E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAfter a contentious Saturday, there appeared to be glimmers of hope that Congress could come up with a compromise to raise the debt limit by Tuesday.
A vote originally scheduled for 1:00 am ET this morning was delayed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) half a day to 1:00 pm ET today to buy time for both sides to hammer out a deal. Though the key procedural vote to overcome a filibuster is scheduled, as NBC's Chuck Todd points out, if a deal is struck that vote would not likely take place until later.
The Man to Watch: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). He says he’s “fully engaged” in talks with the White House, reportedly speaking with Vice President Biden yesterday four times. (They were the duo that was able to negotiate this past winter’s tax deal.)
The total amount both sides are looking at is in the range of $2.4 trillion to $2.6 trillion – in two steps: (1) About $1 trillion debt-ceiling increase now with offsetting cuts. That’s about the amount that both sides said about a month and a half ago that they’d agreed to already. That would last about six or seven months; and (2) A newly established committee would have to find another $1.4 trillion to 1.6 trillion in cuts before that debt limit would have to be increased again by about the end of the year or early next year. That would last through the 2012 election.
But the second part is a big sticking point. If the committee can’t find the cuts, then one agreement being talked about is triggering automatic spending cuts across the board, including what some believe amounts to cuts in Social Security. (Essentially, the proposal would cut $100 billion over 10 years by adjusting “cost of living” with a different measure of inflation than is currently used.)
The president wants a “trigger” so there is stability for the economy and markets in six months. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has said he doesn’t want to give the president carte blanche authority to raise the debt ceiling.
But where the automatic cuts will be implemented is being negotiated. The White House and Democrats want the potential pain to be spread around. And since no one is talking about “revenues” anymore – or raising taxes/cutting deductions for the rich – that could mean deep Defense cuts would be on the table.
Another sticking point is that Republicans say even though the Congressional Budget Office said Reid’s plan cuts about $2.2 trillion, they say assuming war-spending reductions should not be included. They call it a “gimmick” and not “real” cuts.
Another complicating factor for Reid, as he tries to shepherd a bill today that can get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster, 43 of 47 Republicans sent a letter to Reid yesterday, saying they wouldn’t support his proposal.
At the end of the day, what gets out of the Senate could look more like Boehner’s original proposal – without the balanced-budget amendment -- than Reid’s.
The timeline:
Noon: Senate convenes
1:00 pm ET: Cloture vote – would need 60 votes to overcome a potential GOP filibuster. (But this vote is likely not to happen if there's a deal, because they would be voting on Reid's proposal. That's not what the ultimate deal will be.)
Then, it moves to a full vote.
Monday/Tuesday: Then, it’s up to Boehner when or how to bring it up in the House. The House shot down Reid’s proposal yesterday in a symbolic vote largely along party lines, but with a dozen Democrats voting with Republicans.
It could get a House vote Monday or Tuesday, if it passes the Senate today. And Obama could sign any time after that.
Leave a Comment:
Hope springs infernal!
Mr. Montanaro-
Both the AP and the National Journal are reporting that the tentative agreement to raise the debt ceiling provides that the GOP will get an up or down vote in Congress on a balanced budget amendment.
Is this reporting incorrect?
no jo-
It WAS amusing to read the NY Times column of veteran Tea Party basher Maureen Dowd this morning.
Maureen Dowd is part of the Washington left-wing media elite.
Dowd has about as much ability to evaluate and comprehend the Tea Party phenomenon as a border collie has of mastering algebra. In fact, slight edge to the border collie in this instance.
Anyway, the MOST amusing part of Dowd's latest anti-Tea Party diatribe was the closing lines of her new offering:
"What if this is all a cruel joke on us? What if the people who hate government are good at it and the people who love government are bad at it?"
lol, Maureen...
What if?
And what if they're not?
You're willing to take that chance, I guess.
I wish I were as confident as you seem to be. I'm still waiting for all these brilliant economic minds to come up with something that will positively affect unemployment. This is nothing but a stopgap matter that kicks the fundamental issues down the road virtually assures more trouble down the line.
We may agree about Maureen Dowd, though.
The prospects of an actual vote on a balanced budget amendment is the most interesting part of the whole thing. Public opinion polling shows as much as 70% approval for a balanced budget amendment.
It strikes me that would be a very, very tough vote for many Congressional Democrats.
And, like it or not...it certainly addresses a fundamental issue, doesn't it?
Agree on Maureen?
I'll take what I can get, AM.
;-)
This is not about a BALANCED BUDGET! This is about RAISING the DEBT CEILING ONLY!
The Presidents NEVER GET BLANK CHECKS...CONGRESS HAS ALWAYS HELD THE PURSE STRINGS.
That is why all Presidents ASKS CONGRESS for MONEY!
When Republican President Herbert Hoover realised the depression was at hand it was too late to fix his ideologue ideas that created the Great Depression.
