E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS From msnbc.com's Tom Curry
The chairmen of the fiscal reform commission appointed by President Barack Obama announced Tuesday that the members of the panel will vote on a final deficit-cutting plan by the end of this week.
“I don’t know if we’re going to get two votes or five votes or 10 votes or 14 votes,” said former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. But the good news, according to Bowles, was that “the era of deficit denial is over.”
He also argued that “regardless of how the vote turns out, we won – and we won big.”
In effect, Bowles was saying the work of the commission was a worthwhile exercise in educating the public about the dangers of the growing national debt, no matter what happens to the plan.
According to the presidential executive order that created the panel, 14 out of its 18 members would need to vote for the recommendations in order for them to be reported to Congress.
The text of the final plan will be released later Tuesday, Bowles told reporters. “We’re putting the final touches on it now.”
He and the commission co-chairman, former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson, said the proposal would recommend elimination of tax expenditures, or tax breaks, which cost the Treasury $1.1 trillion a year.
Simpson insisted on calling those provisions “tax earmarks.”
“We don’t use the phrase ‘tax expenditures’ any more – that’s a fake. Tax earmarks are spending by another name… and they just chip away revenue,” Simpson said.
By eliminating tax preferences, “We can broaden the base, simplify the (tax) code, reduce (tax) rates, and pay the deficit down between $80 billion and $180 billion a year, every year,” said Bowles.
Bowles echoed a warning last summer from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that investor doubts about U.S. Treasury bonds might someday cause a fiscal crisis.
“When the markets lose confidence in a country, they act swiftly and they act decisively. Look at Greece, look at Portugal, look at Ireland, look at Spain. If they markets lose confidence in this country and we continue to build up these enormous deficits and debt, they will act swiftly and decisively,” Bowles warned.
Leave a Comment:
"....He also argued that “regardless of how the vote turns out, we won – and we won big.”
Oh, God, Bowles- not the dreaded 'we won' phrase! Doncha know that's as bad as saying 'Bush' anymore??
Would Mission Accomplished been better? lol
Brace yourself... DBO... it's only a matter of time... tick tock... ;0)
May as well disband this group of idiots.
There is NO FISCAL left!!
Thanks Obimbo!!
Now 2 years later and untold TRILLIONS of our kids money is spent we need to raise taxes to pay for it all. We the PEOPLE need to starve this beast of government and return it to what the CONSTITUTION says it can do. Have no doubt that the next generation is already oppressed. Just disgusting Washington DC. Both left and right.
starve the beast fiscal policy is what got us in this situation, 3rdpartyadvocate.
Consider all those tax cuts in hopes that it would reduce government spending, as forced future tax increases.
The Republicans campaigned on the promise of being fiscally responsible. Now not even a month later, they are asking for across the board permanent tax cut extension to include the top 10% wealthy at the cost of $700 Billion added to the deficit over the next ten years (or 1.2 Trillion added to the deficit for everyone receiving the tax exemption. During the Bush tax cut, the wealthy did not spend their tax cut money, nor did they create new jobs. But the middle class and poor did spend their money buying things they needed from the various businesses). Keep in mind that the CBO does not include inflation into the calculation with the deficit. As a result the amount added to the deficit if the tax exemptions are approved just may be considerably a lot higher. It is a known fact or good common sense that you have to be able to pay for the tax cuts by cutting in other areas. Republicans want (as suggested by some of them, if they can't eliminate it entirely) to cut the SS & Medicare, which everyone has paid into out of their weekly checks without any matching of money from other sources- like a savings account, provided you live long enough after they raise the age once again to 69). It is quite obvious that these actions are giving to the rich and taking from the middle class and the poor as usual. Also, the accumulated money in SS & Medicare (esp. the first) was borrowed from to pay for Bushes two wars, (one very questionable) which he never told at the beginning how the wars would be paid and with what funds. So very clever of him to avoid how the wars would be paid for until after our money was LOANED from our SS & M savings accounts. Irregardless of what happened back then, what the Republicans are fighting fiercely for now, is tax breaks for the wealthy along with all the other exemptions they receive. I say let the tax expire for all of us if we are serious about reducing the deficit. Less than a month after the elections, the Republicans have changed their stance on deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility by pushing for a permanent or even temporary tax cut to include the nation's top 10%. Only later would they say, "Well, we have to cut in other places to pay for the tax cuts." And we already know where they are headed for that by wanting to take even more from the average and poor workers savings in the SS & M accounts. I'd say the Republican campaign promises made before the elections are just one big FIB at its best. Less than 12 hours after the election, their stance changed from creating jobs and the economy recovery with fiscal responsibility to their new goal of making Obama ,a one term Pres. In other words what the Republicans are really saying to you now now is: They don't give a rat's a-- s--- for you, the Constituents, or your needs!! It's still about them and their party's philosophy. While our immediate goal is jobs, their goal is making sure Obama never serves again. Our goal is fiscal responsibility and economic recovery and their goal is to give the rich even more and bail them out when they fail. If this is what you truly want, then keep on giving them all that you have by keeping a blind eye and ear to what they have done and still are doing."There are none so blind as those who won't see!"Both sides need to spend only what they can pay for and not by what they can borrow from other countries. And it certainly wouldn't hurt for them to save as well for emergencies, just as Clinton did, and Bush went through it in a blink of the eye.
