.]

You conveniently omitted excerpts that contradict your left wing SPIN:

"We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."

Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures."

" In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

The "brinksmanship" was ancillary to the debt.  Had our debt not been at such an insane level no amount of brinksmanship would have lead to a downgrade.  This whole saga illustrates the left's stubborn refusal to get serious about cutting spending. The Democratic controlled senate rejected two House proposals that would have made deeper cuts and yet you blame the the right. That's rich!

It's fair enough to say that I selected excerpts that support a point that I was trying to make (who wouldn't), but I didn't spin it.  At first I summarized what S&P said, then quoted them directly when challenged.  Like I said...fair enough, but your selections do not exactly contradict the point I was trying to make which was that the S&P report is more of an indictment of our political system and the behavior of the parties in the negotiations than it is a judgement of our economic situation.  Our economic situation is bad and they have no confidence that our leaders can reach any agreement to improve the situation because dems refuse to cut entitlements unless reps agree to taxes on the wealthy.  And the reps refuse to raise revenues of any sort and have promised tothreaten default by holding the debt ceiling hostage in future negotiations over future budget and debt ceiling deals.

I think what has happened is that now that the deal is signed and people are starting to read it, they are realizing what a bad bill it is.  The best way to reduce deficits is to put people to work and grow the economy.  This deal does neither of those and actually hurts the economy and kills jobs.  So the outlook for our economy had worsened, which was also reflected in the stock markets this week.  And S&P was not demanding $4T in cuts.  They were looking for $4T in deficit reduction which could have been either revenues or spending cuts.  Lets not forget who kept walking out of the negotiations.  Gang of 6 was working on it until Coburn walked out over discussions of revenues.  Then I think it was Kyl who followed.  In the Biden negotiations, they had over $2T of cuts roughed out and when the discussion turned to revenues, Cantor walked out.  Obama and Boehner had a deal for reportedly between $4.2 and $4.7 Trillion, but Boehner walked away from it.  And saying the bill that passed the house should have been acceptable to the dems in the senate and the whitehouse is ludicrous.  When Boehner's first bill didn't even pass his own house, he had a decision to make.  He could tweak it towards the center and try to win over some dems and making it truly bipartisan (making it more likely to pass the senate) or he could tweak it hard right to win over the tea party (making it less likely to pass the senate).  He chose the latter and it failed as he knew it would.

[Bob E.]

Why is it so difficult to understand that if you're spending 42% more money than you're making, you need to stop spending? You and I can't just go to our employers and demand they give us more money because we're spending 42% more than our income. Our employer would rightfully think we're nuts.

The fiasco bill they just passed really only said we'll limit ourselves to only spending 48% more than we make instead of the 50% we wanted to spend. That's no cut, it's increased spending. Any rating agency that doesn't downgrade the US isn't to be taken seriously.

Mark 

Well, the government isn't a business and there are ways to increase your income.  If my boss were paying me less than the going rate for my profession resulting in hardship for me, I'd certainly be asking for a raise or looking for another employer who would pay better. 

But using your analogy, lets make a hypothetical situation where you are living in such a manner that you are spending more money than you take in.  Republicans like to illustrate that situation as a poor person who is buying huge homes with plasma TV's, eating in fancy restaurants, wearing designer clothes, and taking lavish vacations.  Sure that person is living beyond his means and there are definitely items to cut there. 

But what if that person was working a low wage job making barely enough to pay rent on a roach-infested apartment, with little left over to buy food and used clothes at Goodwill, let alone insurance for the shitty car that barely runs and is racking up bills getting fixed just to get back and forth to work, or meds for their child that has asthma or ear infections.  Where is that person to cut??

Or what if that person was previously solid middle class making $75K/year.  He has a mortgage on a reasonable home around the median value of say $150K.  He also has a car payment and has been socking away money in his 401K.  He is living the American dream and being totally responsible while doing it...until he gets laid off because of the recession. Now, he's already cut eating out and pulled his kids out of sports and dancing classes.  He's cancelled his cable bill and internet service.  He kept his smart phone, but cancelled his landline home phone.  Also, he has no health insurance for his family since losing his job.  What can he cut?  He's tied into his morgage and because of the housing bubble, his home is now underwater so he can't sell it.  Because of this, he's tied down in a community that is depressed and cannot move to a community with better jobs.  His car is fairly new, so it like every other car with a loan, is underwater.  So he can't sell it without losing even more money.  What is he supposed to do?  Where can he cut.  In today's economy, this situation is more common than ever.

