Hello:

We're nearing a showdown. Neither side is blinking, because they THINK when the crap hits the fan, they can blame the OTHER guy, and solidify their POWER!

Who's right? Vote once, and your vote will NOT be anonymous.

excon

How about both sides fault, the political system is set up to blame the other party but keep control and get re-elected.

The other of course is that the US today is very divided, there is no controlling group or idea that is accepted to fix the problems.

I'm hoping the Repubs will realize that not raising the debt ceiling will come back to bite them. Not only the middle class and poor will suffer but also the big corporations (won't they?).

Hello Padre:

Yeah, I should have given you a both parties choice... Damn...

excon

Why have a debt ceiling at all ? The whole point of it was to limit Federal spending . Clearly if you just raise it as spending ever increases then it is not performing it's function.

This 'chicken with it's head cut off 'panic over the approaching deadline is good scare tactics. But it will not be a Mayan calendar event if it comes and goes . The government still brings in a fortune in revenue . Geithner would just have to reprioritize spending to make sure debt service is not neglected . There would then be no default and the rest of the revenue gets 'pay as you go '. This year revenues are expected to be $2.2 trillion,and the interest payments $300 billion.So long as the government has the money to pay off the debt interest then it is not in default.

Besides ,this deadline is complete a fabricated bogus date. 1985 the deadline came and went and then Congress raised the ceiling 3 months later... 1995 almost 5 months after the deadline .

To answer the question of the poll. It will be the Dems fault. They are holding fast on tax increases; and Sen Shumer has already admitted that the President has every intention of ignoring the deadline under the 14th Amendment's 'Validity of Public debt' clause. The Democrats are now contending the debt ceiling is unconstitutional under that clause .

the President has every intention of ignoring the deadline under the 14th Amendment's 'Validity of Public debt' clause.Hello tom:

Hmmm... That's not my understanding.. The Dems are using the clause to IGNORE congress, because the Constitution REQUIRES that we pay our debts. Following the Constitution, Obama will authorize the treasury to PAY our legal debts, thereby AVOIDING a default.

excon

There is nothing about the debt ceiling that prevents Treasury from paying existing debt . That's the easy part . Debt payments are only 6% of the budget.

But that isn't what is being floated . We don't need new debt to pay off our obligations . What we do need new debt for is to continue the running of the government at it's current spending levels.

Therefore the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment . It's very intent was to control government spending .If the debt ceiling is contantly raised (74 times in the last 50 years ) then why even have it ?

Hello again, tom:

So, you think NOT raising the debt limit will DO what congress ISN'T able to do?? If that's so, then I'd do it too..

But, I don't really think that's what it's about... I admit the economics are beyond me... But, they're not beyond the market.. If what you say is true, the markets will react favorably.. If not, they'll crash..

We'll see, won't we, because we're actually going to get there?

excon

So, you think NOT raising the debt limit will DO what congress ISN'T able to do?? Then if I were them, I'd do it too..

yup ,that's the only reason to have a debt ceiling . If I was an investor I'dve lost confidence long before now. The difference between us and the PIGS is that we have a currency to devalue ;and we haven't been shy about that .

Looks like the Senate Repubics are going to blink .
Republicans May Take ?Mini? Debt-Ceiling Deal - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-03/republicans-may-accept-mini-debt-ceiling-deal-cornyn-says.html)

Hello again, tom:

What LOOKS like a Republican cave in is really a trap for the Dems... I just think they should just pass it WITHOUT a peep or conditions, like they did for Bush 7 times . They're playing fast and loose with our economy, and WE, the people are going to LOSE. Those f***ing politicians don't care.

Yeah, it's the Republicans... I don't know why they think it'll do 'em good this time. They tried it before and it didn't work then.

excon

Looks like the Senate Repubics are going to blink .
Republicans May Take ?Mini? Debt-Ceiling Deal - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-03/republicans-may-accept-mini-debt-ceiling-deal-cornyn-says.html)
McCain: "the American people didn't want their taxes raised."

The thing is, no Dem is trying to raise taxes for 98% of the "American people."

To say I'm confused about this is an understatement. The Government has a budget, which authorises expenditure, how then does it require further approval to do what it has already resolved to do? This is like saying I'll give you conditional approval, you can do it provided you can borrow the money to do it, but you can't borrow the money unless I approve it. Ridiculous convoluted politics designed to prevent a government from doing what it was set up to do.

Rediculous convoluted politics designed to prevent a government from doing what it was set up to do.
It's like this: The federal government has bought, in good faith, a house and a car and a summer cottage. The mortgage payments and the car payment are due August 2. Will the government pay the mortgage payments and the car payment? Article 4 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says yes, it will; the Republicans say the government doesn't have to.

That's what I don't get, how does a third party get to say anything about the obligation?

that's what I don't get, how does a third party get to say anything about the obligation?
Oh, the Republicans probably want the US to pay its bills, but are arguing about HOW the US gets the money to pay the bills. They don't want any of it to come from the wealthiest 2% of the citizens. They want it to come from the middle class and the poor, especially the latter whom they consider a pox on the nation.

What is convoluted is that a Congress ,that is madated by the Constitution with the power of the purse, needs to pass a law that constrains it from doing it's job, because it doesn't think it is disciplined enough to wield that power responsibily .

But that is exactly what a debt ceiling is ;an artificial constraint Congress imposes on itself because it can't control it's impulse to spend recklessly ,and grow the government out of control. The more I think about it ;I agree it is most likely an unConstitutional provision it impose on itself and future Congresses.

Much better if the American people would impose controls on them by adopting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution .

Again I ask ;what is the purpose of a debt ceiling that can be changed any time spending approaches that ceiling ? What a charade!

Again I ask ;what is the purpose of a debt ceiling that can be changed any time spending approaches that ceiling ? What a charade !!! .
Trouble is that ceiling gets higher and higher. Prices have risen since 1787. I remember when you could buy a pack of cigarettes for quarter from the vending machine in the hospital waiting room.

Trouble is that ceiling gets higher and higher. Prices have risen since 1787. I remember when you could buy a pack of cigarettes for quarter from the vending machine in the hospital waiting room.

Was that in 1787? The idea of a ceiling is to give you cover but this ceiling covers nothing. What is also ridiculous is that a government can print more money without restraint, the Federal Reserve can decide on some quantitative easing anytime, so leave the ceiling where it is and pay the bills with lovely new bills

I made that point earlier. Spending is so out of control that they want to do both ;devalue the currency and raise the ceiling..

What the Dems are not saying is that what is waiting in the wings ;if the Senate Dems get their way ,is another round of Keynesian pump priming that will again make the ceiling irrelevant .

Trouble is that ceiling gets higher and higher. Prices have risen since 1787.
This is not about inflation adjusting .It's about the uncontrolled, ever expanding Federal Government . It's really sad that when someone talks about just controlling the rate of growth they are portrayed as wanting draconian cuts . There are whole depts of the Federal Government that needs to be shut down and dismantled .

I made that point earlier. Spending is so out of control that they want to do both ;devalue the currency and raise the ceiling ..

.

Tom I don't know if you have noticed but your currency has already devalued, these days the Aussie dollar is worth more than the US. What I've also noticed is that it is also negotiable in many parts of Asia. I wouldn't bother carrying US currency these days, not necessary even the back yard money dealers will buy aussie. Your days are numbered and you are busy agrueing about trifles as if it were important. We are waiting for the default and wondering whose going to lend you the money for the bailout. It could only be China and that has to come with a price

Hello again,

Well, it appears David Brooks, Republican columnist for the NY Times thinks the REPUBLICANS (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&hp) are going to get blamed.

He's right, of course... How come they don't know that?

excon

Brooks fell in love with Obama's 'crease in his pants' .He's still smitten .
The Courtship | The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-courtship)
Brooks is an inside the Beltway Republican who gives the Slimes the cover of saying they hire 'conservatives' .He is one of these 'conservatives' who think that the best selling point the Republicans have is to accept the progressive agenda and just be better managers of the big bloated Federal Government .

Here's a no brainer for Brooks... you don't raise taxes in a down economy.

If he's looking at it from a political angle;GHW Bush ran on a no new tax pledge. He then raised taxes because clowns like Brooks thought it was good politics to be seen as a compromiser . Bush got trashed in 1992 campaign because of that.

The current GOP House came in on no tax ,and control spending platform. If they fold on that they are history.

Don't worry Tom you haven't got the intestinal fortutide to raise taxes and make those rich kids pay

Don't worry Tom you haven't got the intestinal fortutide to raise taxes and make those rich kids pay well? There is only one way to raise tax and that means you have to make it look like everyone pays, very unpopular

well? there is only one way to raise tax and that means you have to make it look like everyone pays, very unpopularHello again, clete:

Nahhh... What's popular is raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires... Are you NOT following the conversation?

excon

Hello again, clete:

Nahhh... What's popular is raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires... Are you NOT following the conversation?

excon

Popular with who Ex? Popular with those who receive their campaign contributions from millionaires and billionaires? Popular with Presidents who may only serve one term? No Ex they are only popular with those who are the most likely to be taxed. It's a popularist idea that there are large numbers of such sheep to be shorn and the fleece is long. But truth is, this isn't really so, unless you are going to tackle them with a very different tax base. The income tax system is flawed and rorted. It is inefficient and ineffective because it fails to actually raise the required revenue
The US income tax system raises an average of $8000 per individual and $90,000 per corporation. Given the size of certain individual and corporate incomes this is not verry impressive

Given the size of certain individual and corporate incomes this is not verry impressiveHello again, clete:

We agree.

excon

The President talks of millionaires and billionaires and proposes increases of people who's income is in the $250,000 range. But it sounds good because he gets to demonize a small segment of the population with his demagogery .

No Clete ;tax reveunes are more than sufficient for rational government spending;even during this downturn. If we had the same budget we had before Obama's 1st budget there would be more than enough revenue to pay for the government .

From MoveOn.org:

A9WKimKIyUQ

Like Paul Krugman (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/11/krugman_bushs_deficit_bad_obamas_deficit_good_1002 58.html) and the rest of the far left believes, all that spending that got us here was bad when Bush was in office, but good now. Bullsh*t.

Hello again, Steve;

Here's what you righty's miss... It was spending COUPLED with a tax cut that caused the deficit, and spawned the video. After all, spending for what a nation NEEDS is just fine as long as you have the revenue to pay for it. All we have to do is go get it. Wall Street is doing very well, thank you very much.

All the far left wants is SHARED sacrifice... That means EVERYBODY gives a little... It's only fair. But, the concept of fairness is FOREIGN to Republicans... Here's your concept of fairness. What's mine is mine, and what's YOURS is mine. It just ain't going to work, Steve...

Let me AGAIN remind you of how a businessman thinks, and I'M a businessman... First and foremost, I DON'T run my business based on the tax code. I run my business based on supply and demand... I only hire new workers WHEN I can't meet the demand for my product... I DON'T hire new workers based on the tax code... There's not a businessman out there who does.

To say that increasing taxes on those who are doing VERY WELL will HURT the recovery, is just plain nonsense..

And, it's not about the money, really... You're right... Taxing the very wealthy to DEATH won't pay down the deficit... It's about the IDEA of shared sacrifice... I want the wealthy to SHARE in the pain of recovery... I don't HATE the wealthy. I have a few bucks myself. It's the IDEA that we're ALL in this together... They'll still have plenty left over - really.

Did you see Titanic? Do you remember the CONTEMPT the people felt for the captain when he got into a lifeboat AHEAD of the women and children?? Come on, Steve. You felt it too. THAT'S the same contempt the left feels for the WEALTHY who are sailing off into the sunset in OUR lifeboat, while WE go down with the ship.

