U.S. Debt discussion

[Mccree]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/2...html?hpt=hp_c1

Interesting solution.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Mccree

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/2...html?hpt=hp_c1

Interesting solution.

Just don't let Castro look at the trillion dollar coins.

"Give what back?"

[Cowboy89]

n/m dammit . . . beating to the punch

[yads]

Here's a decent analysis.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...-would-be.html

The first thing TO pay is interest on the national debt. It is non-payment of interest that would constitute default. Given $29 billion is easily payable, talk of default if Congress does nothing is the height of silliness.

The first thing to NOT pay should be congressional salaries.

[Tinordi]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3548

That House Republicans would likely seek to reach the Boehner budget’s $1.8 trillion target in substantial part by cutting programs for the poorest and most vulnerable Americans is given strong credence by the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” bill that the House recently approved. That bill would establish global spending caps and enforce them with across-the-board budget cuts —exempting Medicare and Social Security from the across-the-board cuts while subjecting programs for the poor to the across-the-board axe. This would turn a quarter century of bipartisan budget legislation on its head; starting with the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, all federal laws of the last 26 years that have set budget targets enforced by across-the-board cuts have exempted the core assistance programs for the poor from those cuts while including Medicare among programs subject to the cuts. Moreover, the Boehner plan itself contains an across-the-board-cut mechanism, although it would not likely be used — and it makes the same regressive changes in the exemptions from those cuts that the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” bill does. This common component of both the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” bill and the Boehner plan strongly suggests that, especially in the face of an approaching election, House Republicans looking for entitlement cuts would heavily target means-tested programs for people of lesser means (and less political power).

In short, the Boehner plan would essentially force policymakers to choose among cutting the incomes and health benefits of ordinary retirees, repealing the guts of health reform and leaving an estimated 34 million more Americans uninsured, and savaging the safety net for the poor — or letting the nation default early next year. The plan would do so even as tax breaks, including the many lucrative tax breaks that go to the wealthiest and most powerful individuals and corporations, are protected by Boehner’s pledge that, in the highly unlikely event that the special committee proposes tax increases, House Republicans would vote down its budget package.

President Obama has said that, while we must reduce looming deficits, we must take a balanced approach. The Boehner proposal fails this test of basic decency. The President should veto the bill if it reaches his desk. Congress should find a better way to avoid a default.

[Daradon]

It strikes me that at a time when the middle class and poorer are having a harder time than they have had in many years, the Repubs want them to bear the brunt of the cuts and don't want to tax the rich. I know the party line is that it will hurt jobs if they tax the 'job creators' but it just seems like so much bull right now. The previous tax cuts didn't do that much to stimulate the economy and job growth. Regardless, deeper cuts will probably hurt the middle class more than the alternative anyway. Your going to hurt the ones who need it the most.

It feels so political, and even worse, possible pandering to the businesses and lobbies. And the middle will pay again, as they have for several years now.

And even from a economic standpoint, I would think that if the middle and poor is pushed to the brink as it looks like they might be, that would be a bad economic situation anyway. Say hi to even more crime, bigger drain on social systems, reduced spending, etc.

Why is taxing the highest percentages such a no no in that country? Makes no sense, and that strategy certainly didn't work over the last 10 years.

[Azure]

Wall street and big business have such an influence on Capital Hill that it shouldn't be any surprise that the Republican bill is that dumb.

I still think the solution is quite simply. Problem is years and years of the government helping wealthy Americans have created a situation where its not politically feasible to 'fix' the problem.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Why is taxing the highest percentages such a no no in that country? Makes no sense, and that strategy certainly didn't work over the last 10 years.

Because too many people are blinded by the 'American Dream' and think that they will be the next rich one and don't want taxes to impede them?

It's the Joe The Plumber garbage all over again, everyone worried about being 'overtaxed' in a bracket they'll never sniff.

[Azure]

And they've been blinded so badly that the middle class doesn't even realize that they're being raped, while the 'rich' people get away with paying nothing.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Azure

And they've been blinded so badly that the middle class doesn't even realize that they're being raped, while the 'rich' people get away with paying nothing.

It's hard to step back and look at your life and accept that this is what it is. Most people think they're going to 'make it' at some level.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Why is taxing the highest percentages such a no no in that country? Makes no sense, and that strategy certainly didn't work over the last 10 years.

Because it's the rich who fund campaigns.