He tried by increasing the across the board tax increases for the top earners from 24% to 63%. Corporations went from 12% to 15% in increases. Still it did not bring in enough revenue to ward off the depression because it was too late, and he had not asked for a DEBT CEILING INCREASE to go along with the Tax increase.
The "TOP EARNERS" today are not being taxed at all, nor are the Corporations.
Yet the TEA-TARDS/GOPers are whining about increasing the taxes of the Wealthy and Big Business.
This new T-Party of not only "NO" but "NO NOTHINGS" will be the demise of America. They are trying to lead America over the precipice, because we are already near the "POINT OF NO RETURN.
To know this History of how the GD started and to think that Obama is capitulating to the right makes me sick!
I would have voted for McCain /Palin if, I wanted real idiots in the White House. To think that Obama maybe allowing the Republican View to dominate ( HIS ADMINISTRATION), means he can forget about my vote in 2012.
Mixed Bag..
Just curious. Do you know what the proposed Constitutional Balanced Budget entails and how unworkable it is?
You're a smart guy and I think you do, but, on the off chance you don't:
The Balanced Budget Amendment. This proposed amendment to the Constitution has been talked about for a long time. This incarnation of the amendment has been attached to virtually every GOP piece of legislation related to the debt debate. I think it's a non-starter. Some people, Constitutional experts, have called it the "stupidest Amendment ever proposed" and, I should add, that includes Prohibition which was ultimately repealed.
I am against the Balanced Budget Amendment and here are some reasons why.
First, the amendment's requirement that the federal government annually spend no more than it collects is, quite simply, insane. Debt in itself is not harmful, neither for governments nor for households. Excessive debt, that is debt so large that it can't easily or realistically be financed, is a different story.
The amendment's additional requirement of a supermajority vote, two-thirds of both the House and Senate, to increase taxes gives the game away: If you're serious about balancing the budget, why would you make it much harder for Congress to balance the budget?
If substantial spending cuts are what the GOP truly seeks, and I sympathize with them, then they should say so. Dressing up this desire in neutral-sounding rhetoric about a balanced budget is, if not dishonest, then an admission of political weakness.
Consider, too, what amending the Constitution implies: an exhaustion of the political and/or democratic process to solve our fiscal problems. By kicking the problem upstairs, so to speak, conservatives all but invite judges into this increasingly incendiary mix.
A Constitutional Amendment is an engraved invitation to taxpayers to file lawsuits objecting to measures that they claim increase their taxes or to any expenditure said to unbalance the budget. Taxpayers normally do not have standing to come into court to complain about how the government is run except when a specific constitutional provision specifically limits congressional power to tax and spend. The proposed fiscal amendments could give whole new meaning to that exception, drawing unelected judges deeply into matters of economic policy.
The entire argument for a Balanced Budget Amendment is to get Washington to have the same fiscal disciple as the 49 states that have Balanced Budget Amendments. Take it to the people and we can find out what people want. And of course if so many states have it, it must be what the people want. This all sounds nice except if you think about it.
States differentiate, in their budgets, between expenditures and capital investments, much like a business does. There are the normal operating costs that go along with where you've committed you're money, and if you are a business, capital investments, where normally you borrow money to build your business. States quite sensibly make this distinction. That's why they can have a balanced budget for their operating costs, and deficits for investments.
It's important to remember that for business, deficits are important very often. Even in personal finance, it's better to have some money saved or invested than to get rid of all your debt at one moment. Over the long run, those investments will be more helpful.
But the Federal government doesn't distinguish between capital investments and operating costs. They're all the same. So to say that the Federal government needs to have a balanced budget either means that we will have extraordinarily high taxes so that it can invest in the things that it does invest in: health, military, social security, education, etc., or it means that we will invest in hardly anything.
Both of those options mean we would just be plain stupid.
Grandkids and all now. Just cuts, no revenue, Gang of Six or Simpson Bowles are on the table. Tell me how you justify taking $1 trillion out of an economy that is growing at 1.3% and bot cripple it.
Rhetorical....
Happy, happy Sunday.
Mixed..
Do the people understand what the consequences of a balanced budget are?
...and I see you are relying on polls again. When did you stop thinking for yourself and start relying on what other people think.....any of whom could not even tell you what the debt ceiling is.
Forgot the cites:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2010/08/10/A-Balanced-Budget-Amendment-Is-Still-a-Stupid-Idea
http://theovertonsalon.com/2011/07/28/the-balance-budget-amendment-is-stupid/
Mixed..
One last thing..
Change to Dowd post to..
"What if this is NOT a cruel joke on us? The people who hate government are good at it and the people who love government are bad at it?"
That's closer to the truth now Mixed. isn't it?
Great post Ira...lengthy, but good read... I think most Americans need to start finding out what's going on with their country rather than listening to idiotic rush limpballs and hannity - two ill-educated morons.