But, the REAL issue, as I pointed out, is NOT about money, the debt or the deficit... It's about POWER and who thinks they'll come out on top of the wasteheap they're creating. They SUCK.

excon

Did I ever tell you that most of the top 10 wealthiest congressman are Democrats? Topped by John Kerry, Dems hold 7 of the top 10 wealthiest spots (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/31/top-ten-wealthiest-members-congress). The richest dude won't even park his yacht in his home state because he doesn't want any part of "shared sacrifice."

Conservatives are far more generous with their money than libs because unlike libs, we don't believe in taking your money to give to someone else. We give out of our own pockets, not your pockets.

Oh and Wall Street? Our president, who has consistently demonized Wall Street, is asking them for money to get re-elected.

Conservatives are far more generous with their money than libs because unlike libs, we don't believe in taking your money to give to someone else. We give out of our own pockets, not your pockets.Hello again, Steve:

I'm not talking about charity... I'm talking about paying for the roads - and maybe the wars Bush started. Generosity has NOTHING to do with it. Paying their FAIR SHARE of the services they use has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Uhh, the wealthy drive, don't they?

excon

You keep on talking about 'fair share ' when the rich already pay disproportionate amts of the 'progressive 'Federal income tax. What the left wants is wealth redistribution ;not 'fair share' .

What the left wants is wealth redistribution ;not 'fair share' .Hello again, tom:

ALL taxes are wealth redistribution... But, that's an ideological discussion we can have down the road..

This issue NOW is MASSIVE cuts in services for the poor and the middle class, while the WEALTHY share NO pain... They're doing VERY WELL, need I remind you... But, to hold their noses in the air and say they WON'T share in the sacrifices the nation needs to make, pisses people off.

Did YOU see Titanic?? Didn't it piss YOU off when the captain got in the life boat and left the rabble to fend for themselves?? Sure it did... You're NOT heartless.

excon

I'm not talking about charity... I'm talking about paying for the roads - and maybe the wars Bush started.

You mentioned the "What's mine is mine, and what's YOURS is mine" attitude. I countered with the left's "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine to redistribute" attitude.

I say ditch the Federal Reserve ASAP. This would solve that problem and America would be better off.

But who am I to say this? Presidents Lincoln, Kennedy both had this idea and look where it got them. The Fed voted with a bullet in their heads.

I say ditch the Federal Reserve ASAP. This would solve that problem and America would be better off.

But who am I to say this? Presidents Lincoln, Kennedy both had this idea and look where it got them. The Fed voted with a bullet in their heads.

Real nasty accusation there twinkie, do you have evidence?

Since there was no Federal Reserve in 1865 I'd say we've entered tin foil hat territory .

Straight from the man who ushered in the "new era of civility," the twit-in-chief implied the GOP was holding a gun to the heads of Americans (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GOP-shows-flexibility-Obama-apf-3138547664.html?x=0).


"The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners or oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars."

There is no bigger hypocrite in America today than our president.

There is no bigger hypocrite in America today than our president.Hello again, Steve:

Are you offended at the WAY he said it, or that he said it at all?

Of course, the GOP IS threatening to undermine the economy IF their demands aren't met. What do you want to call it? Bipartisanship?

You'd only feel that way, Steve, if you BOUGHT the right wing claptrap circulating around, that going past August 2nd deadline, isn't really going to DO anything at all to our economy... It's all a left wing conspiracy... And, if you're WRONG about the devastation your actions will cause, well you can always TRY to blame Obama...

But, I take exception to your gambling with my children's future..

excon

I'm calling him the biggest hypocrite in America. I applauded him for one of his better moments after the Tucson shootings and he's done nothing but disappoint since. Instead of promoting the "new era of civility" he called for (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/forging-ahead-new-era-civility-569011.html) he continues to use the very same violent rhetoric that was used to blame the right for the tragedy.

I've already addressed that gambling with your children's future (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/debt-limit-585367-3.html#post2840895) once, but I fail to see how spending us into oblivion is a good future for your children.

but I fail to see how spending us into oblivion is a good future for your children.Hello again, Steve:

So, politicians aren't going to be allowed to use the word gun, huh? Ok..

But, you need to keep up, Steve. The Democrats are proposing a DOLLAR tax on the wealthiest of the wealthy for every FIVE DOLLARS in cuts, and they're proposing TRILLIONS in cuts. Of course, the Republicans are saying NO!

So, while your "spending" rant makes good copy in right wing circles, it bears no resemblance to what is actually going on.

But, I just wonder how come I never heard the 'SPENDING US INTO OBLIVION" rant when George W. Bush started two wars, and wasn't shy AT ALL about putting THAT expense on your children...

Like a lot of the things you rail on about - IOIYAR.. (it's OK if you're a Republican)

excon

Hello again, righty's:

Ok, you didn't see Titanic.. Have you ever played Sim City?? Probably not... Republicans don't have any fun..

Anyway, in Sim City, you're the mayor of your little town. If you raise taxes too much you see your tax base leaving town... If you lower them too much, you see infrastructure decay and crime rise. The game works, because it's RIGHT ON.

The idea, of course, is, that there IS a tax rate that works. Go above it, and bad things happen.. Go below it, and bad things happen.

Do you subscribe to a tax rate that works (whatever number it is), or do you believe the lower, the better?

excon

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone happy with spending under Bush. I've never justified that I can recall, I don't recall tom ever justifying it, the IOIYAR argument is a straw man. I can justify spending the trillions the Democrats want to spend at all, much less doing so because "Bush did it."

As for the proposal you refer to, we'll see. Allegedly the twit-in-chief has put cuts in SS and Medicare on the table but I think it's all for show, just like this "sky is falling" act of yours.

Ok, you didn't see Titanic.. Have you ever played Sim City??? Probably not... Republicans don't have any fun..


I beg your pardon, I played 40 minutes of firefight arcade in Halo Reach this morning. THAT was fun, Sim City, not so much.

In response to the twit-in-chief's attack on corporate jet owners, the jet industry is a little pi$$ed at him for ruining their business (http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/06/jet-industry-furious-at-obama/#ixzz1RRaxmb3t).


While pundits and politicians haggle over whether alterations in the depreciation schedule of corporate jets will actually have an impact on the deficit, those in the general aviation trenches are furious.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPO) President Craig Fuller told The Daily Caller that Obama’s comments have cast a pall over the industry, causing many who were considering buying a plane to back away from making a purchase.

“The industry has suffered terribly in the last two and a half years and it has just started to recover. Most of the signs were starting to look good,” said Fuller. “We are so angry as an industry and we have all come together to try to bring a more fair and balanced description to the debate.”

So what if a few good paying jobs are lost so he can score points with the base and say he increased "revenues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax)" by a few measly billion on the backs of rich people? And did I tell you this corporate jet thing tax break was his idea in the first place (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/world-today-579144-4.html#post2836563)?

One other thing, this is a rerun of the luxury tax on yachts (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/270855/corporate-jet-tax-rerun-yacht-luxury-tax) that had disastrous results for a lot of people.

What happens in Sims city when you waste tax money on unnecessary spending ? Do the businesses move to the next town ?
I'm not the mayor of the little town I live in... our mayor wouldn't be mayor for long if he wasted our money. There are people here who attend every town board meeting with sharpened pencils handy ready to "assist " the town in ways they can more efficiently spend our money.

What happens in Sims city when you waste tax money on unnecessary spending ?
Or what happens when you give the mayor money to put jobless townspeople to work, but he instead stashes it in his office safe?

What happens when you add taxpayers (http://rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/7/senator-rubio-we-don-t-need-new-taxes-we-need-new-taxpayers)? Sen. Marco Rubio:


Let’s stop talking about new taxes and start talking about new taxpayers, which means jobs. This debt is the No. 1 issue on everyone’s minds and rightfully so. It is a major issue, but everywhere else, in the real world, the No. 1 issue on people’s minds is jobs. And I tell you, every other problem facing America — a mortgage crisis, a home foreclosure crisis, this debt problem — all of these issues get easier to deal with if people are gainfully employed across America. And the impact that unemployment is having across this country is devastating. …

Our job here [in Congress] is to do everything we can to make it easier for them to find a job, not harder. And I think that’s what we have to do when it comes to ‘a balanced approach’ and when we talk about revenue. We don’t need new taxes, we need new taxpayers, people who are gainfully employed, making money, paying into the tax system and then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. …

So you look at all these taxes that are being proposed and here’s what I say: I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue No. 1 in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they’re proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs will be created by the planes tax. I want to know how many jobs will be created by the oil company tax that I’ve heard so much about. How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires that the president talks about? I want to know! How many jobs do they create? …

I traveled the state of Florida for two years campaigning. I have never met a job creator who told me that they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business. I’ve never met a single job creator who has ever said to me I can’t wait ’til government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job. I’m curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire because they don’t say that in Florida. So my view on all that is, I want to know how many of these tax increases the president proposes will create because if they’re not creating jobs and they’re not creating new taxpayers, they’re not solving the problem.

Hello again, Steve:

Rubio is mixing metaphors.. If the DEBT is the problem, then raising revenue is a solution.. If JOBS are the problem, then RE-building our infrastructure is a solution.

If Rubio wants to know what higher taxes have to do with job creation, I'd ask, what does NOT RAISING TAXES have to do with the DEBT?

You got to ASK the right question if you want the right answer.. But, if all you want to do is demagogue, then you don't need the right question.

excon

I don't think they will meet that Aug deadline . Since the Senate didn't pass the budget that was passed by the House in April ,(actually they haven't passed one in 2 years ),then any negotiated deal will not go through the reconciliation process. In other words a fillibuster is in play.
That means that the President will have to prioritize spending after debt service.

In Sims City the family that spends too much cuts non-essential spending to pay down their credit card debt.

Here's what they should do... a 10 year plan bringing spending down to the 2008 levels we had when Obama took over... and then to 2006 levels when the Pelosi 'swamp draining' House took over... then gradually to 2000 levels of the 'golden age' of Clintoon spending levels . Wasn't that the days of surplus ?

The Dems are trying to sucker the Republicans like they did to Reagan and GHW Bush . Immediate tax increases for the promise of future spending cuts. The problem is that spending cuts didn't happen and won't happen this time .

Let the deadline pass. A new one will be drawn in the sand. I don't think there is a real deadline until the Oct end of fiscal year. The truth is that the President doesn't want the Republicans going on summer recess and listening to town hall folks setting them straight before a deal is struck .

Rubio for VP !

If Rubio wants to know what higher taxes have to do with job creation, I'd ask, what does NOT RAISING TAXES have to do with the DEBT?

I believe he answered that:


I traveled the state of Florida for two years campaigning. I have never met a job creator who told me that they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business. I’ve never met a single job creator who has ever said to me I can’t wait ’til government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job. I’m curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire because they don’t say that in Florida. So my view on all that is, I want to know how many of these tax increases the president proposes will create because if they’re not creating jobs and they’re not creating new taxpayers, they’re not solving the problem.

It's sound reasoning, ex. You ought to be able to admit that raising taxes changes behavior. People will go all out to avoid paying more in taxes, we're not stupid.

Why do you think I love shopping on Amazon.com? Until something happens to close that internet sales tax loophole I'm going to exploit it. Until the feds enact a "fair tax" (which sounds like true "shared sacrifice" to me) I'm going to do what I can to avoid paying taxes. Don't you?

And one other thing, raising taxes costs jobs (http://www.api.org/policy/tax/recentstudiesandresearch/upload/SOAE_Wood_Mackenzie_Access_vs_Taxes.pdf). Fewer jobs, fewer taxpayers.