[Calgaryborn]

There is a lot of generalities being thrown around here but, behind them I doubt there is much substance.

The rich not paying their fair share for instance: What is their fair share? Don't the top money earners already pay most of the tax already? I think I heard something about the top 10% paying 60% of the taxes while 48% of the population pays no taxes.

Loop holes is another one: What specific loop holes need to be closed? I've heard of examples of companies paying no taxes but, I havn't heard of the terrible loop hole that made that possible. Could it be that they didn't pay this year because of losses they incurred in the previous couple of years. Is a loss a loss and a gain the governments?

I've heard that the rich have a higher percentage of taxation but, because of these loop holes they never pay it. Do middle and lower class Americans simply pay their percentage of taxes or do they have exemptions and credits and deductions and whatever else you could call a loop hole. What percentage of income tax did you pay after you or your accountant worked their magic last year?

Recently someone said that the saftey net such as Social security shouldn't be touched because people have paid into it. That is true: they did pay into it. They also elected governments who put America into debt 14 trillon dollars and counting. Are you actually arguing that they don't share in the responsibility for that but, rather are owed by the next generation to ensure they get all their elected governments promised but, didn't save for?

I've heard a lot of ridicule about the notion that the rich need money in order to create jobs. It is pointed out that few have been created under Obama even with the retaining of the Bush tax cuts. So how do you see jobs created. The job rate still hovering over 9% has got to be Obama's greatest failure. The real numbers of unemployed are obviously much higher. OK, so you take more from the rich. How is that going to produce jobs? If Reagan was wrong what will work? How can taking more money out of the economy do anything but, hurt it more?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Recently someone said that the saftey net such as Social security shouldn't be touched because people have paid into it. That is true: they did pay into it. They also elected governments who put America into debt 14 trillon dollars and counting. Are you actually arguing that they don't share in the responsibility for that but, rather are owed by the next generation to ensure they get all their elected governments promised but, didn't save for?

While some people may make that case about Social Security, I dont think it really matters. I have included the following bolded statement, from an obviously intelligent poster, that I feel answers best why Social Security shouldn't be touched.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've heard a lot of ridicule about the notion that the rich need money in order to create jobs. It is pointed out that few have been created under Obama even with the retaining of the Bush tax cuts. So how do you see jobs created. The job rate still hovering over 9% has got to be Obama's greatest failure. The real numbers of unemployed are obviously much higher. OK, so you take more from the rich. How is that going to produce jobs? If Reagan was wrong what will work? How can taking more money out of the economy do anything but, hurt it more?

The again, maybe the poster has no idea what they are talking about.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Rathji

While some people may make that case about Social Security, I dont think it really matters. I have included the following bolded statement, from an obviously intelligent poster, that I feel answers best why Social Security shouldn't be touched.



The again, maybe the poster has no idea what they are talking about.

But I don't think they should lower the amount. I think people should wait until their 68 to recieve it. That will mean another three years of work for many which will help the economy.

I've also suggested means tests which would exclude some rich people but, that shouldn't have as much negative effect as actually taking earnings from them. One takes away a reward for retiring and the other punishes them for earning money.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

And they've been blinded so badly that the middle class doesn't even realize that they're being raped, while the 'rich' people get away with paying nothing.

Yup, the Tea Party movement thinks they're defending their own rights, but they're really just shooting themselves in the foot.

Originally Posted by SebC

Because it's the rich who fund campaigns.

Yeah, I know this, and alluded to it in my first post when I said the government (or at least the portion that wants to keep taxes low) has pandering to the businesses and lobby groups. Was just asking some open ended questions.

Whichever way this goes, it isn't going to end well. Been saying it for years, but nothing is going to 'fix' the system or the country short of drastic, borderline revolutionary change. Or, as impossible as it may seem, a cultural awaking of some sort. The average American needs to redefine their American Dream.

I doubt that will happen though. I wonder how long it will be till we hear serious discussion of certain states wanting to separate?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've heard a lot of ridicule about the notion that the rich need money in order to create jobs. It is pointed out that few have been created under Obama even with the retaining of the Bush tax cuts. So how do you see jobs created. The job rate still hovering over 9% has got to be Obama's greatest failure. The real numbers of unemployed are obviously much higher. OK, so you take more from the rich. How is that going to produce jobs? If Reagan was wrong what will work? How can taking more money out of the economy do anything but, hurt it more?

It's not that simple an equation. It has to do with a lot more factors than just taxes and/or stimulus. If it was seriously that simple every country in the world would have the same economic strategy.