Mixed Bag, after reading Ira's post, I know you agree with it... please talk some sense into your side - you've done so every now and then.
An up or down vote on raising the debt ceiling, without the histrionics, would have done the same thing, wouldn't it?
I think it says something that Wall Street has not believed from the first that this is a REAL financial crisis. They know political theatre when they see it. And they've seen it too often before.
Anything for the sake of bi-partisanship is a good thing.
;-)
I guess the closed door negotiators figure freshmen Republicans will love this. Or, they figure old Republicans will jump away from their own and in with the Democrats. One could say there was "wiggle room" in the Boehner bill (8 vote margin). Five votes backward is a 10 vote swing. Are all the new terms messing around with those 8 votes, trying to cut it a little bit thinner?
I don't think the Democrats know how to get along with others than their own, and they don't realize how fragile the Boehner bill is.
Ira-
I will simply say that serious consideration of a balanced budget amendment, and the high numbers of Americans favoring it, simply reflects the frustration most citizens (and many lawmakers) feel with regard to the whole debt and deficit issue...and the desire to force, if necessary, a final reckoning with the notion of responsible fiscal policy.
Because of the lengthy procedure involved in enacting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, legislators sharing your reservations about the wisdom of embarking on such a course will have ample time to demonstate that they are willing and able to address the debt crisis, and determined to restore sanity to the U.S. budgetary process.
I suggest that they begin demonstrating such resolve immediately if they want to head off a balanced budget amendment.
If they cannot demonstrate the ability to implement a viable long-range plan to bend the nation's debt curve downward, the public will continue to embrace the notion of a balanced budget amendment...if only out of desperation, Ira.
Mixed..
The concept of a BBA is so appealing to so many cause it sounds so sensible and reasonable. Almost benign. It is exactly opposite.
Based on the way the Federal Government prepares it's budget, the BBA will raise taxes to an extraordinarily high level which will destroy any hope of a recovery. We both know that.
It's just common sense and I would hope that the separate BBA vote will be defeated in Congress as it was once before.
You can't be for this fiasco as it stands.
lol, Ira-
Are you asking me to choose between the status quo, and a balanced budget amendment?
Which would you choose, Ira?
If you say it's a false choice, that we needn't choose either, and that our leaders can fix the nation's debt catastrophe...
I say...
Let them prove it.
Mixed..
Seriously...that's your only choice...the status quo, or a balanced budget amendment?
Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of Six Plan are no longer to be considered by Congress or you, based on your last post.
It's not between the status quo or a BBA. It's between 2 excellent debt reduction plans that don't, in the long term, raise taxes to levels the middle class has ever seen and this ridiculous piece of legislation.
There's that 3rd reasonable choice you seem to be ignoring.
Ira-
Read the whole post, friend.
"...our leaders can fix the nation's debt catastrophe..."
I referenced your 3rd choice...
And, I still say...
Let them prove it.
They can take the balanced budget amendment off the table.
But it only goes away if they DO actually prove it, Ira.
Mixed..
There is no way to reconcile our differences on this.
The BBA is just bad legislation. Period.
It should never, ever become law on a just because there's nothing else out there basis. Never.
Unless the Fed Govt changes it method of budgeting that segregates between capital investments and operating costs, this is just an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen.
Take care and have a great Sunday.
Let them prove it, Ira.
I suspect we'll both be happy if that happens.
Funny how MSNBC doesn't report that Reid's bill failed - the Democrats rejected it today siding with conservatives. Nowhere on MSNBC do they headline this significant fact that the Democratic leadership can not even get support from their own party. Yet they headline Reid as seeing promise in negotiations - blah...he's the icon of the old Democrat establishment soon to be tossed out.
The classic is NO Democrat wants this to be voted on again next year during an election year. Ask yourself why? They want to buy your votes and not deal with reality. All anyone wants in Washington is power. Its not about fixing our problems, its about their power!
The result is the Republicans are leading the way...awwww wait a liberal press can't acknowledge the liberal platform of tax and spend is come up short can they?
If I recall correctly, many of the tea party in congress has said that they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances.
Poor Harry. He has to do everything he can to put Groucho Marx glasses on a bill to disguise the fact that it is the House bill democrats are voting on.
This latest debacle has exposed Obama as the weak, ineffectual man who never should have been elected, and democrats are running around whining to anyone who will listen. Read Maureen Dowd's column- she is now describing Obama's popularity in 2008 as Tulip Mania. More than 40,000 Twitter users unfollowed Obama yesterday, and that was just the beginning. Hismpoll numbers are plummeting- but, it looks like he'll get to go to his birthday fundraisers, so all is not lost, right.
Got to keep those priorities straight.
By the way- there is a cookie on news vine that wreaks havoc with google.