And one other thing, raising taxes costs jobs (http://www.api.org/policy/tax/recentstudiesandresearch/upload/SOAE_Wood_Mackenzie_Access_vs_Taxes.pdf). Fewer jobs, fewer taxpayers.
That study shows that it projects initial reduction of employemnt levels but it then recovers to normal levels.

I'm going to do what I can to avoid paying taxes. Don't you?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know. Would you turn down a raise if it means you'll pay more taxes?? No, you wouldn't. The message?? Paying more taxes ISN'T the end all, and be all economic decision any of us make.

The POINT is, as I said earlier, I do NOT run my business based on the tax code. I run it based upon whether I can make a profit... I HIRE when I can't meet the demand of my customers. That's the ONLY time I hire. NO businessman makes his decisions based on the tax code. NONE of 'em.

Let me ask you this.. If you're a businessman, and the tax rate just went UP. HELL, it might go up AGAIN! Yet, you've got customers clamoring for your product. Are you going to close down because you have to pay more taxes?? I don't think you would.

excon

Show me the studies that say tax increases don't cost job losses.

Hello again, Steve:

Sure, I will... After you tell me why the Bush tax cuts DIDN'T create the jobs they were supposed to.

excon

I don't know. Would you turn down a raise if it means you'll pay more taxes??
Quite a few of the people who work in my plant don't like overtime because of the additional taxes they pay.

NO businessman makes his decisions based on the tax code. NONE of 'em.

I've heard some very successful business people say otherwise .Here in the North East many a business has up and left to states with better tax and business friendly environments .

Quite a few of the people who work in my plant don't like overtime because of the additional taxes they pay.Hello again, tom:

Maybe it's in the water. Or the tin foil hats you Noreasters wear. Cause nobody in the REAL world turns down work because of the extra taxes they'll have to pay. NOBODY!

They may turn it down because they're FAT and HAPPY, or maybe LAZY - but NOT because they'll have to pay more taxes...

excon

PS> (edited) On the legal boards, sometimes we get criminals who want to DO their time in jail because they're going to violate probation anyway...

It makes ABSOLUTELY no sense to a fellow like me, because even ONE day free, is better than NO days free... But, of course, I could NEVER convince them of that...

In your overtime refusal case, it makes NO sense to a fellow like me, because having MORE cash in my pocket is better than having LESS cash in my pocket, even if the government took a few sheckles. But, I'll NEVER convince you or your fellow workers of that... I have NO IDEA why.

Quite a few of the people who work in my plant don't like overtime because of the additional taxes they pay.They are clearly idiots.

After you tell me why the Bush tax cuts DIDN'T create the jobs they were supposed to.
After Bush got the comprehensive tax reductions in May 2003 ,job growth began in September and continued for 51 months for a total of 8.1 million new jobs.

'the answer is easy... spend less'

What's the Deal with Debt? - CNBC (http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000032061)

'the answer is easy....spend lessHello again, tom:

No, that's the simple answer. Let me ask you this... Let's say your car broke down. Now you COULD buy a new car, but NOT if you're listening to simple answers.. For ME, investing in a new car WOULD be the solution to a broken down car.. You?? Walking, I guess.

excon

I guess you come from the Paul Krugman school that says if you waste a trilllion in stimulus and it doesn't work ,then triple down.

I guess you come from the Paul Krugman school that says if you waste a trilllion in stimulus and it doesn't work ,then triple down.

And wasn't he among those chastising Bush for his reckless spending?

I guess you come from the Paul Krugman school that says if you waste a trilllion in stimulus and it doesn't work ,then triple down.Hello again, tom:

Of course, the stimulus DID work. Where do you think the shortlived recovery we DID have come from? It didn't just magically happen... The stimulus actually MIGHT have FULLY worked if Obama didn't cave to right wing pressure to make HALF the stimulus be in the form of tax cuts, which don't stimulate crap. But he did, and we've got what we've got.

When business isn't spending, and consumers aren't spending, government needs to spend. Now is NOT the time to worry about the debt. NOW is the time to worry about jobs. We have the NEED for infrastructure repair. We have the PEOPLE ready to do it. We have the equipment standing idly by... It's time to put the country back to work...

Yes, we'll pay the debt down WHEN we've RECOVERED. That's what you do in your OWN life isn't it? You BORROW what you can't pay for NOW, and pay it back when you can. That's called a mortgage... I'll bet you've used one.

excon

You BORROW what you can't pay for NOW, and pay it back when you can. That's called a mortgage... I'll bet you've used one.


Still do ;and I prioritize my spending to live within my means too. I bet you do to . We do that because we can't QE out of our problems and we don't borrow in excess of our ability to pay it.

Still do ;and I prioritize my spending to live within my means too. I bet you do to . We do that because we can't QE out of our problems and we don't borrow in excess of our ability to pay it.
But you haven't lost your job, right?

But you haven't lost your job, right?

What if I did ? I wouldn't go on a spending spree if that's what you mean .

What if I did ? I wouldn't go on a spending spree if that's what you mean .
How would you pay your mortgage with no money coming in?

I fail to see your point. This is about the government that is spending at a rate of spending equal to a quarter of the total GDP . It is not in a position where it is not getting revenue (income ) ;it is rolling in revenue . It is just spending too much ;and that is what needs fixing.
When I was unemployed I used reserve capital;unemployment compensation . When I was underwater with my mortgage I negotiated a short sale and did not default . At no time when times were tough did I think I could go on a spending binge to solve my problem.

When I was unemployed I used unemployment compensation
Government support, a type of social welfare benefit?

My point is too many people are out of work right now, prices on goods are high, short sales can't be easily negotiated, and the debt ceiling must be raised.

Wouldn't corporate profits suffer if it weren't, i.e. there'd be a domino effect?

At no time when times were tough did I think I could go on a spending binge to solve my problem.Hello again, tom:

From a businessman's perspective, that's exactly the time I DID invest (spend). In fact, investing is the ONLY way out of our problem... We'll pay the debt when we're rolling... JOBS are what's needed now.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know you're going to tell me that business's won't hire if we have too much debt... I'm telling you that business's will hire when the demand for their product is there. When people work, like repairing bridges and stuff, money flows and DEMAND for products manifest...

Investing is GOOD. Really. It is.

excon

Leave it to the repubs, everybody and his mama is hollering for a job, even the tea party, and other repubs, and what do they do, protect the rich and screw the poor. And everybody who ain't rich deserves to be poor. I don't get how anybody that needs a job can vote republican.

protect the rich
I'm waiting for the wealthy businessmen to create all those jobs. Their tax breaks haven't been touched nor have their corporate jets.

Leave it to the "progressives " to triple down on failed solutions . The President bragged his policies would "save" or create 3-4 million jobs. Way to go! A trillion dollars squandered has not created one net permanent job ;eradicated poverty ,or built any meaningful infrastructure. Instead it has contributed to the making an already shaky economy and the nations fiscal health worse .We were told that if we didn't pump a trillion stimulus into the system that we would face 8% unemployment . Well we have and this week we learned unemployment is at 9.2% .
[ "All in all we're going to be creating somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs next month, I predict" (Joe Biden) ] He was a little off. Only 18,000 jobs were created and the May job report was revised down by 44,000 jobs to a net gain of 25,000 .

Lets do it again! Brilliant ! We were told by Madame Mimi that passing Obamacare would create 400,000 jobs immediately.. bwahaahaahaa! They shot their bullets . All the have left is class warfare rhetoric.

By the way... calling corporations evil and bandits ;calling profits bad or ill gotten ,and piling on to an already burdensome regulatory regime does not create an environment of certainty in the market place. Boeing wants to create jobs and the Obots won't let them . The energy companies want to create jobs and they are prevented from doing so.

Now before you mock the concept of certainty being a factor let me quote the President's presser this week.
"The sooner we get this done, the sooner that the markets know that the debt limit ceiling will have been raised and that we have a serious plan to deal with our debt and deficit, the sooner that we give our businesses the certainty that will need in order to make additional investments to grow and hire".
He undertands the concept of certainty when it's convenient to his agenda while not understanding the effect of his polices on business confidence.

This is all you need to know about the President and his outright hatred of the private sector.
From his commencement address to Arizona State 2009 :
"You're taught to chase after all the usual brass rings,”..“Yah try to be on this 'who's who' list or that 'top 100 list'…ya chase after the big money, ya figure out how big your corner office is…ya worry about whether or not ya have a fancy enough title, or a fancy enough car…Now you can take that road, and it may work, for some. But at this critical juncture in our nation's history, at this difficult time, let me suggest that such an approach won't get you where you want to go. Did you study business? You can go start a company…or, why not go help a struggling not-for-profit find better and more effective ways to help folks in need?”

Ex is right in that we need investment in the economy... private investment. But investors have noted the Obots hostility to the private sector and have voted with their investment choices. Americans invested $351 billion dollars overseas last year .

leave it to the "progressives "
I'm progressive, aren't you?

–adjective
1.
Favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.
Making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
Characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.




This is all you need to know about the President and his outright hatred of the private sector.
From his commencement address to Arizona State 2009 :
"You're taught to chase after all the usual brass rings,”..“Yah try to be on this 'who's who' list or that 'top 100 list'…ya chase after the big money, ya figure out how big your corner office is…ya worry about whether or not ya have a fancy enough title, or a fancy enough car…Now you can take that road, and it may work, for some. But at this critical juncture in our nation's history, at this difficult time, let me suggest that such an approach won't get you where you want to go. Did you study business? You can go start a company…or, why not go help a struggling not-for-profit find better and more effective ways to help folks in need?”Where does that show hatred of the private sector? To me it shows trying not to put material possessions as the ultimate goal - that's noble isn't it?

BTW here's the ACTUAL quote (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13obama.text.html?pagewanted=2):

Now, in the face of these challenges, it may be tempting to fall back on the formulas for success that have been pedaled so frequently in recent years. It goes something like this: You're taught to chase after all the usual brass rings; you try to be on this "who's who" list or that top 100 list; you chase after the big money and you figure out how big your corner office is; you worry about whether you have a fancy enough title or a fancy enough car. That's the message that's sent every day, or has been in our culture for far too long -- that through material possessions, through a ruthless competition pursued only on your own behalf -- that's how you will measure success.

Now, you can take that road -- and it may work for some. But at this critical juncture in our nation's history, at this difficult time, let me suggest that such an approach won't get you where you want to go; it displays a poverty of ambition -- that in fact, the elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short-term gain over lasting achievement is precisely what your generation needs to help end. (Applause.)

Hello again,

Like this forum, there seems to be NO movement toward a deal. But, WE'RE not responsible for governing. They are, and they're STILL playing chicken with OUR future.

Obama offered to cut TWICE as much as was offered before, in exchange for SOME revenue enhancements... The Republicans, of course, said NO. They're probably going to say NO this afternoon, too. (Actually, Boehner would probably say YES, but Cantor say's no, and he's really the one in charge.)

Certainly, the president is going to USE this fact as a hammer to BEAT the Republicans... Only, the Republicans think THEY'RE the ones who are going to be using the hammer...

I don't know WHO is going to win this fight. I only know WHO'S going to lose. It's you and me, and our children.

excon

Let me see. Repubs have been redistributing the wealth from the bottom up since the Bush tax cuts started and they have never been raised since. Matter of fact They have gotten a few bucks from the Government when they screwed up the whole freaking world economy.

Now yet again they threaten the whole freaking economy to get what's leftover from they're last screw up. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, they still blame Obama and the Dem's for not cleaning their mess up they caused in the 2 years they had control. Those are the facts fellas, plain and simple, because every time you blame the president for what he ain't doing, its only to dodge responsibility for what you have done, which is sink the world economy, screwed billions of us ordinary people, and haven't circulated not one freakin' dollar since George gave you the keys to the vault.