[Trynt]

[/quote]
  Like I said...fair enough, but your selections do not exactly contradict the point I was trying to make   
[/quote]

They contradict this:


"Actually, if you read the statement from S&P, the downgrading has little to do with the economics "

[x]

My, my, my, Once again I must ask our great resident board liberal know it all the $64,000 question.... Did you or do you plan to pay a little more of your income than you are required to your beloved Federal Gov't?? You know, have your accountant figure your tax rate at one of the prefered higher rates? It seems the horrible "Bush Tax Cut" rates are so distasteful to you & Lord knows the Feds need all the extra money you can give!  You CAN pay more you know.

Hypocrites, all you liberals.  Hard to take anything you say seriously if you don't put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is.

Bet I STILL don't get an answer. 

I'll pay my share of the going tax rate.  I'd bet money I pay more taxes than you.  If taxes are raised, I'll pay the increased amount.  Your questions are nonsensical.  You keep asking me if I will personally contribute, voluntarily.  I keep telling you, I favor across the board increases to solve this country's debt problems.  That includes taxes I must pay.  What are you missing here?

I ask you... what will you do to keep this country on an even footing, other than grouse about the taxes you pay?  Apparently nothing.  Like a lot of patriots, you actually put your personal pocketbook ahead of the needs of the nation.  Some patriot.

[x]

The AAA credit rating for the US was just downgraded to AA+. NOT because we don't tax enough. Because we SPEND too much.

Completely incorrect... because revenues don't match expenditures.  Two ways to fix.  Cut expenditures.  Raise revenues.  Extremists refuse to consider the second option.  Shows they don't actually give a crap about the deficit.

[Trynt]

 And saying the bill that passed the house should have been acceptable to the dems in the senate and the whitehouse is ludicrous.  When Boehner's first bill didn't even pass his own house, he had a decision to make.  He could tweak it towards the center and try to win over some dems and making it truly bipartisan (making it more likely to pass the senate) or he could tweak it hard right to win over the tea party (making it less likely to pass the senate).  He chose the latter and it failed as he knew it would.

It was only ludicrous because the Dem's are so enamored to excess spending. Painful cuts will be necessary if the nation is to avoid bankruptcy. That is a reality the left ignores.  Regardless of Boenher's struggles with the House, he did deliver two bills to the Senate, the first of which Harry Reid refused to even have the Senate vote on.

[Bob E.]

 Like I said...fair enough, but your selections do not exactly contradict the point I was trying to make   
[/quote]

They contradict this:


"Actually, if you read the statement from S&P, the downgrading has little to do with the economics "
[/quote]

I'll stand by my statement...When taking the S&P statement in whole, their decision was based on a lack of confidence that our leaders are capable of reaching any agreements to fix the problem.  I never said that there isn't a debt problem and never said that S&P stated as much.  Only that their decision is because they don't see us reaching a solution.  If it makes you feel better, I'd only amend it to revise the word "little" to the word "less".

[Trynt]

The AAA credit rating for the US was just downgraded to AA+. NOT because we don't tax enough. Because we SPEND too much.

Completely incorrect... because revenues don't match expenditures.  Two ways to fix.  Cut expenditures.  Raise revenues.  Extremists refuse to consider the second option.  Shows they don't actually give a crap about the deficit.

And the EXTREMISTS on the Left refused to consider cuts until driven to the brink and as it turned out those cuts fell far short of the 4 trillion needed to avoid the downgrade. S.E. sometimes I think you're channeling Chuck Schumer (or maybe he's channeling you)  You both spew the same talking points.

I'd be okay with tax increases if they were actually used to pay down the debt. But those pr#cks (both parties) would just continue to squander money as if there is no tomorrow. Money is power and neither side wants to give it up.  The only recourse is to shrink the government through austerity.

[ValhallaIamComing]

Its time that EVERYONE began preparing for the future of the US... start by re-watching the Mad Max trilogy...

[Bob E.]