Actually that "tax cut for the wealthy" only affects the top %2. Not even the last 8% of wealthy americans will see that big of a rise in taxes in the Republicans tax cuts, it mainly affects people who are already very flush with cash.
Only 6.24% of the population makes over $100K a year. Based on my personal awareness, people who live in places like Seattle where the cost of living is high (avg home price > $500K or more than $3K a month in mortgage payments), people at this income level do not feel wealthy even if on average nationally they are. People in the $100K - $250K range are definitely are putting $ back into the economy. Someone making $100K is saving about $2K on Bush tax cuts, not bad but again in a high cost living locations, it goes fast.
When it comes to Congress spending money, they are like kids in a candy store, except that it is our money being used and not theirs to waste or to use up just because it is there.
here we go again these guys on capital hill start playing with words and the american people get screwed! will anyone of the media report on what is actually in the report?? NOT! i think any defict reduction plan should be VOTED ON BY THE AMERICAN TAX PAYER! ITS OUR MONEY! we should have a say in how it gets spent!! so should any expenditure over 1 million dollors! now that would be true deficit reduction!!
I wish Rep. Eric Cantor would take his glasses off so someone could bytch slap him in the face for being so stupid!!
I don't know why but I find what you said really funny, I barely know who cantor is too!
All you have to do is look at him. He's the kid everyone used to chase home after school, threatening to beat him up.
Rove was that guy, too. And Glenn Beck.
Don't forget Obama riding that bike with iron pressed jeans and that bike helmet or Rahm shooting his mouth off until someone bigger slugs him in the mouth..........kind of like that eh?
Here is a novel compromise that will appeal to both left and right and maybe even help the economy. Let the cuts for the rich expire This will increase revenue about 70 billion a year.But instead of spending the extra revenue , match it dollar for dollar with spending cuts. This will send a powerful message that we are serious about our deficit spending. The combined result would be a decrease in deficit spending of 140 billion which is about 11 % of the deficit and a damn good first step.
killarneytim.blogspot.com
No, that's not really fair. If you're going to let the tax cuts expire for the wealthy, then they need to expire for all. Why volunteer someone for something you're unwilling to do?
Brutus, while I don't agree with you that it wouldn't be fair, I'm more than willing to give up my tax break. I expect that, and I understand the need. Why don't the rich, or the Republicans?
How about an optional line in tax return where someone can donate money to government? The money is calculated as a loss in adjusted gross income. If you optionally donate money you can specify terms that must be meet for government to accept money. This way everyone who feels it is their duty to pay more taxes can.
takingmiddleground,
Because it's everyone's duty to pay their fair share of taxes, and it's pretty clear that most wouldn't voluntarily pay what needs to be paid. The wealthy put an immense amount of wealth toward making sure they put the absolute minimum of their wealth toward supporting the governance of this country.
I can not really say 250,000 is "rich" even if it is top 1%. This is due to east and west coast cost of living. If you were talking about 1,000,000 (extra zero) I could see it. I have a number of those making 1,000,000 and above per year state on TV that they should not get a tax cut. If this is truly what they believe then making extra tax optional for 1 year until economy is stable should increase revenue without potentially hurting places where businesses might need it additional revenue. It would also empower those paying extra taxes to somewhat control what it is spent on.
There has been much talk about debit reduction, let us see who is serious.
I wish those who want to reduce our countrys debit a Merry Christmas and good luck.
The president announced a proposed two year pay freeze for federal employees. A good first step ,but probably more political in motive, which will theoretically cut expenditures 2 billion a year.But we all know they will find ways to skip around this freeze and actual savings will be much less.
The military are exempt from the freeze as they should be. But for some reason the USPS is also exempt and this makes no sense at all other than political.The USPS employees 630000, and lost 8.6 billion dollars this year,so why do they deserve a raise instead of a pay cut.? It is not a bad job. Starting pay is $19 per hour,there is liberal vacation and sick leave benefits. They get free health care,and defined retirement. They get a much better package than in the private sector. And all of this to deliver junk mail that goes from the USPS to the trash.
Lets get serious, sell the UPS to private the private sector. We don't want pay freezes, we want less government employees.
I still like the idea that all Senators, Congress and their aides take a pay cut. Not a freeze but a pay cut.
i do agree that usps is a waste of time. i am pretty sure a private company can do a better job. how do you lose money when you have a monopoly on first class mail. what needs to happen to usps, is the number of mail delivery needs to be cut in half, monday, wednesday and friday.
however freezing federal pay is somewhat of a first step, it save 2b each year. that is move toward the right direction. i hate when people say that is not enough, we need to cut were we can and slowly move up the ladder to the bigger cuts. now they need to go after waste in the military.
everything needs to be on the table. everybody has to pay a price.