Its not a spending problem you crazy people, its robbery. Don't call a politician, call the dang sheriff, get the posse, together. Lets get them varmits, and get OUR money back!!

But the repubs have the horses, guns, and grub, and they ain't selling none of it. As in every crisis, they ain't helping, and stand in the way of those that want to help.

Standing in the way of what, disaster? I hope they continue to do so as the Democrats obviously think more spending is going to make it all better. Do you really believe that increasing the debt is going to help us reduce it? Do you really believe all their Orwellian talk about "revenues" and "shared sacrifice?" When almost half the country pays no taxes how is that "shared sacrifice?" I know, I'm "sacrificing" my hard-earned money so half the country they can have their share, which seems to be the left's definition of "fair share."

When almost half the country pays no taxes how is that "shared sacrifice?" Hello again, Steve:

I don't know... I'll bet if you portrayed life as it IS, rather than right wing ideology, you would see the shared sacrifice... But, if you wish to remain blind to reality...

This might be a good time to reprint my earlier rant on the FOX news thread.. I guess you missed it, since it pertains to your post above.
------------------------------
Hello again, Steve:

I'm not saying FOX ain't popular. I AM saying FOX is wrong- dead wrong!

Let me give you an example... I was listening to John Gibson on FOX radio yesterday. Do they count? Well, he was WRONG - dead wrong... He was ranting on about how HALF of the people don't pay any taxes... (You got the email, didn't you?) He went on for 15 minutes or so, bemoaning about the unfairness of it all. He was yelling, they pay NOTHING, NADA, ZIPPO, ZERO. He asked if it was FAIR that HALF the people PAY NO TAX AT ALL! He was pissed off. He was indignant. He was righteous! And, he was WRONG.

The group Gibson was talking about PAY state sales taxes... They PAY city sales taxes... They PAY property taxes... They PAY FICA federal taxes... They PAY federal unemployment taxes.. They PAY federal taxes on their phone.. They PAY federal taxes on their gasoline. They pay federal taxes on their internet..

They pay LOTS of taxes... The only tax they DON'T pay, are federal income taxes... That's because they don't make enough. Now, you can SAY it's not fair that the poor don't pay income taxes. But, you can't say they don't pay taxes at all.

That would be, what shall I call it - a LIE! A BIG fat, pants on fire LIE.

excon

OK, let me rephrase since you don't seem to get the implied meaning, federal income tax (http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html). Local sales tax nets the feds nothing, if they pay property taxes it remains local and I have no figures on state taxes, do you? Their $6 a month phone and internet tax is not a "fair share" and their withholding is returned to them every year. So what's your point?

Who pays income taxes (http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html)

Hello again, Steve:

So, if the problem is that both you and John Gibson FORGOT to insert the word INCOME taxes into your diatribe, I'll accept your correction.

excon

From Who Pays Taxes? | Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/who-pays-taxes)

http://motherjones.com/files/images/the-only-tax-graph-that-matters_0.preview.jpg


Well, tax day is Thursday, the media needed a good story, and the Drudge Report—which seems to serve as the assignment editor for 90 percent of the television producers in America—featured the story on its front page. As you may know, the Drudge Report has an agenda. And as you may suspect, the TPC study is misleading without context. Cable news is terrible at providing context. But this is one of those cases where excluding the context essentially makes the story wrong. Focusing on income taxes when you discuss Americans' tax burden ignores the fact that most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in federal income tax. The truth is that only a very small percentage of Americans pay no federal taxes—and most of those folks are paying at least some state taxes.

Todd: Let me jump to another topic, Scott Ferguson, he's upset about taxes, he says: "Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy." And he actually wants to you look at historical markers where this has been — you say, you know, where this has been a helpful thing coming out of a recession.

Obama: Well, first of all, he is right. Normally, you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we have instead cut taxes. So I guess what I would say to Scott is his economics are right, you don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession. We don't have a…

Todd: But you might for health care. You might for the highest -- for some of the wealthiest.
Obama: The — we have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress, which, by the way, were different from the proposals I put forward, still wouldn't kick in until after the recession was over.

So he is absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up — take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.
Obama: We must ?help Elkhart reinvent itself? - US news - The Elkhart Project - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32301534/ns/us_news-the_elkhart_project/)

From Who Pays Taxes? | Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/who-pays-taxes)


Unlike Drudge I'm sure Mother Jones has no agenda. How do local sales and property taxes and state income taxes help pay down the federal debt, which is what this thread is about.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire last year would have saved 400 billion dollars of the new debt, and letting them expire in 2012, cuts 800 billion. Any new tax change would not take effect until 2013.

And anyone who has taxes deducted from their paycheck, has to file for it to get it back, after the Feds have made money off it. Seems the problem is some low information constituents have made some screwy assumptions.

They aren't raising taxe RATES for anyone, just closing loopholes that only apply to the rich, and ultra rich, and corporations that pay NO taxes at all.

Stop looking at Fox, or listening to conservatives with an unamerican agenda, why don't cha!!

'unamerican' lol

'unamerican' lolFox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Ownership_and_manag ement)

Not owned by an american.

About News Corp: News Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Shareholders)

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, through his Kingdom Holding Company, owns 7% of News Corp.'s shares, making Kingdom Holdings the second largest shareholder.

Originally Posted by tomder55
'unamerican' lol


Its unamerican to make billions, and not reinvest it, create jobs, or pay no taxes!!

Is that the capitalism you are so in love with!!

Stop looking at Fox, or listening to conservatives with an unamerican agenda, why don't cha!!!

Well, it is easier than listening to Obama who, as tom pointed out, can't make up his mind (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-vs-obama_576524.html?nopager=1) if raising taxes in a bad economy is good or bad.

What part of 2013 is so hard to understand??

Really ;you sound like the AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka who said :
we need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That's a long-term job, but one we should start now.
Sounds like fascism to me.

What is unamerican is your class warfare rhetoric. What is unamerican is punishing success with punitive confiscatory taxes for the purpose of wealth redistribution . What is unamerican is for the government to tell an earner what they must do with what the government thinks is excess income. Capitalism works when there isn't government command and control .

As an outsider it is the plainest fact you should all be able to see: corporations have hijacked your government.

BTW this is the definition of fascism (you throw it aorund a lot without knowing what it means):
"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Or another definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism) for the board monitor: "the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism."

That's just refers to my definition so we agree on the definition. I'm stating that it doesn't apply to what tom wrote. Why are you replying for him by the way?

That's just refers to my definiton so we agree on the definition. I'm stating that it doesn't apply to what tom wrote. Why are you replying for him by the way?

Yes of course, you are always right right sir. I bow to your superior intellect and unquestionable judgment.

Yes of course, you are always right right sir. I bow to your superior intellect and unquestionable judgment.
You probably aren't being entirely serious but I am available to help. :)
... without all the hyberbole and sarcasm.

I sure hope the 14th amendment is an option if a deal can't be reached. Both parties are shockingly stupid and stubborn. One doesn't want to raise taxes and the other doesn't want to cut spending even though both are necessary. Obama is finally showing some backbone on this issue and urging them to get a deal made.

QUOTE by tomder55;
You sound like the AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka who said :
we need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That’s a long-term job, but one we should start now.
Sounds like fascism to me.
Sounds like democracy to me. You know the "We the people" kind of stuff that we built a nation on?


What is unamerican is your class warfare rhetoric.
Nothing to do with class, its all about "We the people", fair play, shared prosperity, shared sacrifice during the tough times, and not strict ideology that makes one class better than the other. That gives one class the power over the other, that's based on a agenda of power, motivated by greed. That creates economic bubbles that destroy the fabric of all world economies, in the name of wealth, power, and greed, that's just plain selfish.


What is unamerican is punishing success with punitive confiscatory taxes for the purpose of wealth redistribution .
Success on the backs of the many, by the few is NOT success. Its ROBBERY!


What is unamerican is for the government to tell an earner what they must do with what the government thinks is excess income.
Nobody has told them anything last I checked and they sit on the sidelines with their money, and do as they please. Get your facts straight, they don't have to do anything with their LOOT, but have been ASKED to invest, create jobs, and pay taxes, and as a fact, to date, they have done NOTHING, except contribute to political campaigns to get more money through legislative protection. Just ask YOUR hero Karl Rove, or Fox News. In America, we vote for who we want in Government, and the repubs screwed it up once, and got kicked out, snuck back in, (thanks Karl), and are screwing it up again. 2012!!


Capitalism works when there isn't government command and control .
Capitalism ONLY works when there is sufficient circulation to create demand. Insufficient government regulation allows for less circulation, wealth redistribution, misuse, and abuse through greed, slavery, discontent, chaos, and rip off.

That's just history, and why repeat what led to the Great Depression of 1929, or the Great Recession of 2008?

Success on the backs of the many, by the few is NOT success. Its ROBBERY!

ROBBERY is taking my hard-earned dollars and giving them to someone else.


Capitalism ONLY works when there is sufficient circulation to create demand. Insufficient government regulation allows for less circulation, wealth redistribution, misuse, and abuse through greed, slavery, discontent, chaos, and rip off.

What happens when government runs out of other people's money?

ROBBERY is taking my hard-earned dollars and giving them to someone else.So you are opposed to paying any taxes at all? Even when it goes to a fire department, roads or police?

ROBBERY is taking my hard-earned dollars and giving them to someone else.
You mean like Wall Street? Or the Corporations who pay NO taxes? Please specify. We all got robbed, it wasn't just you.


What happens when government runs out of other people's money?
The government should never be broke if all of us pay our fair share. Its OUR government remember? WE elected them. And what part of circulation are you missing? No circulation, no demand, no money, no economy. YOU are the government is the way it works! Why don't it??

You do vote don't you??

So you are opposed to paying any taxes at all? Even when it goes to a fire department, roads or police?

That's quite the misinterpretation of my oft stated beliefs on the subject.

The government should never be broke if all of us pay our fair share.

What is everyone's "fair share"? Is this everyone's "fair share"?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachments/current-events/36728d1310396084-debt-limit-screenshot237.jpg


You do vote don't you??

You bet your a$$ I do.

Just some things to read up on and get facts so you can read the chart you presented.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf

Tax rates around the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world)

Putting U.S. Corporate Taxes in Perspective — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=784)


■The United States has plethora of generous corporate tax breaks. As the Treasury Department has noted, the United States' low effective tax rate reflects its “narrow corporate tax base,” which is the result of “accelerated depreciation allowances [and] special tax provisions for particular business sectors … as well as debt finance and tax planning.”[3]

These tax breaks lead to very low tax rates on certain types of investments — even negative rates in some cases. For example, a 2005 Congressional Budget Office study found that the effective marginal corporate rate — the rate paid on the last dollar of income earned and arguably the tax rate most relevant for investment decisions — on debt-financed investment in machinery was negative, estimated at -46 percent.[4] This means that the total value of the deductions that companies may claim for such investment is much larger than the tax they pay. (Put another way, it means that other taxpayers effectively subsidize the investment.) A recent Government Accountability Office study similarly found wide variation in effective tax rates across corporations.[5]

The Treasury Department estimates that various corporate tax breaks will cost the federal government more than $1.2 trillion over the next ten years (2008-2017), a period during which total corporate revenues are projected to equal $3.4 trillion.[7]

We can start with the green energy subsidies that go to OBama supporting ' pay no taxes' GE . Then we can go after the whole corn ethanol industry breaks that Dem favoring Iowa farmers gets . Those would be meaningful "revenue enhancing " reforms. I'd of course would go much further and reform the whole tax code. The President seems content with screwing airplane manufacturing workers in South Carolina and Wichita Kansas.