 And saying the bill that passed the house should have been acceptable to the dems in the senate and the whitehouse is ludicrous.  When Boehner's first bill didn't even pass his own house, he had a decision to make.  He could tweak it towards the center and try to win over some dems and making it truly bipartisan (making it more likely to pass the senate) or he could tweak it hard right to win over the tea party (making it less likely to pass the senate).  He chose the latter and it failed as he knew it would.

It was only ludicrous because the Dem's are so enamored to excess spending. Painful cuts will be necessary if the nation is to avoid bankruptcy. That is a reality the left ignores.  Regardless of Boenher's struggles with the House, he did deliver two bills to the Senate, the first of which Harry Reid refused to even have the Senate vote on.

And the reality that the right ignores is that our nation and the debt is owned by all of us...not just the "government".  The government is us.  They like to say that they don't want to pass this debt on to our kids and grandkids.  But they don't want to ask us step up and actually pay for what we've already spent and benefitted from.  Things like the military, national security, safe air, water and food, roads and bridges, trains and shipping ports, water and sewage treatment plants,  SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, education...the list is long.  In simplistic terms, we've already bought the house and now we all need to pay for it and the costs of maintenance.  In terms of our country, we've been neglecting the maintenance for a long time and it is showing in the state of our infrastructure.  Those bills are coming due.  And rather than stepping up and paying for them, the republicans are saying, "lets just cut out the electric bill". That's fine if you don't care about lights, heat, and running water.  The bottom line is that there are certain government expenses that are necessary for all of us to maintain a certain standard of living.  We need to decide what those items are and then we need to recognize what those items cost and we have to pay for them (taxes).  Are there areas of spending we can cut?  Certainly.  But some areas of spending are essential.  Cut those areas and we all sacrifice as a society.  Or we can all sacrifice individually by giving up one Starbucks coffee per week, or in terms of the mega-rich, that 4th vacation home in France and absorb a little higher tax bill to pay for them.

[RP#62]

I wouldn't mind paying existing taxes or even increased taxes if I thought the money would be spent wisely, its just that when I pay taxes now, I feel like I've given the money to Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumber and he's going to buy a pinwheel, a big hat and a copy of Rhode Island Slut.   

-RP

[Tropic traveler]

My, my, my, Once again I must ask our great resident board liberal know it all the $64,000 question.... Did you or do you plan to pay a little more of your income than you are required to your beloved Federal Gov't?? You know, have your accountant figure your tax rate at one of the prefered higher rates? It seems the horrible "Bush Tax Cut" rates are so distasteful to you & Lord knows the Feds need all the extra money you can give!  You CAN pay more you know.

Hypocrites, all you liberals.  Hard to take anything you say seriously if you don't put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is.

Bet I STILL don't get an answer. 

I'll pay my share of the going tax rate.  I'd bet money I pay more taxes than you.  If taxes are raised, I'll pay the increased amount.  Your questions are nonsensical.  You keep asking me if I will personally contribute, voluntarily.  I keep telling you, I favor across the board increases to solve this country's debt problems.  That includes taxes I must pay.  What are you missing here?

I ask you... what will you do to keep this country on an even footing, other than grouse about the taxes you pay?  Apparently nothing.  Like a lot of patriots, you actually put your personal pocketbook ahead of the needs of the nation.  Some patriot.

Well finally I got an answer... the exact one I thought I would.
I'll let the hypocrisy of your admission speak for itself in light of the liberal views you espouse on a regular basis. Limousine Liberals.  >: So you CAN afford to "contribute" more but chose not to? And I'm the nonsensical one? Your deeds are not in line with your views. That must be what I'm missing.
 
What you're missing, taxes are FORCED upon the citizens. Don't pay & see what happens regardless of the rate. I am in agreement with RP on the point of how tax dollars are spent. I cannot believe that anybody with an ounce of common sense doesn't see that. Our tax money AND the borrowed money the govt conjures up is squandered at a horrible pace. Libs automatically assume that anybody who "grouses" about taxes wishes to pay less or none purely out of selfishness. Not so. You don't cure a junky by increasing the drug dose. It's the waste that we are pissed about, please get that one right at least! More plays straight from the lib playbook.
Our {we conservatives} "problem" with taxes are not as you think.
I am also very sure you pay a lot more in taxes than I do & I'm very happy for you that you have a good income that makes that happen. 
What I intend to do "keep this country on an even footing" is vote & support any politician that shares my views on the solutions to our problems. It's all I CAN do. Unlike you who apparently has the means to "contribute" more tax money to help the debt problem but chooses not to, I will work on the overspending & waste end of it.
SE, you seem to be a very intelligent man which makes it even harder for me to understand how you come up with the ideas that you post here. We conservatives are roundly {& wrongly} condemned for being intolerant or unwilling to understand other views. Seems we don't have an exclusive on that attribute.     