What's the big deal about a pay freeze? The cost of living increases didn't freeze, nor did the increases for advancing pay grades. No one was getting base salary increases until getting pay grade promotions anyway. More pop and sizzle, no substance.
tim, you'd call me a lib, but I could support converting USPS to a private business. we need to be creative to rescue our economy.
Sounds like a good idea. How about we start by ending the wars, bringing all of our troops home, and closing all of our military bases on foreign soil. Then we can cut the size of the military by at least half. We can't afford to be the world's policeman any longer, and there is no valid reason why this country spends almost as much money in our defense budget as the rest of the countries in the world combined.
Tim's description of the USPS hits the nail on the head. And he's spectacularly right about most of the USPS delivered mail being junk mail. I throw almost every piece of mail I receive into the paper recycle bin. And while they are so good at delivering junk mail, I recently sent a package abroad using the USPS and it just disappeared, leaving me to absorb the loss. (Yes, my fault for trusting the USPS with something valuable. I've learned my lesson.)
Actually, the President of the United States does not have unlimited powers and government pay increases are one of the things that he actually can control. I don't see it so much as political but, as Obama says, "the art of the possible"
Let's see. First, "...educate the public about the dangers of the growing national debt..." LOL--rolling on the floor LOL,
Second, reliving, you can take cisco's word..cantor is stupid and a good slap would give him some humility.
Third, like elise, I want to see all the politicians make some sacrifices. They have mismanaged our country's finances and robbed the treasury with their over compensation. If they tool around with social security, I want to see something from them. They have had too good too long.
Bush era Republican thinking: "Spend all you want...deficits don't matter"
Obama era Republican thinking: "Deficits are the only thing...you aren't allowed to spend a penny! Unless, of course, we want to give extra tax breaks to the rich--then we don't mind tacking on $700B to the deficit. We'll just balance it on the backs of the poor and the elderly by cutting unemployment, social security, and medicare."
Of the last five presidents (not including Obama):
The three who exploded the national debt the most: Bush 43, Reagan, Bush 41.
The two who increased the national debt the least: Clinton, Carter.
Remember, folks, there was a budget SURPLUS when Clinton left office, and a plan in place to pay off the national debt within 15 years.
There has not been a REAL budget surplus since 1957, the last year the national debt did not increase. Just because Clinton, like other Presidents, use gimmicks worthy of Enron Accountants does not make it real. If you doubt this is a FACT, please check the U.S. Treasury website which keeps track of the national debt.
Alrighty then. Clinton also shelved the info on 9-11 attacks knowingly
I agree that the government uses gimmicks to make the debt situation seem less ominous than it is. I think if they were to start using legitimate accounting the national debt would be much higher. The one that gets me most is that the Social Security trust fund getting abolished in 1968 by moving all money to the general fund and keeping a "pretend" figure of what would be in it if it existed. Forty two years later most of us are still in denial and refuse to accept this,They consider all this stuff Pay as you go items.
I actually think that Obama is pretty close to correct on this issue, at least compared with other Presidents. Politics of course complicates all their views. It's the Herberts among the Republicans that really want to cut everything and greatly reduce government services and the regulation of business, returning us to the Hoover 'Rugged Individualism' model. It was disasterous when Hoover did it, it was disasterous when Bush just made steps in the direction, and I think it's time America realizes that the traditional Republican model is devastating to the economy, as counter-intuitive as I know that seems to many of you. Start from people not being able to make their mortgage payments and look what that did to us. Keynes was correct in that regard.
 How about talking about Harry Reids Back door Amnesty that will be voted on this week?????? (cloture)
It just cuts off debate, Johnny. You are looking a little silly here.
We can't vote our way to a decent government, that time has come and gone, the wealthy won't allow it, most peoples standard of living will continue to decline, and until the people reject the entire phony political system we now have nothing will change, the wealthy few that control everything will fight to prevent change most vigorously, it's time for the people of this country to forget about Republican/Democrat, both are failures, and think about what's best for our country and it's people, steps need to be taken to right the wrong, and none of those steps involve any existing political party. To continue bickering amongst ourselves is exactly what our masters want, get past the farce and realize the truth, neither party represents the people, the facts are starring you right in the face people, quit ignoring them.
Actually, we just had a good government since 2008 and things were slowly improving, but we voted them out. Now that we have elected a bunch of Herberts, our chances are lower.
In the immortal words of Ted Knight in Caddyshack..."well, we're WAITING."
Nice:)
Just what did they win ?? Im sure most of us will get a big kick in the rump ! And they will get there raiseses as always !!!!
Reverse the stupid so called "health care" fiasco. That will save a lot.
No, Woodsy, the reason for all of that is that healthcare costs are eating state and local revenues at a tremendous rate, leaving them in the red. This is why healthcare reform was necessary. Many people miss that. Maybe Obama should have talked more about the real economic reasons rather than making the tear jerking arguments about particular cases that he did, but the real reason is the economy.
woodsyhowl:
"Stupid" would be you if you think reversing Health Care Reform will "save" a lot!