BTW ; can you please tell me the name of the evil corporation that don't reinvest earnings and don't create jobs. I'm willing to bet you'll mention corporations who hire in the 10s of thousands employees.

He said in his press conference today, that tax reform was on the table and favors cutting loopholes, and lowering the rates. Repubs said NO! No tax cuts at all. Now what? Glad to see you are on the presidents side.

As to the corporations, AND banks, circulate the money, creates DEMAND, and that's how you create jobs opportunities. Ain't that what you guys like as an economy? Supply, and DEMAND? If I can't buy, you can't supply.

Just some things to read up on and get facts so you can read the chart you presented.

Thanks, but I can read just fine. The question remains, what is everyone's "fair share"? Define it for us, please, I'd really like to know exactly what a "fair share" is.

Hello Steve:

If taxes HURT a poor guy, taxes should HURT a rich guy. That would be fair.

excon

Thanks, but I can read just fine. The question remains, what is everyone's "fair share"? Define it for us, please, I'd really like to know exactly what a "fair share" is.
Whatever we can compromise on. That would be fair. Meet you in the middle. FAIR enough?


Originally Posted by excon
Hello Steve:

If taxes HURT a poor guy, taxes should HURT a rich guy. That would be fair.

Excon

I go with that.

Hello Steve:

If taxes HURT a poor guy, taxes should HURT a rich guy. That would be fair.

excon

So Ex any tax hurts a poor guy but to hurt the rich guy the rate has to be 90%. You cannot honestly think that is fair. I used to live in a nation who had attitudes like that, thank God those people are long gone and now we think 45% is enough pain. Ex all taxation is theft but we are all agree there must be order so taxation is a compromise. We can compromise enough to decide it must be done but not enough to decide how.

He said in his press conference today, that tax reform was on the table and favors cutting loopholes, and lowering the rates. Repubs said NO! No tax cuts at all. Now what? Glad to see you are on the presidents side.


I have made no secret about my opinion that the tax code should be overhauled . That is not what the President is proposing at all.
Even if he were ,it should be it's own proposal ,not included in a last minute move to extend the debt limit.

Face it ;the issue with the debt limit is over-spending ;not revenues. I'm opposed to raising the limit period... no negotiations ,they are a waste of time. If there is a crisis in government it's an over-spending one.

Once the government knows it doesn't have a blank check it will finally be forced to make spending priorities. Boehner should concentrate passing immediate legislation compelling the President to make debt service the #1 spending obligation... then go home for the summer .

By the way... Minnesota has been shut down for 10 days... has anyone noticed ?

Even if he were ,it should be it's own proposal ,not included in a last minute move to extend the debt limit.
We agree, raising te debt ceiling should be a stand alone clean vote.

Wonder who put all that other crap in the game?

Hello Steve:

If taxes HURT a poor guy, taxes should HURT a rich guy. That would be fair.

excon

I don't believe taxes should HURT anyone, they should not be punitive.

Eat your peas .

eat your peas .

And don't listen to the voices.

And don't listen to the voices.You mean this "holy spirit' thing? I know. If you hear voices that tell you to do stuff then there are problems in the head.

I don't believe taxes should HURT anyone, they should not be punitive.Hello again, Steve:

So, you AGREE that the 47% of the people who DON'T pay federal income taxes, SHOULDN'T pay federal income taxes because it'll HURT 'em. I KNEW you'd come around.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

So, you AGREE that the 47% of the people who DON'T pay federal income taxes, SHOULDN'T pay federal income taxes because it'll HURT 'em. I KNEW you'd come around.

excon

No Ex he means you shouldn't be mean to the rich and expect them to pay taxes when the other half doesn't. So get off that socialist bike and forget taxation, you don't need it anyway, just legalise drugs and tax that, an instant cure to the US economic woes

You mean this "holy spirit' thing? I know. If you hear voices that tell you to do stuff then there are problems in the head.

Try to keep up, we're discussing the debt, not religion.

Obama: "Pull off the Band-Aid. Eat our peas." (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-pull-off-band-aid-eat-our-peas.html)

Try to keep up, we're discussing the debt, not religion. I am keeping up, you were talking about not "listening to the voices" here: Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Debt limit (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2845776-post118.html)

P.S. you're one of those voices from your party, are you not?

So, you AGREE that the 47% of the people who DON'T pay federal income taxes, SHOULDN'T pay federal income taxes because it'll HURT 'em. I KNEW you'd come around.

That single mom, raising 2 kids and working her a$$ off for not a lot of anything, I have no problem with her getting 100 percent of her withholding back. That deadbeat not even trying, yeah he needs to contribute to society, not suck the life out of it.

That deadbeat not even trying, yeah he needs to contribute to society, not suck the life out of it.I think we all agree on that.

You need to get this done quick otherwise you are going to beat Italy to default and you can't let that happen

No we won't that(we will default ) is the biggest lie since Paulson got on his knees begging Pelosi to pass TARP. All it means is that there will be less money after debt service to run the bloated Federal Government.

no we won't that(we will default ) is the biggest lie since Paulson got on his knees begging Pelosi to pass TARP. All it means is that there will be less money after debt service to run the bloated Federal Government.

What is the biggest lie? That you are going to default? That Italy is going to default? I don't know which one has the better odds at this moment. I know the stock market is very nervious and you are exporting that nerviousness.

We need to get all this in perspective. It is like a game of dominoes and we are waiting for the first domino to fall. It really doesn't matter whether that is the one on the end, or the one in the middle, the result is the same

Hello again,

Since NOT approving a raise in the debt limit APPEARS to solve every Republicans wet dream of SHRINKING government to its nubs, that they're convincing themselves that nothing bad will happen if they do it THIS WAY.

Talk about DELUSIONS!!

excon

Clete ;all it means is that the President and the Treasury sec. will have to sharpen their pencils and make some tough spending choices. You think we couldn't trim enough fat out of discressionary spending to offset the amt they want to raise the limit ? If we can't do that then we are Italy and Greece.

Talk about DELUSIONS!!!

So what are you saying, that if we fail to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2nd all revenue will cease to flow into the treasury and government just stops paying its bills?

So what are you saying, that if we fail to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2nd all revenue will cease to flow into the treasury and government just stops paying its bills?Hello Steve:

ALL revenue?? Nope - not ALL. But, it will be reduced enough to the point where the treasury will have to DECIDE which commitment it's going to meet and which one it isn't...

It's the ones where we DON'T meet our commitment that'll cause major economic repercussions. I KNOW you'd rather believe the right wing ideologues, rather than economists, but you're doing so at the COUNTRY'S peril...

If it were me, I wouldn't be doing it. You shouldn't either.

excon

It won't be the 1st time the debt limit deadline is passed. The only difference this time is that Congress doesn't want to give POTUS a blank check. Maybe if the President spent some time proposing a budget instead of duffing we would have a sense of his spending priorities (although we can guess from past performance it is ever upward ,ever budget busting ). Will there ever be a point where a debt limit actually means you don't spend any more??

Clearly, Obama we must follow the example of that tax-dodger Charlie Rangel and ask himself, what would Jesus do (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/08/rangel-what-would-jesus-do-on-the-debt-talks/)?

P.S. Charlie, Jesus would pay his taxes (http://bible.cc/mark/12-17.htm).

Will there ever be a point where a debt limit actually means you don't spend any more ??????Hello again, tom:

No... That's because it's the WRONG way to impose fiscal policy. It's kind of like thinking that since an engine WILL blow up at 9,000 RPM'S, that it's OK to run it all day long at 8,900 RPM'S... It's like thinking we'll prosecute a war until we've expended 100,000 bullets...

Sensible policy is enacted by sensible people. We don't have those.

excon

Don't you think the good folks at ATF and the Dept of Education deserve an extended vacation ?

don't you think the good folks at ATF and the Dept of Education deserve an extended vacation ?
What would Jesus do?

Tsk Tsk, the bad part about being stuck on your own ideas is that it closes the mind to other options, and opportunities.

You raise the debt limit ASAP, with no strings attached to prevent Wall street from tanking, to keep interests from rising, and to keep Government functioning through paying all its obligations.

We have defaulted before, due to technical glitches,

Professor: US Did Default in 1979 (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/DebtLimit-Economy/2011/07/11/id/403146)


They found “that the series of defaults resulted in a permanent increase in interest rates” of more than half a percent. That half a percent translated into billions of dollars in increased interest payments on the nation’s debt. “The impact is smaller at first because only new debt is affected,” they wrote according to the Post. “But over time, as the older debt matures and becomes refinanced at higher rates, the entire cost of the default is realized.”

The 1979 event is tiny compared to the size of payments the Treasury could have to forego if it can no longer borrow money Aug. 2. However, it does show what can happen if a payment is missed. “It creates doubt, and I think that’s the real lesson,” Zivney told the Post.

“The market has a much longer memory than individuals.”

So let the date pass without resolution, it will be interesting to see what repubs do when they have added to the debt, they are trying to pay. I mean anyone ever heard of paying a late fee when you are a few days late on a mortgage or a carpayment? Or an overdraft fee for a bounced check? That's exactly what happens when the debt ceiling is not raised. No excuse, or ideology will change that. Just ask any lender, or banker, what happens when you are late, and you go back to borrow a few bucks?

Arguments and opinions are nice, but facts are facts. Go ahead, don't blink!

But I am curious about what the DEMS will cut first when we do default. Aren't YOU?

A whole half %... wow! Interest rates in the late 1970s were in double digits .

Hello again,

So, it looks to me, like we're going to find out what it's going to do, because there's enough Republicans who agree with tom to put it to the test.

If it imposes some discipline, then I agree with tom, 05% ain't squat... But, if it throws us into a worldwide depression, which it COULD, I don't think it's a very good gamble - and I'm a gambler.

The TRUTH is, the Republicans have NO idea WHAT might happen, but they're WILLING to gamble... Personally I don't want my leaders doing that. They SUCK.

excon

Back then they talked of billions, now they talk of trillions, so do the math, on an extra half percent on outstanding debts, and tell me its not more rather than less than what it was. In other words, it adds to the debt.

Then just imagine who gets put at the end of the list when they decide who to pay, and who not to pay until they borrow more to pay them at whatever interest they charge. In addition its no longer "the checks in the mail" it becomes "the check might be in the mail". How's that for waiting to go get groceries, meds, or anything else.

In addition doesn't it make sense to do what is agreed on while the debate rages on about the things we don't. Why is it conditional on what side is right when both sides can be wrong. Or is that unreasonable?

tal ; the Fed has kept interest rates artificially low for most of a decade now . A half percent is nowhere's where they should be right now . It has contributed in the devaluation of the currency (the loonie is a better currency for God's sake !) and the unreported inflation in the US ,and is negatively impacting the world financial stability.
Let the dollar and the interest rate go to where they should go .
Much of the instability in the ME is due to inflationary prices of basics like bread and that can be directly linked to a devalued US currency .

That's assuming that a half a percent is the rise in interests rates after this default. It also assumes that a deal is reached quickly, as the last one was never given a chance to develop to its full potential disaster. Run that out for a week, a month or a year, and the effects on interest rates, as well as credit ratings and borrowing power undermines your assumption of only a half a percent interest rise.

Its also a misconception that the President has a blank check for more spending, since this is already a debt that's incurred already, and its Congress that has to approve of any additional or future spending. So going forward, we will see what the repubs do. That should be interesting. Got popcorn?? Maybe now we can get a jobs bill since that's what the last election was about. And that's what the nation needs more than anything else.

Just for kicks, how do you think the unemployed will vote in 2012?

Hello again:

Well, waddya know? The Republicans thought they held a winning hand... They thought Obama would cave.. But, he didn't. He surprised everybody and raised instead.