[designer]

My, my, my, Once again I must ask our great resident board liberal know it all the $64,000 question.... Did you or do you plan to pay a little more of your income than you are required to your beloved Federal Gov't?? You know, have your accountant figure your tax rate at one of the prefered higher rates? It seems the horrible "Bush Tax Cut" rates are so distasteful to you & Lord knows the Feds need all the extra money you can give!  You CAN pay more you know.

Hypocrites, all you liberals.  Hard to take anything you say seriously if you don't put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is.

Bet I STILL don't get an answer. 

I'll pay my share of the going tax rate.  I'd bet money I pay more taxes than you.  If taxes are raised, I'll pay the increased amount.  Your questions are nonsensical.  You keep asking me if I will personally contribute, voluntarily.  I keep telling you, I favor across the board increases to solve this country's debt problems.  That includes taxes I must pay.  What are you missing here?

I ask you... what will you do to keep this country on an even footing, other than grouse about the taxes you pay?  Apparently nothing.  Like a lot of patriots, you actually put your personal pocketbook ahead of the needs of the nation.  Some patriot.

Well finally I got an answer... the exact one I thought I would.
I'll let the hypocrisy of your admission speak for itself in light of the liberal views you espouse on a regular basis. Limousine Liberals.  >: So you CAN afford to "contribute" more but chose not to? And I'm the nonsensical one? Your deeds are not in line with your views. That must be what I'm missing.
 
What you're missing, taxes are FORCED upon the citizens. Don't pay & see what happens regardless of the rate. I am in agreement with RP on the point of how tax dollars are spent. I cannot believe that anybody with an ounce of common sense doesn't see that. Our tax money AND the borrowed money the govt conjures up is squandered at a horrible pace. Libs automatically assume that anybody who "grouses" about taxes wishes to pay less or none purely out of selfishness. Not so. You don't cure a junky by increasing the drug dose. It's the waste that we are pissed about, please get that one right at least! More plays straight from the lib playbook.
Our {we conservatives} "problem" with taxes are not as you think.
I am also very sure you pay a lot more in taxes than I do & I'm very happy for you that you have a good income that makes that happen. 
What I intend to do "keep this country on an even footing" is vote & support any politician that shares my views on the solutions to our problems. It's all I CAN do. Unlike you who apparently has the means to "contribute" more tax money to help the debt problem but chooses not to, I will work on the overspending & waste end of it.
SE, you seem to be a very intelligent man which makes it even harder for me to understand how you come up with the ideas that you post here. We conservatives are roundly {& wrongly} condemned for being intolerant or unwilling to understand other views. Seems we don't have an exclusive on that attribute.     

+1 travel, and if SE lives in Singapore his going tax rate is very manageable: 0%

[BigAl]

This post is no good without more pictures.

[MP]

I will agree to increased taxes, IF the progressives agree to a Balanced Budget Amendment that will kick in in ten years.  With a 67 vote necessary to override it in an emergency.  Without a way to force a balanced budget, all that happens is that taxes go up, but the spending cuts seem to disappear.

MP

[musclehead]

The ignore feature is such a blessing on a thread like this. 

The market tanks and the regine/dems/libs blame the ones who were against raising our debt limit. If it went way up, those same nitwits would be taking all the credit that adding to our debt is such a good thing.

When you're in a hole, you need a ladder (balanced budget), not a shovel (more debt).

All the best,

Mark

Obama and the dems aren't using a shovel, this isn't a works program 

he's fired up that cat 3900 excavator, gonna dig to china!

Why didn't we discuss this when Bush and Reagan raised it multiple times?

I've said Bush spent way too much before, does 1.2 trillion in 6 years equal 1.6 in one? NO!

[musclehead]

Why is the DOW sinking anyway?