He is not being weak and ineffectual--he is being a leader. Obama cannot legislate. Everyone agrees that this has been an unprecedented moment in the history of country. It is probably also one of the most defining moments in our country's history -- one that could truly break us. In times like this a President must put aside his or her own personal political aspirations for the good of the country. Does it really matter that 40,000 twitter users unfollowed Obama or that his numbers are plummeting? If it does, then we are all doomed. What matters is ensuring that our economy and our national heritage does not go into an unending plunge to nowhere.
No Jo,
I think you read everything through a highly partisan filter. I also think you don't mean to be intentionally funny, but sometimes the amount of force you exert to spin some non-related occurrence into negative news is proof positive you are a propaganda agent.
It is embarrassing to watch, and I hope this doesn't impact your personal life too much.
Obama is going to serve two terms, and I think people don't want to change horses in trying times like these. Obama is far from perfect, but given the alternative of the frightening array of repub idiots touting their "titanium spines" and all those other inflammatory "machoisms" that make your side drool, I think people will vote Democratic in 2011. Surveying the repub choices is makes me sad. The Democratic Party needs another competent side to keep them in check, and your clown collection can't do that.
Your side is lost.
They only know that the middle class lies in the way of their Nirvana, and that it has to be swept away before Reagan comes down on a cloud for the 2nd coming.
OBAMA IN 2012.
You want to joke about something very serious. We Democrates have always loved our country more than our way of thinking. Sometimes it takes a Solomon move and I have never understood for the life of me how you republicans claim all this God fearing yet you will destroy any and every thing for a dollar. Shame shame shame. You people will destory this whole country if it meant detroying Obama. That is so sorry, mean and slurry. 2012 President Obama
HAHAHA!
You nailed her!
The Tealiban has been touting President Obama's new polling numbers like it's the Holy Grail or something!
First off, the election is still 16 months away and a day is a lifetime in politics...
Secondly, Congressional approval is around under 10%...
By all means, let's focus on FaceBook instead of the American Tealiban holding this country hostage!
The FB 'shiny object' is a bit tarnished don't you think?
No jo.. I was going to add to what what has already said... but I think you got a good dose of "common sense" talk this morning... this thing happening in the country today isn't about political parties - it's much more serious than that. Hope you have a good Sunday though.
Totally Feisty!!
My only regret is that I will be vacationing in northern Michigan (Petoskey) when this all comes down, so fight the good fight for me; will ya' lady?
After this little incident, and the debacles in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere I think the republic party is finished in 2012'. Like you say, still 18 months away, but I think Americans will remember anarchy, and I think they will remember what the repubs tried to do to us.
See you Wednesday, and I hope there is a country left to come back to.
xo
Some may view the UP as another country, but I don't. It's beautiful, unspoiled, and what this country ought to be, except for the winters and the politics.
Have a great vacation.
You know I've got your 'back'! ;o)
Enjoy some peace & solitude...
Nojo- every day you are on here slamming President Obama - everyday!
Obama/Biden 2012!
If I were a Progressive today, I would also be concerned that the role and actions of the Progressive Caucus is about to end.
The American public is not as ignorant as the media and the Progressives believe we are. Spin away Feisty, NavyBoy and the rest of the NewsVine Fan Club, for your small comments are not consistent with the feeling of the majority of Americans.
I believe it is safe to say that Republican or Democrat or Progressive, those who the population feels is a bottleneck to the legislative process may be voted out during this election as they were the last. Enough with the professional party politicians, find people from all parties who understand to whom they work.
Perhaps we will also find a media who will learn, doing their jobs to investigate and report news rather than attempt to formulate public opinion in favor of one candidate or party or another. Enough with the political drama - things will get done. Then one party will blame the other while one party will take credit for ending the impass. The folks who have lost are us, the voters.
Time to move on and change the House, Senate and White House.
The role of the Progressive caucus WAS muted. It is why we are in the mess we're in.
No GOPisextinct, the Progressive caucus IS the reason your group is dying. They proved THEY are the party of NO.
No budget, no plan, no leadership. Nothing but passing the blame. And your hero, President 'Present', will do anything, sell anyone down the road, for the opportunity of re-election.
But you have to love the Three Stooges of the Senate, Harry, Dick and Chuckie (Fannie and Freddie are solvent) Schumer for their ability to lie in the face of the nation.
Now what did Obama say in an interview once, I don't care if I am a one-term President? Hope and Change IS possible for this election.
None of these bills address the real problem ...once again the republicans allow their wealthy friends to skate for the bribe money ! Take the money out of politics and then it becomes about the people !
How about the 50% of the people who pay no taxes at all. The ones that Democrats bribe with handouts so they don't have to get a job and work or try to better themselves to get a better job so they won't lose the freebies they get. Those people need to become part of America and pay their fair share. I don't know about you but I never got a pay check from a poor person...Have you?