The Republicans looked him in the eye, and folded like a cheap suit.
(http://weaselzippers.us/2011/07/12/mcconnell-caves/)

excon

Anything to not go on record with a straight, clean yes, or no vote.

McConnell is not running this show. The Senate does not control the budgetary process. It has to originate in the House . If Speaker Bonehead goes along with this there will be a revolt.

If this McConnell plan goes through,it means the President alone will thrice be responsible for debt increases in an election year. I can see his thinking . But I don't agree with it . To sum it up;McConnell wants to give the President the ability to raise the debt limit so everyone will blame the President for raising it and not blame McConnell for giving Obama the authority in the first place? That is 'stuck on stupid' thinking . McConnell must not want a Republican party anymore.

This will be viewed as a cave in by the TP who are already steamed over the CR cave earlier this year.When the establishment RINOs wonder why the TP bolts to form a 3rd party ,they will point to this moment if the plan is implemented.

I'm worse than bent out of shape here. Now Obammy wants to attack Social Security benefits and threatens that next money the old farts won't get their monthly checks! Since when is SSR tied into the budget when it is a worker funded FUND. The govt keeps SSR as a piggy bank to rob at the slightest whim. It's been 2 years and NO cost of living increase. It looks like Bammy is going to NOT give the cost of living increase again in 2012. But last year it was tauted that 2011 would get no raise but 2012 WOULD get the raise. Make up my mind as you talk out your behind too much Bammy. Would someone please redo his teleprompter messages?

If the debt ceiling is not raised the ENTIRE world will collapse financially! Think of what the US Dollar does around the world in aid to other countries alone! The entire civilization will collapse and everyone will be holding worthless paper money while driving around in their soon to be repoed fancy cars eating bread that costs $1K a loaf (if you can even find it to buy that is).

The wackos in Washington are really pushing the limit on this debt stuff. They need to concentrate more on less important stuff like paving roads to nowhere and leave the really important stuff alone and let the crooked Fed print more worthless paper.

Since when is SSR tied into the budget when it is a worker funded FUND.

Bingo! I spoke of this on an email exchange earlier today.If he does that he will expose the lie that says SS is a trust fund put aside for retirees . The AARPees may finally learn that the giverment treats their SS contribution as just another source of "revenue " .

If the debt ceiling is not raised the ENTIRE world will collapse financially!! Think of what the US Dollar does around the world in aid to other countries alone!! The entire civilization will collapse and everyone will be holding worthless paper money while driving around in their soon to be repoed fancy cars eating bread that costs $1K a loaf (if you can even find it to buy that is).

The wackos in Washington are really pushing the limit on this debt stuff. They need to concentrate more on less important stuff like paving roads to nowhere and leave the really important stuff alone and let the crooked Fed print more worthless paper.

Or they can finally draw the line in the sand on uncontrolled spending .

Raise the darn thing and lets wait for the jobs bill. Then we see what the deficit looks like after we get out of the recession. 30 million jobs should give us all a fresh perspective.

30 million jobs should give us all a fresh perspective.

No doubt. You should think about what you expect these 30 million people to be doing after all that's many more than are unemployeed so back to the problem of illegal migration

Same old playbook by the Dems. Raise taxes now... vague promises unfulfilled for spending cuts in the future .They did it to Reagan (now one of their biggest talking points is about Reagan's tax increases ) and they did it to GHW Bush after he promised to not raise taxes.

same old playbook by the Dems. Raise taxes now ....vague promises unfulfilled for spending cuts in the future .They did it to Reagan (now one of their biggest talking points is about Reagan's tax increases ) and they did it to GHW Bush after he promised to not raise taxes.

You know Tom when you are spending twice what you earn, something has to give and governments have very limited options. If they gut spending programs unemployment gets worse, but if they ask the people to share the pain through taxes that isn't irresponsible, unless of course they ask the people to share the pain through entitlement cuts. The rich want the poor to share more of the pain without taking any themselves, this in fact is a very stupid attitude.

Because I live in a place where governments make responsible decisions about taxation without the anquish which is apparent there I find it hard to understand why the hard decisions are so unpalitable.

If they gut spending programs unemployment gets worse
Yeah some giverment workers lose their jobs.


The rich want the poor to share more of the pain without taking any themselves,
This of course is demagogery and nonsense. The "rich" already pay taxes. There is not enough wealth in the possession of the wealthy to balance our insane budget. Only cutting down the size of the central government will solve this . Many pet projects can be cut out or privatized without reducing essential services.

you know Tom when you are spending twice what you earn, something has to give and governments have very limited options. If they gut spending programs unemployment gets worse

Funny you should say that, Obama is actually trying to tell us that layoffs are proof that the stimulus worked instead of only delaying the inevitable. That porkulus, which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent, "saved millions of people their jobs or created a whole bunch of jobs."

Whatever.


but if they ask the people to share the pain through taxes that isn't irresponsible, unless of course they ask the people to share the pain through entitlement cuts.

How about they just spend less of our money? Our money should not be going to fund offensive art, bribe the media (http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/06/washington-post-and-cbs-receiving-money-from-obamacare-slush-fund/), baseball stadiums, water taxis, swine odor research (it stinks), wood utilization research (every year since 1985) and wool research.

No one is even talking about cutting spending, they're talking about increasing spending less.


The rich want the poor to share more of the pain without taking any themselves, this in fact is a very stupid attitude.

There is in fact a group of billionaires asking to be taxed more. OK, tax them more and if you don't there's nothing stopping them from giving all they want to the feds. Meanwhile, people like Sen. Lurch and Rep Rangel can stop being hypocrites on taxes and lead by example.


Because I live in a place where governments make responsible decisions about taxation without the anquish which is apparent there I find it hard to understand why the hard decisions are so unpalitable.

I find it unpalatable because they're wasting money by the trillions and talking nonsense about "shared sacrifice" and "fair share" while nearly half the country pays NO federal income tax. None, zero, nada.

acLW1vFO-2Q

And by the way, Obama has raised $47 million for reelection in the first quarter, part of it by begging from the same Wall Street he's vilified for the past several years. This is a guy who raised around a billion to get elected in the first place. Isn't it a bit irresponsible to be using that much of other people's money for his own benefit with so many people out of work? Think of all the jobs that money could provide, how much arugula that could buy for the children.

yeah some giverment workers lose their jobs. Hello again, tom:

What if the COP side of government started losing their jobs? I'll bet you wouldn't be so cavalier about it then.. You LOVE the cop side of government... What if Obama said let's crash the DEA?? Are you fine with losing those "giverment" jobs?? What if they decided to shut down the NSA?? I'M fine with THAT, which tells me that you wouldn't be.

excon

Hello again, tom:

What if the COP side of government started losing their jobs?? I'll bet you wouldn't be so cavalier about it then.. You LOVE the cop side of government... What if Obama said let's crash the DEA???? Are you fine with losing those "giverment" jobs??? What if they decided to shut down the NSA??? I'M fine with THAT, which tells me that you wouldn't be.

excon

Of course this is not true. Even the cop side and the military side can sustain cuts and still be effective. EVERY dept of giverment is bloated .

And by the way, Obama has raised $47 million for reelection in the first quarter, part of it by begging from the same Wall Street he's vilified for the past several years. This is a guy who raised around a billion to get elected in the first place. Isn't it a bit irresponsible to be using that much of other people's money for his own benefit with so many people out of work? Think of all the jobs that money could provide, how much arugula that could buy for the children.

33% tax on campaign contributions!! Who's on board ?

Isn't it a bit irresponsible to be using that much of other people's money for his own benefit with so many people out of work? Think of all the jobs that money could provide, how much arugula that could buy for the children.You would be outraged at the fact that Sarah Palin has a PAC and she has no power whatsoever to effect any change at all. She's even spend PAC money to buy her own books. Isn't it a bit irresponsible to be using that much of other people's money for her own benefit with so many people out of work? How much moose meat could that buy?

33% tax on campaign contributions !!! Who's on board ?

I'm in.

33% tax on campaign contributions !!! Who's on board ?Hello again, tom:

I'll forgo the tax if we can just get rid of the anonymity. How about public financing?? That'll fix it... Any of those sound good to you?? Nahhh.

Exco

Tom there is a big difference in shared sacrifice, and expecting the rich to balance the budget. No one is doing that, but they can help the whole country with SOMETHING, don't you think? They have no payroll tax, unlike most of us, even though we get money back AFTER the Government has used it. Cool, keeps things flowing, CIRCULATION helps us all.

Now corporations take there loot to the bank, and have an army of accountants and lawyers, and lobbyist to handle their finances for them, and pay less taxes than they ever have in the history of the world. Even if loopholes are closed they still have bookoo bucks safely tucked away in off country havens, trust funds and investments overseas, and jobs Americans use to do.

Still, they could sure pay their fair share since they sure as hell ain't circulating NO money, investing NO money, creating NO jobs, so those corporate fat cats you worship ain't doing NO work to put us back on a working path. Sure keep talking about spending, but if NOBODY spends, there is NO circulation, NO demand, NO jobs, NOTHING.

The government is "We the people", not Exxon, GE, Shell. BP, Citi Corp, or Wells Fargo. The Government didn't screw the world economy, or rip off ordinary people, but "we the people" saved their bacon! So the least they can do is bail "us" out.

And when the repubs, and conservatives stop hollering shrink the government, cut spending, lower taxes, TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK, (thats what they say during good times and bad), then we can handle our real business, and that's a jobs bill! Should have had one already, oh that's right, repubs said NO, "we are broke, we can't afford it".

JOBS< JOBS< and more JOBS, the rest is just a smoke screen, gimme a job, and we can pay bills and buy stuff, and CIRCULATE some money.

Rich people use to do that you know.

You would be outraged at the fact that Sarah Palin has a PAC and she has no power whatsoever to effect any change at all. She's even spend PAC money to buy her own books. Isn't it a bit irresponsible to be using that much of other people's money for her own benefit with so many people out of work? How much moose meat could that buy?

Allow me to knock that straw man down, Palin is irrelevant to this discussion.

Allow me to knock that straw man down, Palin is irrelevant to this discussion.LOL! That's what you say to anything you don't want to hear.

LOL! that's what you say to anything you don't want to hear.

Just speaking the truth. I'll put my record on that up against yours any day.

Record of what? Fantasy football?

Record of what? Fantasy football?

I'd put my record of speaking the truth up against yours any day... and I'd put my fantasy sports record up against anyone.

Hello again, tom:

I'll forgo the tax if we can just get rid of the anonymity. How about public financing??? That'll fix it... Any of those sound good to you??? Nahhh.

exco

Nope . I'll decide who's campaign I support . I don't want a penny of my money going to Schumer's reelection.

Tom there is a big difference in shared sacrifice, and expecting the rich to balance the budget.
The rich finance the Federal government with their income taxes now .The poor don't .So yes there is a big difference in the "shared sacrifice".

Now corporations take there loot to the bank, and have an army of accountants and lawyers, and lobbyist to handle their finances for them, and pay less taxes than they ever have in the history of the world.
And they wouldn't if the tax system was overhauled. I am not into the 'create work for accountants business'. If I had my way there would be no need for the bloated IRS .

The rich finance the Federal government with their income taxes now .The poor don't .So yes there is a big difference in the "shared sacrifice".
LOL, expecting the same thing from a poor guy as you do a rich guy! The rich finance there own pockets and life, and show me a rich guy that has a payroll deduction. Middle class working people are the ones who have payroll taxes deducted, of which the number is rapidly shrinking. It's the middle class that buys stuff from all over the world that makes the rich rich, of which they are shrinking so its less demand.

Come on, Warren Buffet is not god, so why do you worship him so? Oh wait, Tom are you one of those filthy rich?? That's the only explanation I can think of! Confess!!