Even though the debt ceiling increase was finally realized, the right wing extremists already managed to destroy confidence in the US dollar and debt. People woke up and saw that extremist ideologues could put US debt into the same basket as Greek debt. My view is that the T Party extremists who would hold the US hostage ought to be treated as traitors.

you are sooo funny and now the triple A rating is because of the tea party too I suppose  who exactly is racking up that debt?

[musclehead]

Alright, I’ve got to ask, WHY IS IT ALWAYS THE REPUBLICANS FAULT?

For the same reason why it's always the Dems fault when you ask the other guy. 

your selective hearing must make for some good fights at home. ok I'm the other guy listen carefully; Bush spent too much money, but Obama makes look positively stingy.  can you hear me now??

[The Anvil]

Alright, I’ve got to ask, WHY IS IT ALWAYS THE REPUBLICANS FAULT?

For the same reason why it's always the Dems fault when you ask the other guy. 

your selective hearing must make for some good fights at home. ok I'm the other guy listen carefully; Bush spent too much money, but Obama makes look positively stingy.  can you hear me now??

That was a general statement aimed at partisan sniping in general. But you're still making excuses.

[Chattanooga Mark]

Bob,

     Where you and others get off track is by keep making it a Dem vs. Rep problem. Let me say this again, EVERY Congress (Dem and Rep) in your lifetime has been the problem.

     If EVERYONE with an income paid even a 10% federal tax rate, we'd be in much better shape. If companies like GE, who made Billions in profits and paid ZERO taxes due to loop holes, paid even 10% we'd be better shape too. I'm not against all federal programs, I'm against all redundant federal programs. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the world. Our government, City, State and Federal in most areas, are chasing businesses away and into foreign countries. GE, who again paid ZERO federal taxes last year is relocating jobs to China at an alarming rate. It certainly doesn't do the Obama administration any good to have Jeffrey Emelt as one of his advisers on jobs and business.

Mark

[The Anvil]

Bob,

     Where you and others get off track is by keep making it a Dem vs. Rep problem. Let me say this again, EVERY Congress (Dem and Rep) in your lifetime has been the problem.

     If EVERYONE with an income paid even a 10% federal tax rate, we'd be in much better shape. If companies like GE, who made Billions in profits and paid ZERO taxes due to loop holes, paid even 10% we'd be better shape too. I'm not against all federal programs, I'm against all redundant federal programs. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the world. Our government, City, State and Federal in most areas, are chasing businesses away and into foreign countries. GE, who again paid ZERO federal taxes last year is relocating jobs to China at an alarming rate. It certainly doesn't do the Obama administration any good to have Jeffrey Emelt as one of his advisers on jobs and business.

Mark

But Mark, even the ones who stay actually pay nothing close to the "rate" that so many people like to harp on. It's an average rate and a lot more than that goes into deciding what they actually pay. GE has plenty of offices here and still they paid NOTHING. Big oil has plenty of offices here and they claim a tax CREDIT, meanwhile both ship jobs overseas as if America were ground zero for the zombie apocalypse because regardless of what they actually pay they still want to make more for the shareholder rather than strengthen the country from within. The next time you hear a captain of industry crying poormouth about the tax rate the most important thing to remember is that he's LYING.

Meanwhile there's a sizable chunk of America that believes corporations are prevented from being benevolent benefactors because of government oppression and haranguing and that nothing but deregulation and even MORE tax concessions are the answer to prosperity for the American people because afterall, they care so much for us and will pass the benefits right on down the line in the form of jobs! 

All of this while you and I pay to run this country. The system is BROKEN.

[BigAl]

I think our Government needs an Enema.

Let loose of all the backed up Knotheads in Washington.

Before long you will see a lot of Congressmen and Congresswoman throwing up thier hands in disgust and quit.

Boy that would be a happy day.

One more thing could happen.

Obama could tender his resignation.

I would personally invite a lot of the Valk Club over to Hooters for free wings and Iced Tea.

[Bob E.]

Bob,

     Where you and others get off track is by keep making it a Dem vs. Rep problem. Let me say this again, EVERY Congress (Dem and Rep) in your lifetime has been the problem.