What you say is true. Going forward we as a country need to find a way to take the money out of politics and put the people back in. That is a discussion that has been needed for many years. The Supreme Court made a decision that has made this whole issue more thorny when they decided that corporations are individuals in so far as political contributions are concerned. When will the American public realize that the policies put forth by the Tea Party are not in their best interests? It is only when this realization hits that change will come about.
donna: You might want to check some of the 50% that don't pay taxes. Some of these people make over 60 K a year and just have the write offs. It doesn't mean they are dead beats. They just use the system like the richer taxpayers do. Do chastise them for that. Every one want to make them sound like dead beats and they are not.
Congress is a Joke. The American people should demand Campaign Finance Reform and take our Government back. I would hate to have a balanced budget Amendment and have the GOPERS cut taxes for the rich again. They would say we don't have a revenue problem and cut out everything else. Term limits with NO government paid retirement or health, do away with the lifetime jobs.
No truer words were ever written Lynne.
The legal prostitution engaged in by both sides used to be a hanging offense in other times.
Say it isn't so: I think the real problems are finding a way to get the $$$ out of politics, and I think we need to end the policy of making the U.S. the world's policeman.
The former has bankrupted us financially. The latter has bankrupted us morally.
So, who was it that Steve Westly bundled half a million dollars for? Or, right, Obama- who turned around and repaid him with hake a billion tax dollars.
Sweet- and the besotted press overlooked it.
Then, there was Gips- he also bundled big bucks for Obama- got put in charge of hiring at the White House, ( those other bundlers needed rewards, too!), and his company got a measly $13.8 million. Oh, then he got an ambassadorship.
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/06/15/4880/obama-rewards-big-bundlers-jobs-commissions-stimulus-money-government-contracts-and
Obama seems only to be competent at being a corrupt politician.
And you folks still believe in him. Obama is beneath contempt- but you guys? Purely delusional.
Funny how much you need Obama to be "corrupt, beneath contempt", NoJo. I pity people whose ideology trumps reality.
no joe,
I think Obama is a middle conservative and it makes me sick, i just wish the Left base had the balls to primary him because he is not a Dem. Please tell me which one of those morons that are in the Repub race are presidential material. None, so He will be reelected. Isn't it funny that all of your elected members claim to hate the Govt. but they are very happy to have the govt. pay their salary, and their health care and their retirement sounds like the only people they dont want to live off the govt are their supporters
I dunno No Jo:
Would that have made him a Bush "Ranger" or a "Patriot"?
You act like Obama invented this. Why don't the repubs show us theirs too,.....hmmmmmmm?
ok, republicans no way to your way ever again obama 2012 big r win than last election you showed americans your true colors they wern"t red white blue
I do not care what anyone say's, this country is becoming a controlled communistic country. We are opening the door for a Dictator (Obama), who is going to commit Genocide on American citizens, could even be construed as terrorism, by starving out our own people. Will we end up under control such as "Hitler", "Saddam Hussein", and of course, DON'T TAX THE RICH, pick on people who cant fight back. With all the laws that have been passed, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of toilet paper these day's. We have a President that has already spent more money than every President put together, if the social security, and armed services are not paid, just where are these so called votes going to come from at election time. The people who are going to take a hit "if it does happen" hold a majority, but I bet with these "fake", elections, he will get voted in again. Can anyone say "IMPEACH", and do not even use the word "GOD" to anyone, you don't have that right. Forget about us Americans, and go pay the other countries. Never did show a social security number either?
I read an article a while back that listed the poverty rate at 14% when the Great Society was initiated. Now it is at 14.3%. What good has that done except to perpetuate poverty? Right now the Presidents approval rating is abysmal. The republican congress leads the democrat congress by about 2 percentage points. What do you democrats think will happen to get Obama elected to a second term?
The REAL problem is the WAL-Mart business model
The CEO of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. received a pay package in 2010 worth $18.7 million.
The salary for full-time employees (called "associates") is $6 to $7.50 an hour for 28-40 hours a week, which is typical in the discount retail industry. This pay scale places employees with families below the poverty line, with the majority of employees' children qualifying for free lunch at school. When closely examined, this amounts to a form of corporate welfare, as the taxpayer subsidizes the low salaries. One-third are part-time employees - limited to less than 28 hours of work per week - and are not eligible for benefits.
Now who do you think is going to pay taxes here?
If you want the average dude to pay some taxes, they will need to be paid a fair wage for the profits they are helping create.
Of course the republicans are all fine with doing away with the middle class, and want to continue down this road, to the ruination of America.........
Banker Boy, you have so hit this nail on the head. Conservative folks on this blog love to scream that 47% do not pay any taxes (biggest myth ever perpetuated). If you look at the charts on these figures, over 20% of that 47% are below the poverty level, while another 10-15% would be considered poor. Point being, they have no sizable income to tax.
What this does is leave most of the taxes to be paid by middle-class and the rich (CEO types). Here again the rich have the advantage. Their effective tax rate is around 15-18%, while the middle class pays 30-37%.