In fact, if your taking money out, and distributing it to things like health care and education, you could help the economy with smarter, healthier, happier workers.

Now, that's just a for instance as well, it obviously doesn't work that simply, but your fooling yourself if you think statement is even close to the truth.

If you have a middle class that's beaten down, unhealthy, uneducated, overworked, poor, unhappy, how good do you think the economy will be?

Don't think we aren't seeing a bit of that right now. And don't think it won't get worse if the tax situation isn't made more fair.

[WesternCanadaKing]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Recently someone said that the saftey net such as Social security shouldn't be touched because people have paid into it. That is true: they did pay into it. They also elected governments who put America into debt 14 trillon dollars and counting. Are you actually arguing that they don't share in the responsibility for that but, rather are owed by the next generation to ensure they get all their elected governments promised but, didn't save for?

Well in that vein everyone who voted for Bush is just as culpable. You don't think the lowering of taxes while funding two wars on the other side of the world didn't contribute? How about Bush's own bailouts at the end of his term? I'm not 100% on this, but I think I remember reading that Bush increased government spending more than any other president up that point. Obviously he's not entirely to blame, Obama hasn't done much either, but to say the middle class and poor deserve to have their services cut for supporting Obama just doesn't make sense.

There is so much wrong with your post but this really stood out in not only its ignorance but also the arrogance. I don't understand why its such a problem to ask all members of the society to contribute more during times of hardship. The middle class and poor are going to pay no matter what happens.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Daradon

It's not that simple an equation. It has to do with a lot more factors than just taxes and/or stimulus. If it was seriously that simple every country in the world would have the same economic strategy.

In fact, if your taking money out, and distributing it to things like health care and education, you could help the economy with smarter, healthier, happier workers.

Now, that's just a for instance as well, it obviously doesn't work that simply, but your fooling yourself if you think statement is even close to the truth.

If you have a middle class that's beaten down, unhealthy, uneducated, overworked, poor, unhappy, how good do you think the economy will be?

Don't think we aren't seeing a bit of that right now. And don't think it won't get worse if the tax situation isn't made more fair.

Well given what the unemployment rate is right now I'm sure there are quite a few healthy and educated without a job.

I do agree with you that there is more to it then letting business keep there money to work with. If there wasn't as you say every country would have that strategy and be successful. But I honestly can't see how you create non-govenment jobs without businesses making and being able to keep a lot of their money.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

Well in that vein everyone who voted for Bush is just as culpable. You don't think the lowering of taxes while funding two wars on the other side of the world didn't contribute? How about Bush's own bailouts at the end of his term? I'm not 100% on this, but I think I remember reading that Bush increased government spending more than any other president up that point. Obviously he's not entirely to blame, Obama hasn't done much either, but to say the middle class and poor deserve to have their services cut for supporting Obama just doesn't make sense.

There is so much wrong with your post but this really stood out in not only its ignorance but also the arrogance. I don't understand why its such a problem to ask all members of the society to contribute more during times of hardship. The middle class and poor are going to pay no matter what happens.

If I remember correctly, only about 53% of Americans pay taxes.

Similarly, the old axiom that 20% of Americans pay 80% of the taxes is generally in the ballpark of truth.

If you're on the wealthy side, there's certainly something inherently unfair when your tax bill is in six figures and all you're hearing is whining from the jerkoff driving a Volkswagon beetle that you're not paying your fair share.

However, there does seem to be something wrong when you hear yesterday that General Electric made $14 billion profit and didn't pay taxes, basically still writing off losses from the last recession.

Nevertheless, Calgaryborn is correct in that the profit motive can't be stifled too much. If that happens, you're as good as dead.

As I said earlier, total USA debt, government, business and household, is actually declining and is in better shape as a percentage of GDP than many peers around the world. That's why markets aren't too wound up about this as of yet.

But government is paralyzed in the USA because the middle ground has disappeared and politics has been replaced by a religious mantra - on both sides - to some extent. Politicians could get this done - fanatics have a more difficult time compromising. And thats true on both sides.

Cowperson

[Azure]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's hard to step back and look at your life and accept that this is what it is. Most people think they're going to 'make it' at some level.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to 'make it.' You SHOULD want to be successful. You should have the drive to achieve and make boatloads of money.

But when you make those boatloads of money, you should also have to pay your 30% in taxes like everyone else has to.