I predicted late last Friday, Congress would still be squabbling on Monday morning over the debt limit. Sadly, they didn’t prove me mistaken!

It comes as no surprise to anyone who even remotely follows politics, the GNOP is the party
who represents the wealthy, big business & downright bizarre…

There was a time in our history, when Republicant’s would at least try to masquerade as being concerned about the middle class & those in need. Regrettably, this not the case anymore, Teapublican’s are no longer attempting to hide their contempt for those less fortunate.

How warped do your priorities have to be to even PROPOSE something as offensive as this? Oh wait; it was endorsed by none other than the morally challenged, egotistical, shell of a human being, Eric Cantor:

One of the major demands that almost all congressional Republicans have made about
deficit reduction is that wealthier Americans and large corporations shouldn’t
have to pay any more in taxes. “The House has taken a firm position against anything having
to do with increasing taxes or raising tax rates,” said House Majority Leader
Eric Cantor (R-VA) at the onset of negotiations over the budget deficit in May.

Yet as the Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz reports, one group that
Cantor is apparently fine with making pay more is American college students.
Cantor, at the White House for budget negotiations, apparently proposed that
students who take out student loans should immediately start paying interest,
rather than getting to make payments after graduation:

As Monday’s White House budget talks got down to the nitty-gritty,
Eric Cantor proposed a series of spending cuts, one of them aimed squarely at college students. The House majority leader, who did most of the talking for the Republican side,
said those taking out student loans should start paying interest right away, rather than being able to defer payments until after graduation. It is a big-ticket item that would save $40 billion over 10 years

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/12/266192/cantor-taxes-students-pay/

In other words, STUDENTS are fair game BUT corporate jet loopholes ARE NOT???

That’s right folks; once again Eric & the rest of the merry band of modern day Robin Hood’s
want to balance this budget on those who can LEAST afford it!

Remember these are Eric’s OWN words: I want what I want when I want it!

Get on the phone & send e-mails or letters to YOUR elected representatives and tell
them: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Contrary to popular belief REAL change really does start bottom and moves UP.

Trickle down starts at the top and well, you know the rest!

I predicted late last
Friday, Congress would still be
squabbling on Monday morning over the debt limit. Sadly, they didn’t prove me mistaken!

It comes as no
surprise to anyone who even remotely follows politics, the GNOP is the party
who represents the wealthy, big business & downright bizarre…

There was a time in
our history, when Republicant’s would at least try to masquerade as being
concerned about the middle class & those in need. Regrettably, this not the case anymore,
Teapublican’s are no longer attempting
to hide their contempt for those less fortunate.

How warped do your
priorities have to be to even PROPOSE something as offensive as this? Oh wait; it was endorsed by none other than
the morally challenged, egotistical, shell of a human being, Eric Cantor:

One
of the major demands that almost all congressional Republicans have made about
deficit reduction is that wealthier Americans and large corporations shouldn’t
have to pay any more in taxes. “The House has taken a firm position against anything having
to do with increasing taxes or raising tax rates,” said House Majority Leader
Eric Cantor (R-VA) at the onset of negotiations over the budget deficit in May.

Yet as the Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz reports, one group that
Cantor is apparently fine with making pay more is American college students.
Cantor, at the White House for budget negotiations, apparently proposed that
students who take out student loans should immediately start paying interest,
rather than getting to make payments after graduation:

As Monday’s White House budget talks got down to the nitty-gritty,
Eric Cantor proposed a
series of spending cuts, one of them aimed squarely at college students. The
House majority leader, who did most of the talking for the Republican side,
said those taking out student loans should start paying interest right away,
rather than being able to defer payments until after graduation. It is a
big-ticket item that would save $40 billion over 10 years

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/12/266192/cantor-taxes-students-pay/

In other words,
STUDENTS are fair game BUT corporate jet loopholes ARE NOT???

That’s right folks;
once again Eric & the rest of the merry band of modern day Robin Hood’s
want to balance this budget on those who can LEAST afford it!

Remember these are
Eric’s OWN words: I want what I want when I want it!

Get on the phone& send e-mails or letters to YOUR elected representatives and tell
them: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

And the word is out. Just about every economist of note from both side of the aisle has been saying from the beginning that any meaningful “Debt Ceiling Bill” must include spending cuts AND increased revenues, period. Nothing less will work for the long term and in fact one without the other would be a sure path to economic collapse. 80% of the American people say that the Debt Ceiling talks need to include increasing revenues as well and so say the economists, CEO’S of Major Corporations and even Wall Street. Why is the GOP/TP not listening to the people? Even the majority of their own constituents believe that the GOP/TP is on the wrong side of this argument and that any serious Debt Ceiling Bill must include Spending Cuts and Increased Revenues. If this country does go into “default” the GOP/TP is going to eat the blamer on this one.

Now on July 19, 2011 the GOP/TP is going to introduce the new “Cut, Cap and Budget Act. Last week I talked about how the GOP/TP Balance Budget Amendment is the Ryan Bill on “Steroids” This new “Cut, Cap and Balance” act should be renamed to the “Butcher, Limit and Destroy Act”, because that more accurately describes what it actually does.

The GOP/TP is trying to use this as a tactic to try and claim who is for a Balance Budget and who is not. This proposal is not about balancing the budget via a constitutional amendment. It is about taking just about everything that was in the Ryan Bill and putting it into concrete. Even more and larger cuts up to 70%, virtually guarantees that you can never raise taxes (needs 2/3 vote to do so), etc see below. Again, this is not about Balancing the Budget any more than the Ryan Bill was about Fiscal Responsibility. This is another example of smoke and mirrors, anything to stall talking about jobs, the economy and education.

Examples of how drastic and bad this proposal is for America: http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-6-11bud.pdf

1. “It cuts total funding for non-defense discretionary programs by approximately 70 percent in 2021, and by more than $3 trillion over the next ten years, relative to the already reduced funding levels that Congress recently approved for fiscal year 2011 (adjusted for inflation).

This is the part of the budget that includes veterans’ medical care, most homeland security activities, border protection, and the FBI. It also includes education, environmental protection, protecting the nation’s food and water supply, and medical research, as well as services for disadvantaged or abused children, frail elderly people, and people with severe disabilities”.

2. “The budget slashes Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years; Medicaid funding would be cut by 54 percent in 2021. (This is on top of the more than $600 billion in Medicaid cuts it would impose by repealing the Affordable Care Act and its coverage expansions.) It cuts SNAP by a remarkable $350 billion — or 50 percent — over ten years. And it cuts Supplemental Security Income, which provides poor people who are elderly or severely disabled with benefits that raise them to about 75 percent of the poverty line, by $238 billion over ten years; SSI would be cut in half in 2021”.

3. “It cuts at least $86 billion over ten years from Pell Grants, which help low-income students afford college. Other cuts include $84 billion in farm programs”.

The CBPP had a follow up report released on July 16th: http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-15-11bud-stmt.pdf

“Talking points that the legislation’s proponents circulated on July 15 seek to foster an impression that the measure would protect Social Security and Medicare. Such an impression would not be accurate. The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions”.

“The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled”.

“Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big Cuts in these programs would be inevitable”.

“Moreover, because taxes — including payroll taxes — would be virtually impossible to raise as a result of the new constitutional barrier, Social Security solvency would have to be restored entirely through benefit cuts. Balanced Social Security packages that include measures to raise Social Security’s $106,000 payroll tax cap, so that higher-income Americans do not escape the tax on much of their earnings, would effectively be ruled out”.

This new CC&B is so bad for America in that even the Ryan Bill would not be passed under this new Bill. Reason – the Ryan Bill would not be DRACONIAN enough, it would be to tame.

People:

The sending cuts in this bill are even more severe than they are under the Ryan Bill

Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are more severe and virtually guarantee that Medicare and Medicaid will not survive in the long term

Social Security’s ability to be viable at 100% of plan past 2037 will be hampered dramatically and the only available option will be to reduce benefits – period. You would not be able to increase the cap beyond the current $106,800.00.

Tax Cuts for the richest 2% would be written in concrete to virtually never be changed with 2/3 vote given the 2% record tax cuts and further increasing the economic divide even more. More wealth will be concentrated in the hands of even fewer people.

Over 700,000 Jobs will be lost

This is never going to pass and is just more DRACONIAN “Smoke and Mirrors” wasting time and tax payers money while avoiding the issues of creating jobs and stimulating the economy. This is more of the “Obstructionist” Agenda of the radical right. We deserve better, in fact America is starting to demand it. Can you imagine what this country would look like when it is controlled by a 1/3 minority where 2/3 of the majority has no say? Does “DICTATORSHIP” mean anything to you?

s

Ron, Feisty:

Great posts to start the week. Tomorrow should be an interesting day. The GOP/TP will be putting up a bill that basically makes the Ryan Bill look like chump change. They think this is a test to see who supports a Balanced Budget.

I do not think so, in fact it will demonstrate to people who is in favor of destroying Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Who is in favor of repealing Social Safety Nets and who wants to give the richest 2% even more drastic Tax Cuts.

We shall see.

And The Winner Is:

I would like to congratulate a fellow blogger named Arlin Carlson. It was around midnight last Saturday night when Arlin wanted his voice to be heard and he posted on FR the following:
"Sorry folks--the winner is Barack Obama. Here's why: Mitch McConnell's gimmick of letting the President decide on the deficit put Obama on the pedestal as the only grown up in town. And like it or not, that's so attention—getting; even if it fails, subliminally it says "Yes you can trust Obama to do the right thing".
McConnell didn't mean it that way. However what it turns on is a handing over of power from the Congress to the President as Accountant in Chief. The President, not Congress decides what is cut. That's a vast transfer of power in anyone's book. This accrues to the office, not the man.
And this is the signal that says "Obama is up to the job."
The daringness of transferring power to your political opponent is breathtakingly stunning.
McConnell's gambit may fail. But the psychology of it will live on in the 2012 election. And it will re-elect Obama."
Arlen's comments were spot-on and should not be lost in the sea of senseless blogs. I would like to add a comment or two. President Obama also won because he will get a bill with minimal strings attached; which is exactly what he asked for. Our President won because it has now become abundantly clear to moderates and independents that the GOP is not committed to deficit reduction, their goal is simply to put party first, even at the peril of the American economy. Politically, President Obama won because, now the Tea Party can carry all the signs they want, shouting "No Retreat, No Surrender", but it will not matter; President Obama has already won.

Over 700,000 Jobs will be lost

Thank you for the incredibly instructive detail, Navy. As always, that's where the devil resides.

It never WAS about jobs, was it?

I know the FR lefty liberals will all screech “The recession is all GWB’s fault.”

Not true. I don't screech. Well, except for sometimes, having nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

But, nobody forced him to be President, he wanted the job. He’s just not up to the challenge.

Oh, and I suppose you ARE. LoL

And good morning, everyone.

.

Who is Grover Norquist? I set out over the weekend to find out. I knew he was the president of Americans for Tax Reform, a taxpayer advocacy group he founded in 1985, at the invitation of President Reagan. (the same President who raised the debt ceiling 17 times while in office) but I digress. This is a coalition of various groups who are opposed to higher taxes and who has organized the Taxpayer Protection Pledge which has asked all candidates for federal and state office to sign, that they will be committed to opposing all tax increases.

In the 112^th Congress, there are currently 236 House members (of which 2 are Democrats, 6 GOP House members did not pledge) and 41 Senators (7 GOP senators did not pledge) who signed and pledged, to follow this man, who is unelected, and apparently not accountable to anyone, except, perhaps those who lurk in the shadows. This pledge may help take our country to the edge of financial disaster.

As I continued to read about him, he is well educated, having MBA and undergraduate degrees from Harvard, I still I knew little about him. Yet he somehow has he acquired this power to require a commitment and hold candidates to this pledge come hell or high water. So much so, that fear of retribution, in the form of losing political office, causes these fine upright citizens to forget that their pledge to uphold the Constitution now takes a backseat to Mr. Norquist and his group. Is this some kind of group think? Whereby they forget any principles they may have started out with. Or are the voters and the media not vetting these candidates enough to show them for what they are, a group of cowards who wouldn’t know how to do the right thing if it jumped up and bit them? Or is it a cult? To me, so much of conservative ‘thinking’ is in that lockstep mentality, my way or the highway style of leadership that seems to lend itself to a cult. There is no sense of reasonableness in their way of looking at anything, so nothing will be accomplished in negotiations as their mindset is set in cement.

Other than being single minded in his objective, very conservative, and up until now very low key, I learned nothing new about Grover Norquist.

Maybe the question should be, why do candidates pledge in writing, anything that would box them in, to only doing what sometimes would be generally bad for the country? That one person on the sidelines, has the power to control half of Congress and many of our elected state officials, yet it is a safe bet that less than half the voters know of him.

Other than pledging to uphold the Constitution, why would any other pledge or oath be necessary? In my opinion, doing so, only attracts the very narrow focused who usually have some kind of axe to grind and not anyone with the desire or the ability to do what’s best for the country and the common good.

Don't think this gets done before the Presidents Birthday party. President Obama probably shouldn't have given the GOP such an obvious political toy like a $35,000 a plate birthday party fundraiser to play with.

And before you Libs start blaming the GOP, the Dem's would play the exact same way.

As said here last week, simply tragic theatre to watch all of our so-called "leaders".

Thanks Navy: Sometimes I forget about that XHTML thingy and I needed to repost.

From CNBC.com:

Ratings agency Moody's on Monday suggested the United States should eliminate its statutory limit on government debt to reduce uncertainty among bond holders.

What a great idea!!!!!!

Let’s give the MORONS (both parties) in Washington an unlimited no payments ever credit card.

While we’re doing something as brilliant as that, how about unlimited free alcohol for alcoholics, or unlimited free crack for crack junkies, or unlimited free kiddie porn for child molesters??

"Compromise" is a Loser

Oh those evil Republicans. They've dug in their heels and refuse to "compromise" with the Dems and get a deal done to raise the debt ceiling. By some accounts, the Dems have offered $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of new taxes, but Republicans aren't buying it. Who the heck are those people? Don't they realize that working out a deal requires both sides to give a little?

Sure they realize that. But Republicans also realize that tax revenue is the fuel that feeds the growth of government. And that tax revenues don't belong to the government, but rather to the folks who earned those dollars. From that perspective, the hard stand against increasing taxes is a no-brainer. Limiting the fuel puts a hard cap on government growth, while allowing those who own that fuel in the first place to keep what they have earned.

When the Dems talk "compromise" what they're really doing is taking the only position they can to preserve as much of their vaunted welfare state as possible. Because that welfare state is under assault, and the Dems know it. But by pushing "compromise" they once again skirt the issue of confronting the hard choices that we as a nation will inevitably be forced to make. And they get to portray Republicans as unreasonable obstructionists in the process.

So "compromise" is a political strategy to avoid making those choices and really means the left wins and the country loses. Because the S&P threat to lower our credit rating last week was not based on the short term issue of whether or not the debt ceiling is raised. It was based on S&P's skepticism that we can develop a credible solution to the longer term problem of our rising debt burden. A debt that is being driven by uncontrolled SPENDING.

If the current stalemate persists and the debt ceiling is not raised, there will be negative consequences that will likely be felt by almost every American. The question is, do we want to take a stand and begin to seriously address our debt problem today on our own terms? Or do we want to just kick the can down the road again and have the bond vigilantes of world financial markets impose an even more austere solution on us in future years? Raising taxes by even one dollar is a vote for the latter because it is an explicit acknowledgement that our welfare state cannot be sustained without ever increasing infusions of cash.

That's why "compromise" is a losing proposition. And the losers are all of us.

JAS1

The President will leave the lying to the Republicans, because they do this so well.

How is the GOP/TP going to spin their real agenda of

1. Closing down the Federal Government

2. Repeal/Privatize/Cut all Social Safety Nets like the entitlements, education, medical research, FEMA, FDA, Food and Product Safety, Education etc.

3. Their pathological preoccupation with new even more drastic Tax Cuts for the richest 2% further increasing the economic divide to new record proportions.

I want to see how they are going to push this BBA while denying American People Jobs and a stable economy.

The only promise the GOP/TP has kept to date is to try and make President Obma a failure. They have broken virtually every other promise to America.

Ron:

The site has been a little weird this morning.

Bill,

You can’t cut deep into domestic spending that hurts the poor and the middle class. They are the only group that is being asked to sacrifice. It’s all common sense that the Republicans just don’t understand. The secret is to raise revenue.

Please pardon the 'double post' - gremlins are active this morning!

Thanks Navy!

Anyone else notice the newest 'buzz' word surrounding the President is LIAR?

Funniest part is, those who keep repeating it have been proven to know a thing or two about lying themselves... it's one of the reasons why they're so comforatable tossing it around! ;o)

I really must give another shout-out to the Political Director of NBC News and the NBC News White House correspondent, First Read's own Chuck Todd.

Last Friday, at President Obama's press conference, Mr. Todd (bless his heart) asked this question:

"Mr. President, this process got kind of ugly in the last week. And it appears from the outside that things even got a little futile at those meetings. Any regrets on your role in how this went? And do you have any regrets that you never took Bowles-Simpson, which was $4 trillion over 10 years, and spent the last six months selling that, which was a balanced package, to the American people?"

Oh my...

I've tried from time to time to get Mark and Dom to answer a question in the First Read Boiler Room segment...but here was the NBC News White House correspondent asking the President of the United States the same question that several of us who blog here regularly have been raising on this board, over and over, for months and months!

Then, in a follow up question, Chuck asked the President whether or not the entire debt debate would have been different had the President simply embraced his debt commission's Plan...and, he reminded the President that Bowles-Simpson had GOP support, and specifically mentioned Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)!

Amazing...you've been peeking into First Read's comments, haven't you, Mr. Todd?

Anyway, in response to Chuck's question, the President's chief objection to the his own debt commission's Plan appeared to be...yes, that's right...its proposed cuts to DEFENSE SPENDING! lol! Who knew?

As a fiscal and national defense conservative, I share the President's concerns with cutting defense spending, but I'm in favor of prudent cuts in defense spending as well as the complete reform of the tax code in order to increase revenue in exchange for a comprehensive, bipartisan, long-term solution to the nation's debt crisis...and that's exactly what the debt commission Plan is.

So, Mr. President...

Endorse the Plan of your debt commission. Reduce the amount of the cuts in defense spending if you feel you must, and offer up the revised plan as your own detailed, specific proposal to address the debt crisis.

You need such a plan...looks like you've pretty much had one available since last December.

And again...kudos to Chuck Todd for reminding everyone of that.