This leaves the middle class to pay on behalf of the poor while also paying to subsidizing the rich. It is time to tax the rich for their fare share. Without the infrastructure the middle class predominantly pay for, the wealthy would not have an environment to make their millions. Since the wealthy have so much to lose, they should pay a larger share of defense. The list goes on.
It is time to tax the wealthy for their fare share.
RedDevPS
The 47% number is right from the IRS website so please, it is no myth. The fact of the matter is that all Americans need to have skin in this game whaich is why some of us are for ripping up the current Marxist tax code for a Flat tax of around 17% on all monies earned over $15,000. Twenty other contries have moved to this form of taxation where ALL CITIZENS are taxed at an equal tax rate, with the elimination of all tax deductions, credits and loopholes. The result? Russia had a 20% increase in tax receipts to the federal goverment.
For Democrats who want all to be equal this should be a no brainer. Or does that not apply to taxation?
The top 0.1% of wage earners pay almost 20% of federal income taxes, and the top 10% pay close to 60%, so they DO pay their fair share already.
No "class" of citizen should have to give up any larger percentage of their income than any other "class" of citizen. We are supposed to be a country where all people are created equal and this needs to extend to taxation as well. The supposition that the "rich" do not pay their "fair share" of infrastructure is just laughable. I own a trucking company and you have no idea the amount of taxes that I pay in "use fees" just to have my trucks on the road. Class 8 trucks, (18-wheelers) make up less than 3% of all vehicles on the road and yet we pay close to 40% of all fuel taxes and the additional tolls, (it costs me $36.50 to cross a bridge from NJ to PA), milage taxes and ton/mile taxes.
And what would their "fair share" be? 40%? 60%? 80%?
Personally I am sick and tired of all this class warfare crap. By and large the majority of the "rich" are small business owner like myself that are THE major drivers of the American economy and yet you that buy into this class warfare crap what to hammer this "class" of Americans harder than any other just for some percieved injustice in taxation.
Wizard:
That 47% pay no taxes is a myth. The accurate statement is that the 47% do not pay income tax. They still pay FICA, medicare, sales and a host of other taxes at a flat tax rate as everyone else.
Your premise about infrastructure cannot be argued because you are talking business taxes vs. personal use taxes as opposed to wealthy/middle class/poor income taxes. Business should pay higher taxes on infrastructure to offset wear and tear (I think of those thousands of miles of ruined right lanes on the nations interstates).
As to the correct breakdowns for tax rates between the classes, what was in play under Clinton seemed to work very well. What has not worked are the current tax rates. They are largely responsible for a huge portion of this deficit/debt ceiling are the tax breaks implemented by Bush.
Personally, if the the top 10% own/earn 90% of the wealth, they should be taxed accordingly. Why should a person earning 50,000 a year have to pay 35% of their income in taxes, while a person earning 5,000,000 a year, only have to pay 15-17% of that income in taxes? And more importantly, why should someone earning wages below the poverty level pay the same flat tax rate as everyone else when the net result for them is to be even lower on the poverty scale?
I agree, small business owners are the drivers of this economy, and I in fact favor tax breaks to small business owners over any tax breaks for large corporations. And by the way, if you are a wealthy multi-millionaire by running a trucking company, good for you. However, I suspect that, as like most small business owners I know, you are likely part of the upper middle class, and not part of the wealthy class, towards this conversations is geared.
There are 3 key issues here: We cannot let this "debate" occur again during an election year lest the economy become even more fragile given the uncertainty; Triggers must be reasonable for both sides of the debate (this will be tough); The committee formed to review and, if necessary, activate triggers, must be truly bipartisan.
All of the players need to put the country and its citizens above any personal political aspirations. I believe that is what Obama is doing. He knows his chances for reelection and his poll numbers are falling because he is willing to compromise for the sake of the country. Nevertheless he is doing what is best for the country. That is what a true patriot and leader must do. Even if he does not get reelected, history will be kind to him.
It's funny how republicans call themselves the "moral" party and try to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor. I can't remember any bill proposed by them addressing poverty in this nation it's always trying to help those who don't need it. The only thing the republicans are doing is trying to take away Obama's ability to campaign in 2012 by passing the lame bill that came out of the house. If they were really christians as they say they would remember, "it' easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" or " for the love of money is the root of all evil'. Do you know anybody who loves money more than the republicans?
As NJNB so eloquently points out in her missive above, to the (R)'s this is all about politics, not love of country. Sad. This is certainly NOT the (R)'s of Barry Goldwater, Ike Eisenhauer, or even Ronald Reagan. "I don't care if the USA tanks just as long as we win" is a scary philosophy.
Guess that's why it was ok to run 2 wars off budget and give out a huge tax break from 2000-2008. For the first time in history we made no attempt to adequately fund a war. Nada, zippo, zilch. Remember "Deficits don't matter" Cheney? Suddenly they matter when there is a (D) in the WH. Why?