You did not provide proof of these purported "savings" so I'm convinced this is just more Obama bashing.
It is refreshing to see the truth spoken about healthcare reform. The idea that repealing healthcare reform will save us money only tells me someone is drinking too much of Glenn Beck's cool aid. The program reduces the Govt expenditures by way of Medicare and Medicade spending to reign in healthcare spending. The States who have sued over this are suing because less Federal dollars means more burden on the States. I believe this puts the responsibility on local support. The federal government is also pushing funding preventative care in lieu of invasive procedures in order to bring down health care costs over the long run. Our current system rewards exotic procedures, but not basic medical care which only results in more exotic procedures. I can't understand how people think repealing healthcare reform would decrease federal spending. Too many talking heads and too little listening.
Save 2.5 billion a year by having Canada manage our health care in exchange for us paying for theirs. We would only spend 11% of GDP and everyone in both countries would be covered. Of course Simpson and his fellow simians will come up with voodoo savings and everything will be put off. Obamanomics will continue for 2 more years. Ken rieger Cape Coral, Florida
The budget deficits are so large and the national debt is increasing so fast that it will take brutal spending cuts and higher taxes for ALL to solve the problem. I see no way that is going to happen any time soon. And when we are forced to take action some time in the future, those with wealth will be the only group not impacted very much. We do not tax wealth, we tax income and the two are very different.
Peter17: Well said and sad but true. Looks to me like this country is headed for third-world status which only the wealthy will enjoy.
That was the Herbert's plan, big class differentiation, but we were moving away from that angle. Since the last election were probably back to it as you say though.
When they say "its a win" the middle class had better get ready to take another hit!!!! They have found a way to steal more from average American's so the rich can get richer!!!! Look out!! Here it comes!!!!
The middle-class actually got bigger percentage tax cuts from the reduction in rates in the early 2000s than the high income earners did. Almost half of all taxpayers now pay NO federal income tax.
yea but they still get earned income credits. Thats the first item to go. There are a couple hundred more that can go and all introduced by democrats.
Abolish the IRS and insert the FairTax ( HR25 ) and watch our economy rebound, it can't do anything but grow. Research Flat Tax and FairTax, two entirely different proposals and to a person, democrats are aginst the FairTax, HMMMM
Obviously the demorcrats are the problem. Perhaps you could kill them all and you would have more money but then who would do the work???
Peter17 - before you start waging some sort of war on those who pay no federal income tax, do some research and look at who those folks are...do you seriously think they're "living high on the hog"? Would you like to change places with any of them?
From The Tax Policy Center
The 47% who do not pay federal income taxes include: those who earn less than $30,000, those who are elderly, and those who are single with children.
Not owing federal income tax is not the same as not paying any taxes at all. Workers will fork over payroll taxes for the Social Security and Medicare programs, and various sales taxes, including the federal gasoline tax.
Well you will have everyone who voted for the reckless Republicans to thank for that Jim. Those Herberts have too much faith in their beliefs and not enough in actual fact. It really was getting better. For my business 07 and 08 were awful, 09 was just OK '10 has been really good. I doubt it will last though because America just elected a House full of Herberts.
The real United States of America died in her sleep a while back. This is just a godless shell still writhing with the maggots eating her carcass from within. The IRS is proof positive of that.
Our Nation is in a financial crisis. No one really denies that right now. The one thing that “both” sides in this poly-multifaceted society can agree on is that we need to fix our economy. The one thing we can’t agree on is which of the two solutions presented to us by our binary, yes/no, this/that, Democrat/Republican, 24 hour media conglomocorp to decide upon. Do we tax everyone, borrow a lot of money, and then use that to “stimulate the economy’ or do we stop taxing and hope that the wealthy will trickle their wealth down on us.
The reason we can’t agree on either solution is that they are both based on ideology, not on ideas. One of these ideologies believes that society should come together and pool their resources to help support those less fortunate and make sure no one falls through the cracks. The other believes in self-determination, that a person is responsible for themselves and that to give a person too much outside support erodes this self-determination and actually makes them less likely to make the most of themselves. I actually kind of agree with both ideologies. I believe that I am responsible for myself and that if I am to make the most of my life it is up to me to do it. I believe that this is true of every person alive. But I also believe that there have been many people who have helped me along the way and without their help I would not have made it this far. These are beliefs of mine.
But the solutions we need right now will not come from beliefs, they will come from facts. So here is a good fact for everyone to think about in regards to how to fix our national budget. Every department of the Federal Government (and the departments of many state, county, and city governments) is given a quarterly budget. If a department does not use their entire quarterly budget the budget is reduced to what was actually used. For example, if your quarterly budget for this quarter is $100,000 and you actually only spend $70,000, then next quarter your budget will be $70,000 dollars. Each individual department of the government is penalized for being fiscally responsible. This gives each department of the government incentive to consciously and deliberately waste money.