Job1:

Simple and straight to the point; You are correct the vast majority of the American People want some increase to revenues, Wall Street and just about every economist on the planet agrees that revenues increases have to be part of the solution. The only people who fail to see this is the radical right. Or worse they do see it and do not care as they must pay back the power brokers that paid for their elections. Pay back time and the Middle Class are footing the bill - once again.

Two points from last week.

As Joanna points out the fallacy that SS was solvent and could rely on it's Trust Fund was laid bare. If the government cannot cut spending or increase borrowing then SS payments are at risk

The President stated that $2.4T in cuts was too much and that too many ordinary people would be affected. Where then did the figure of $4T come from that the Republicans apparently walked away from? Even if it was $2.4T in cuts and $1.6T in taxes the President has said he does not want this deal. So it appears that the $4T was just an imaginary number put out by Democratic talking heads.

Leadership on both sides is lacking. Leadership is not the President calling to protect and strengthen SS and Medicare. Leadership is not the Speaker and Leader of the House they cannot accept tax increases. Leadership is the President call for structural cuts in Medicare and SS and Leadership is the Speaker of the House accepting the need for more revenues.

If this does not happen a financial disaster is in our future.

But, nobody forced him to be President, he wanted the job. He’s just not up to the challenge.

Oh, and I suppose you ARE. LoL

_____________________________________________________

AM: First you make me a judge and now you want me to be President too??

No thanks.

Alan:

If the government cannot cut spending or increase borrowing then SS payments are at risk

Alan, I'm sure this was inadvertent, but you seem to have left "raising revenues" out of that sentence.

I would have thought that a guy who claims NOT to be a hard-line conservative would not make such an obvious omission.

Or wait. It wasn't a mistake, was it?

Why, when it goes directly against what the vast majority of Americans say, do you still resist the idea of raising revenues?

Joe:

AM: First you make me a judge and now you want me to be President too??

But ... but ... the country NEEDS you, Joe.

Doesn't it?

Or maybe that's just me. LoL

Feisty:

That is what Karl Rove tells them to do. Blame everybody else for doing what it is that they are doing. They are lying through their false teeth and so say the Democrats are doing it.

Just more BS from a totally impotent Party that has no ideas, no morals no nothing trying to deflect us from asking why the GOP/TP renigned on their promises like creating jobs and helping the economy.

So far I have not seen one thing from anybody that the GOP/TP hads done in the last 2+ years to move tis couintry forward. NOT ONE THING.

And where are those Jobs Bills and Economic Stimulus? Just more wasted time and money going nowhere.

yea enough is enough get your spending under control US govt!

Disabled Navy: And where are those Jobs Bills and Economic Stimulus?

Oh, those were created and spent by Obama and the Democrats years ago. Trillions of wasted dollars has gotten us to 9.2% and rising unemployment and $4 trillion in new Obama Debt. All those Jobs Bills and Economic Stimulus just haven't really worked out now have they?And Obama's spin that "We've turned the corner on the economy" has been recited so many times by him that he's just spinning in circles these days. Even Obama has given up on that phrase - best for him to talk about "corporate jets" these days.

Disabled navy: Over 700,000 Jobs will be lost

But, the 400,000 jobs in health care that Nancy Pelosi said would be created "almost immediately" because of ObamaCare will fill much of that gap. And the 4 million jobs total Pelosi said would be created because of ObamaCare will dwarf that 700,000 number.

And these jobs will be showing up any day now, because our government and Nancy Pelosi said they would. Any day now . . . .

But ... but ... the country NEEDS you, Joe.

Doesn't it?

Or maybe that's just me. LoL

_______________________________________________

It's sad to say, but, this country is FUBAR and is well on its way to becoming the same slow economic growth, high unemployment, socialist mediocracy as Spain, France and England, all former world powers.

You?? Maybe I could help.

Alan, I'm sure this was inadvertent, but you seem to have left "raising revenues" out of that sentence.

I would have thought that a guy who claims NOT to be a hard-line conservative would not make such an obvious omission.

Or wait. It wasn't a mistake, was it?

Not in the case of SS. As have been proven by both sides, any surplus in SS is spent immediately, so raising revenues under the current system is futile.

The exception is if the system is changed such that there is no year-to-year surplus that can be used for other purposes. So, I would propose that each year the tax is recalculated to cover the current years need plus or minus the surplus/deficit from the previous year. The added bonus of this is that it would be very transparent exactly how much SS is costing.

Why, when it goes directly against what the vast majority of Americans say, do you still resist the idea of raising revenues?

I'll accept this poll figure when the question is "What taxes are you willing to pay more for your entitlements" not "Do want to raise taxes on someone else to pay for your entitlements"

Outside of their negative critiques of President Obama, what solutions are conservatives and/or Republicans bringing to the table?

Why is it that they are incapable of having any discussion without mentioning the President?

Why is the focus always on what the President didn't do as opposed to what they are proposing to do?

What are conservatives proposing to do?

Will those proposals solve the problems we are facing?

You may not have seen anything from the GOP to move the country forward, Navy, but you, and the rest of ua, have seen PLENTY done by Obama to move the country even further into the economic abyss.

He inherited a debt of about $10 trillion- and raised it to $14 trillion.

He inherited unemployment of about 7.5%- and enacted policies that raised it to 9.2% at last count. What is left out of even that abysmal number is the shrunken labor force. Were those numbers at 2008 levels, unemployment would be close to 12%. Lucky for Obama the Labor Department is still moving hundreds of thousands out of the labor force every month- but the REAL unemployment number- of those discouraged workers and those working part time involuntarily, is closer to 17%.

And there is no end in sight.

Here's a simple question for Liberals, why do you want more revenue (taxes)?

Why is the focus always on what the President didn't do as opposed to what they are proposing to do?

Rather pathetic attempt to 'deflect' wouldn't you say Nash? lol

When you GOT NOTHING - it's much simpler to pile onto the 24/7 Obama bashing bandwagon.

I'm also wondering why none of them are 'tooting' their favorite Republican't candidates horn? lmao!

-Why do we have a Debt Commission report at all?

Because the President of the United States used his executive powers to create one.

-Why did the Executive Branch have to create a commission to handle this legislative function?

Because the Congress of the United States voted against creating the Debt Commission that they proposed once the President endorsed the idea.

-Which branch of government is endowed by the Constitution with the "power of the purse"?

Congress

-Why are "conservatives" giving Republicans in Congress a pass on their Constitutional responsibilities and attempting to create the impression that their failures are President Obama's fault?

Politics and need to continue to use the federal government as a cash cow for their personal enrichment.

-Why are the same folks who cut revenue, increased spending, and passed one unfunded program after another now loudly wailing about the problems they have created?

Because they know that if they feign enough outrage, most folks won't notice.

I'm just one conservative, Nash, but I propose that the President endorse the debt commission Plan and its reforms.

Then, I suggest that he take to the road selling it (a possibility Chuck Todd also offered up to President Obama at Friday's presser) using the bully pulpit of the presidency...instead of taking to the road for yet another series of fundraisers with fat-cat donors.

Maybe President Obama could even pressure Congress to vote, up or down, on Bowles-Simpson.

There you go, Nash...my proposal.

@Nash

What are conservatives proposing to do?

That was laid out in the Ryan budget, which was voted on and passed by the house and roundly criticized by the Democratic opposition. You have to take the blinkers off Nash. It's a two way street this political process.

It's sad to say, but, this country is FUBAR and is well on its way to becoming the same slow economic growth, high unemployment, socialist mediocracy as Spain, France and England, all former world powers.

Sad to say, you may be right.

You?? Maybe I could help.

Oh, really?! Well, then. As long as I wouldn't be accused of bribing a judge ...

... be sure to bring your gavel. Let justice be done. LoLoL

Nash:

It is because the GOP/TP is probably the most impotent Party on record right now. The current 112th Congress is going to go on record as the worst this country has ever seen - period. What have they done in the last 2 plus years to help this country move forward? Nothing, just idle rhetoric and broken promises. All they have left is more of the same lies that have been debunked time and time again. No ideas to tell us about. Presidential Candidates that that are failed flip-flopping retreads and incompetent wannabees.

They are very quickly becoming a joke on our Society. It would be funny if not for the fact the amount of carnage and damage they are about to level on us.

Maybe President Obama could even pressure Congress to vote, up or down, on Bowles-Simpson.

There you go, Nash...my proposal.

I can't speak for Nash, but it works for me.

Alan:

So proposing to end Medicare is the answer? Poor folks are receiving too much care is the problem.

Not unfunded wars, unpaid for tax cuts and tax give aways to corporations?

I'm not the one with the "blinkers" problem my friend. The solution is to solve the problem on the backs of those who can't afford to pay a lobbyist to protect them.

Brilliant.

Gingerbread Mama -

Nice post about Grover Norquist. Actually, there is a LOT of information available about him, and the ultimate portrait is not very pretty at all. It's closer to Oscar Wilde's Dorian Grey.

Thomas Frank, in The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves, and Beggared America, explains that Norquist was a protege of the man who built the conservative battalions in the 1970's and '80's, Jack Abramoff. Essentially an offshoot of the John Birch Society, Abramoff and Norquist began with college Republican organizing, at that time mainly using the Communist scare theme to attack and smear their opposition. This device they used as a money machine, by creating front groups and then using direct mail.

Americans for Tax Reform is another front group that Norquist uses to sell an Ayn Rand-influenced version of Libertarianism. Through it he also ran the K Street Project, a system for placing conservative lobbyists in trade associations and corporate offices, as well as getting "certified" conservatives hired as Congressional staff. He channels massive contributions from business intersts through lobbyists to various right-wing candidates, and conducts a third-party independent spending program that threatens officeholders if they don't hew to his line.

In the course of all this, a great deal of money sticks to Norqust's hands, of course, as it also does with the various lobbyists.

The actual objective of Norrquist's movement is to channel public money to private industry on the claim that the private sector is more efficient and reliable than the government. They worked hard for 30 years to damage efficient government operations - the FEMA failures of the Bush Administration show how well that worked, too - to justify their plan. Frank's book lays this scheme out in great detail. The cynicism of the conservative movement as orchestrated by Norquist, the Koch borthers, and a few others is staggering.

JASI
"You're expecting Obama to do something? You want him to get off his boney butt and actually come up with a plan? If it's not clear by now, Obama has no intention of doing anything but to give speeches full of propaganda and demagogue the Republicans. That's his role for not just the debt ceiling debate, but for most other issues of the day. The man is worse than useless."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gosh, it's clear you hate the President without any fact to back your claim. You actually should be looking at the Republican Party. They are the evil ones.

That deserves a hug, AM.

I love bipartisanship...especially at First Read.

:-)

Here's a simple question for Liberals, why do you want more revenue (taxes)?

Well, here is a simple question for the top 4% (the wealthy) and their wingnut supporters:

How much better are you going to be able to eat if tax rates/policies remain as they are instead of our President's ideas and efforts to close the loopholes, etc.?

Will it truly make any difference in your lifestyle if you have to pay 38% in income tax without the write-offs, credits, loopholes, subsidies and shelters? Would it cause you to go hungry?

AND, Paul Florida, the simple answer to your question is because we have both debt and budget deficit. (Thank you W for undoing Clinton's balanced budget and surplus - NOT!)

Feisty Redhead:

In other words, STUDENTS are fair game BUT corporate jet loopholes ARE NOT???

That’s right folks; once again Eric & the rest of the merry band of modern day Robin Hood’s
want to balance this budget on those who can LEAST afford it!

And while the Cantor want students to be taxed more, Republican governors also want to deprive students of voting rights with the new Republican Jim Crow Version 2.0 voter ID laws. So, what Cantor really wants is taxation without representation for students. Maybe in response, students should start a movement and call it something like the "Tea Party" movement. It would be a lot closer in spirit to the original Boston Tea Party than the current crowd of idiots with teabags stapled to their hats who've abused that label by applying it to themselves.

Oh, really?! Well, then. As long as I wouldn't be accused of bribing a judge ...

... be sure to bring your gavel. Let justice be done. LoLoL

___________________________________

I'd never tell.

Anna Molly -

You might not want to be so quick to endorse the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz writes that the plan is a "suicide pact."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/28/news/economy/budget_stiglitz/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

His argument is that the recommendations would contract the economy and do little to resolve deficits and address the national debt.

It would, however, help ensure job growth remains stagnant.

You might to thank Obama too, how much did he waste in 2 1/2 years?

What's 4%? 250K? Less? More? Heard of the 2%, have we now gone to 4%? Next week maybe 10%?

Paul-Florida

Here's a simple question for Liberals, why do you want more revenue (taxes)?

Here's the simple answer: Taxes are the lowest they have been in 60 years. If you want to live in a civilized nation, taxes have to be raised as part of any real solution to the deficit problem. If you'd rather live in a country with limited government like Somalia, taxes don't need to be raised.

Why is it President Obama's responsibility to "pressure" the Congress to do their jobs?

Is not the spectacle of the economies of the free world collapsing not pressure enough?

Why can't John Boehner and Eric Cantor endorse the Debt Commission Report and get those they claim to lead to vote for it?

Why are conservatives always so eager to tell us what President Obama can/should do instead of just doing it their damn selves?

There would be no report without President Obama . . . so he has done MORE than his part ALREADY. That is the truth.

P.S. Instead of constantly talking about the Debt Commission report as some type of magical cure, each of its proposals needs to analyzed on its own merits. Let's not forget, the exact same amount of deficit reduction could be accomplished by not renewing the Bush Tax Cuts as well. Why won't Republicans endorse that? Hmmmmmm.

job1: Gosh, it's clear you hate the President without any fact to back your claim.

Where is the Obama/Democrats plan/budget? Can you provide us all a website that explains the details of that plan/budget? What are the cuts Obama and the Democrats will sign on to. Who will be taxed, and by how much.

Waiting for your response.

NF: Why are conservatives always so eager to tell us what President Obama can/should do instead of just doing it their damn selves?

Because Obama has provided nothing. He has even come up with $1 in cuts for the FY2012 budget. Not $1. You'd think, as President, he'd at least have a slightly mild interest in the budget, but yet that's all we get out of him are quotable phrases such as "Eat your peas".

The Republicans have their plan, their FR2012 budget. They passed itin the House on April 15th 2011. The Senate has yet to pass any budget. It's time the Senate, and Obama, get to work.

That deserves a hug, AM.

{{{{MB}}}}

I love bipartisanship...especially at First Read.

I live to serve, sir.

Now, if only Congress did. ;-)

John A:

You might not want to be so quick to endorse the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz writes that the plan is a "suicide pact."

Maybe, but I didn't endorse it. Only called for an up/down vote. Besides, if the path we're currently on isn't also a suicide path, then I'm very sadly mistaken.

Joe:

I'd never tell.

Scout's honor?

So proposing to end Medicare is the answer? Poor folks are receiving too much care is the problem.

Not unfunded wars, unpaid for tax cuts and tax give aways to corporations?

Medicare in it's current form is going to end either way Nash, you just haven't accepted the inevitable. One of the issues is that it doesn't pay for just poor people. There are actually a lot of wealthy seniors on Medicare, so it's actually a transfer of wealth from the young to the old.

On the issue of wars I seem to remember you and me having a back and forth on the escalation in Afghanistan. I seem to remember you were for it because it was what the President campaigned on. For the record I was against Iraq and the escalation and Libya.

Here we go again with Conservatives once again doubling down on the same failed, deregulatory and supply Side economic principles that have failed us for the last 3 decades. Only the very rich are "producers" according to this Ayn Rand-influenced view of the world, the rest of us are very literally "leeches" in their minds.

Slow, Republican starvation of the middle class has brought us to this point. There's a reason why the mid-2000s recovery was the slowest since the Great Depression was the slowest since the 1930s and this recovery is even worse. Conservative devotion to the wealthy elites over all other Americans is the problem...more of the same is not the solution.

Not to mention that the richest 2% have an effective tax rate of about 18% while the middle class is around 25%. The Hedge Fund Managers even have a better scheme in that their table rate is 15% - do not know how low their effective rate may be.

Revenues need to be increased - virtually every economist in the world says so. We can do this by Tax reform making everybody pay their fair share, we can do it with a targeted Job Stimulus program like the proposed President Obama's "Infrastructure" Bill, etc.

Cutting Spending alone will not work. Raising Taxes alone will not work. We need to do both and that is the bottom line. THere is NO OTHER WAY that will work over the long haul and the GOP/TP knows this. Just look at the last 10 years, where we have the lowest taxes in about 50 years. It is not working now and will not work tomorrow or in the future.

For clarity's sake, John A.-

Does the esteemed Mr. Stiglitz have a balanced proposal (according to First Read's own Chuck Todd and many others...Bowles-Simpson IS a balanced Plan) to address the nation's debt...a proposal capable of passing both Houses of Congress and being signed into law?

Get back to us when he does, OK, John?

Taxes are the lowest they have been in 60 years.

What taxes are the lowest in 60 years? Federal? State? Total? I am very curious where this talking point is coming from.

Please be specific and post link.

If you want to live in a civilized nation, taxes have to be raised as part of any real solution to the deficit problem

Actually, if you want to live in a civilized nation then it is incumbent upon those who do the civilizing to do so within the bounds of prudent financial management. Those who argue otherwise just want to take more from folks who earn and redistribute same to those who earn less. That way, the redistributionist kitty is never constrained -- all ya gotta do is keep on increasing taxes.

Alan:

I will this that I wrote below here:

Listening to Republican politicians lecture us all about "the debt" is equivalent to having the dad who quit his job and blew the kids college fund blaming the whole thing on "mom's spending". The only thing sadder than dad being delusional enough to say it is folks being dumb enough to believe it.

You "conservatives" don't have the standing or credibility to lecture anyone on anything at this point. I will take President Obama's approach to our domestic and foreign policy over the phony "conservative" ones any day.

President Obama campaigned on a plan for America. And the pieces that he has been able to implement have been more successful than what they replaced.

That is basically all any human leader can do. Everything else is just mindless carping and excuses.

ROFLMAO -- Too, too funny. A praise for a post before the post is posted. No one is sharing their posts in the pre prepared world are they. LibsRUs LOL!!!!!!! Way to go Navy and Ron. Show your true colors.

Do you agree with President Obama that the debt commission Plan cuts too much from defense spending, Nash?

lol

What am I SAYING?

Of course you do!

Congressional Democrats long ago proposed a budget that cuts the deficits, reduces the national debt, and preserves the saftey net. This budget begins that process immediately, as opposed to the Ryan budget, which slashes government programs but somehow adds trillions to the deficits for years, and actually increases the national debt. The Ryan budget is the perfect expression of the cynical conservative movement, with declares one thing and then does the opposite.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70&sectiontree=5,70

Here's a simple question for Liberals, why do you want more revenue (taxes)?