This country has always been governed by compromise. When did working with the other side become wrong? Unless that changes, we are surely headed for disaster.
Social: Compromise became wrong under Bush. " If your not for us your against us."
The economic expansion of the fifties came about because the WWII was funded and the American people were willing to sacrifice to win. The economic recession at the end of 8 years of Republican ascendancy was caused by the fact that the money for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was borrowed while corporations, banks and the American people rode the bubble like there was no tomorrow. The only ones who sacrificed were our troops and their families. If the American people had been asked to sacrifice for these wars, the Afghanistan war may have been waged (because the perps of 9/11 trained there) but the Iraq war would never have come about. We may have caught Osama bin Laden and stopped the spread of Al Qaeda. The recession may have been averted.
There will be NO spending cuts. Only "cuts" will be the rate of increases in spending. Meaning we will continue to sink further into debt.
Only those who are convinced they have a superior intellect understand going further into debt puts us on the road to financial stability.
The cotton candy sales staff(congress) seems to have convinced those with the superior intellect the problem is, we just are not far enough in debt.
The message is we need to all get busy borrowing our way out of this mess. If you are not drowning in debt, you are part of the problem.
@debtfreeisme: Raising the debt limit only allows us to pay the debt already racked up. I pay my bills, regardless of whether something I purchased was probably not wise. To do otherwise is immoral. Our country needs to do the same.
With only history as a guide, every time the debt limit is increased, we go farther in debt. How does that begin to solve the problem?
Congress already confiscated the money to cover the bills, and flushed it down a rat hole. Allowing this to continue is nothing short of criminal.
Correct... it may be nothing short of criminal but when will it stop? It won't because our system is f*cked to the max. No party wants to stop spending. Like you said, using history as a guide will show that both parties love to spend money. Cut every department 10-15% across the board, close the loopholes, eliminate all deductions and ensure ONLY organizations that put 90% of their money into helping others get tax-free status. Everyone else must pay a minimum/maximum tax of 15%... you CANNOT find a way to reduce your tax burden below 15% and you can never be taxed more than that. If this is the tax code, no one avoids taxes and they are fair to everyone.
The Republicans have shown that they are the best at, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". But small business leaders, seniors, veterans, firemen, police, etc, have seen that if you are not at the top 10%, with the super rich, your agenda comes last or get stabbed in the back, while getting tax breaks for the super rich.
Just remember folks, this has all been politial theater. When you go to the polls this election day, think about who it was that was keeping the american people hostage. Vote if you must, for your party, but throw all the old bums out. We may have new politicians that might not understand the system and they might make mistakes, but this will be the voice of the american people throwing out the trash. We need to stand together on this, big time.
.... which is exactly the thinking that brought us the Teabag Class of '10. Ask Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida how they like it now.
Rest in peace, republican party. You are now officially ... The American Taliban.
So this article with advice from the experts last night means nothing. Absolutely nothing>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43929476/ns/business-stocks_and_economy
Also the remark about 50% of the people not paying taxes, I beg to differ. You pay taxes everytime you buy groceries, gas, cigarettes, candy, property tax, and personal property tax. Funny how different people look at different situations.
It's funny how people look at situations differently.And not surprisingly so.
JoAnn Moundsville, WV
You can beg all you want, 47% of wage earners pay no federal income tax. It has nothing to do with local taxes paid on the things you mentioned.
It is right on the IRS website.
Please. Let's get this disaster over with, then the "little children" in Congress can go back to work and do their job, taking care of the people of the United States of America. I can't believe this absolute waste of time. Grow up!
Your banker wants to meet with you to discuss your financial situation. Currently you are over 1 million in debt, with an annual income of $40k from 2 jobs. The bank is a bit worried about you ability to repay this debt.
You explain to the banker that you have given much thought to this issue and have come up with a plan to fix it.
Your plan is to ask for another 2 million and get a third job.
Being an educated man, the banker controls his urge to burst out laughing, and politely has you escorted out of his office.
He then advises his staff to protect the bank and begin recovering whatever assets you currently possess.
Problem solved.
Sadly, it is the faux economists who think using household finance policies equate to running the economy of the country. They are two different animals and the rules of one to not apply to the other. That is why typical Teabaggers are scary, they would rather use the bankruptcy court to solve the dept problem vs. finding viable options that avoid default.
Debtfree, you plan is a little ridiculous, and your banker knows it. Rather than get a 3rd job, why not quit the 2nd job, use your ability to raise revenues by demanding an income increase (fully within your power) by enough to cover your expenses, and then use all those extra hours in your day to concentrate on managing your finances and paying down your debt. That might be a plan your banker would back.
This entire episode could have been avoided without the band-standing of the drama queen's in the Tea Party. They are the fodder of the super rich who support communism by outsourcing our jobs to China, nothing more nothing less. The color of the Tea party is red.