Anybody who has ever worked in the private sector knows that this is not how a successful business is run. In the private sector a department is given a quarterly budget and if that department does not spend the entire quarterly budget not only do they receive the same original budget the next quarter, the person responsible for having the department finish “under budget” is given a bonus. Often this bonus is a percentage of the money saved. Say, for example, a department is given a budget of $100,000 and the department only spends $70,000, saving the company $30,000. The next quarter that department again receives a budget of $100,000 and the manager of that department is given a bonus of 10% of the savings. That is a $3,000 bonus. This gives each department in the private sector an incentive to consciously and deliberately NOT waste money.
So, as our politicians are spouting rhetoric to us about cutting government spending, balancing the budget, and reducing the deficit, I politely ask all of them to stop espousing their idealogical solutions and to start promoting a couple ideal solutions. This solution will not fix all of our financial problems, but if every individual Company of every branch of our armed services were encouraged to save money instead of waste it, how much would this help us in fixing our economy. Now take that idea and apply it to every local field office of the FBI, and ATF, and Fish and Wildlife, and Bureau of Land Management, and Social Security, and Medicare, and the DEA, and the VA, and the Treasury, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Congress, and the USGS, and the Peace Corps, and the Census Bureau, and the Border Patrol, and the Smithsonian, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, and NASA, and the US Postal Service, and the FAA, and the TSA, the Department of Energy, and the USDA. This is just a very brief sampling of Federal Agencies. Imagine the culture of each and every department of each and every federal agency changed from fiscal irresponsibility to fiscal responsibility. Then add in all of the state, and local agencies. This basic switch in economic practices would do more to balance the budget than taxing and “stimulating” or all the tinkling down of wealth could ever possibly do. Any politician who claims to want to fix the budget, end this economic crisis, and get us out of debt to China will start promoting this idea. Any politician who claims to be for fiscal responsibility and does not push for this change in spending culture is merely spouting idealogical rhetoric in hopes that we will vote them into a job that they are not interested in doing to the best of their ability. Please send this to every public official you can and anybody you know who has the ability to help choose our public officials (in other words every American over the age of 18). Let our politicians know that We, The American People, want real solutions, not ideological bickering. And let them know that they are at risk of joining the ranks of the unemployed.
Thank You
William C. Henderson
Your points are well stated.
The simple solution to a successful business is you take in X amount of dollars and you can spend X amount of dollars and what is left is profit. No profit, no business, the govt puts everything in a cost basis accounting and spending has no bearing.
The tax cuts of Bush "cost nothing" and it only means the govt did not get that money and therefore they spent it as though they had it to spend which did cost. Income vs expenditures is a simple philosophy every American has to live by, so why not the govt?
If I make $50,000.00 a year and spend $30,000.00 I make $20,000.00 and if I lose $20,000.00 the next year ( lost one income ) I am still even and it cost me nothing tangible. It just means I had to be more careful spending that year, why doesn't the govt have to?
The FairTax( HR25 ) solves the majority of the problem and it is simple.
As I stated, good post but you did write it so most on this blog won't take the time to read it and probably can't understand it.
I did and do.
Exactly William. i worked for a "beltway bandit" firm in support of the navy in the 80s. we got new office furniture EVERY year to make sure our budget was spent. i had a lot of friends who were congressional aides, etc., that had the same situation. it is the most ineffecient system ever. the waste is unbelievable. I understand my responsibility as a citizen of this great country, but every year i pay taxes i just cringe because i know how my money will be wasted.
22 years ago, my unit of state gov't paid back whatever was not spent during each fiscal year. For the past 12 years or more, since we were "blessed" with a gov't-growing administrator, we haven't paid back a dime. It's all spent on non-essential "replacement" items or inordinate and unnecessary travel, lodging and false "training" for supervisors in order to preserve budget status for the next fiscal year. Hoiwever, you can be sure that it is all reported as "essential," and there is no objective entity policing expenditures, or the waste would be very apparent.
Layers of gov't oversight are in place to prevent this, but they are all in bed together, so it's all a waste of time and money. In order to get an objective picture re: waste, those at the "grunt" level should be polled and listened to in all levels of gov't. Until that happens, the overseers will just continue to sleep with the overspenders, and nothing will change.
I agree with you in general, Bill. However, I have to say, and I know that this is an unpopular position, that Obama is a pragmatist. He does have a tendancy to emotional salesmanship and that has probably affected your view. The core of the health care law for example is really about the fact the under the previous rules insurance companies would dodge their obligations to the people who were paying premiums if the costs got too high by paying less, but still a lot, to their lawyers. The government did this because states and less directly the federal government are buried in the cost of the current system and by taking on those the insurers have dumped, in addition to those who really have no money.
Move Washington to the lowest paying wage country in the world maybe then the rest of us can fix the problem which is saved by lower pay scale of Washington's pay wage as it sets now
You are not very bright. I say this not to be unkind, but because you are easily duped. Mind your wallet friend.