Do you REALLY not know the answer? Conservatives have consistently cut revenue as a strategy DESIGNED to create budget crises so that government can be, in the words of GOPTP budget guru Grover Norquist, "drowned in a bathtub."

This strategy has FAILED. It's time to admit that it's failed. Citizens in a modern DEMAND a certain level of services no matter how much Conservatives would like to think otherwise. Deliberately failing to fund government at an adequate level hasn't changed the level of needed services to a significant degree, it's only dug us a $14T budgetary hole.

Now it's time to push the childish, ideologically-driven, radical Conservatives to the sidelines and fix the budget with a reasonable balance of spending cuts and revenue increases. The vast majority of American people realize this. It's only radical Republicans standing in the way.

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Edited to add:

Isn't it rather infantile to go on and on about who "agrees" with whom instead of analyzing the merits of individual policies?

Until we put policies before politics, nothing is going to get done.

YES BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE

ECONOMIC DOWNTURN AND BUSH POLICIES CONTINUE

TO DRIVE LARGE PROJECTED DEFICITS

http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-10-11bud.pdf

Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

“Some commentators blame major legislation adopted in 2008-2010 — the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted some years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections”.

“Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [7] By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — nearly $10 trillion — of the $20 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.[8] (The Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 also will substantially increase deficits and debt, but we are unable to quantify these impacts due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues, which will account for less than $2 trillion (less than 10 percent) of the debt at that time. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers”.

“Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.[9]”

This is what the GOP/TP keeps denying and then turning around and trying to blame President Obama. The facts as outlined in this detailed report are that the previous administration put us in the toilet and no matter who was elected President he/she would be faced with many years of reconstruction. It took 8 years to get into this mess and no president, Republican or Democrat, can reverse the damage in 2 plus years. Especially if you take into consideration that the GOP/TP for the last 2 plus years have done everything in their power to try and make President Obama fail. They have stalled over 400 Bills in the Senate with outright objections (blocks) or filibusters demanding 60 votes. They (GOP/TP) have opposed virtually every Bill that has anything to do with creating jobs and/or helping Small Businesses. Go look up their record of virtually 100% “Obstructionism” on legislation that would have moved this country forward, like the $50 Billion Dollar infrastructure bill for example.

And to compound the problem, the GOP/TP is proposing the same Agenda today as this one above that got us into this mess to begin with. The GOP/TP has no new ideas; just the same old same old just repackaged, but with the same failed programs. Just look at the “Ryan Bill”, T-Paw’s proposal which is even worse and the new Bachmann initiative that is worse than the other two. None of them address the cost driving issues in this country. None of them have any plans to create jobs and stimulate the economy, in fact they all do just the opposite. And these are being presented as “Fiscally Responsible” Bills” that will answer all our problems when they add anywhere from $5.5 Trillion to almost $8 Trillion to the deficit/debt in the next decade while giving the Millionaires & Billionaires record tax cuts. In addition these “bogus” spending cut /economic bills destroy most of the Social Programs that benefit the Middle Class and Low Income Families, like the destruction of Pell Grants for education, Medical Research, Food and Product Safety etc etc etc etc.

What these have in common is the promotion of the GOP/TP agenda that “Spending Cuts” and Tax Cuts for the richest 2% are Americas answer to all our problems. They are not. Not any of these address the real problems we are facing.

Alan-

I believe it's the argument that federal income taxes are currently at the lowest percentage of gdp ever.

The flip side of the coin, as dangerfield has so helpfully pointed out, is that spending is also currently at its highest percentage of gdp ever.

So...

Split the difference.

Bowles-Simpson.

It's an actual proposal that can be voted on...not an illusory "framework".

As the CBO chief pointed out...he can't score a speech.

There isn't a whole lot new here on first read today. Feisty is spouting her class warfare mantras and Retired Navy is falling all over himself patting her on the back. As for Nashville fan that post has little redeeming value at all. My guess is that in early November 2012, all of you will be screaming that the Election was stolen from the Golden Child and we will be sitting here reading and laughing at your pitiful rants.

Speaking as a former college student, the notion of making students pay interest while in college is a dumb one in the long run. Unless they are fortunate enough to have their parent pay for their college tuition, college students are already living day to day just to have enough money in their pocket to feed themselves. Now they'll have to take on the additional interest while in college? That is designed to keep those who really need loans out of college, which is perhaps what conservatives want.

John A.-

Are you joking?

You can't be talking about the so-called "People's Budget"...?

lol

That'll get NO GOP votes and heaven knows how many House Democrats outside of the Progressive Caucus would vote for it. It'l never even get out of committee, let alone go the floor for an actual vote. It's a non-starter, John.

Reality time.

Other than Bowles-Simpson, what proposal has even the slightest prayer of getting through both Houses of Congress, and on to the President's desk for signing?

Dave:

Thanks for the shout out!

Hate to break it to you, but the days of just complaining about stuff and offering no solutions is over.

Gingerbread Mamma. Enjoyed your comments about Grover Nordquist, terrific. My view is that any legislator or presidential candidate who signs a Pledge to something other than an Oath to uphold the Constitution does not deserve to be nor should they be elected because they no longer represent ALL the people. The Pledge to Grover is nothing more than a pledge to do any and all things necessary to protect the wealthy and the powerful even if the country suffers as it is now. Bob Vandar Platt's Iowa Family Leader Marriage Vow Pledge goes beyond pledging to be faithful to one's spouse--it pledges to discriminate.

Johhnie B, Des Moines IA: Citizens in a modern [country?] DEMAND a certain level of services no matter how much Conservatives would like to think otherwise.

We see those demands playing out in countries like Greece. We've seen those demands playing out in states like Wisconsin. Funny what happens when a country and a state runs out of money and the demands of the People are no longer met, "changing considerations" and all.

"Slow, Republican starvation of the middle class has brought us to this point."

___________________________________________________

I guess that explains all those brand new or nearly new SUVs in all the mall and grocery store parking lots.

I find it highly enlightening, John A., that you refer constantly to Jospeh Stigletz as an authority on economic policy.

As enlightening as you reference to Brecht.

You seem to have taken to heart his contribution of information screening to the work on information asymmetry for which he shared in a Nobel Prize.

For the uninitiated, information asymmetry is the theory that information is not distributed evenly- there are those who do not hear or comprehend information, which leads to inefficiencies in the market. It is posited that such asymmetry undermines the rational expectations models, so the benefits of information are not efficiently distributed.

All of which is to say that those who don't pay attention, or don't understand what they are hearing, don't have any idea what is coming at them in the economy.

Stiglitz contribution was to the area of screening- that is, that information was selectively released, or couched in words meant to deceive.

That's the part Joh A. Likes so much. You see, Stiglitz is a socialist. He believes that all markets- except those run by government, are inefficient- and he has gotten himself in some little bit of trouble for coming out of the rushes with this.

But the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization"[27] (Stiglitz 1994, 179).[26]

Now, one would assume that the worldwide collapse of command economies would provide some insight as to the "efficiencies" of those economies.

One might further assume that the current collapse of the heavily socialized economies of Europe might give one pause.

Not to a man with a theory. In the ivied halls of academia, one can argue that such systems are always preferable to the sloppy distribution of free market economies.

One would be wrong, but harmless, in such a setting. Where these theories do harm is in practical usage. Witness the state of the U.S. today, after an unhealthy dose of Keynesian economics forced down the throats of an unwilling- and angry- public.

John A. Is careful about his screening- he never says he is a socialist, or a Marxist- but he relies heavily on support from socialists and Marxists.

A socialist, following the advice of Sol Alinaky, never reveals that agenda, just as Obama never revealed his admiration for the failed economic model of John Maynard Keynes.

It is true, however, that such screened information can be highly damaging economies- as well as to individuals.

When any poster seeks to awe you into agreement by whipping out a Nobel Prize- remember that Obama, while conducting two wars, but before starting a third- won a Peace Prize.

Let that be your context.

Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate

President Obama has been using the debt-ceiling debate and bipartisan calls for deficit reduction to demand higher taxes. With unemployment stuck at 9.2% and a vigorous economic "recovery" appearing more and more elusive, his timing couldn't be worse.

Two problems arise when marginal tax rates are raised. First, as college students learn in Econ 101, higher marginal rates cause real economic harm. The combined marginal rate from all taxes is a vital metric, since it heavily influences incentives in the economy—workers and employers, savers and investors base decisions on after-tax returns. Thus tax rates need to be kept as low as possible, on the broadest possible base, consistent with financing necessary government spending.

Second, as tax rates rise, the tax base shrinks and ultimately, as Art Laffer has long argued, tax rates can become so prohibitive that raising them further reduces revenue—not to mention damaging the economy. That is where U.S. tax rates are headed if we do not control spending soon.

The current top federal rate of 35% is scheduled to rise to 39.6% in 2013 (plus one-to-two points from the phase-out of itemized deductions for singles making above $200,000 and couples earning above $250,000). The payroll tax is 12.4% for Social Security (capped at $106,000), and 2.9% for Medicare (no income cap). While the payroll tax is theoretically split between employers and employees, the employers' share is ultimately shifted to workers in the form of lower wages.

But there are also state income taxes that need to be kept in mind. They contribute to the burden. The top state personal rate in California, for example, is now about 10.5%. Thus the marginal tax rate paid on wages combining all these taxes is 44.1%. (This is a net figure because state income taxes paid are deducted from federal income.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443893352153776.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

US Navy,

The president while out campaigning made a lot of promises and once in office promptly broke. If you want to blame the past administration, fine blame who ever you want. Happy now? Can we please move on?

My question is whats wrong with having a cap on spending and whats wrong with demanding that they have a balance budget. Everyone wants to put their spin on it, but really its not hard to do. I do it everyday, so how is it unthinkable to expect our lawmakers to do the same.

Nash-

Neither John Boehner nor Eric Cantor are the President of the United States.

Only Barack Obama is.

It is his debt commission.

He is the one who should be leading the effort to get Bowles-Simpson signed into law.

He is the only one who can use the bully pulpit of the presidency to accomplish that.

In short...he has to lead.

Is it just me or is there a budding romance here, or merely a flirtatious moment!

Most of the posts here are full of crazy, and not at all in a good sense.

Is First Read the even-more-radical end of Newsvine?

I see that 'compromise' is a loser from the so-called 'right' and a (sorry, very typical) team up on the 'left.' Personally, I think you all need to start considering the other side of each arguement instead of focusing on your standard hate-filled rhetoric.

The Democrats who are negotiating have had the guts to do so. The Republicans who are negotiating have, not stupidly, considered raising the debt limit and yet stood for us paying our freaking bills. And President Obama has, not stupidly, taken the middle instead of being a fire breathing dragon for his party, or a simp for the opposite.

So if I just complimented someone you hate with your radical diatribe, to you I offer a giant FU. Because you never mattered anyway with your opinion that will never change.

Cheers!

It never ceases to amaze me how the paid bloggers believe the very tripe that they write out here. Copy and paste, parrot the party, sqwak! sqwak! Pollys a good blogger!! I see these paid bloggers as being as despicable as the lobbyists that have infected the U.S. government. It is too bad that these bloggers cant grow a spine and actually think for themselves and have realistic and independent views about anything, rather than have to wait to be told what to sqwak about by the party or by thier media handlers. The very people that these paid bloggers out here call haters, racists, greedy, and bent on destroying America are the very same people that they have to face in the mirror every morning. I guess when you have a party that pats you on the head and calls you a good dog, that you dont care what you see in the mirror. Isnt that fiesty and navy to a tee? What a waste.

John A. Is careful about his screening- he never says he is a socialist, or a Marxist

Ah, but he has told us he's a "scholar." So obviously, anything he says must be accepted as the pure objective truth.

Umm, NOT.

LOOK, I am NO FAN of JS1, but KNOCK IT OFF with the collapsing will ya?

Let her LIES, ignorance & delusions stand so EVERYONE can see them!

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

Why the tax bite has eased:

• Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.

• Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.

• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.

Do you guys ever read the whole article? Here you are arguing that taxes should be raised on the rich presumably because taxes as whole are at their lowest since 1950. But, if you the article to the end, the reason that tax revenues are at their lowest is because of income credits for those earning below 150K, courtesy of the stimulus, and a more progressive tax code as implemented by Clinton AND Bush (ROFL) that took many of the lowest tax earner completely out of the system.

And argument is....?

Joe in Albany, it cracks me up how the Republicans preach small government, which means minimal intervention in the market, then turn around and call President Obama a "failure" because unemployment is too high. Like government can force companies to hire?

What's even more ironic, is the Republicans criticize him for bailing our the automotive industry, which saved thousands of manufacturing jobs, and bailing out the states, saving the jobs of teachers, cops, firefighters and other public workers. Face it, your rooting for economic bad news so you can criticize the President, though you can't say what he should do differently.

Feisty Redhead-

Really?

"As one of the ringleaders chimes in-eh?"

lol, Feisty.

You are a scream...

Alan, since it

A- does not fit their narrative, and

B - most of them do not understand it, they

C- think it means that "rich" people are the ones paying less, while they pay more.

"A" is reserved for the few on this board who do know the truth, but use the "taxes are the lowest in 50 or 60 years" argument to deliberately deceive.

There are a few of them.

The majority are "B" and "C"- and they are sad. Suffering under then worst economy since the Depression, they honestly believe that Obama plays no role in the inevitable outcome of his policies. They actually believe that businesses are not hiring because the "hate" Obama, that the debt increase has no correlation to Obama's spending, and that raising taxes on the "rich"
will actually improve things.

What I find most frightening is that I actually believe that Obama believes all of that, too. I find myself wishing that I were among those who believe he wrought all of this deliberately, because, were that true, he might reverse course in order to save his own re election chances.

As it is, all I see is someone too determined to believe he is right, no matter what the outcome.

LOOK, I am NO FAN of JS1, but KNOCK IT OFF with the collapsing will ya?

Let her LIES, ignorance & delusions stand so EVERYONE can see them!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Feisty,

I agree.

Alan:

Sometimes I wonder if you are deliberately being obtuse.

You asked for a link showing that tax rates were at the owest rate in over 50 years, and it was provided.

What in the hell does the stimulus bill and low income tax credits have to do with what a "fair share" is on folks who are experts at sheltering their income and working the loopholes to their advantage?

Income and wealth is concentrated into the hands of a very few in this country Alan.

Not to even mention the "corporate people" who actually MAKE MONEY by geting federal subsidies on top of the ZERO income tax that they pay.

Wages have been stagnant for a decade. And you want to point to John Q Public as the problem?

Give it a rest Alan.

Mixed,

The Bowels- Simpson plan includes hefty tax increases by way of eliminating the tax loopholes, tax expenditures, tax earmarks or any other name you want to call it, to deal with the debt in conjunction with spending cuts. With the Republicans standing firmly on the shaky ground of "NO NEW TAXES" do you really think it could get passed? Doubtful.

Go here to read the whole thing and it's easy to see why the White House didn't try to push this through. Many of the suggestions made in this proposal have been agreed to and submitted by President Obama but with Cantor, Norquist, Boehner and McConnell standing in the way it's a waste of time.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

What's even more ironic, is the Republicans criticize him for bailing our the automotive industry, which saved thousands of manufacturing jobs, and bailing out the states, saving the jobs of teachers, cops, firefighters and other public workers. Face it, your rooting for economic bad news so you can criticize the President, though you can't say what he should do differently.

You know what Amy only a fool would root for economic bad news for the sake of political gain. I could care a jot if President Obama was elected in a landslide because he was presiding over a roaring economy. I discovered this personally when I was hoping the Iraq war would go badly because it affect Bush politically. I realized I was rooting against my country. I will criticize the President's policies because I think they are wrong but if I am proven wrong no one will be happier because it will mean more of my fellow Americans are working and by extension I personally will be better off. Every month I hope for a blow out jobs report regardless of the party in power and if you check my posts I never comment on the numbers, good or bad.

Rogue American:

Why don't you propose how Republicans are proposing to raise revenue?

And also, can you explain how Republicans thought they could increase spending so much while cutting taxes?

Also, can you explain how laying off state and federal workers helps with unemployment?

Also, can you tell us why Republicans refuse to take responsibility for the turd sandwiches they laid on domestic and foreing policy?

Also, why do Republicans ask so many questions and never answer any?

Alan:

Sometimes I wonder if you are deliberately being obtuse.

You asked for a link showing that tax rates were at the owest rate in over 50 years, and it was provided.

What in the hell does the stimulus bill and low income tax credits have to do with what a "fair share" is on folks who are experts at sheltering their income and working the loopholes to their advantage?

Income and wealth is concentrated into the hands of a very few in this country Alan.

Not to even mention the "corporate people" who actually MAKE MONEY by geting federal subsidies on top of the ZERO income tax that they pay.

Wages have been stagnant for a decade. And you want to point to John Q Public as the problem?

Give it a rest Alan.

Why? because I blow the stupid argument out of the water. The left make the argument that taxes on the rich are too low and use the fact that taxes are at their lowest in 50 years to support this argument. I point out that the reason taxes are at their lowest because of a progressive tax system and that credits are being given out and so draw the conclusion that the current tax rates on the rich are not the reason that tax revenues are so low. And you call me obtuse? How about you come up with a real argument as to why you want to raise tax rates (unless its for deficit reduction) and support with some facts?

Fair share? Why is fair that I pay taxes for idiots who have kids they can't afford? Why is it fair that I pay to bail out idiots that can't afford to pay their mortgage? Why is it fair that I pay taxes because politicians spent the Social Security trust fund? Why is fair that I pay taxes because some employer won't pay his employees enough that they get credits from other taxpayers?

One of our "usual suspects" is quite fond of calling people "Socialists" whenever backed into a corner. It's a time-honored Conservative deflection dating all the way back to Joseph McCarthy. Like McCarthy, Conservatives who hold to this approach don't really care if it's true or not, they only care if it shuts off the debate. In a search of the internet I find no reference to the political leanings of Joseph Stiglitz other than this one;

Joseph Stiglitz, world renowned economist and Columbia University professor, is one of the most outspoken advocates for genuine financial reform. He is also a fierce critic of banking excesses and the glaring lack of integrity of politicians, lobbyists, financial executives and government regulators that led to the economic crisis. As a Nobel Laureate with no political affiliation or agenda other than preserving democracy, Stiglitz is an important voice for our time.

That's the introduction to Stiglitz as writer here; http://www.good-b.com/leading-the-way.html

The rest of the column is worth reading as well, and in part reads;

It has taken almost two years since the collapse of Lehman Bros., and more than three years since the beginning of the global recession brought on by the financial sector's misdeeds for the United States and Europe to reform financial regulation.