     If EVERYONE with an income paid even a 10% federal tax rate, we'd be in much better shape. If companies like GE, who made Billions in profits and paid ZERO taxes due to loop holes, paid even 10% we'd be better shape too. I'm not against all federal programs, I'm against all redundant federal programs. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the world. Our government, City, State and Federal in most areas, are chasing businesses away and into foreign countries. GE, who again paid ZERO federal taxes last year is relocating jobs to China at an alarming rate. It certainly doesn't do the Obama administration any good to have Jeffrey Emelt as one of his advisers on jobs and business.

Mark

You are right...dems and reps are both at fault.  As far as I can see, the main difference is that Dems like spending and are willing to raise taxes to pay for it, and the Reps like spending but don't want to raise the taxes needed to pay for it.  Another difference between them is the priorities and reconciling the differences in outcomes when following those priorities.  Economically, one group believes in triclke down and one believes in trickle up.  And its actually difficult to even just have 2 groups.  I mean, even within the democratic party, you have far left liberals like Bernie Sanders, and then you have guys who are actually right of center like Ben Nelson.  On the republican side, you have relative moderates like Dick Lugar or even John McCain and then you have the far-right tea party folks like Joe Walsh. 

For the flat tax, if you paid a flat tax, it would likely need to be much higher than 10%.  Even the "fairtax.org" folks call for something like 23%.  Also, a flat tax would be condidered highly regressive because it would be a much more difficult burden to low earners than for high earners.

Regarding the 2nd highest corporate tax rate, this is also a problem.  However, I read an article that said that with all of the loopholes and tax breaks, credits, and incentives, our "effective" corp tax rate (which is what they actually pay) is actually about the 3rd lowest.  I forget now, but I think it was something around 16%.  The problem is that this system really benefits large corporations that have lots of lobbyists pushing for tax breaks and tax lawyers to take full advantage of the system, while hurting smaller businesses who are carrying the tax burden and paying the full corp rate.  This is actually an area where I think the republicans are right when they say we need to "lower the rate and broaden the base".  The problem comes up when you start talking about actually killing the loopholes to broaden the base. It seems they never want to take that 2nd step.

[Tropic traveler]

Big picture thinking here, see if you can follow.
There has been a LOT of harping & sniping about corporate tax rates. Open up your minds here guys. Corporations pass along the cost of ANY & ALL tax $$ they are charged to the people {us taxpayers} through the prices of the products or services they provide. So who really pays the "corporate taxes"??
It really is that simple.
There are some gains to be made in using taxes {or the lack of} to entice U.S. based companies to stay here or to tax overseas produced wealth differently. That is what we pay the politicians to do, to figure out what works best. Obviously they are not yet up to the task. Corporations will ALWAYS {rightly so} act in their own self interests. Employees of & the shareholders of all corporations benefit from low or no tax rates on corporate profits. Why is this so hard for some people to understand??
Let go of your hatred & the get even & punish the evil corporations mindset. The corporations ARE US!  

[Tropic traveler]

Bob,

     Where you and others get off track is by keep making it a Dem vs. Rep problem. Let me say this again, EVERY Congress (Dem and Rep) in your lifetime has been the problem.

     Mark

Mark you hit that one on the head!
The Dem Vs. Rep scorekeeping thing is a staple of those who either have an agenda or don't have a clue. Either case we all lose by wasting time on keeping track of past failures.
We must look at the big picture & the future, not just keep score.
What we have now in Washington is failing. 

[Oss]

could it be that the Republican vs Democrat battle is one foisted upon us by the actual machinery
of government to keep our eye and ability to solve the problem of the deficit from being ABLE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

If both sides insist the other is evil, unpatriotic, communist, socialist, baptist, pacifist, egotist or whatever nothing can or will change

 not all in congress are complicit not all are the problem  but who really is unbought?