There are a variety of plans for the US to start paying its debts. Unless you plan to die in the next year or two, it is something we absolutely must do. But it is not going to be easy. We have a clear improvement in our national and state economy, and we do not want to kill it off just as it is making headway.
American once led the world in almost everything. We are now behind multiple countries in almost every measure of wealth, quality of life, infant mortality, longevity and culture. Except for the scum-bag extreme rich, our income has been stagnant or declining for over a decade. We have major problems, and continuing on the way things have been for 30 years in not the answer.
But there is also good news. If we take the steps needed to re-enter the real world economy and end the wealth transfer to the rest of the world that is the interest on our debts, things may get much better quickly. Much of the issue is attitude and belief in the future. When we actually do what is needed, take the hard steps needed (end my mortgage interest deduction for example) and have the economists repaint our financial future as positive, and attitudes will change. And when attitudes change and the future looks better, everything else can change. Stop listening to the radical Left and Right would be a simple start. The sky is NOT falling and we can get through this issue with a little work and taking care of each other.
Bill Clinton was a good president and gets some credit for the positive budgets. But it was not his financial planning: his financial projections were far below the actual GDP results. The key was the attitude of the American people, which he did help shape. We felt good, the future looked bright and the economy boomed. We started two decades (1950 – 1970) of the greatest financial growth in our country’s history with our national debt at 100% of our GDP and taxes much higher than today. That is far too much debt but it was mostly to ourselves (war bonds) and we paid it off by growing the economy. And back then the middle class did very well!
It is time for us to re-establish our leadership. Paying our debts is not the answer for everything, but it is a start. One of the best things I got out of my Harvard Econ10a class was that a simple answer to a complex problem is always wrong. So we have a complex problem that will require a complex solution. What is the big deal? We are the county that put a man on the moon! Again and again and again!
Sunshine, I have been using the K.I.S.S. method for sixty two years and it has worked to solve even my most complex problems.
All problems are simple to solve if your not having to buy votes which is the case for most democrat politicians to get elected to begin with.
Pain and suffering for a short period, I give you that, but the long term makes the problem not come up again.
If you keep throwing money at a problem and the problem keeps getting worse, then stop throwing money at it and see what happens. Probably will correct itself thru short period of pain and suffering ( pain and suffering is not meant literal ).
There are no complex problems only people making it complex. If the problem gets difficult it will need no help to do it.
FairTax @ 23% poor man spends a dollar his tax $.23 cents, a rich man spends $1,000,000.00 his tax $230,000.00 dollars, simple and not complex. Goods are also reduced by 22% at the check out stand.
Sounds like an unfair tax. Make everyone have the same amount of money and wealth, and then it is a fair tax. I make $20k a year and I am much more likely to spend all of it than a rich man and his $1,000,000 salary, so a MUCH larger perecentage of my living expenses would be taxed than his under your quote unquote "Fair Tax"
Also you would be knocking the richmans tax down from %35 to %23. As much as I feel sorry for the bastard that anything above 250k is taxed at %35, its only because he has the most, and probably has a much easier time earning it through capital gains than I do, a mailroom.
James
Read the two books out on it and you might understand it.
It would appear ( no offense meant ) that you are a democrat and at best have bought into the idea of mixing real dollars with percentage points.
Democrat creed ( one of them ) " if I can't dazzle you with my brilliance let me baffle you with my B.S.
There are no deductions, no itemization, no April,15, and you keep 100% of your salary. Everyone pays 23% on what they spend and I am pretty sure a rich man is going to spend more than a poor man.
Rich man can spend more because he can afford to spend more. Its still a tax that heavily favors those with the most money in this country because as long as he is earning most of his money effortlessly through capital gains it is not really fair at all when I earn most of my money through working.
Capital gains is all but effortless, earning most of your money through wages, is not. It would be stupid to tax the guy who made his money with no effort at the same rate as someone who worked his butt off at Walmart for his mediocre sum.
I know how the Republicans have set the tax code up, it favors people with wealth, so I am working right now on accumulating wealth, but tax cuts for Billionaires like Warren Buffet down to %23, who does NOT spend %100 of his 46 million a year on living expenses and feeding himself would see a HUGE tax cut under your "Fair tax"
Oh and Im not a democrat at all, Im an Eisenhower Republican who had a 90% marginal tax rate over $200,000. Despite that "Handicapp" the economy did great and he paid down the WWII debt down by %16.
Show me a poor politician on either side of the fence and we can continue discussing it, if not give it a rest.
Dennis Kucinich grew up sleeping in the back of cars in Cleveland. My Mom has donated to his campaign, and he runs for President.
George W Bush on the other hand, who I assume you voted for in 2000 and 2004 was fed with a Silver Spoon when he was a baby because his parents had the kind of money to afford a silver spoon to feed him with, over a steel one.
I do not think someone born into millions of dollars, or receiving 2 million a year as a retirement bonus (I.E. Cheney/Haliburton) will do a good job of representing the working man, and my evidence is the 8 years prior to Obama.