Perhaps we should celebrate the regulatory victories. After all, there is almost universal agreement that the crisis the world is facing - and is likely to continue to face for years - is a result of the excesses of the deregulation movement begun under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan 30 years ago. Unfettered markets are neither efficient nor stable.

That isn't a justification for Socialism, it's a plain statement that "UNFETTERED markets", the Laissez-Faire approach to Capitalism that dominates today's radical Conservatives is failing today as it failed in the 1920s and 1890s.

Capitalism paired with sufficient regulation to ensure fairness in the markets is the hallmark of American society and has been since the beginning, with occasional lapses. It's a pairing that made us the world's strongest economy. Attacks on this pragmatic, proven approach to business and government by radical ideologues in the GOPTP are endangering the future of the United States.

vwterry-

You're preaching to the choir if you're giving me the link to the debt commission Plan...I'm as familiar with it as any blogger on this board.

As a conservative, I can also tell you that many conservatives...even some right here at First Read, like Joanna and NoJo...are willing to accept the defense spending cuts (no longer sure that our President is, though), and the increases in revenue generated by the overhaul of the existing tax code, plus the increase in the federal gas tax.

That is...provided the spending cuts in the debt commission Plan are implemented.

That's the deal here, vw terry; spending cuts for conservatives, and revenue increases for liberal progressives.

Respected conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has already said he's not going to worry about Grover Norquist when it comes to achieving a comprehensive, balanced, solution the the nation's debt crisis, and I assure you there are others. NBC's Chuck Todd made reference to Republican support for the debt commission's proposal when questioning President Obama at Friday's press conference.

In any event, let's find out shall we?

How many Republican (AND Democratic) votes in both Houses of Congress for Bowles-Simpson are there?

President Obama should be working every day to find out.

Umm, Rogue American, try actually reading the posts from the left and you'd find your 'answer'. Take a look at John A.'s post #1.64 in this very thread. And if you missed the link, here it is again, just for you:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70&sectiontree=5,70

Alan:

First of all, you are not having a discussion with "the left", mmmmkay?

Second of all, it is a fact that as a percentage of income, middle class folk pay MORE than wealthy folks.

Third of all, we ALL have our tax money used for stuff we don't personally approve of, not just you.

Lastly, it is telling that you are more concerned about "folks having kids they can't pay for" than you are about your tax dollars going to subsidize for-profit private enterprise corporations sucking on the teats of our government under the "privatize" scam . . . Exxon, ADM, hell, even Newscorp.

Thank you for finally getting at the root of what is bugging you - you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the false conservative talking point that most Americans are lazy dead beats and it is only the wise and all knowing "producers" who can save our ignorant a$$es.

Only problem is, when we did what the "producers" told us to do, that $#@# didn't work. And no amount of spin is gonna change that. You are whining about bailing out folks from their mortgages, but who is getting bailed out Alan? Not people, banks. And who got rich off of those bullsh!t mortgages Alan? Not people, BANKS!

Thanks for finally telling the truth and dropping that "independent" facade.

NJNB:

John A. Is careful about his screening- he never says he is a socialist, or a Marxist- but he relies heavily on support from socialists and Marxists

Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank among many other presitgious positions, is no socialist - except perhaps in the view from the back of the cave where the other Neaderthals huddle. He is a Keynesian, however. He observed in Freefall that in fact there has never really been a full-scale application of Keynesian economics - it was in a paragraph a little bit further down the page of one of the quotes i posted Friday.

He is also certainly not a Marxist.

Now, Bertolt Brecht absolutely was a Marxist. He was very happy to move back to East Berlin in 1954, after a long exile in Southern California, where he happened to live for some years as a guest of my godfather, a professor of German and linguistics at the University of Southern California. i didn't ever meet Brecht as a kid, or even know about his link to the family, until I was finished with college and one day mentioned the poet-playwright to my godfather. Godfather was a very staunch Republican, by the way.

I am neither a socialist or Marxist, either. I translated Brecht's major plays and some of his poetry as part of my studies in German, in part because the major two translators (Eric Bently and an Englishman) turned out utterly clunky works that really don't work very well in performance. I became interested in his writing after performing in Threepenny Opera, the Brecht-Kurt Weill musical from the 1920's that features the song, "Mack the Knife." During a year's independent study abroad, when I worked in a West Berlin machinery factory, I spent considerable time at the Brechtheater in East Berlin, researching his work as a playwright in order to complete the credits necessary for a minor in German.

The fact that Brecht was a Communist in no sense diminishes some of the very pointed, satirical content of his works. His one-act play parodying Hitler is a work of genius. His Mahagonny of the early 1930's is an almost scary prediction of Las Vegas - and in fact, of the very philosophy of the Ayn Rand-influenced Libertarians. Brecht's earliest plays, Drums in the Night and The Elephant Calf among them, reveal a state of mind in Germany immediately after WWI that the histories and newsreels of the time do not convey.

Similarly, for studies in Russian, I translated some of the poetry of Yevgeny Yevtushenko. Most of it was pap, although for a time very popular among some circles. Well, that didn't make a Communist or Marxist, either.

So, smart-alecks, try the smear on some other basis. Yours fails entirely. And, yes, indeed, I AM a scholar.

Sorry, Matt-

You aren't paying attention either.

The "Peoples Budget" will never emerge from committee. If it somehow could and did, it doesn't have the votes on the floor of the House.

Every GOP House member would vote against it, and no one knows how many House Democrats outside of the Progressive Caucus would vote for it.

It's dead. It was never alive.

Got a plan that has a chance of passing even one of the two Houses of Congress (let alone both), and can be signed into law by the President?

I do.

So does President Obama's debt commission, Matt.

John a- sorry, but denying that Stiglitz is a socialist does not make him any less a socialist.

But the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization"[27] (Stiglitz 1994, 179).[26]

Now, part of his own writing, his own theory, that government can do better running an enterprise than private enterprise can run itself, speaks to you of someone committed to free markets?

an ideal government can allocate resources more efficiently than the market speaks to you as someone who is not a proponent of command economies? Honestly?

That's just a little piece of the puzzle.

Either you do not understand the distinction, or you choose to ignore it. Keynes, himself, believed in limited government intervention- so, while his theory is socialist in nature, because it limits itself to periods of economic dislocation, he could drug himself with the idea that he remained outside of that political tent.

He was wrong, in the way one cannot be a little bit pregnant, but his intentions were never for government takeovers of businesses.

Not so Stiglitz.

Since I do not believe you to be a stupid man, your protestations come under the heading of deliberate deception. You may be fooling your friends in the treehouse, but no one else.

mixed,

I agree that the Simpson-Bowels plan should be seriously considered, but the right has said that

"House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said House Republicans could accept a 'big deal' debt-limit increase — as long as it does not include tax hikes. "

"McConnell told "Fox News Sunday." He called the prospect of tax hikes a "terrible idea." "

""House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called President Obama "sorely mistaken" that the House will support tax increases in a deal to raise the debt limit."

I guess it's too bad that Joanna, No Jo and you aren't in the position to vote on these things. Me too for that matter.

Additionally, the vote on the debt limit should be just that and not a soapbox for some on the right to use to continue to manipulate the issues to further their ideology. Now is not the time.

Dear RogueAmerican:

Throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks is not a plan. Proposing stuff that you have no way of getting through the Congress is not a plan.

Since us having a "dialouge" was your idea, it would seem that the courteous thing to do would be to respond to my questions if you are serious. I won't hold my breath.

P.S. The reason that there is a need for increased revenue is to pay for stuff that conservatives bought. Same with the debt limit increase. So enough with pretending that everyone just woke up one morning and decided to pick on rich people, mmmmkay?

Who's responsible for the Budget Deficits and the Debt?

While it's tempting to blame the President for Budget Deficits, it's actually the responsibility of Congress to pass a spending budget, which establishes the amount of the Deficit each year and any required borrowings on the Debt. So what does the record show based on who controlled Congress over the last 30 years;

DEFICITS

Total Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion.

NEW DEBT

Total New Debt when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $7.859 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $3.238 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.781 Trillion.

Spin it all you want, but these are the FACTS

(a) – Contrary to popular belief, the National Debt increases far more than the Deficits for each year.

Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. The government site to verify National Debt increases is;

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np You have to select dates.

The government site to verify Deficits is;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.1

I'll let the facts speak for themselves as to which Party is more fiscally responsible.

"And, yes, indeed, I AM a scholar."

Nice of you to continue reminding us. Which begs the question of why you feel the need to do so. Perhaps because it's not immediately obvious to any objective reader, eh?

What do Obama's Budget Projections Show?

Obama's own 2012 Budget calls for the National Debt to increase to $20.825 Trillion (a) by the end of fiscal year 2016 - only 5 years away (vs a National Debt figure of only $10.025 Trillion for Bush's last fiscal year in office (2008). That's an increase of almost $11 Trillion within just 5 years if Obama gets reelected.

Our children and grandchildren are going to be neck high in debt for their entire lives - all to fund the grand schemes of Obama. That will be an average debt for a family of 4 of about $250,000, and just the interest alone for a family of 4 will be over $10,000 per year - in new taxes required.

Congratulations on that "Change we can believe in" that you voted for.

PS - Obama projects economic growth (GDP) averaging over 6% per year through 2016, but economists think 3% to 4% is more realistic. If spending continues per Obama's Budget, the National Debt would increase to over $25 Trillion, an increase of $15 Trillion on his watch.

(a) - See the White House Budget for 2012 - Table S-14. The link is below;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

There is only two types of folks that come from Illinois - corrupt politicians and those paying them off. So Feisty Redhead - which one are you?

Three IL governors convicted in federal court! Go figure?

P.S. Roy Wilson does not believe in the Hope & Change thing - and neither do I.

Where is the President's plan on debt reduction? Well for one thing the President is the "decider", he doesn't write the laws, Congress does. That's their job. The President can give direction about the principles and generalities that he will support when it come time to sign a bill, but he doesn't, nor should he, write them.

So why not vote up or down on the debt commission plan? The President formed the commission by executive order because the Republicans in Congress refused to support it. If he had issued his order and directed Congress to take the findings to a vote, he would have been usurping his authority. There is separation of powers. What the President did was provide research and a series of ideas that hopefully Congress would look at, pick and choose and negotiate some combination of those and other ideas to produce a viable, politically tolerable, debt reduction plan. This only makes sense. To devise a commission to develop a plan with an "all or nothing" label on it would be stupid. Congress is supposed to work by compromise.

What does the debt ceiling have to do with debt reduction?Nothing. The debt ceiling is about acknowledging your past accrued debts, not about creating new ones. In fact, dragging out the issue of the debt ceiling will only create more debt. Because of all the debate, credit ratings will decline. If we don't borrow another dime, just a 1% increase in interest rates will cost us an additional $150 billion/year in debt service. Our debt goes through a constant process of roll over meaning that money borrowed at one rate, only stays at that rate until the security matures. Unless you are going to immediately pay off all that debt, you must roll over a large portion of it constantly, so yesterday's 3% debt rate will become tomorrow's 4% debt. Having a debt ceiling is a very foolish concept in the first place because Congress already authorized those costs. Flirting with default results in uncertainty in the credit markets thereby negatively effecting interest rates. Flirt with default if you want to raise debt, not to cut it.

Why not "Cut, Cap and Balance"? For one thing, it would essentially eliminate ever borrowing any money. Some may think that's a good idea, but it's not. That would mean eliminating being able to invest in the United States. That would eliminate one of the most stable and guaranteed investments available today. This hurts both US investors and foreign investors. The National Debt is a very useful tool in the global economy. If we insisted on balanced budgets, we could never borrow and therefore we would be pulling ourselves out of the global economy. Having debt is not all bad. In fact it can be a very good thing. Imagine if you could never borrow any money or have credit. Not entirely unlike a household, government expenditures are not a continuous steady stream. But unlike an average household, the government revenue stream is far from steady, it fluctuates across the year. If you wanted to make this work, you would need a significant buffer between revenues and budgets. CC&B is the new talking point, but it's about the same thing. Stripping the government programs that help the middle class and the poor.

If there is one good thing out of all this debate, it is that slowly the country is beginning to wake up and realize that the Republican policies are not good for moving the country forward. They talk about taxes being "job killing" but can offer no historical proof to that claim. But they fail to talk about job killing budget cuts. There is no way to deny the fact that budget cuts will cost jobs. Most of these will be government jobs, and lots of them. That means less money circulated in the economy and therefore reduced consumer demand further deepening the downward slide. Demand is the single most important variable and unemployment decreases demand. Cutting governments jobs just increases unemployment. Many millions of unemployed Americans are competing for a relative handful of new jobs, how can anybody in their right mind not realize that pink slips for nearly another million government employees will just make the situation even worse. People are beginning to see this and wonder why the Republicans would be pushing such an agenda. It is beginning to become even more obvious that political motivations are at work. People are also beginning to realize that these cuts will impact them individually. These are programs that mush of the middle class relies on now even though it's not obvious until you realize that it's something you will lose.

The other thing that is becoming even more clear is that the Tea Party is not ready for prime time. It is becoming obvious that these folks aren't qualified to govern. Blindly holding on to extreme "principles" only stops any progress at all. Their refusal to even consider compromise stops everything. This is becoming quite clear. Since taking office seven months ago, they have done nothing. Zero, nada! They have not even achieved any of their social issue and worse, done not a single thing to help improve the economy or create jobs. And in States where they hold a large enough majority position that they have made some of their changes, people are already beginning to see the detriment it has already caused.

vwterry-

Context, vw...context.

Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor are adamantly opposed to tax increases under the current tax code as part of a near-term deal to raise the debt ceiling...I am as well, vw.

We've been through that already...the President extended all of the Bush tax cuts last December for 2 years. If he wants to change that, let him do what Bowles-Simpson suggests...toss out the entire tax code in favor of a flatter, fairer one focused on stimulating economic growth.

The debt commission proposal is a long-term Plan that would address increased revenue through the complete overhaul of the current tax code.

Apples and oranges.

In any event...

Let's see President Obama do what Chuck Todd was talking about, and start selling Bowles-Simpson.

He's not selling anything else in particular on the debt crisis at the moment, is he? That's the problem.

I say get 'em ALL...Republicans AND Democrats...on the record regarding the debt commission Plan, vw.

vwterry

Since virtually every reputable economist tells us that tax increases result in slower economic growth and less job growth, please explain how raising taxes will help the economy and 'create' new jobs.

I know it's always tempting to raise taxes on "someone else", but do we want to give more money for politicians to spend, or do we want better economic growth.

Nashville can you provide your source on the claim that the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Based on this and most of the other articles I can find, that doesn't hold water. I am a fan of fair taxation across the board.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

In the early 1960's, as I earned money by selling magazines door-to-door in Orange County, CA, about one in four people I encountered had signs or bumper stickers ploclaiming, "Impeach Earl Warren!" or "Get the US Out of the UN!" Some wanted to try former President Eisenhower for treason. Occasionally, a really passionate believer would try to hold me hostage inside the front door to show written proof that Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball were actually very active and dangerous Communists.

People like that choose delusion over reality. And unfortunately, no amount of psychotherapy will help them, either.

Now, about Alan J's rant:

I answered him and others like him months ago in a Newsvine article. I recently quoted a big part of that piece during a disucssion here last week. Here's a link to the story:

http://langewinckler.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/06/5777407-debt-defecit-and-wise-government

Rolling Stone contributing editor and author Matt Taibbi goes to the heart of the matter in a discussion about Ayn Rand and her viewpoint - which is almost pecisely echoes in Alan's string of angry questions. In Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America, p. 41, he wrote:

"... (T)he Rand belief system looks like this:

"1. Facts are facts; things can be absolutely right or absoluely wrong, as determined by reason.

"2. According to my reasoning, I am absolutely right.

"3. Charity is immoral.

"4. Pay for your own f***ing schools."

Just prior to that summation, Taibbi observed:

"... Randians believe government has absolutely no role in economic affairs; in particular, government should never use 'force' except against such people as criminals and foreign invaders. This means no taxes and no regulation."

Fact of the matter is, various extremely influential people in government, especial Alan Greenspan, spent decades working toward such goals.

And landed us all in this mess.

You can't argue with people like Alan J. Their ideological position is unyielding and they really have no belief in a society. Only unrestrained individualism - the Law of the Jungle - really appies, according to their worldview. That of course is entirely disconnected from the orgins and history of the nation, and ultimately has no place in the United States.

Here is another more current source.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/who-pays-most-income-tax.htm

I love the PHOTOSHOPPED photo on the front page. Obama is photoshopped into the photo LMAO.

Yeah, nice going for the faked photo opportunity by MSN..trying to get over the hump where he walked out and said Ronnie did not have to put up with this.

Maroons all of them

Roy always seems to ignore the fact that republicans controlled the white house for the majority of the years that he cites. The President is the one who proposes the budget and in almost all cases which ever party was in charge of Congress the vast majority of what was president's budget was approved by the Congress.

The stimulus programs are temporary measures and are expiring. While they didn't stop the economy from plunging to 9+ percent unemployment, if you look at the unemployment picture it stabilized relatively quickly after the funds started flowing - versus the 600 - 750K job losses that were taking place and picking up further steam.

The bigger probelm is the structural deficit that has been built into future budgets. Revenues in the forseeable future are not going to pay for our current spending. The second fact is that the discretionary budget could be zeroed and would still not be sufficient to pay for our existing programs. While I support the social safety net, there have to be changes - 1) make all personal income subject to social security taxes, there is no reason why taxes are capped at less than 120K. Graduate payments to social security recipients there is no reason why someone making over 250,000 in retirement should be getting social security benefits. The program could pay their life-time contributions to the program, but offer no monthly benefits. 2) Means index medicare as well.

What hasn't been addressed is that industries will police themselves in their own and the country's best interest (Greenspan), unpaid for new programs, and tax cuts that primarily benefitted the highest 2% of tax payers and corporations are issues that persist. As well as a defense industry looking for an enemy that isnt on the horizon - at least not one that is going to require the most expensive systems that are being proposed.

In Mixed Bag's world Democrats have issued no plan, as determined by him because their plan won't pass out of committee. He's conveniently ignoring that it won't pass out of committee because the Republicans who control the committee won't allow it to be debated...even there. Even more conveniently he discounts the Peoples Budget because Republicans won't approve it but somehow the Republican budget that won't pass the Senate is a legitimate plan.

NJ defines Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz as a Socialist because he said something she considers Socialist.

Conservative failure is everywhere.

Rogue American -

You misrepresent the condition of Medicare and Social Security, and the character of spending associated with them. Further, you misrepresent how the national debt, and to some extent the budget deficit, are associated with those two programs.