Perhaps what we need are more attention on cspan or fox or msnbc or maybe free cable stations that show where the money goes in each government program so we can more intelligently understand what is the waste what is the pork or bacon if you will and who actually has placed it in the program

Then we can trace the virus in the system to its source and begin the long process of recovery

Of course normal news sources want to follow the sexy stories first, but this story is one of the very lifeblood of the country

As it is now a 199999 page document is what congress passes and we have no way of knowing what the heck who put in that bill and for whom

Just a different way of looking at the problem

you may now return to your normal bickering

[Trynt]

And the reality that the right ignores is that our nation and the debt is owned by all of us...not just the "government".  The government is us.  They like to say that they don't want to pass this debt on to our kids and grandkids.  But they don't want to ask us step up and actually pay for what we've already spent and benefitted from.  Things like the military, national security, safe air, water and food, roads and bridges, trains and shipping ports, water and sewage treatment plants,  SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, education...the list is long.  In simplistic terms, we've already bought the house and now we all need to pay for it and the costs of maintenance.  In terms of our country, we've been neglecting the maintenance for a long time and it is showing in the state of our infrastructure.  Those bills are coming due.  And rather than stepping up and paying for them, the republicans are saying, "lets just cut out the electric bill". That's fine if you don't care about lights, heat, and running water.  The bottom line is that there are certain government expenses that are necessary for all of us to maintain a certain standard of living.  We need to decide what those items are and then we need to recognize what those items cost and we have to pay for them (taxes).  Are there areas of spending we can cut?  Certainly.  But some areas of spending are essential.  Cut those areas and we all sacrifice as a society.  Or we can all sacrifice individually by giving up one Starbucks coffee per week, or in terms of the mega-rich, that 4th vacation home in France and absorb a little higher tax bill to pay for them.

Obviously its our debt and no one suggests we refuse to pay our bills. But the first step in paying off that debt, is to quit adding to it (balanced budget). To use your house analogy it seems we have over bought and now need to downsize in order to avoid eventual foreclosure. Certainly the larger house was nice but we now realize the we can't afford the upkeep. It seems our rather dependent spouse (gov't) has over the years ran up a huge credit card bill and is very resentful of any attempt to restrict her spending habits. I'm beginning to think she only loves me for my money .

According to the "net" a Starrbucks coffee costs up to $6. That would come to $312 per year. According to the national debt clock (this afternoon) every man, woman and child's share of the debt is $46,856.85. Even if the debt were interest free, it would take 150.18 years for us to pay off our share of the debt. With a 1% interest rate ($868/year) every year we would fall deeper in debt for eternity.

So the Starbuck's coffee and corporate jet sound bite make catchy little class warfare comments for the Left to throw around, they are respectively false and irrelevant.

[RoadKill]

We CAN NOT count on revenue increases from the rich. Even if we raise the taxes on ALL corporations they will find ways out of paying and probably move completely out of the country (at least on paper) and that is just the ones that do not go bankrupt like the ones that are planted firmly in the U.S. (Bail out babies). 

So if we cant rely on increased income....WTF do we do ? 

                       STOP SPENDING, MORON !

[The Anvil]

We CAN NOT count on revenue increases from the rich. Even if we raise the taxes on ALL corporations they will find ways out of paying and probably move completely out of the country (at least on paper) and that is just the ones that do not go bankrupt like the ones that are planted firmly in the U.S. (Bail out babies). 

So if we cant rely on increased income....WTF do we do ? 

                       STOP SPENDING, MORON !

It's gonna be difficult so don't try? Gotcha. See, people opposed to spending cuts would say the same thing. And spending cuts are no guarantee either.

Actually the answer is to do both. One or the other is not going to completely solve the problem. It's time to make certain entities and individuals pay their fair share of the rent AND time to stop spending beyond our means.

[Chattanooga Mark]

Reducing Federal spending is nearly guaranteed to reduce debt. Asking for an increase in revenue is guaranteed to increase the spending. Only in Washington does a 'balanced approach" mean tax more so we can spend more.

Mark

[RoadKill]

We CAN NOT count on revenue increases from the rich. Even if we raise the taxes on ALL corporations they will find ways out of paying and probably move completely out of the country (at least on paper) and that is just the ones that do not go bankrupt like the ones that are planted firmly in the U.S. (Bail out babies). 

So if we cant rely on increased income....WTF do we do ? 

                       STOP SPENDING, MORON !

It's gonna be difficult so don't try? Gotcha. See, people opposed to spending cuts would say the same thing. And spending cuts are no guarantee either.

Actually the answer is to do both. One or the other is not going to completely solve the problem. It's time to make certain entities and individuals pay their fair share of the rent AND time to stop spending beyond our means.

I did not say "Try to stop spending" ....I said F-ING  QUIT IT !
No Maybe, No Spin... You aint got money you spend NOTHING !