If tax cuts worked, we would be swimming in jobs right now and Clinton would have been the one to bring about the "Great Recession"
I used to work for Microsoft and hence, Bill Gates, and they were very good to me, so I won't slam all the rich as you have. Wealthy owners of large or mulitple business actually use government services more than the rest of us, such as the highways, the courts, and law enforcement. Gates and Buffet themselves said so, they are very dependant on the country functioning well.
If both sides are serious about reducing our debt and decifit, why are we talking about tax cuts that only increase the debt more? Also, you can't reduce debt when you have two wars going on at the same time.
As you suggest, we should not be talking about extending ANY of the tax cuts. The cost in terms of added national debt, either $3.0 or $3.7 trillion over ten years depending on which option is adopted, cannot be offset by spending cuts alone and will force huge tax increase in a few years.
You're right about that Jim. That Herbert Bush cut taxes at the same time he started two wars, one of which was unneccesary. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector even told us so before Bush had us invade Iraq. I think it just shows what a dream state of belief those Herberts function under.
Cut Congressional pay and benefits, get rid of the excess staff for Congress, repeal the stupid Obama/Pelosi health care BS, cut pork (this means all pork) no earmarks, cut foregin aid to loser countries that do not support us, get rid of the UN or move it to China and let them pay for it.
Get rid of the BS free military airplanes for Congress and let them fly commerical. No more outsourcing of American jobs to other countries. If the American does not want the job, then they don't need it and they don't need food stamps and other handouts. If there is a job available, the take it and shut up.
For all of you dopers and gangbanger punks get your head out of it and become a responsible citizen.
Those who want to join a gang, man up and join the military. Quit crying about your life and make something of it instead of robbing and killing to think you are a big shot.
No arguement here................
You are just wrong, Rick. I do contracts for a lot of state and county governments as well as businesses and those more local government are drowning in the cost of public health care. This, despite the rhetoric, is really what the healthcare law is all about. Those state and county governments are taking furlough days and cutting services because they are out of money because revenues are down due to the Bush recession.
I blame starve the beast theorists, Reagan and George W Bush. George H W, was in a recession, but even still, the big problem is starve the beast does not reign in spending, it actually increases it and forces debt on future Americans.
If tax cuts worked, then we would be swimming in jobs right now thanks to the Bush tax cuts.
You are so correct James!
My goodness, I can hardly believe what I just heard on Keith's show. His interview with Howard Fineman was brutal listening to. Evidently President Obama is going to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy for two years. This isn't written in stone, but it sounds like this is where it's heading. I kind of thought as much earlier today when I read here that he had set up some sort of Commission to settle this issue.
I have a very difficult time showing anger towards President Obama. I have done it, but not too often, only because of the way he is treated by the GOP. They've been extremely disrespectful, not only towards him, but towards us all. But this report from Keith is heart breaking.
During President Clinton's two Administration I had many unhappy moments. I was livid at the Monica Lewinsky story. Livid. DADT was another. There were other unhappy moments as well. In 8 years that is bound to happen. I remember being quite saddened with Ted Kennedy after his automobile accident in which a young woman died. There were as well unhappy moments as I read biographies on JFK and RFK. But even today, they remain popular with Democrats.
I have had some unhappy moments with our current Administration. Also some happy ones.
I guess it all comes down to how we express our anger. I didn't walk around complaining about Bill Clinton. He was who he was and I thought he was better than any Republican at the time. Ted Kennedy? I was surprised that he won re-election after his accident. And as time went on, I saw how important his voice was in the Senate.
I like President Obama. I am sitting on pins & needles waiting to see what happens with the tax cuts for the rich. I think we just got a hint at what's going to happen. But for some reason, I can't voice the anger towards him as some do. Some of it is just plain cruel.
If the wealthy get their tax cuts, I'm off politics & First Read for a while. I'll just take a break from it all. It will be one more in a long line of unhappy moments.
He will get my vote in 2012. He's a Democrat and the best chance we have at keeping a D in the White House. He is who he is. Just like Clinton, Ted, JFK and on and on.
I hope this reporting tonite was wrong. But I doubt it.
To all my buddies here - Get shopping!!!! It's the Holiday Season. Enjoy it if you can. And don't forget, Christmas is for kids.
And please, don't forget about our troops. If you are able, send them some books (spy books especially). I have a ton of 'em that they're getting. I'm all spied out. (LOL) I'm on to the Wild West.
Keep your fingers crossed with the tax cuts everybody. Both D's & R's who want responsible, fiscally responsible, governance.
Cheers.
I know, Im starting to feel ashamed I voted for the man.
For once I would like to be able to use the word "Democrat" and "Spine" in the same sentence without "Where is your?"
Im writing in "Bernie Sanders" next election. This country needs a hard left after taking such a hard right under Bush, not a mediocre slight turn to the left.
Russia, China, Iran, and I can even throw N. Korea in the mix. They are all waiting for you to go live there and I hope you do.