I disucssed the very matters you raised in an article, referenced above, but here's the link again:

http://langewinckler.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/06/5777407-debt-defecit-and-wise-government

The essential matter is that the money borrowed from those two trust fund programs over the decades is a debt owed to the American people, and must be paid back. Doing so, by the way, ensures long-term solvency, you realize.

Just because you don't want to honor those obligations is no excuse for evading them.

As for those who keep stating that raising taxes kills jobs at a time of a delicate recovery - that has been proven to be utter BS. The matter is WHICH taxes are raised. It is undeniable - undeniable even to you ultra-righies - that the upper 2% of this nation's people ARE NOT CREATING JOBS with the money their tax breaks give them. They are BANKING THE BUCIKS - and, in fact, so are most middle-income Americans, as the savings rate increases, rather than spending proceeds from their recent tax breaks. That money is NOT going into the economy, not stirring recovery or employment as intended.

It is a FICTION that closing tax loopholes, removing tax subsidies, and getting some tax returns from companies that now legally evade their taxes will cause any harm to the economy. But helping stabilize the government, reducing to some extent the deficits and setting up a sinking fund to pay down certain parts of the debt will do so.

Roy,

Which "reputable economist" are those? I'm sure I can find an equal number that would dispute those claims. Better than predicting the future, how about we look to history.

In 1993, Newt proclaimed "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." Sound familiar? The Clinton plan included tax increases, along with selected cuts in spending.

Instead of the economic doomsday predicted we got-

The economy grew for 116 consecutive months- National Economic Council

22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration- Bureau of Labor Statistics

Real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars)- National Economic Council

Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9% in 1993 to just 4.0% in January 2001- Bureau of Labor Statistics

Now before someone brings up the fact that there was a Republican Congress during that time I would just say that that does not change the fact that taxes were raised and the results shown are true.

Lastly, it is telling that you are more concerned about "folks having kids they can't pay for" than you are about your tax dollars going to subsidize for-profit private enterprise corporations sucking on the teats of our government under the "privatize" scam . . . Exxon, ADM, hell, even Newscorp.

I am against both. Again if you go back you'll find I support market based solutions not business base crony capitalism. I say get rid of all deductions that go to all companies. I would be for a simple 20% across the board tax on corporations. If you want to advocate that it be higher then make your argument but at least the rate would be transparent and we wouldn't see every company paying a different "effective" tax rate depending upon how good their accountants, lawyers or lobbyists are.

Thank you for finally getting at the root of what is bugging you - you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the false conservative talking point that most Americans are lazy dead beats and it is only the wise and all knowing "producers" who can save our ignorant a$$es.

Now where do you come with this assertion? Can you point out when I said this or something that relates to this. If you think the part about people having too many kids that I have to pay taxes for I was actually referring to religious groups that have more than 4 or 5 kids in their family. If their religion says this is God's will I'm fine with it. I just don't want to pay for it. Similar to the mortgage deduction, if you must have it then cap it. You should not be able to claim a deduction after the 3rd kid in my view (population replacement number). If you want to have 10 kids then you have to pay for 4 through 10 not me.

You know Nash, I used to think that you could make an argument, but lately you just throw out talking points about how bad thing are because evil people or evil corporations. Well if we didn't have these evil corporations then we would be like the Soviet Union or Cuba, where we are all equally poor (except for the political elite and their friends) and eventually the system falls apart because like it or not people are selfish and are motivated when they can see the benefits of their improvements. Corporations will be evil in your mind so my solution is to force the market on them, not some form of cronyism where the best politically connected companies "suck" at the government teat as you put it.

John B.-

House Democrats didn't produce a viable proposal, nor have House Republicans.

So, as my friend dangerfield asked awhile back, are you anticipating a coup, John B.?

For my part, I'm not.

Because that's the only way the "People's Budget" will ever become law.

You do realize that, don't you?

I have advocated for only one long-term proposal to address the nation's debt...and that is the Plan of President Obama's debt commission.

Bowles-Simpson has a chance...at the moment, nothing else does, John B.

Nothing else.

Certainly not a coup, eh, John?

BTW-Is President Obama supporting the "People's Budget"? Haven't heard him say much about. Have you?

The essential matter is that the money borrowed from those two trust fund programs over the decades is a debt owed to the American people, and must be paid back.

...and who is going to pay back the money? That's right the same American people it is owed to. What a shell game. What has really happening over the last 25 years (I'm only going back to the last time we saved SS in 1986), is that we have effectively been taxed at 6% more than the rates by the IRS. This 6%, or 12% if you include the employers contribution has been spent, and now John is arguing that we be taxed again to pay back the taxes we have already but were spent by Administrations and Congress of BOTH parties. What a deal. Tell me John, how about you send me 6% of your income for retirement. I'll spend the money and when time comes that you retire, I'll tax your kids to pay for your retirement. At the same time I'll still be taking 6% from your kids and when they retire I'll simply tax your grankids because I'll have spent the money.

Deal?

vwterry "Roy,Which "reputable economist" are those? I'm sure I can find an equal number that would dispute those claims."

How about Robert Barro, economics professor at Harvard, who is often credited with a version of the Misery Index'.

Now you find one that says raising taxes in a recession will 'create' jobs and stimulate the economy.

I won't hold my breath.

Clinton benefited from a Republican led Congress that put a cap on his spending, and actually led to 4 years of budget 'SURPLUSES'.

KathyK1960

Again, the President cannot spend a single penny that has not been authorized by Congress, so it is Congress that gets to set the spending budgets, which in turn sets the Deficits each year. President Bush proposed a Budget for 2009 that called for a Deficit of $407 Billion, which was totally ignored by the Democratic Congress, until Obama was inaugurated, and then they passed a spending budget that exceeded $1.4 Trillion.

KathyK1960

I ran out of time before I could finish my Post #1.116. Here is the complete comment

Again, the President cannot spend a single penny that has not been authorized by Congress, so it is Congress that gets to set the spending budgets, which in turn sets the Deficits each year. President Bush proposed a Budget for 2009 that called for a Deficit of $407 Billion, which was totally ignored by the Democratic Congress, until Obama was inaugurated, and then they passed a spending budget that exceeded $1.4 Trillion in Deficits, thanks to the $860 Billion 'stimulus' bill insisted upon by Obama, along with the 'Porkulus' bill.

ksw:

In reality, the current U.S. taxation system is highly regressive: as incomes increase, the tax burden on additional dollars received generally decreases—especially, as one moves out of the middle class into the upper class, and from there to the stratosphere of wealth, the richest 1/10 of 1% of Americans. How is this possible? In short, it’s because most of the money received by wealthy and very wealthy Americans is not subject to the tax brackets described above.

http://www.middleclassimpact.com/our-regressive-income-tax/

This is an interesting read as well (bold added by me):

Given that taxes are likely to be one of the big political issues of the next few years — and maybe the biggest one — it’s worth understanding who really pays what in taxes. Once you do, you can get a sense for our country’s fiscal options. How, in other words, will we be able to close the huge looming gap between the taxes we are scheduled to pay and the services we are scheduled to receive?

The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation.

So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was. It’s true that raising taxes on the rich alone can’t come close to solving the long-term budget problem. The deficit is simply too big. But if taxes are not increased for the wealthy, the country will be left with two options.

It will have to raise taxes even more than it otherwise would on everybody else. Or it will have to find deep cuts in Medicare, Social Security, military spending and the other large (generally popular) federal programs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Alan:

I did not say corporations were evil. I said that they are not people, and should not have rights of free speech. They should not be able to purchase our government officials and use them to do their bidding. They should not be able to pay zero income tax on billions in profits. And they are having their way and you seem to be fine with it. Which is your right.

...and who is going to pay back the money? That's right the same American people it is owed to. What a shell game.

Exactly right, Alan. You've made the same point before as have I and several others. But the reality of the trust fund situation just doesn't sink in for the left. When the time comes to cash in all the Treasury paper sitting in the Social Security trust fund, the options are limited and bleak: raise taxes, issue more debt, or -- heaven forbid -- reduce benefits. And umm, it makes no difference that this is a debt "owed to the American people." The pain of paying it off will be indistinguishable from paying off the portion of our debt owed to the Chinese.

Rogue American wrote: "I'm a Reagan Conservative (Constitutional Originalist) and a Fiscal Libertarian."

That explains a lot about his posts. S/He doesn't know the true beliefs or history of the Reagan presidency, doesn't understand the Constitution or early American history and the founders views, and is totally clueless about real economics. Time to put this guy on ignore. Besides, I pointed out where his questions had been answered but he ignores me because it doesn't fit his narrative that 'liberals never answer questions or put out real ideas'.

Nashville_fan "Alan:I did not say corporations were evil. I said that they are not people, and should not have rights of free speech."

I would be fine with prohibiting political contributions by corporations, as long as that applied to unions as well, because they are 'not people' either.

Of course, unions and trial lawyers contributed 3 times as much as corporations over the last 20 years.

According to both Naomi Klein, in Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, and Matt Taibbi, in Griftopia, Alan Greenspan had a very, very significant role in setting up both the doc com and housing bubbles.

Taibbi, on pp. 76-77, sums it up this way:

"... (E)ven if Greenspan got taken down a fraction of an inch toward the end of his life, his belief system - or what passes for his belief system - remains ascendant, if not dominant, in the international fiance culture. He raised a generation of Wall Street bankers who under his tutelage molded themselves in the image of Randian supermen, pursuing the mantra of personal profit with pure religious zeal.

"In fact, what made the bubbles possible was that people who ran banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and Citigroup during the Greenspan era were possessed by this cultist fervor, making them genuinely blind to the descrtuctive social conseuqences of theiractions and infuriatingly immune to self doubt....

"Greenspan staked the scam, printing trillions of dollars to goad Americans into playing a series of games they were doomed from the start to lose to the dealer. In the end the printed wealth all disappeared and only the debts rmained."

Those lines follow a detailed treatment of how Greenspan engineered the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which just about all sides of the debae agree was a key factor in the conditions leading to the 2007-2008 crash, in oder to ratify a bank merger the Fed chairman had ratified in violation of the law. And Taibbi goes into even more detail about that.

Roy,

First you say "virtually every reputable economist" then site 1 who's beliefs mirror your own. Does that mean you think there is only 1 reputable economist?

Here are four from the Republican side who disagree with the 1 you offered.

Bush Economic Advisor Mankiw- "Knows Both Tax Increases And Spending Cuts Are Required"

David Stockman, Reagan Budget Director- ""It is simply unrealistic to say that raising revenue isn't part of the solution"

Ben Stein- "The deficit situation is so serious that while I wish we did not have to raise taxes, we just can't cut spending enough."

Bruce Bartlett- deputy assistant secretary at the Treasury under George H.W. Bush- "While obviously any tax increase needs to be carefully considered, there is no doubt that closing loopholes and eliminating many tax subsidies would have the same effect as cutting spending."

And "Republicans oppose eliminating tax expenditures unless other taxes are cut because any net tax increase would depress growth. The historical evidence, however, does not necessarily support this view."

Also, what you posted in no way contradicts what I said in my post. Taxes were raised. Spending was cut. The results listed cannot be disputed. They are historical fact.

Why do we continue to believe that the only way to increase revenue is to steal it from the rich????

vwterry "Roy, First you say "virtually every reputable economist" then site 1 who's beliefs mirror your own. Does that mean you think there is only 1 reputable economist?"

The list would be virtually endless, and would include just about every economics professor in the country.

NONE of your cited 'economic experts' said a single word about raising taxes actually stimulating the economy or creating jobs - I'm still waiting.

I am not opposed to raising taxes on the 'rich' (I actually strongly favor it), because it is necessary, even though it might have a few negative effects on the economy. What I objected to is the idea that raising taxes will 'stimulate economic growth and create jobs', because that makes no sense.

John A. Is careful about his screening- he never says he is a socialist, or a Marxist

Ah, but he has told us he's a "scholar. Bill your answer is in the word "scholar" which way do most scholars lean. For others you keep talking about this nobel prize economist as being preeminent in the field. Why should anyone believe him, President Obama got the nobel peace prize and what does he do--starts hostilities with Libya, advocates the overthrow of Egypts, Yemen, Libyan governments, increases troops in Afghanistan, but he got the peace prize. lol Listening to some of the more vociferous people on the left here tells me that the democratic symbol is correct for liberals, the jack a$$. How appropriate.

Bag, the Bowles-Simpson plan of which so many on this board are fond is also dead because Conservatives will not agree to ANY tax increases.

Which means the ONLY plan to have advanced in any way is still the Republican budget, which is already dead with everyone outside the radical Conservative orbit.

So we're back to where we started--with a House leadership made up of Republicans who refuse to do their constitutionally-mandate of producing a workable budget.

Unfortunately, I did not put Rogue American on ignore soon enough. I was curious so I read his reply and he did not disappoint. I've known twelve year olds who have given more mature answers than this guy. Rogue American threw around big words that I doubt he even understands and spouted right wing talking points . . . god, I love that ignore button.

Alan, NJ says: Fair share? Why is fair that I pay taxes for idiots who have kids they can't afford? Why is it fair that I pay to bail out idiots that can't afford to pay their mortgage? Why is it fair that I pay taxes because politicians spent the Social Security trust fund? Why is fair that I pay taxes because some employer won't pay his employees enough that they get credits from other taxpayers?

The answer to the entire paragraph is contained within the paragraph. "because some employer won't pay his employees enough". That runs the gamut from employers who have left the country as well as those who remain and pay wages lower than it takes to support a worker (with and without families!). Aside for supporting low & lower wage earning workers, every dime in cash support that funnels through the Federal government back to those workers ends up in the pocket of those aforementioned employers.

Are you an employer? If so do you know the Basic Cost of Living for your employment region and do the salaries you pay equal or exceed that Basic Support? Peple will not magically produce cash to pay for prescriptions with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. They will do without. They will not magically produce cash to pay for energy or food or housing if those supports are cut. They will move in with family members or live on the street. There are NO social support programs that exist independantly of keeping consumerism active and supporting the very corporations that are permitted to avoid contributing to the tax revenue stream.

In reality cutting social support programs without generating new income sources or increased income sources on an individual citizen level assures the demise of those self-same employers and corporations by eliminating any possible demand for their products and services. Holding fast to no taxes and low wages is merely sending the producers of goods and services to newly developing countries and economies that haven't figured out yet that the only way to sustain those producers is redistribution of the income they aren't paying their employees, and collect from those in the middle between the two. The US economy is already finished because the producers of goods and services don't understand they have to cultivate their own consumers by taking less at the top and distributing more throughout the production chain. They like the concept of taking all they don't already have, and haven't fallen far enough yet globally to understand every dime they keep or bank is a dime THEY have lost to use tomorrow...just as you and others don't understand that not contributing to the revenue stream reduces your own earning cash flow.

Roy,

The original issue was the debt ceiling. The convoluted crisis that has been created is one where Republicans say that the debt must be lowered before they will vote to allow it to be raised. Even though one will not effect the other. The individuals I sited are in agreement with the Simpson-Bowels plan to address the debt. Fix the debt, fix the economy. Economy fixed, more jobs. Isn't that what you want?

Why else do you guys keep saying the debt must be eliminated?

John B.-

It is simply not correct that Bowles-Simpson doesn't have conservative support.

Why do you continue to suggest that?

If First Read's Chuck Todd can see that there is Republican support for the debt commission Plan, tell the President exactly that, and then specifically name a prominent conservative Republican Senator while doing so...

There's absolutely no kosher (lol) reason for you to be so confused about the nature of the support for Bowles-Simpson.

I'm unable to decide whether you're being intellectually dishonest or simply obtuse, John.

Which is it?

Why do I continue to insist that Republicans refuse to raise taxes, Bag? I take them at their word.

The problem for Mr. Obama is that Republicans are not budging on their demand that any deal include no tax increases. The administration also needs Democratic lawmakers, but for many of them, it will be impossible to vote for a package composed entirely of spending cuts, especially to popular programs.

In a statement after the meeting, Mr. McConnell’s spokesman, Don Stewart, said, “It’s baffling that the president and his party continue to insist on massive tax hikes in the middle of a jobs crisis.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/us/politics/11debt.html?_r=1&hp

You simply can't insist that Republicans are willing to do something they've sworn a pledge not to do and publicly avowed that they would not break.

The Bowles-Simpson plan is dead because Republicans won't break that pledge. There's no point in talking about it until Republicans agree to a balanced approach that includes both spending reductions and reasonable revenue increases. So far they refuse to come to that position.

John B.-

I'll try again...I'm very patient.

It is absolutely true that Republicans will not agree to raise taxes under the present tax code as part of an near-term agreement to raise the debt ceiling. That issue was settled last December when President Obama agreed to a two-year extension of all of the Bush-era tax cuts.

Other than a 15 cents/gallon increase in the federal gas tax, all of the revenue increases suggested under the debt commission proposal are generated by reform and replacement of the current tax code by a new, flatter, and fairer tax code intended to stimulate economic growth.

The tax code that President Obama wants tax increases under will no longer exist if Bowles-Simpson is implemented.

A new, reformed tax code appeals to members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Many will vote for it.

For one thing, all of the Bush tax cuts so hated by liberal/progressives would be gone...replaced by the new tax rates. How does that sound to you, John?

How many votes are there for the debt commission Plan?

Let's find out.

The tax increases that President Obama seeks in the current debt ceiling negotiations are a non-starter.

He'd be far better off trying to sell Bowles-Simpson..which was the question our own Chuck Todd was asking at Friday's presser, John.

vwterry "Roy,The individuals I sited are in agreement with the Simpson-Bowels plan to address the debt."

I am in favor of the Simpson-Bowles plan as well, but both sides opposed it;

The Republicans opposed it because it would require new taxes.
The Democrats opposed it because it would require reforming Medicare and Social Security.

The way I see it, both sides are wrong, and don't give me the 'Obama has put everything on the table', because that is just nice sounding rhetoric. Obama has not put forth a plan to cut one penny from any 'entitlement program', and until he does, it's just empty talk.

All I see is partisan 'blame game' politics from both sides.

All of your contentions are based on the implementation of the Simpson-Bowels plan. The problem is there is no way that will happen in the present circumstances with the leadership of the right not being able to get some of their caucus to consider any revenue increases.

Additionally, any changes in the tax code will take time. The one thing we do not have is time. The debt limit must be raised and it must happen now.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the Corporate States of America, and to the Republicans for which it stands: one Nation under CEO, outsourced, with profits and dividends for the rich, and nothing for the middle class.

Just out of curiosity Job1, do you work/retired for one one of those evil corporations? Know anyone who depends on those evil corporations for their livliehood?