.
Obama and his Democratic Party Comrades only offer HOPE. They have no PLAN.
HOPE is all you have if you don't have a PLAN!
Comrade Obama or Reid need to show us their PLAN.
Hope IS the plan! And continued hope is we are all dumb enough to buy into it. You have to pass the bill to know whats in it----Brilliant!!!!!!
no plan at all is better than the republican plan:
do away with Medicare all together (rich people don't need it)
Cut Social Security payments (even though it hasn't added to the debt thus far)
Cut Medicaid (that pays hospitals and doctors for treating the poor (soon to be most of us))
Cut or do away with the EPA (no more need to protect the environment)
Balanced budget (keeps the federal government from helping disaster stricken areas, keeps federal government from helping states in financial trouble, keeps government from being able to deal with ANY real crisis)
ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT move to amend our ridiculous tax code that rewards the wealthiest among us at the expense of the average American.
That should kill America once and for all !!!!!!!!!!
usn_usmc_mom
Mom, I read one of your previous notes about your intent to register in the Democratic Party.
Welcome.
Historically I have been avoiding doing so myself, but I think current circumstances dictate that I must. I want to fight the republican pestilence wherever I can now. The repubs are hurting America, and now its personal.
Like you, I have a child. Your children face the specter of being stationed in our country's service without pay. They have been hurt. Their families have been hurt in a corporal and tangible way.
You seem to have a strong protective instinct, and anybody who comes after your kids (or mine) had better find cover. Cause parents like you n' me are comin' off the porch,..... and we're bringing an a$$ kicking with us.
The world's proudest country has been relegated to the status of a beggar now. Our credit rating is going to suffer. Everything will start costing us more, and any economic recoery we were experiencing is threatened.
I hope we survive it.
May Holy God bless, keep and protect your kids and mine.
For weeks we have watched these carnival geeks hold the country hostage.
The President proposed a long range solution that was incredibly rational, realistic and balanced.
After all the drama, the best these geeks can do is kick the can down the road?
I think your comments disparage the carnival. Have you seen these guys? They come into town and in a matter of hours, every man, woman and animal has worked together to put up the big top, set up the power and facilities and are prepared to put on a show. I WISH Congress and Senate had half the efficiency of a carnival.
VI,
My apologies to the carnival - the geeks that will do anything for a nickel were my reference.
they are going on vacation soon for 1 month,how nice.laughing stock of the world,now go hide.
let the trigger be spending cuts and the repeal of the bush tax cuts.
why aren"t all the networks putting out the faa fiasco, which republicans, talk so freely about wanting to protect job creators than refuses to fund, faa which think, then lost over 4000 jobs, becuase they didn"T sign the funding, what a mess they have made, republicans continue to hide under radar,fox news in denver hasn"t even mentioned the debt crisis , not important to them i guess , oh they are republican supporters
NOTHING BUT BS! Never a real deal for real everyday middle class Americans. Just more tax breaks and loop holes for the wealthy. POLITICIANS SHOULD ALL BE STRUNG UP THEIR THUMBS AND LEFT TO ROT IN HELL! SO SICK OF THESE SELF CENTERED PRICKS ! I guess well all be PHUCKED AGAIN!
MSNBC's piece ends with the Boehner proposal, without a balanced budget, going to Obama. If so, the Republicans win. This political theatre is adsurb. The issue is jobs. Get the millions of unemployed paying taxes instead of collecting taxes. Government spending is a problem, but cuts now will slow growth (ask the British). The politicians have demonstrated complete detachment from the American people. Government is a problem, but the politicians are the barrier to America returning to its much diminished stature.
The big media in the US has belonged to mega-corporations since the 1970's. ABC, NBC, and CBS used to have hour-long serious news shows. Think Walter Chronkite, Huntley-Brikley Report. Now The McNiel/Leher News Hour on PBS is the only one left.
And for those of you who actually believe that the "main Stream media" is liberally biased...get real! Exactly how liberal would the interests of say General Electric be? If you really want to see the last bastion of liberal national media read The Nation magazine.
If you are wating for current national news to reveal the seriousness and complexities of our current socio-economic situation, you will be old and gray first. They ARE very good at playing smoke and mirrors. Look at this (insert divisive and/or sensationalist story) while Congress enacts this (insert new tax rate and/or loopholes for mega-corporations/ultra-rich).
Maybe MSNBC and Fox News have the same basic plan (distract/cloud the issue) and just play 'good cop/bad cop' kind of games. Think about it. The rich keep getting richer, big corporations keep shipping the good paying jobs overseas while working class Americans suffer, and our standard of living looks bleaker for our offspring. Yet we are still electing millionaires to Congress (I don't care whether they have a D or and R after their names).
Would we keep doing this same stupid thing? Expecting a different result? Isn't that the definition of insanity?