Hint, they are already socialist and it appears that is where you want to live.
All republicans are not " the far right " just as all democrats are not " far left " and if you were awake for the last election you see that the minority of both parties lost big time.
We may see change in this congress next year and it won't be because of Odumbo, but the new politicians listening to the majority of their constituents.
If we had a real liberal in there, there would be atleast a 50%-70% for anything over $250k, and it would put a brickwall to those insanely high CEO bonuses. Just because Im not a free-market fundamentalist like you are, does not make me a N. Korea supporter, as you seem to suggest.
If I want an opinion on if I am a socialist, I will ask a socialist. Not a free market fundamentalist from an anti-government tax anarchist like you are.
The free market built this country and it will again given the correct atmosphere.
As to whether you are or are not a socialist is not Jermaine to the discussion, only an observation that it appears that way in my opinion, nothing more.
Do businesses have to correct their bonus pay, I can agree on that. If a company loses money in a year then nobody in the company gets a bonus, no problem here, but corps are set up by depts. and the heads that do good in their depts get the bonus even when the company loses. That doesn't mean we have to bail that company out because "its too big to fail".
Take a look at your gross pay on your next check and try to fathom putting that amount in your checking account every week. Now try and fathom buying goods 22% cheaper and paying 23% tax and your done paying taxes to the govt untill the next time you buy something. Simple is good.
It's so much more complicated than that. What's your house worth now compared to when you bought it? If you have been paying your bills, it's not because of you. Other people's economic wellbeing effects your own economic wellbeing. When the government went supply side under Reagan and the jobs began their flight overseas, we all suffered, even if they weren't our jobs that left.
Sounds regressive, to me, sales taxes are regressive in that, they favor wealthy people. There is still alot of money left over at the end of a fiscal year if you tax $1,000,000 at %23, but it takes a sizeable chunk out of someones income of they only make $10,000.
I do not think I would buy goods at %22 cheaper either as it does not seem that a fifth of the price of everything is because of taxes on wages.
Lets just say Im Left of freemarket fundamentalism, but right of communism, Im somewhere In between. You are at the extreme end of freemarket fundamentalism and at that end, everyone seems like either a socialist or communist from your view point.
I want to go to a pre-reagan tax code, back when politicians offset tax cuts with tax increases else where or spending cuts. Starve the beast can be declared a complete failure based on todays debt, and the fact that spending did not go down under the presidents who implemented it, George W Bush, and Reagan.
I have an academic paper I wrote the other day called "The Federal Debt Crisis" that does a good example of what tax policies allowed us to lower the WWII debt between 1945-1980, to vastly increasing it between 1981-2010, starting with the election of Ronald Reagan and his 1981 tax cut. I suggest you read that, as my paper is well researched and documented.
Those with the top 2% of incomes paid 48% of all individual federal income tax in 2008. In that same year, the bottom 75% of taxpayers paid only 14% of federal income tax. To assert that this is a regressive structure is ABSURD. I guess you don't want ANYONE to have to pay taxes except the rich. You must just love the whole concept of welfare and someone else carrying the load so you can sit on your backside. The costs for programs like Medicare were not exactly a problem for the budget before 1980, was it.
I like the idea of a fiscally responsible government. Eisenhower was a Republican over a much better economy than the current one, paid down the WWII debt as a percentage of GDP by %16 and somehow did it with the "Handicapp" (Your words, not mine) of a 90% income tax rate for income over $200,000.
Im sorry for being a deficit hawk, and you should be glad that we are a rare breed in todays politics.
Ill give you this, tax cuts are GREAT for getting you elected. There just piss poor policy when it comes to governance. My evidence being the increase in debt over the last 30 years, and the decrease in debt over the prior 35 years to 1981.
The Bush-Era tax cuts helped keep the 2002 recession mild and drove unemployment rates down to 4.6% by 2006. They should, however, have been allowed to expire at that point. Congress has never been willing to make the spending cuts necessary to offset the loss of income from tax cuts.
Not according to my research. My research on my paper suggests that tax cuts do not produce enough economic growth to pay for themselves. By your logic, Clinton should have been the one to be president over the "Great Recession" and George W Bush should have been the one creating 23 million jobs in 7 years of economic growth.
For us to grow our way out of debt under a lower tax rate, we would need decades of double digit GDP growth which does not seem on the horizon anytime soon.
I hate to sound bleak, but your going to get your way, we are going to be forced to gut all social programs, and liberals are going to get their way with a much higher tax rate. This will stifle growth and decrease everyones standard of living, but your anger should not be based on partisan politics, it should be proponents of 'starve the beast' fiscal policy being a complete failure, implemented by George W Bush and Ronald Reagan.
James is spot on again! Unlike so many Americans, you actually paid attention!
James and others:
Why is it that after almost every income tax cut, a Recession eventually follows ?? Why when the taxes went up, there was more growth?? I know the answers, but it seems there are a great number of people out there and Congress, who just don't get the picture.