Yes, I do, indirectly. And I've seen my share of greedy executives, believe me.

Many of them do not mean well when it comes to their employees. They ARE, however, very much invested in their own compensation and incentive packages, which pay off best when the bottom line is biggest, and if that means cutting a few jobs and/or some benefits in order to achieve the "productivity" numbers that will boost their personal bonuses, well, then, by all means cut.

And even if the company is hanging by a thread, in principal part because of decisions made by the executive, that same executive will demand every last dime that he negotiated in his bloated exit package, not caring as he does so that he brings down the company and/or causes other people to lose their jobs in order to finance what he has "coming to him."

Yes, I know a little bit about this.

Exit packages, "golden parachutes" have always irked me. I have never understood why big shots whether it is football coaches or CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are rewarded for failure. When a person takes a job, that person accepts the responsibility to do the job well and if they fail, they should not be rewarded for that failure--they should just be terminated and sign up for unemployment like the rest of the people. I understand that much of these packages are "incentives" to entice someone to take a particular job but why is bribery necessary? They either want the job or they don't. No one is that "great", everyone is expendable. Whether college football or CEOs, promising a reward for failure makes zero sense.

Anna Molly:

Touche' - That is what most of Corporate America is about. MONEY and POWER. Their employees in many cases are a necessary evil for them to get to their ultimate goal - more MONEY and POWER. Most no longer care about their employees, they are expendable like machinery to them. Use them up and then throw them away.

This will not change until people change their idea that everything is about MONEY and POWER. I got mine and screw you.

Our country was not built on that type of ideology.

Sounds like Republicans know how to run up debt for their Party, as well as national debt. Do you suppose they will raise revenues or cut spending to dig out of their hole?

The bad news: The committee has $17.5 debt, after beginning with $25 million in debt at the beginning of the year.

Navy Disabled: That is what most of Corporate America is about. MONEY and POWER

And we see what happens when the GREEDY government doesn't let businesses make MONEY because of over taxing and over regulation, when the government takes that POWER away from the businesses.

1.8% GDP.

DRACONIAN!

WC,

One of the big problems is outsourcing which has to stop and tax loop holes have to stop.

So Navy, you're saying "Most" don't care then you probably don't care if they take their business overseas right? I would if you tax the hell out of me, regulate me, and say I'm evil and only care about myself-right? Bottom line is that you shouldn't complain then if a company goes overseas by the way you think, it's a good thing- right?

AM : that same executive will demand every last dime that he negotiated

Since he negotiated it, Anna Molly, why shouldn't he get it? I thought you Libs were all for negotiations? Or is that only when it involves the Unions?

See you're wrong Job1, why are you complaining about outsourcing if they are so evil? Which is it? Consult with Navy and come up with a good answer.

Navy: Their employees in many cases are a necessary evil

Yeah, Navy, If it weren't for those darned employees, just think how rich the executives would be.

Except of course there would be no one to make the products. You all act like the employees are slaves. No one, and I mean no one, forces anyone to work for them. If one is not happy, then they can go look elsewhere anytime they choose.

White Collar:

Since he negotiated it, Anna Molly, why shouldn't he get it? I thought you Libs were all for negotiations? Or is that only when it involves the Unions?

You're not listening. More than once I have seen situations where the same executive who negotiated the package is the one whose decisions are responsible for the fact that there is no money to pay him, and yet he insists on it. That's how totally conscience-free some of these people are.

Be sure to remember this moment, White Collar, the next time you demand that unions make contract concessions. Especially when they are making the concessions because of bad decisions made by management. In all probability, that same management is making no personal concessions at all.

In your world, evidently, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

If one is not happy, then they can go look elsewhere anytime they choose.

Where exactly would you propose that they "go look elsewhere"?

Sort of callous in a 9.2 percent (real rate probably over 16 percent) unemployment economy, wouldn't you say?

And again, exactly where corporations want their employees to be -- at the very bad end of a buyer's market. That's exactly how you cram down wages and benefits in the first place, leaving you with a neat bottom line and a big incentive bonus.

"when the GREEDY government doesn't let businesses make MONEY"

JoAnna, taxes are at their lowest in 50 years. Eleven men died on a Deep Horizon rig and the company's ececutives "earned" thousands of dollars at the end of the year in "safety" bonuses. Your argument doesn't make sense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576236661289767034.html

Now Anna Molly, you are barking up the wrong tree again. Never said that only Unions should make concessions.

Belive me, as a non-union worker for the Big Three, I have made plenty of concessions over the past 5 years. So have my bosses. Dare say more than the Unions. Only difference is nobody asked me if it was OK, and nobody cares. Didn't see anyone parading around Headquarters for my "right" to not have a 50% increase in my Health Care costs applied.

Again, if I didn't like it, I was free to go elsewhere. So I stayed and sucked it up.

Didnt Ford just announce hiring 7000 workets primarily due to overseas sales? Its much more complicated than saying outsourcing has to stop or tax loopholes have to be eliminated. If multinational corporations are not allowed to compete effectively overseas, how many job losses here in the US do you think that would create? What about higher tax rates on corporations as a result of closing loopholes. Lets take a local company here in the chicago area it has about $100 million in revenue not much in terms of foreign sales but trying to get started and its operating profit is around $25 million but after debt service and ownership expenses it makes around $7 million. So a 7% net profit margin. Its run through a flow through entity so the owners are taxes on their individual returns as a large 3 third generation family pays the tax but takes very little income out because its currently trying to reinvest as much as they can of the net into paying down debt, opening new sales offices etc. It has about 1000 employees. So what loopholes or deductions would you eliminate Jobs1? Since you dont want them to pay less tax overseas to compete against foreigh competition that bill alone would prevent this company from expanding and hiring even one employee extra. After you close your deductions say depreciation or whichever loophole you choose, I can tell you for a fact that when the net income goes down there will be fewer employees hired or even maybe some eliminated in sales offices not generating enough to afford the tax increase. So Jobs1 and other evil corporate haters where do you think the revenue should come from on this company?

Job1 - Outsourcing is a product of a Global Economy. When things go well in China for General Motors, it helps them here at home. Why do you think Toyota builds cars in The US?

Only a closed mind would think that in today's world, it makes sense to do everything here. You may not like it, but in the end it is good, in general, for all businesses.

Anna Molly, I will agree with you that I have seen some greedy executives but they generally dont last very long. In my experience, that vast majority of corporate executives want to do the right thing especially the highly successful ones in the next tier down corporations from the Fortune 500. Thats how they grow and become successful. To demonize all corporations and executives because of a few bad apples and the situations we read in the newspaper isnt fair. Franklin Raines from Fannie Mae or similar situations where corporations are raped and pillaged is the exception not the rule. We shouldnt punish the whole to get at the few.

Amy, what tax revenue is down? Are you referring to tax collections as a percentage of GDP? Are you referring to gross revenue and what type? There are various reasons and explanations that for your answers. Some of the reduction as a percentage of GDP is the payroll tax holiday Obama wanted if you are referring to total tax collection but on income taxes you are correct the extension of the Bush era tax rates reduced collections along with the tax credit giveaways like the green energy credits and the tax loss carryforwards given GM and Chrysler so its not a simple answer. It also doesnt help that spending as a percentage of GDP is at its highest since world war 2 at 25% of GDP. Historically this number is in the high teens.

White Collar:

Again, if I didn't like it, I was free to go elsewhere. So I stayed and sucked it up.

LoL You've just proven my point. You didn't like it, and you weren't free to go elsewhere. Because if you had been free, you probably would have gone.

They've got you, too, White Collar, exactly where they want you.

And tell me more about the exact "suffering" your bosses underwent. I'll bet it's nothing like yours or the suffering that the rank and file endured. Your bosses were MUCH better off to begin with, weren't they?

Slice a million dollars off a two million dollar salary, and your salary is still a million dollars.

I think I could live with the pain.

Kirk:

Anna Molly, I will agree with you that I have seen some greedy executives but they generally dont last very long.

True, Kirk. And in many of those cases, they just take their severance package and their "neutral" employment reference and go right down to road to the next victim. And if not, they've got plenty to fall back on, don't they?

Nice work if you can get it.

AM: Your bosses were MUCH better off to begin with, weren't they?

But AM, that is why they are the bosses.

I could have gone elsewhere, but I really like what I do, so I chose to stay. Nobody has me by the shorthairs. That is what hard work, education and ambition does for a person.

In fact some of the Bosses were hit pretty hard. I think a couple of them had to cancel their fishing trips on their yachts out on the Great Lakes. Really good walleye fishing out here, ya know.

The sad thing is these Republicans Tea Party people that are so illiterate as far as economics, is concerned. This large national debt is W. Bush’s and Mr. Bush owns this. Facts are facts.

AM: And tell me more about the exact "suffering" your bosses underwent. I'll bet it's nothing like yours or the suffering that the rank and file endured. Your bosses were MUCH better off to begin with, weren't they?

Obviously you have no idea how a business is started. First you have to have a business plan, next you need to borrow money. Many times that comes from banks, and many times that comes from a second and third mortgage on a business persons house. Then comes the 100 hour work weeks, with virtually no salary with any income going back into the business and to the banks so they won't foreclose. Stress is beyond comprehension with the new businessman not knowing if tomorrow is their last day because a competitor will undersell them or take their customers. Years of this result in success, for less than a third of the businesses. For the others, the business person loses it all, with much suffering. As the business grows, the businessman hires others, and does something the government incapable of doing, creating jobs and creating wealth.

And all of a sudden, people like AM see the successful businessman, the one that worked his/her way up, is leading a successful company after years of hard work, and "Oh my gosh, they're making a little money". So now that person is evil and is one of the causes of all the problems in the country.

Liberals have no clue about businesses. None.

I think I could live with the pain.

That's extremely doubtful.

Nice work if you can get it.

If it's so easy, go get it.

JoAnna, taxes are at their lowest in 50 years.

Amy, can you and Houston! get together and decide it taxes are at their lowest in 50 or 60 years. When you come up with the answer can you post me the link because I'm very curious as to what exactly you are talking about.

Job1 - Outsourcing is a product of a Global Economy. When things go well in China for General Motors, it helps them here at home. Why do you think Toyota builds cars in The US?

The other thing about a global economy that I thought liberals would like is that billions are no longer living in poverty. Do you want to go back to the fifties where there were food shortages in China and SE Asia? Yes, it has made it harder for us to compete because there is more competition but overall hasn't the world become a better place for more people?

White Collar:

In fact some of the Bosses were hit pretty hard. I think a couple of them had to cancel their fishing trips on their yachts out on the Great Lakes. Really good walleye fishing out here, ya know.

What a shame. Personally, I always love fresh pan-fried walleye in the morning.

And now I'm off in a moment or two to teach a class to some "entrepreneurs" at the university. I'll be sure to warn them that tough times may be ahead.

Amy:

You are right on. For the National Republican Party to decrease their debt, they should decrease spending and put a cap on revenue. Now how silly is that!!! Without an increase in revenue, they will never get out of debt. But somehow that they just can't bring themselves to see that when it comes to the national debt. And how dumb is that!

Amy: JoAnna, taxes are at their lowest in 50 years

Tax revenues you mean. That's because so many people are unemployed, a symptom of Keynesian economics, and a result of the failed stimulus and jobs programs proposed and implemented by Obama and the Democrats.

JoAnna:

If it's so easy, go get it.

So sorry, JoAnna. I would LOVE to respond, but I'm done with you, remember?

Surely, you do.

Have a nice day. :-)

Anna Molly, sadly I agree with you. That generally is what happens. The worst CFO I ever worked for, made over $100 million from some buy out after being at his new company for less than a year after getting fired from my employer and last I heard he got hired after that by another company. Some unfairness and inequity is an unfortunate part of life in general. I wasnt borne 6'6" and an NBA player some kids get picked for cheerleading over others, life isnt fair and we cant eliminate the exceptions. Casey Anthony most likely killed her daughter but again nothing we can do to change it now. I dont think we are going to solve our problems by fixing the anamolies or going after the minority small exceptions no matter how egregious.

Job1, so far you have shown your lack of economics 101 let alone trying to provide wisdom on corporate tax policy so stop calling us Tea Party people as knowledge and experience regarding corporate tax policy has nothing to do with political parties or platforms.

One of the most difficult things for parents to do is to tell their children “no” when they are dead set on doing something that the parents fear will have dire negative results. Temper tantrums usually follow, but the wise parents do not budge. As a country, we are in somewhat the same situation. We are facing an extremely difficult decision concerning our uncontrollable spending. Most people agree that the current spending is unsustainable, but there is total disagreement about what to do about it. The Democrats want to increase taxes and reduce spending by a small amount while the Republicans want more dramatic cuts in spending and no increase in taxes.

The president went on TV last Monday and stated that he would not sign a partial and temporary solution to extend the deadline of August 2nd when we will be unable to meet our debt obligations. That is a false premise. There is no deadline of August 2nd other than the fact that that is the date when we supposedly reach the debt limit and no more money can be borrowed. We do not need to borrow money in order to service the debt. The treasury receives about $200 billion in revenue each month and servicing the debt costs $20 billion a month. There will be plenty to service the debt.

When we can no longer borrow additional money then the government must make difficult decisions about what to cut. When that happens, perhaps some of the waste throughout the government will be attacked. Perhaps we will finally determine what the government should do rather than what it wants to do. I look forward to those debates.

AM: So sorry, JoAnna. I would LOVE to respond, but I'm done with you, remember?

But yet you keep responding. Why is that?

Wow......The "Gimme Gimme Gang" is out in full force today. Silly me and here I thought the purpose of a business was to earn the best possible profit for its shareholders! It appears that the true purpose should be for the welfare of "Gimme Gimme Gang" Momma wants a new pair of shoes and she dont want to work for them! Gimme Gimme!

P.S. JAS1 When you absolutely know your point of view is the ONLY point of view its hard to give up pushing it on people!

The wonderful Paul Ryan Budget some here tout as good policy adds $6 trillion to the debt and doesn't balance the budget until long after many posters here are gone or in their twilight years. The Ryan Budget was/is a disaster and anyone who supports it as a "good plan" is as simple as Paul Ryan and his GOPTP pals hoped.

jolly--Remember, the "gimme gang" believes that all people are ENTITLED to make the same amount of money no matter their skill level, brains, ambition, personal faults etc...It's all about guaranteed outcome to these people.

If a woman lives in a roach-infested apartment, drives a broken-down car and claims to not be able to give her children lunch money for school, it's all RICH people's fault (rich, white Republicans). In reality, it has more to do with her not finishing high school, having three kids without being married, drugs and/or alcohol, can barely speak English etc...

Regarding low taxes, from IRS published reports on the top 400 highest income taxpayers, as well as the total population, the following are the effective tax rates for the years 1992-2008. Sorry for the formatting, my excel table did not hold

Tax Rate Top 400
Tax Rate Non-400

1992

26.4%
13.1%

1993

29.3%
13.4%

1994

28.6%
13.6%

1995

29.9%
14.0%

1996

27.8%
14.4%

1997

24.2%
14.6%

1998

22.0%
14.5%

1999

22.2%
14.9%

2000

22.3%
15.3%

2001

22.8%
14.3%

2002

22.9%
13.1%

2003

19.5%
12.0%

2004

18.2%
12.2%

2005

18.2%
12.5%

2006

17.2%
12.7%

2007

16.6%
12.8%

2008

18.1%
12.4%

As you can see, while the effective tax rate on the general population is mostly unchanged from 1992-2008 (down less than 1%), the effective tax rate on the top 400 earners in each year was down over 8%. Additionally, while Clinton raised taxes in the 1990's, taxes went up for the general population, but down for the highest earners, driven in part from an increase in capital gains income which is taxed at a lower rate. Capital gains have gone from 33% of the highest earners incomes to 66%. The average adjusted gross income of the top 400 earners has increased from $46 million to $344 million per year, while the average AGI of the rest of the population has doubled from $32,000 to $60,000.

After the Bush tax cuts went into effect, revenues were down and spending was up, primarily due to wars, that were not in Clinton's surplus budget.

And to point out more inequity, in 1992 16 of the top 400 paid less than a 15% effective tax rate. In 2007, 152 of the top 400 paid less than a 15% effective tax rates. Loopholes were last cleaned up by Reagan and O'Neill in 1986 and are long overdue.

Damage123, I am one of those people who get attacked on here for being fiscally conservative but I dont think your example helps the debate. For the same reason that using the few corporate executives who become poster children for abuse and waste, you cant use the few people who abuse the welfare or entitlement state of affairs. We need to have productive discussions and if you are fiscally conservative, stay above the fray as it could be more productive and let the progressives on here be the name callers etc.

I do think you create a good idea for a discussion. For anyone especially the progressives, what role does behaviorial choices play in your fiscal views? From unemployment, to welfare to job freedom and flexability? Where does good government become an enabling welfare state government? So if someone chooses to become a teacher, social worker etc going into the job, is that a choice with all the economic advantages or disadvantages no different than choosing to start your own small business or go to college or grad school etc? Even though thats a choice should we level the playing field and what does that mean to you?

No one said we wanted to go back to the fifties. We just want the tax rate to go back for the rich like it was in the fifties. You know back to the good old days when everyone was Americans first. The rich got rich off our country, why shouldn't they share the cost.

Then somehow because we want to tax the rich, it means we want to starve the Chinese people and put them back into poverty. HUH???

No we want to raise taxes on the rich to keep Americans from starving and putting the old and poor back into worse poverty here in America. As a conservative said on a blog last night, social security is just welfare. It is not an entitlement and it is not something you paid into, it is welfare in the conservative mind.

The Republicans don't need no stinkin death panels, they are just going to throw the old in the streets claiming that the senior welfare recipient's are draining our country you know, like they are complaining now.

The republicans also think we should get rid of medicare. The old people just need to die and get out of the way of the new evangelical republican party after all they have tax breaks for the richest in America to protect.

If you don't believe me, ask the good people in Wisconsin. The conservatives are all about jobs, until they are elected. Then they are all about cutting services, busting unions, ending abortions but most of all they are about more tax breaks to the rich.

Listening to these republicans on this site think the best thing to do is hop back on the bus that brought us to this debt crisis, cut taxes to the rich and blame President Obama for the wars and debt.

To hear these supposedly bright republicans claim that two wars and tax cuts to the richest in war time has nothing to do where we are today. These are the mental midgets that the republicans want us to follow?

Jody, you are right. The Ryan plan does take a long time to balance the budget, due to I believe trying to minimize the pain we will have to go through as much as possible. The President's plan, at last glance, added 13 trillion and does not balance the budget. Between the two why shouldn't we want Ryan's plan. It may hurt but not as much as the President's plan when the bill is due.