And they wouldn't if the tax system was overhauled. I am not into the 'create work for accountants business'. If I had my way there would be no need for the bloated IRS
I agree with tax code overhaul, or reform, but downsizing "we the people", and being at the mercy of Wall Street, the banks, and corporations, NO WAY!!

You love and trust them, I DON'T!!

The rich finance the Federal government with their income taxes now .The poor don't .So yes there is a big difference in the "shared sacrifice". Hello again, tom:

Not so. The poor pay federal gasoline taxes... They pay federal telephone taxes... They pay federal UNEMPLOYMENT taxes... They pay federal internet taxes. They pay federal Social Security Taxes. They pay federal FICA taxes...

If that's not enough taxes to satisfy you about "shared" sacrifice, they also pay state property taxes, and city and county sales taxes. And, because I'm not really up on ALL the taxes we pay, I'll bet there are DOZENS more taxes they pay.

More importantly, I wonder WHY a regular working stiff constantly supports rich people who's policies don't support YOU?

excon

I don't know about you, but no FUTA taxes are withheld from my check, FICA taxes ARE Social Security and they pay none of either if they don't work.

Hello again, Steve:

I got your point... Here's mine... Even the dude who is begging on the freeway ramp PAYS TAXES. Yes, I know... It's NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU...

Here's another point, it doesn't make me like you any better knowing that you're MORE concerned with a RICH SOB, than the guy begging on the corner.

excon

LOL, that rich guy just laid off your daddy, and hired Akbar in India, then he brings his crap back here for you to buy. And you guys just love 'em. Keep bending over.He laughs all the way to the bank at your loyalty.

That's why they sent the letter to congress to get 'er done. They already know you will pay their taxes for them, no matter what the rates are, or the loopholes.

I guess you are a rich guy like Tom is, and how come conservatives are so rich??

Hello again, tom:

Not so. The poor pay federal gasoline taxes... They pay federal telephone taxes... They pay federal UNEMPLOYMENT taxes... They pay federal internet taxes. They pay federal Social Security Taxes. They pay federal FICA taxes...

If that's not enough taxes to satisfy you about "shared" sacrifice, they also pay state property taxes, and city and county sales taxes. And, because I'm not really up on ALL the taxes we pay, I'll bet there are DOZENS more taxes they pay.

More importantly, I wonder WHY a regular working stiff constantly supports rich people who's policies don't support YOU?

excon
You make it sound like the rich get off without paying these non-income taxes. The truth however is quite different . I made it clear in the comment above that it was income taxes I was talking of... and of course ,it's the income tax that is the largest single source of Federal Revenues .

Here's another point, it doesn't make me like you any better knowing that you're MORE concerned with a RICH SOB, than the guy begging on the corner.

Ex, I asked you twice yesterday to be honest about me instead of making sh*t up. I don't make stuff about you, don't make stuff up about me, cool? I stated my position (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/debt-limit-585367-13.html#post2845808) yesterday:


That single mom, raising 2 kids and working her a$$ off for not a lot of anything, I have no problem with her getting 100 percent of her withholding back. That deadbeat not even trying, yeah he needs to contribute to society, not suck the life out of it.

I have often said here government needs to provide a safety net for those who truly need help, and I have given plenty over the years to help those less fortunate. I'm sure you've even read my pleas for others to consider sponsoring a child instead of buying their spouse a Christmas present they don't need. I'm not one bit ashamed of positions on the poor or my personal contributions along that line so find a new line of attack.

I guess you are a rich guy like Tom is, and how come conservatives are so rich????

Whatever wealth I have has nothing to do with money.

Whatever wealth I have has nothing to do with money.

Copy that! Takes a village whether its your kid or not.

From each according to their ability to each according to their needs ?

from each according to their ability to each according to their needs ?

;) Are we agreeing, or are you pulling my leg?? :confused::eek:

Does that sum up your position ?
How about this ?Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth -- the soil and the labourer.

Naw, I prefer shared prosperity, through shared effort, for the good of all.

Left up to me, I would burn the money, and trade on need. Yeah I'm out there, but it works so well for the ANTS. I guess humans ain't as smart.

All the ants I see are just following each other around foraging their little butts off for the queen. Is that what you mean?

That's how they keep making and raising more ants, but my point is they all work for the common good. You mean you can't get with humans working for the common good?

Not really, my primary responsibility is to take care of my family and your idea of the "common good" probably differs from mine.

Common good... sounds like something out of the French
Revolution. The problem with the concept of the common good is that it is often used to subjugate the individual. Those who speak it loudest are good for telling others what their shared sacrifice should be.

Working for the common good, what a quaint notion in a land where averice and greed reign supreme. Have you suddenly become communist?

Marxist maybe... I find it's the statists who usually shout common good the loudest.

You left out the concept of "We the people", the principle of how this country was built. Not Corporations or banks but all of us who have a right to vote, and negotiate our own destiny.

Not the few dictating to the many. Is that Marxist? Communist? Or any other ism you choose that you think connotes a back handed put down?? Funny how the very people you choose to worship, and protect, the very rich, have written a letter to the congress telling them to cut a deal, NOW.

But of course the low information right wing says my way, or no way still. That's why informed repubs in Wisconsin voted with democrats against fake democrats. Oops wrong thread, SORRY!

You left out the concept of "We the people", !

It's sad you fail to recognise that we the people has echoed in so many places each time taking a different form until you have diametrically opposed philosophies saying much the same thing. When the French broke the shackles of royalty they suddenly discovered tyranny not in those they killed but among the "people" The two move hand in glove for the people, the mob, always rule by tyranny.

So spare us the lofty ideals and recognise that today the decisions are made by a few and they are not always for the common good but to serve the political machine

So what are you saying? We should give up the idea that we elect people to serve the interest of the people, and get the ones who don't out. Or we should just go along with the program, and do nothing?

If it starts with we the people, we the people have a responsibility to be informed, and active in exercising our rights. What's your solution oh great Canada?

No we have to realise that those who are elected don't serve the people but they are beholding to the machine. It is the machine who organised the supporters, raised the funds and pushed the candidate because at the end of the day, if your candidate isn't elected you have no say in what is done. By all means remove those who obviously neglect the will of those who elected them, but also realise that even if you didn't approve of all of the platform, it will go forward anyway. In a situation where there is little between one candidate and another you can be sure that half the people oppose anything that is done so the will of the people is subject to the whim of the voter. I don't come from Canada but I do come from a place where democracy is strong but needs constant protection from those who are ruled by ideology.

Sorry Clete, my mistake as to your background, but you are right, in my opinion, you have to be on guard against idealogs. Now those we have a lot of here, both left, and right, but we still have to handle our business the best way we can. Hopefully the people with enough sense will try to do the right things.

Sorry Clete, my mistake as to your background, but you are right, in my opinion, you have to be on guard against idealogs. Now those we have a lot of here, both left, and right, but we still have to handle our business the best way we can. Hopefully the people with enough sense will try to do the right things.

Yes Tal and the right thing usually is to let government govern and not be too obstructive. You have a difficult system over there, I don't know how you manage to get anything done. Ours is modelled on yours but without some the obstructiveness. Like you we can get a hostile Senate but it really isn't possible to have a hostile House, when that happens everything changes or it goes back to the voters

The founders wrote into the Constitution limited and defined enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government in Art 1 Sec.8 .
They always intended to limit the impact of the Federal Government.

The problem has been in the interpretation of clauses like the 'Commerce Clause' and the 'Necessary and Proper Clause' in Article 1 .

Early in the history of the country there was a political split between those who believed like Hamilton that those clauses gave the Federal government broad powers over commerce and taxation ;and those of the Jefferson camp who believed those clauses should have very narrow interpretation.

What is being played out in this discussion is the continuation of that debate unresolved .We have seen the Hamiltonian interpretation of the role of the powerful central government bring us to the brink of financial crisis.

We have seen the Hamiltonian interpretation of the role of the powerful central government bring us to the brink of financial crisis.I'm pretty that was due to the government reducing their regulatory oversight of certain industries which allowed the corporations to bring on the meltdown due to their ruthless nature and greed of the owners.

The founders wrote into the Constitution limited and defined enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government in Art 1 Sec.8 .
They always intended to limit the impact of the Federal Government.

The problem has been in the interpretation of clauses like the 'Commerce Clause' and the 'Necessary and Proper Clause' in Article 1 .

Early in the history of the country there was a political split between those who believed like Hamilton that those clauses gave the Federal government broad powers over commerce and taxation ;and those of the Jefferson camp who believed those clauses should have very narrow interpretation.

What is being played out in this discussion is the continuation of that debate unresolved .We have seen the Hamiltonian interpretation of the role of the powerful central government bring us to the brink of financial crisis.

Tal in our democracy we have seen certain clauses of our Consititution tested as to what powers it gives government. We were very surprised when we found the foreign treaties power actually gave the government the ability to prevent a state corporation building a dam to supply hydro power. Our states ceded the taxation power to the federal government in exchange for a guaranteed distribution, they have spent a long time arguing about the formula, but no one argues their absolute ability to control taxation. The commerce power enables our government to regulate trade practices which will soon manifest a world first, plain packaging for cigarettes.

Limited intrepretation works only so long as the people are satisfied but remember how quick they were to take away constitutional rights to ensure homeland security

I take the opposite view. I think it was government manipulating the market that created the bubble . Today the Fed currency manipulations has caused the stock market bubble that is sure to burst.

Hello again,

I just wonder, if you've been appointed to run an agency, let's call it the FTC, and you're from the party who thinks government IS the problem, and in the course of your job, you discover a company violating a particular REGULATION --

What would you do?

excon

PS> Why wouldn't you appoint one of those guys to run the DEA??

You see ;I have no problem with the regulators . I would review the regulations. If let's say as an example your lead regulator at let's say HUD was implementing a policy created by Congress and POTUS that stated that it would be great if people who don't qualifty for home loans should buy homes anyway ;and then ,as the lead regulator ,passed the edict down to his minions to get the institutions he regulates on board... and then surprise surprise... all these new people in the market ,who normally would never qualify for loans but got them anyway has the effect on the housing market that creates an artificial bubble in prices . Well then one should suspect that the market will come crashing down eventually . I find very few instances where it wasn't government manipulations that creates market distortions .

I take the opposite view. I think it was government manipulating the market that created the bubble.For the corporations the benefit is being able to sell/resell junk derivatives and get rich doing it. What does the government get out of manufacturing a bubble? What's their motive?

It was social engineering .

I find very few instances where it wasn't government manipulations that creates market distortions .Hello again, tom:

I hold the opposite view... In fact, the government didn't manipulate derivatives, or credit default swaps, because it had NO IDEA what they were, and they STILL don't. In fact, it was that LACK of regulation that CAUSED the meltdown to occur, and it's going to do it again. That's because those industries/financial instruments are STILL NOT regulated and are not about to be.

Buy gold.

excon

it was social engineering .
I don't understand what that means in this context.

it was social engineering .Hello again, tom:

Yeah, it probably was... But, when social engineering meets YOUR ends, it's cool... The drug war, of course, is social engineering personified. And, you guys enforce YOUR social engineering with guns and prison... The Democrats use sympathy. I like the Democrats approach better.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I hold the opposite view... In fact, the government didn't manipulate derivatives, or credit default swaps, because it had NO IDEA what they were, and they STILL don't. In fact, it was that LACK of regulation that CAUSED the meltdown to occur, and it's going to do it again. That's because those industries/financial instruments are STILL NOT regulated and are not about to be.

Buy gold.

excon

Congratualtions Ex I agree with you but regulation is inherently anti free market and we all know that is sacrosanct or at least the ability to cheat you neighbour is

but regulation is inherantly anti free market and we all know that is sacrosanctHello again, clete:

A free market WITHOUT regulation is anarchy. Even the game of Monopoly has rules.

excon

Some are against any government intervention, like the nuts who wanted to keep edison light bulbs on the market, instead of cheaper, more efficient pigtails. Not hard to see its about changes for the better, or holding on to old outdated ideas in the face of progress.

Fear of change is real, and the conservatives are really scared of Government, and want to shrink it instead of make it more efficient.

Some are against any government intervention, like the nuts who wanted to keep edison light bulbs on the market, instead of cheaper, more efficient pigtail

Nuts? Cheaper? More efficient? In what world should hating toxic bulbs that cost many times over an incandescent, don't last near the time they're supposed to, don't always fit fixtures and put out crappy light make someone nuts?

It's not brain surgery, CFL's suck and the American people know it - from experience. It's not a fear of the unknown, it's a hatred of the known... plus that stop telling us what we have to buy bullsh*t.

My point you obviously missed Steve, was about spending time on a freakin' light bulb bill when what we need is a jobs bill.

Open your mind and see that America is much more than just an extreme right wing view point, or their fears and insecurities. I daresay, you are outnumbered, even in your own party that you try to run through fear, and intimidation. You guys blew it already in 7 months. I mean are you taking Michelle Bachmann for president seriously?? If you are, you are as crazy as she is. She is a nut job you know.

Raise the ceiling and be done so we can move to the next challenge. I would just make 'em vote, no debate, yes, or NO!

Hold the line... enough debt is enough.

So far this year the government has collected $1.647687 trillion in tax revenue, It needs to pay out $150.837 billion in debt service . So this is only a question of financing an ever expanding Levithian .

As for the next "challenge " how about a budget ? The Republican House passed one that Harry Reid will not allow to go to a Senate vote .The House Reps did their job. The Senate is the branch blocking a functional government. The only vote the Senate took on a budget was to unanimously reject the President's proposal . So who is showing responsible leadership and who is playing political games ?

And BTW... the CFL light decision is foolish policy that needs immediate reversal .

LOL, what is it with you guys and making sh*t up? I have offered no hints as to who I might support other than to say Perry would be better than Obama.

You guys keep talking about that alleged "extreme right wing" that likes to play on people's "fears and insecurities." What the hell is that kind of talk but intimidation and playing on others fear and insecurities? Excon is doing just that, just like the president, the Democrats, the media, liberal pundits everywhere - warning of the coming catastrope if Republicans don't cave to the man-child's demands (http://twitter.com/#!/Slublog/statuses/91293492965425152).

So if default would be the catastrophe y'all are saying, why the heck won't Obama agree to a short term deal to avert said catastrophe? If anyone is willing to ruin the economy for political gain it's Obama, because it's ALL about HIM, not the "common good" as you like to say.

Geez, enough of that crap. We're not stupid.

Excon is doing just that, just like the president, the Democrats, the media, liberal pundits everywhere - warning of the coming catastrope if Republicans don't cave to the man-child's demands (http://twitter.com/#!/Slublog/statuses/91293492965425152).

We're not stupid.Hello again, Steve:

HIS demands?? HIS?? You don't appear to understand the situation...

What else is new?

excon

If anyone is willing to ruin the economy for political gain it's ObamaI asked tom but he never answered - what does Obama have to gain from ruining the economy? Because you've mentioned this several times.

I asked tom but he never answered - what does Obama have to gain from ruining the economy? Because you've mentioned this several times.

I'm not tom. So when did I mention it several times?

What would he have to gain? You tell me, he's the one the won't agree to a short term deal. Apparently he thinks allowing this alleged economic ruin is better than slugging it out next year in the heat of the campaign and taking time away from his campaigning and fund raising. It's either politics or policy. If he wants to save us from this 'ruin' he can agree to a short-term deal or negotiate in good faith instead of throwing tantrums and walking out. Otherwise it's all politics from the perpetual campaigner.

HIS demands???? HIS???? You don't appear to understand the situation...

You like to insult our intelligence instead of discussing things honestly. What else is new?

slugging it out next year
The horse refuses to run now. He'll run next year? Like my mother says, "Do it now and get it over with and move on to something more fun."

A clean bill is all that's needed. That's as short term as it gets.

And that may satisfy the ratings agencies in the short term...
But Moody's was clear that wasn't enough


If the debt limit is raised again and a default avoided, the Aaa rating would likely be confirmed. However, the outlook assigned at that time to the government bond rating would very likely be changed to negative at the conclusion of the review unless substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal government debt to GDP and debt to revenue beginning within the next few yearshttp://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Places-US-Aaa-Government-Bond-Rating-and-Related-Ratings?lang=en&cy=global&docid=PR_221800

and that may satisfy the ratings agencies in the short term ...
But Moody's was clear that wasn't enough

http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Places-US-Aaa-Government-Bond-Rating-and-Related-Ratings?lang=en&cy=global&docid=PR_221800

There is nothing else for it Tom you have to raise interest rates to compensate for greater risk and the fed needs to raise the cash rate. These things are decoupled from employment these days anyway so it can't make things worse. When politicians play around they put the whole system in jeopardy

interest rates and monetary policy has to be changed to strengthen the dollar value . King dollar ! Reagan and Clinton both rode prosperity on strong currency.

interest rates and monetary policy has to be changed to strengthen the dollar value . King dollar ! Reagan and Clinton both rode prosperity on strong currency.

Yes your dollar will rise if you raise interest rates, the speculators become interested when there is a prospect of the value raising

That must be it, he is cursed. But according to Mimi Pelosi, the man who stormed out of the negotiations is more patient than Job. Every time we turn around someone else is making him a man of biblical - no beyond biblical - proportions.

mBm0J4vqY8g


“I want to commend the president – I have never seen – Job is no place compared to this president in terms of patience,” said Pelosi at a press briefing on Thursday. “He [Job] doesn’t even begin because this president has demonstrated a level of patience, not only during the meetings but as respect, respectful of the suggestions that are made by all parties at the meeting, in his preparation for the meeting, and his coming back to address concerns that are expressed by others.”

Let's see, Job, the ultimate man of patience, lost 7 sons and 3 daughters, all his possessions and then was stricken with boils from head to toe. He then sat in the ashes and scraped his skin with broken pottery, all with patience.

Obama? Poor thing, he had talk to Republicans.

P.S. Mimi also said she was "almost too busy" to worry about the debt limit discussions. The thought of having to meet at Camp David this weekend "goes beyond the pale" to her. Maybe she'd rather debate light bulbs.

LOL, she references a book of fables.

the man who stormed out of the negotiations
He didn't storm out. He told them they were getting nowhere after their hours of posturing, then ended the meeting.

Hello again,

I'm having trouble with my scorecard... I can't tell who's winning. But, I CAN tell who's losing, and that's you and me.

excon

He didn't storm out. He told them they were getting nowhere after their hours of posturing, then ended the meeting.
If it was a republican they'd be hooting about how tough he is and having a backbone to stand up for their beliefs.

LOL, she references a book of fables.

You opinion of the book is irrelevant. The comparison she made is beyond ridiculous whether the story is true or not.

The comparison she made is beyond ridiculous whether the story is true or not.
It was sarcasm of course.

Look what all the squabbling has done for the price of gold! And just how is a person supposed to spend this gold when the world really crashes? Oh, honey, just chop up one of those gold coins so we can go buy some groceries down the street as that guy doesn't hand out "gold change" to his customers.

And just how is a person supposed to spend this gold when the world really crashes? Oh, honey, just chop up one of those gold coins so we can go buy some groceries down the streetHello twink:

That's pretty close... I'd use a file, though.

excon

That must be it, he is cursed. But according to Mimi Pelosi, the man who stormed out of the negotiations is more patient than Job. Every time we turn around someone else is making him a man of biblical - no beyond biblical - proportions.

mBm0J4vqY8g



Let's see, Job, the ultimate man of patience, lost 7 sons and 3 daughters, all his possessions and then was stricken with boils from head to toe. He then sat in the ashes and scraped his skin with broken pottery, all with patience.

Obama? Poor thing, he had talk to Republicans.

P.S. Mimi also said she was "almost too busy" to worry about the debt limit discussions. The thought of having to meet at Camp David this weekend "goes beyond the pale" to her. Maybe she'd rather debate light bulbs.

Don't forget those wonderful friends Job had telling him he was at fault; and his wife that told him to give in and accuse God.
Since when did the "freedom FROM religion" Nancy Pelosi crowd start referring to the Bible? I thought that was forbidden.

Since when did the "freedom FROM religion" Nancy Pelosi crowd start referring to the Bible? I thought that was forbidden.
She wasn't referring to the Bible. Job is an Everyman, just like King Lear is or Hamlet.

Poor repubs, told the Prez to lead, and now they don't want to follow. But they get 3 choices,

4 trillion in cuts and revenue.

2 trillion in cuts and revenue.

Raise the debt ceiling with no cuts or revenue.

Take one. The sad part is repubs talk about what the American people want, but every poll I have seen says a mix of revenue raising and cuts is what they want.

Anybody seen a poll that says different? Please post it the link.

She wasn't referring to the Bible. Job is an Everyman, just like King Lear is or Hamlet.

Hogwash.

Take one. The sad part is repubs talk about what the American people want, but every poll I have seen says a mix of revenue raising and cuts is what they want.
The Republicans say very righteously, "We don't want tax increases on the American people!!" but that's not what's on the table at all.

Hogwash.
Job is a name to drop. Job = suffering. The Bible has nothing to do with it. Most people have never even read the story and don't know what happened at the end.

Job is a name to drop. Job = suffering. The Bible has nothing to do with it. Most people have never even read the story and don't know what happened at the end.

Come on, you can't spin your way out of this one. There is absolutely no mistaking Pelosi's reference to the biblical Job, the man of patience. Who has and who hasn't read it is irrelevant.

Come on, you can't spin your way out of this one. There is absolutely no mistaking Pelosi's reference to the biblical Job, the man of patience. Who has and who hasn't read it is irrelevant.
I didn't say it wasn't the Biblical Job.

Now I understand you better.

She says he has a lot of patience, and she is correct.

I didn't say it wasn't the Biblical Job.

Now I understand you better.

Obviously, even in the face of overwhelming, indisputable evidence, you are never wrong.

"She wasn't referring to the Bible. Job is an Everyman, just like King Lear is or Hamlet."

"She wasn't referring to the Bible."
Job is an Everyman in the English language. One does not have to introduce him by saying he's from the Bible. It doesn't matter that he's from the Bible. His story is universal. People who know nothing about the Bible recognize the name Job and that his name means patience in suffering.

Even I've heard of the expression "the patience of Job" - I guess I should be giving bible lessons now. LOL!

Even I've heard of the expression "the patience of Job"
If even YOU know about Job, that proves my point.

The speaker of the house better get with the former speaker of the house because he needs some votes.

The Tea Party and the debt ceiling - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-tea-party-and-the-debt-ceiling/2011/07/11/gIQAHaldEI_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein)

The House has called Obama's bluff and scheduled a vote next week on raising the ceiling by 2.4 trillion with matching cuts while he says we're running out of time and offering no specifics.

LOL, he doesn't have to do or say anything as the way it works is it goes to the senate, and they have to vote, amend, and debate it, then it goes back to the house for ratification. No doubt the senate will add revenues to whatever they vote on, so the house is where the action is.

Until then, the president has to wait for the final product to reach his desk. Then its his call to sign, veto, or use it as toilet paper. That's how the process works.

He ain't bluffing either. He already said unless it's a balanced approach, REVENUES, and CUTS, it gets vetoed.