Jolly Old Soul: Silly me and here I thought the purpose of a business was to earn the best possible profit for its shareholders!

The purpose of a business is to provide goods or services to the market. Profit is secondary to that. If you don't provide something for which there is demand, you don't have a business. Are you really suggesting that we should support a business whose only "product" is profit.

But this does provide a window to conservative thinking on this subject. Don't worry about the quality of the product, or the fact that making it pollutes the air or spoils the environment. Don't worry about working conditions for the labor force. And certainly, don't penalize the business in any way. Do whatever is necessary to make a profit.

It's not about the product. It's not about the people. It's all about the money.

Folks Class C corporations are based on equity ownership by stockholders. Generally, only a few stockholders have any influence. So corporate America is based on the bottom line. If you do not like it, build a better corporation blueprint that the SEC will approve.

And stop with this CEO's don't care about their employees! Of course, they don't, it is not by the very model of a Class C corporation!

Don't mix politics and alcohol together - things get all blurry!

P.S. Jolly Old Soul - He got it right!

The Ryan plan does take a long time to balance the budget, due to I believe trying to minimize the pain we will have to go through as much as possible.

Now THAT is spin! In what world is dismantling the social safety net and destroying Medicare "minimizing the damage"?

JoAnna:

But yet you keep responding. Why is that?

Just a glutton for punishment, I suppose. Or maybe it's just that I didn't want you to think I had missed your kind and insightful words. I'll cherish them, as always. And now that I've told you, next time I won't have to tell you again.

Okay, truly done now. Must remember. Bye, now.

Sorry Americans First, but the rich pay a larger percentage of the overall government revenue now than they did in the 50s. There was a higher tax rate as there were more brackets and more rate progressivity but less tax base was subject to the tax. So the rich would love to go back to the 50s. Tell me what americans are starving because of tax rates to the rich? If the ones around you are starving, feel free to give more of your money by the way. Maybe we should find out why they are starving and what caused it first rather than embellish this concept you have. Spending on the poor has skyrocketed beyond any reasonable budget increase for inflation so lets not be hyperbolic ok? Social security by the way is welfare to the extent you get back more than what your put in plus a reasonable rate of return. Since our seniors who hold 80% of this nations wealth are getting benefits at 3 to 1 what they put in, it is welfare and generally from the middle to upper middle class working kids. Name me one example of someone being thrown out on the street or was that an embellishment again? Whether you like Ryans plan or not, I seem to remember it didnt impact people over 50 so not sure what you are referring to getting rid of medicare so it probably meant you were protecting our nations younger generation just like you are working so hard to protect them with social security right?

I am on the board of a group of youths that feed the homeless. We are up to 3 days a week of warm free soups with help from the churches. I am sure the homeless names will mean nothing to you.

I give money and my time.

We provide a warm and dry place for the homeless to be during the day 6 days a week as so many shelters close during the day.

When we get less money due to budget cuts, at least the rich do not have to suffer.

Just because I am over 50 does not mean our children are. Are we now to think like republicans, I got mine screw the kids. That is the ryan plan you are so proud of?

I am also involved with our PADS shelter program here in chicago and part of a food bank in Chicago. I see it every week and its irrelevant whether the homeless names mean anything to me. The great thing about this country is the flexibilty we have to be able to spend time and give back if we want or not if we want. Its your money and time to give--thats the point. Its not mine. No different than I want you to tell me how to spend mine. Your not going to get less money for budget cuts as you might get a smaller growth in your budget but your budgets are not going backwards. But either way, we are never going to solve the poor and homeless especially the behaviorial choices many but not all make that got them where they are at. You dont solve those problems by reaching into somebody else's pocket to pay for it which is what you want. Albert Pujols or Kobe Bryant or Lady Gaga or your local doctor earned everything they got and you already take half of it to pay for the government and now you want more. I am sorry but thats too much.

So you dont want to screw your children like the Ryan plan will (do you even know what it is and what it does) but your willing to screw your kids with social security? Your willing to continue a program and a budgetary deficit by Obama that our kids and grandkids cant afford and will reduce their standard of living? Social security is an entitlement in which the benefits exceed the contributions by 3 to 1 and the deficit debt will need to be paid back by future generations. You can tax Bill Gates all you want because yes he can afford it but the small business owners, the entertainers, the doctors or the comfortable rich have earned every penny and you seem to think some form of wealth redistribution will somehow fix the world but not negatively impact the economy. Why do you think its fair for you to reach into someone else's pocket to get the money you need but you think its wrong for that same conservative to invade your personal space on abortion or sexual preference. I think its wrong for you to reach into their personal space for any reason.

Alan, NJ

JoAnna, taxes are at their lowest in 50 years.

Amy, can you and Houston! get together and decide it taxes are at their lowest in 50 or 60 years. When you come up with the answer can you post me the link because I'm very curious as to what exactly you are talking about.

You don't have to rely on either of our imperfect memories. Neither of us decided that the taxes are the lowest in 60 years, and you KNOW it. As usual, you kooky connies are simply denying facts that don't fit your prejudices:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

And if you suspect that USA Today is part of the vast left-wing conspiracy, here's what a former employee of Ron Paul and Jack Kemp wrote:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again.

Just last week, House Republicans released a new plan to reduce unemployment. Its principal provision would reduce the top statutory income tax rate on businesses and individuals to 25 percent from 35 percent. No evidence was offered for the Republican argument that cutting taxes for the well-to-do and big corporations would reduce unemployment; it was simply asserted as self-evident.

One would not know from the Republican document that corporate taxes are expected to raise just 1.3 percent of G.D.P. in revenue this year, about a third of what it was in the 1950s.

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

It seems like you guys must have flunked basic math and dont understand what Alan is saying. What he is saying in easy to understand math terms is. Because of the stimulus tax cuts, energy tax credits, refundable tax credits etc that the share of total income collected as a percentage of GDP has gone down but not because the rich are paying a smaller share. Its because they are giving a bigger share of their income back in the form of welfare to a big segment of the population. So lets say GDP is 1,000. In 2008, the total tax collected was 180 dollars right? This was made up say of $80 dollars from wealthy and $80 dollars from upper middle class and lower rich and $20 dollars from everyone else. In 2009, GDP went down to 900 and the tax collected was 135. However, the rich and upper middle class paid in 162 dollars but 17 was given back to people in the form of welfare payments and reduced the tax roles so 47% of the taxpayers didnt pay any tax at all. So the collections stayed the same in terms of revenue collected per GDP, just more welfare was given out. Why do people keep citing these same articles with percentages of GDP as I dont think Alan is arguing that those articles are wrong, just that your premise that the reduction was caused by tax cuts to the wealthy when the fine print says it was because of welfare payments (ie refundable tax credits, loopholes and deductions for the poor etc)

Seems like you think if you repeat something 10 times like faux , it suddenly becomes true.

The real truth is that the richest pay a smaller percentage than they ever have. Capital gains at 15%, do you know of a time when they were lower?

Kirk, you must have a lot of money for this to be such a personal matter. You must stand to lose a lot if the tax rate goes up.

Blame it on the republicans, they gave the rich tax cuts while starting two wars. Now it is time to act like the men you claim to be and pay your fair share.

Seems like you think if you repeat something 10 times like faux , it suddenly becomes true.

The real truth is that the richest pay a smaller percentage than they ever have. Capital gains at 15%, do you know of a time when they were lower?

Kirk, you must have a lot of money for this to be such a personal matter. You must stand to lose a lot if the tax rate goes up.

Blame it on the republicans, they gave the rich tax cuts while starting two wars. Now it is time to act like the men you claim to be and pay your fair share.

WOW!!

Sorry, had a problem with newsvine. I was just explaining what Alan was saying. Capital gains rates are low but that has nothing to do with total revenue collection. You do know the highest tax revenue collection ever took place under the Clinton administration dont you after Clinton reduced the capital gains rate so that doesnt have anything to do with total revenue collected. I actually pay no tax at the moment as I dont have enough income to pay any this year so sorry cant put it on me but I do believe that you guys have all the flexibility to start your own business, use hard work and ambition and maybe you can be successful too but taking those incentives away because your jealous of other successful people is sad. Stupid say wow all you want but how hard is it for you guys to start wth the basic set of facts and then lets talk policy. I never said we shouldnt close loopholes like for hedge fund managers etc to raise taxes I even advocated many times on her to eliminate the current tax code and start over with a new progressive system eliminating all social engineering in the tax code and make it simple and fair. If you have support in which the current taxpayers are paying a lower percentage of revenue than they did before provide it. Alan's numbers are correct.

IR:

Murdoch better be careful. If they prove that he was paying off elected officials and the police in the UK he may very well have the Feds on his back taking away his licenses here in the USA. That would mean no more FOX or anything other media outlets that he owns.

Let's all hope the Fox Noise house of cards is starting to crumble...

Couldn't happen to a bunch of more deserving b@stards...

Appropriate post and well said, IR. As that old saying goes--where there's smoke, there's fire.

Any news group that is borderline monopoly, such as News Corps, can control the information too easily and thereby control what people, who place too much trust in those well-established media outlets, know and think.

With allegations that these same practices were attempted here in the US after 9/11 it's probable that in this case the cliche is correct--the Newscorp fish is rotting from the head. Expect to find that these are Rupert Murdoch practices throughout his empire. Look at the prominence coverage of indefensible scum like Breitbart has been given in the Fox world.

While the FCC could pull the licenses of broadcast subsidiaries, I'm not certain they can touch their cable holdings. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of telecommunications regulations could clarify.

I was wondering how long it would take for you Libs to start chanting "Shut Fox Down". Thanks for being so predictable.

Doubt you would feel the same way if it was MSNBC.

And now tell me how virtuous MSNBC is and would never do anything to hurt it's reputation.

John B, Des Moines, IA

With allegations that these same practices were attempted here in the US

Golly, what happened until waiting for proof? Wasn't that the cry for all the disgraced Dem Senators?

Actually WCA I'm in favor of these egregious practices being stopped wherever they occur. Just so happens Fox is guilty of most of them. 'Course you knew that didn't you there Sport.

IR - Just so happens Fox is guilty of most of them

Got any proof to back up those allegations there, IR? Or is it just that you don't like Fox, so they must be guilty.

I don't support shutting FOX down but what I would support is that FOX not be allowed to declare themselves "fair and balanced" when they do not use facts but instead promote fiction as fact. I do not object to FOX being a conservative media outlet where conservatives discuss ideas, policies, opinion but what I do object to is that FOX does harm to its conservative viewers by being blatantly dishonest. Whether right, left or center, the American people deserve the truth no matter where it is they seek to find it.

Jody, While I appreciate the fact that you do not want Fox shut down, surely you life is not so compartmentalized that you think that all news agencies report the exact truth. All of these agencies have Bias. If they were lying they would not exist, for they would be outed as frauds.

At the end of the day, Liberals have such a white hot hate for Fox, that they think that the way the report news is a lie, when, in fact, it is just from a different angle than most of what is out there.

If FOX, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc lied, I am pretty sure they wouldn't be around.

I used to watch faux back in the weapons inspection days in Iraq. I watched a 15 speech from the inspector and the entire time he was positive and hopeful that the inspections could be done without a war. Out of that entire 15 minutes one sentence would be negative about some site we couldn't get into.

On faux that night was a 10 second sound bite repeating the one sentence over and over and not mentioning the rest of the speech. Then the Repubicans offering dire warnings because of what was said by the weapons inspectors one statement.

In GOP land, this wasn't a lie by omission, this was just facts from a different angle. After all they were just whipping up a war, what could go wrong with that?

I quit watching faux and turned my cable off. I have Internet and DVD's for entertainment and no way intend to pay a company to lie to me. I became happier and more able to think for myself not having fear being thrown at me 24/7.

Unfortunately I still get to hear the faux talking points as a group of mental midgets come on this site everyday repeating them as if we are stupid enough to believe them just because they do.

americans first a 10 second sound bite did you bother to check any other station cable or one of the C's, they were probably running the same thing. Every network does it, it is nothing new.

I agree with your post, Jody.

Yep, it must have been the poor, seniors, and the disabled veterans that committed fraud and crippled a thriving economy.

Eric Cantor's salary should be set to the the same level he proposes for "entitlement" recipients.

Jody -

Don't you see? Reducing payments to the elderly, nursing homes, and especially rural hospitals will CREATE JOBS! How? Oh......well, I'm not exactly sure myself. But the GOP is all about creating jobs, so what other explanation could there possibly be??????

Jody:

Agreed. I think she would make a great Senator. We need more like her.

Jody, I agree with your observations. We pay the salaries and the top notch benefts of our congressional representatives and I am of the opinion, that they should be subject to their own proposals, their salaries and perks provided by us reduced to the barest minimum.

How dare they be so arrogant to plan that the least amongst us pay the highest price just to barely survive. There is nothing democratic about their proposals, it shouts of power and greed with a callousness that is breathtaking.

What is even more astounding, they have followers who tout these proposals as the best deals in the world. How sad, I am beginning to think more and more, America has lost its soul.

US Navy, I agree, Elizabeth Warren would be something new: a Representative who represents the interests of ordinary Americans and middleclass workers, and NOT the big business interests the majority of Representatives do.

I very much wanted to see Elizabeth Warren as head of the new agency, but if that can't be forced past the obstructionist GOPTP I believe she'd make an outstanding senator. I have confidence in the Obama administration to make sure the CFPB is staffed with appropriate people, and Warren will have done a great job of setting the required structure and policies in place. In which case Conservatives will rue the day they decided not to let the nomination of Elizabeth Warren move forward.

John B, Des Moines, IA - Why do we need a new agency in the first place? That is one of the problems with Washington, both democrats and republicans, just keep adding to the government work force and spending money on things we don't really need. I am sure, if this new agency is really necessary, there is an existing agency that could absorb it.

I keep referring to a GAO Report put out in March 2011 that identified hundreds of duplicating and overlapping programs costing billions a year. GAO stated "Reducing or eliminating duplication, overlapping or fragmentation could save billions of taxpayers money annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services". As an example the mentioned there are currently 47 separate job training programs, 88 economic development programs, 82 teacher quality programs and 56 financial literacy programs. (The last two I have no idea what the hell they are or provide.)

I have yet to hear FR, MSNBC, NBC, CBS or other MSM mention it. Saw it in a article in my local newspaper. Hope you have a nice day.

Elizabeth Warren knows the GOPTP Senators will NEVER allow her nomination to be brought to the floor for an up or down vote

So Jody, I guess she got borked. You liberals/democrats complain yet you do it all the time when a republican is in office. This is what washington calls normal business from both sides.

Pretty short memory there, sfcret. The Kings of Wall Street tanked the entire world economy in 2007-2008, were so big the American taxpayer had no choice but to bail them out, continues to screw their customers while pocketing vast salaries--and you question why we need a body to provide oversight.

That's how out of step Conservatives are at this point.

John B, Des Moines, IA - My memory is good, but you didn't answer my questions, why couldn't the responsibilities of this new agency be absorbed or incorporated within one of the current agencies. This added agency is just what the GAO was pointing out in their Report of March 2011.
BTW, how many of those so called Kings of Wall Street went to jail or were even indicted? None, to my knowledge. We have so many laws on the books that are never enforced so what does the federal government do, make new agencies and new laws that won't be enforced.

BTW, I was against bailing them out, but Bush, with Obama's help, and a democratic congress passed TARP. However, from what I have seen all the money from TARP has been repaid. BTW, weren't the congress controlled by the democrats starting in January of 2007 until January 2011?

This is the government's answer to everything, create more agencies pass more laws and waste more money. This is the mentality that has made the government so large in the first place. It has to stop. The new agency will have budget of millions just to pay for equipment, staff, office space, etc., all unnecessary. So now John WHY isn't there an existing agency that could handle the oversight?

They didn't go to jail because 30 years of Republican cheerleading for deregulation has creating an environment in which cheating people is LEGAL.

That's the point of the new agency. Republicans are working hard to continue having it be legal for big business to steal from average Americans.

John B, Des Moines, IA - I am sure you do not believe that crap about deregulation and republican cheer leading caused the problem. Creating a new agency is like closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out. It was congresses responsibility to oversee the financial markets there are subcommittees in the house and senate, both with democrats and republicans, that failed to do their jobs. Also the DOJ should have investigated and taken action if necessary. More agencies and more federal spending will solve the problem. To many government agencies to look out for the public and now are functional or working.

You still haven't answered by question, why a new agency and not just letting an existing agency handle any perceived problems? More government has never solved any problems but have created more problems.

BTW, We don't need more liberal Harvard Law Professors in Washington, there are too damn many now.

Why wouldn't I believe it, sfcret? Did too much regulation cause the S&L crisis? Did Enron cause rolling black outs in California because there was too much regulation? Did 29 miners die in WV because too much regulation caused a giant explosion? Did Wall Street crash the economy because they were forced to by regulations?

No, existing regulation was inadequate.

One of the striking things about the current electoral cycle is how Conservative legislators have managed to introduce large numbers of incredibly similar bills into state legislatures around the nation as well as the US Congress. It’s absolutely amazing, in fact, how Conservatives seem to think as with one mind on a multitude of subjects. Then again maybe it isn’t such a surprise;

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) describes itself as the largest “membership association of state legislators,” but over 98% of its revenue comes from sources other than legislative dues, primarily from corporations and corporate foundations.^[1] After the 2010 congressional midterm elections, ALEC boasted that “among those who won their elections, three of the four former state legislators newly-elected to the U.S. Senate are ALEC Alumni and 27 of the 42 former state legislators newly-elected to the U.S. House are ALEC Alumni.” (A full list of the Congressional freshmen who are ALEC alums can be found here.) ^[2]

ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at ALECexposed.org.

ALEC’s agenda extends into almost all areas of law. Its bills undermine environmental regulations and deny climate change; support school privatization; undercut health care reform; defund unions and limit their political influence; restrain legislatures’ abilities to raise revenue through taxes; mandate strict election laws that disenfranchise voters; increase incarceration to benefit the private prison industry, among many other issues.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC

It’s remarkable to think such an organization might exist within the openness of the American society. Then again maybe not everyone is impressed by the tradition of open debate and settling policy through public dialogue and debate. Even in that event we can depend on our elected representatives to remember who elected them, right?

Under ALEC’s published by-laws, legislators who are ALEC “state chairmen” have a “duty” to get the model bills introduced in their state legislatures. However, when ALEC legislation is introduced in state houses, it is under the name of the sponsoring legislator rather than ALEC itself, with no mention that the bill was pre-voted on by corporations through ALEC or even connecting the bill to ALEC. The task forces obscure how “corporations [get] access and influence for which they'd otherwise be publicly scrutinized."

As the week progresses you can look forward to more information about how ALEC, working arm of the wealthy elites as they seek to control government, operates.

John B:

Thank you for this post . . . it could in fact be the most important thing any of us read today . . . there is a concerted effort in this country to use our "representative" government as a tool to embolden the powerful and ignore the people. And they are counting on us not to notice.

John B:

Kudos and very very true. Slowly these entities like the ALEC, Karl Roves Group, Norquist, The Koch Brothers and the US Chamber of Commerce are being exposed for what they are. People are starting to take note and most Americans do not agree with them and they are speaking back.

Great post John B......please keep shining that light on these behind the scenes people and organizations. For far too long they have had a free ride to grab power and wealth, I only hope it is not too late, as many are either content in their ignorance or like whatever it takes to keep everything just the way they like it.

Excellent information John B.

ALEC is responsible for a lot of what we're seeing at the State levels--the anti-public employee union legislation as well as this fictional voter fraud nonsense. They drew up the Voter ID Act to ban university students from using their college-issued IDs as proof of residency for voting among other Voter ID limitations. This group is dangerous to democracy because their goal is to take away the rights of ordinary citizens. Big business members that form their "private enterprise board" include Altria, AT&T, Bayer, Coca-Cola, ExxonMobile, GlaxoSmithKline, Intuit, Johnson & Johnson, Koch Industries, Kraft Foods, Peabody Energy, Pfizer, Reynolds American, State Farm Insurance, UPS and Walmart.

Thanks for the encouraging words, everyone. What's being exposed here is the lengths the wealthy elites are going to in order to subvert our democratic system and turn it into a shell that LOOKS LIKE the representative government we're all familiar with but instead serves only their own interests.

Excellent information John B.

ALEC is responsible for a lot of what we're seeing at the State levels--the anti-public employee union legislation

I never thought Rahm would be a part of ALEC though did you?

www.chicagonewscoop.org/unions-mayors-aides-to-meet-monday/

www.educationnews.org/ednews_today/157556.html

Laying off union workers and cutting the schools budget. One would think that he could simply raise more taxes, but he must be a closet member of ALEC.

John B

What has happened in Maine since the Republicans took over our legislature is exactly what has happened across the country, it's eery:

A 38 year old policy of same day voter registration repealed (we have never had any voter fraud as a result of same day registration.)

Attempts to repeal environmental protections that were passed with bipartisan support in previous legislatures.

Attacks on the collective bargaining rights of public workers (our Governor's little twist: taking down a mural from the Labor Dept depicting striking shoe workers of the 1930's.)

Changes to labor laws lifting restrictions on how long and late teenagers can be required to work (thankfully setting the "teen wage" of $5.25 was voted down.)

Wringing pension and salary concessions from teachers, and turning around to give the wealthiest Mainers greater tax cuts.

Alan, the example you provided was a nice attempted deflection but in fact proves the OPPOSITE of the standard Conservative narrative. Nothing in your links provides a connection to ALEC, and the concessions Emmanuel seeks from city unions is being done through the NEGOTIATION process a should be the case rather than by legislative fiat. It also proves that Democrats ARE willing to do the hard work necessary to make a budget work--unlike the GOPTP.

That's really the problem with ALEC. It subverts democracy, transparency, and all the tenets of our society, replacing them with dictation of results by the wealthy elites.

Alan, NJ

The right wing agenda, as it is being enacted with sychronized precision in states with new Republican majorities, isn't about laying off public workers to save money, it's about attacking their right to organize, and about using money "saved" from concessions they have made, to lower taxes for the wealthiest, as has happened in Maine recently.

Changes to voter registration with the sole purpose of making it more difficult for low income and youth voters to cast ballots is another item on the agenda, which ought to upset any true American out there.

Hi Nash,

So true.

Have you not been paying attention? It is only the top 2% of American wage earners that need to step up to the plate. They have all the money and they are greedy. Greedy is a bad attribute so they need to be punished.

China only owns about 16% of our government debt. Fear of China is a deflection designed to engage our emotional response and urge us toward draconian restructuring of America.

This can be handled through a combination of reasonable cuts and revenue increases combined with economic growth over time.

JC in G -

Until Congress decides to match revenues to spending there is nothing more to talk about.

I understand in its newest proposal the Republicans have to decided to "Cap" discretionary spending at 18%. If you don't match this with revenues it is basically fruitless and continues the pattern of increasing budget deficits and national debt.

The consumer-based economy is dead; though not as bad as most British households, the average debt-to-income ratio translates to the fact that Americans owe 128% more than they earn. The only way out of this is to increase wages and tighten-up credit. What we need is to entice foreign and domestic investors to rebuild our high wage, manufacturing industry and once again become an exporting economy. Trickle-down economics (Bush tax cuts) has not done much to produce the expected result. Congress needs a new thought if they want to continue with supply-side economics. Even Ronald Reagan had to raise taxes, twice, to correct his radical tax cut program.

Last week, I proposed that all tax loopholes and special interest credits be suspended until we are out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This would NOT raise marginal tax rates but, would increase revenues. I hope you see that with tax reform and code simplification we stand a high probability of reducing what Republicans see as high tax rates. So you must ask yourself what is more important; getting the tax rates right or bickering about debt ceilings and budget deficits.

Nice post, Journey for Peace. In my view, if we are serious about the deficit and the debt, all the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire, tax loopholes and tax breaks should be eliminated and we continue eliminating waste and fraud, duplication of government efforts. It takes a combination of increased revenues and targeted spending cuts.

Today, the USA has become a debtor Nation instead of a creditor one. Our current fiscal mess is the result of 30 years of irresponsible tax policies and over-spending on unnecessary wars and the military industrial complex while we allowed our infrastructure to crumble and failed to invest in this country. This country is capable of doing whatever it wants to do, we can be a strong military nation, have a strong economy, have the best education and infrastructure but to do that, each of us must pay for it.

Our failure to invest in America and the result of that failure reminds me of a 60 Minutes episode maybe five or six years ago which hi-lighted the lack of health care for many in rural and poor areas. There was a time when we mostly saw this in third world countries yet this is happening here and it goes mostly unnoticed. It is a sad state when groups such as Doctors without Borders are now providing one, two and three day health clinics in the richest country in the world--the USA.

Agreed, Jody -

In my opinion, the best investment in the United States is that of its citizens. I think President Obama now has a program where manufacturers and community colleges and universities are working together so that those that wish to gain skills for the new economy can reach their intended goals and attain the desired result. Though I am a self-professed Independent, I am simply amazed at the ability of President Obama to identify and implement solutions to the many challenges that exist today.

Steeler Fan:

But by all means, let's have a week of meaningless public activity---it isn't as if we have other pressing needs as a nation.

Well said! I think we have had 100's of weeks of meaningless public activity. Now all those new Tea Party freshmen can go back the their district and say they voted against the debt ceiling. And their constituents are dumb enough to believe them. The GOP bill is DOA.

Good moring Steeler Fan . . . great post this morning . . . highlights the primary problem in this whole matter:

Politics over policy.

Steeler Fan and Ron, It is kids week in the House. The tea party can play "cut, cap, and balance" a new verison of rock scissor and paper.

Meanwhile "We are setting up for a TARP-like moment," said Neil Dutta, economist at BOA,"The politicans don't come to a resolution, but the market forces a resolution." The adults are saying to the tea party congress members "Eat your peas, and quit playing games"!

Steeler Fan -

The only point of your post I would argue with is "And people wonder why Congress is held in such low regard."

The people know why - it's Congress themselves who apparently haven't figured it out yet. I won't be surprised when all this is finally over to see their approval ratings hovering near single-digit levels.

True...with a 71% disapproval rate for Republicans in Congress regarding the debt ceiling everyone but died in the wool Conservatives knows EXACTLY what's happening.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-503544.html

JoAnne--the other point that struck me in the FR segment was that the vote is needed to "convince" the House Republicans that the Balanced Budget Amendment won't pass." So hold a meaningless vote that will lose to show people that it will lose. You can't make this stuff up!

John did you forget to provide the only 31% approve of the democratic congressional leaders in this battle and even Obama who has attempted to stay above the fray has a 48-43% disapproval rating on this issue? The bottom line is that people want to tax revenue increases AND spending cuts. Because both of these concepts hit virtually all constituents, there is going to be disapproval across the board. Thats not exactly news nor unexpected. I am the only that generally gets accused of not providing all the info dont let it start impacting you too.

Actually, democrat disapproval rating is just as high as the Republicans.

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

Steeler Fan. Your comment sums up the fact that we have the most dysfuntional Congress ever. We've been mired in off/on gridlock for sometime but the Tea Party has solidified it into pure dysfunction--the inability to get anything done.

Read it again.

58% disapprove of the way Congressional Democrats are handling the debt ceiling issue.

71% disapprove of the way Congressional Republicans are handling the debt ceiling issue.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-503544.html

Conservative Republicans have lost this issue. That's all their is.

I did read it, I read it as everyone has lost this issue. Who cares about a 13 points on the losing end. Thats like one team losing by 30 and the other team losing by 20 and saying, oh I feel so much better that I only lost by 20. Plus, I agree with Grimey in that the republicans are taking more heat because the house has more PR exposure on this issue than the senate at the moment. Conservative republicans havent lost this issue more than the anti spending cut democrats have won this issue. John, your more savvy than that. Every poll says the same thing, americans want more revenue yes but more importantly they want more spending cuts. The problem with spending cuts is just like taxes. Everyone wants spending cuts as long as someone else pays for it. Everyone on here wants tax increases as long as its not them. If you ask me the winners on this issue are the republican candidates for president like Romney who can sit this out and pick and choose what they want to criticize Obama for afterwards.

Ah, it's a PR problem.

Just illustrates what I say frequently--Conservatism has no consistency of thought or principle, it's just a PR campaign designed to sell an agenda designed to benefit the wealthy elites.

Dan:

Thanks for your post . . . very informative. 20% Revenue sounds a little low . . . but it sure as hell beats zero . . . and considering how the powerful have a strangle hold on the levers of power in this country . . . sounds like a great place to start.

Yep it was like that whole debt commision never existed, I guess the admin. didn't like the tough answers.

Actually the Ryan Bill adds 5.5 Trillion to the Debt over the next Decade. If it were to pass the GOP/TP would for sure have to increase the Debt Ceiling - a point they so conveniently forget to mention along with the loss of about 700,000 jobs to boot.

Excellent points and post, Dan, I agree.

As for McConnell and his periodic debt ceiling votes, that's his idea of how NOT to do anything else until after the Nov 2012 elections.

Seattle Sue:

That's funny. From now on I will be thinking the same thing.

gallup poll any republican 47% obamao 39% people are weaning themselves off the koolaid

Unfortunately for you, President Obama will not be running for re-election against a "Generic Republican Candidate"...

Generic Republican vs. Obama: Obama 43.8% - Generic Republican 43.0% (Obama +0.8%)

Romney vs. Obama: Obama 47.6% - Romney 43.0% (Obama +4.6%)

Bachmann vs. Obama: Obama 50.8% - Bachmann 37.0% (Obama +13.8%)

Pawlenty vs. Obama: Obama 49.7% - Pawlenty 36.0% (Obama +13.7%)

Palin vs. Obama: Obama 54.8% - Palin 35.2% (Obama +19.6%)

Cain vs. Obama: Obama 48.0% - Cain 32.3% (Obama +15.7%)

Gingrich vs. Obama: Obama 52.5% - Gingrich 37.8% (Obama +14.7%)

Paul vs. Obama: Obama 49.3% - Paul 38.3% (Obama +11.0%)

Huntsman vs. Obama: Obama 50.0% - Huntsman 36.0% (Obama +14.0%)

Source: RealClearPolitics.com Poll Averages

Thanks Da Noid...I guess now we know why Conservatives come here every day pushing the "generic candidate" instead of someone who actually exists.

John B,

You think they would have learned after the 2010 elections.

We were told how the Republicans were going to take back both houses of Congress. We were told how senators like Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Michael Bennet and Harry Reid needed to pack their things. We were told to make way for the likes of Linda McMahon, Carly Fiorina, Dino Rossi, Christine O'Donnell, John Raese, Ken Buck and Sharon Angle.

Candidates still matter.

"Candidates still matter".

I don't know, Da Noid.....from the fund-raising numbers above, it's hard to figure out exactly who Rick Santorum still matters to..... :)

All economists say the same thing - cut the crap out of those social programs that are not self-funded! Problem solved...

Not true, BigPaul...but if it is you must have some evidence to the contrary, right?

Yep, you got it right. Nice post. The party of no doing nothing and they call this leadership. The GOP/TP could not lead a Boy scout troupe out of a parking lot let alone led this country. Just look how well they have been doing the past 2+ years to move this country forward.

US76.....such as the electric light bulb amendment, even though the original bill was signed by their hero George Bush. This kind of nonsense is an insult to any thinking person. Then they cry government is too big....right.

Did I go to sleep or something? I thought this was July 2011 not 2013. 2 years? How about 6 months.

They are doing it so they can go back to their ultra conservative base and show that they tried, and then point to how the (evil) Democrats got in the way.

I don't think PAYGO passed the Senate. The House did put in place new rules (2011) requiring spending cuts to offset any spending increases before any legislation can be brought to the floor but you're right, they have ignored it along with several other of their "new and improved" House rules.

obama made himself look bad by passing a law he does not even follow. Or even demanded a majority democrat congress and senate follow. Kind of like that 80% poll he pulled out of his ass the other say.

Well okay then, Brian!

Hey, how about them Phillies? Can't wait till Shane Victorino comes back.

Gosh, it sure is hot out today.....going up to 100 by Friday, I hear.

What happened to the U.S. women's soccer team yesterday?

And what do you like on your pizza? I always ignore mushrooms, myself..... :)

Brian lots of numbers................................and your here? How come?

Like we do with FOX.

One of the reasons the Brian's Bob's and the rest of the misfits come here and spew this crap is because they can!

Try going over to Fox & Freaks and posting something negative about them, not only will they DELETE your comment they BAN your account!

Ain't free speech GRAND?

What happened to the U.S. women's soccer team yesterday?

Another heart break for US soccer. Last month in the tournament Copa Oro (Final game) the Men's team was up 2 to 0 to Mexico before losing 4 -2. Go ahead go goal by Mexico, one of the best I've seen was nearly swatted by the US goalie twice before it was lobbed over two US defenders to barely pass beheath the upper goal post in the left corner - amazingly placed shot.

The woman's game what can I say very exciting. Back and forth game with some missed opportunites. Japan showed resilience to come back down a goal twice. Penalty kicks are always fun to watch but are agonizing if it is a team you are pulling for.

Congratulations to the US women. Seems like that young US striker who scored, only being 22, says we can continue to grow with young talent.

Hey, Yellowdog, my apologies to you and Grimey and everyone else who follows soccer closely; I was just having a bit of fun with Brian's comment. I'm glad to hear it was an exciting game. Seems like Japan must have been the sentimental favorite with much of the rest of the world, and it's hard to argue with them finally having something to cheer about. The U.S. women should be very proud of getting to the finals, though, and as you say, the future looks bright.

No apologies needed at all JoAnne.

Just used your line to change topics from Politics to soccer :}

Well Feisty, I've said many times that I'm stunned that you haven't already been banned from here, but then again when you work for them, I guess you get special perks.

As for spewing crap, well...all one has to do is read one of your posts to know that you are the master at spewing crap.

Rudy: Do you really believe everyone that does not want the debt ceiling raised, is a discriminating bigot, and / or a republican?

If so, you need serious wake up call my friend.

No Brent, they are just gullible, and dont understand or want to understand what is at stake.

Brent, I can see you are against raising the debt ceiling. This is like telling your wife that you ran up the credit cards and now you aren't going to pay them. This kind of thinking makes me know how irresponsible you are.

Just what benefit do you see from not paying our bills? No faux talking points Mr. Independent

Are you also against raising taxes on the richest of Americans?

Americans: My (ex) wife would have kicked my ass for maxing out our credit limit. Then she would have told me to take what money I had, apply it towards our bill and then,,, to not keep spending money on things we don't need.

Am I against raising the taxes on the rich? Hell no I am not. Am I against them ending the Bush tax cuts for big oil and big corporations? Hell no I am not. Am I for giving the government more and more money to spend when it is evident how much of our tax money gets wasted all the time? Hell no I am not.

Am I for getting some honest and sane people in Washington that actually care about the country and not their own political agenda? You bet your sweet ass I am.

I think people seem to think if you are not for whatever their party wants, you are supporting the other side. This is just not true. Especially, when some of us do not see a difference between either party.

Thank you.

>.O

And she sure as hell would not have told me to apply for another credit card so I could take that additional credit to apply to my outstanding credit debt just to rack up what?.... That's right people, more debt.

Hello...

Yes I feel like a lot of our money is wasted and mostly on wars and the military. I don't see the cost going down until we are out of the wars.

My question is why should we balance the budget on the backs of the poor who did't even want these wars? In a real household wouldn't you get rid of the spending that breaking the budget without starving the kids?

It seems you think it is a noble cause to be against more spending. This whole debt limit thing is about money we have already spent and are we going to pay the bills. Not how you are assisting the Republicans in pushing the war debt on the poor.

Maybe I am wrong, what exactly is your ideal of wasteful spending?

Ask the people in Wisconsin if they think there is a difference between the Democratic and Republican party? As they are in the process of recalling 6 republicans.

Well you pointed out a HUGE one.

We need to get our military out of the Middle East and Libya. President Obama promised us he would have our troops out of Iraq by the end of this year and then pushed that back to 2014. That is a serious problem from where I stand.

"Everything should be on the table". Our defense spending needs to be cut dramatically and this foreign aid we send to countries like Pakistan needs to end immediately. (Props to Obama for putting a hold on that one, but still it is just a hold. That's not saying he wont start that back up again).

We have all these kinds of special commission groups, (I cant think of any of the names of those at the moment), that Obama established and several of those are not needed.

There are some entitlement programs being paid for with tax payer money that are not needed either but leaving that alone, if they would end the Bush tax cuts and loop holes for big oil, big corporations, and uber rich,,, and cut the defense spending budget significantly but reasonably,,, I do not see any reason at all for why they need to raise the debt ceiling.

I know people get it in their head that one party represents them better than the other but it really isn't true. Both sides have policies and positions most can agree with but the fact is, that Washington has always played this two party system political game and it just doesn't work.

A true bipartisanship effort is what this country needs and I do not believe we will ever get that as long as people keep voting the same type of politicians into office that we always have.

That's my two cents anyway.....