Hallelujah!

I think the Feisty Redhead and I are about to actually agree on something!

The President has reached an agreement with the GOP to raise the debt ceiling.

Sure...the House Democratic Progressive Caucus has called an emergency meeting for tomorrow...and the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't like it either.

Too bad.

Time for Feisty to start earning her pay, and rally the troops behind President Obama's deal.

Oops...sorry.

You too, Matt!

Mixed Bag, I share your relief that the debt ceiling will be raised by Aug2. but could you please explain John Boehner"s power point presentation... I could wait until the NYT comes out tomorrow, but I will be happy to listen to your explanation of the bill which willl pass hopefully both houses tomorrow.

thanks

First things first, Northstar.

Though I loved the description of Speaker Boehner's power points presentation...

As I see it, Boehner's presentation was intended to get members of his caucus to vote FOR the compromise agreement favored by President Obama.

Now...

What about tomorrow's emergency meeting of the Democratic House Progressive Caucus?

And the troubling comments from members of the Congressional Black Caucus?

Do those indicate support for President Obama's deal?

Honestly, Northstar...

I have my doubts.

I sure hope Speaker Boehner comes through for the President.

Don't you?

Hey, NorthstarDFL, did bag boy provide any proof I asked for, or is he off topic again? Shoot, I keep answering my own questions.

Just asking as I have bag boy on ignore.

Mixed Bag,

Still unclear about the details, there is a lot of "either" and "or" in the presentation when it came to the "super commission".

dont' worry Mixed Bag, Nancy Polosi will deliver hershare of the votes to pass this in the house. She is an expert at this.

Matthew, No, Mixed Bag has not answered your question from your post above. Wonder why?

I sure hope Speaker Boehner comes through for the President.

Don't you?

Even if Northstar doesn't, I do. If Boehner doesn't come through this time, then he might want to think about starting a colony on the moon with his Tea Party buddies because they will no longer be welcome on this planet.

Or maybe skip the preliminaries and go straight to Hades.

While the rest of us end up paying for it.

Matt & AM-

Are you with the President on his agreement with the GOP to raise the debt ceiling...or not?

With him, or...against him?

Undecided?

You can't have it both ways.

Would a power point presentation help?

Northstar?

Where's the Feisty Redhead?

Isn't she supporting the President tonight?

Matty: Once, just one time, I'd like one of you from the right to provide proof that raising taxes have killed jobs.

You're taking a simplistic approach to it Matty. A tax rate in isolation neither creates or destroys jobs, the economy is much more complex, and jobs don't only hinge on if a tax rate is 35% or 38%.

Putting more structure to it, a tax rate increase in a fragile economy is probably not the best thing to do, that is if you want the economy to improve. On the other hand, a tax rate increase in a booming economy probably won't have much negative impact on job growth.

And lowing taxes is no guarantee it will improve an economy. We see that now where we have the Obama administration that is increasing regulations, increasing entitlement spending, and is increasingly hostile to businesses. None of those are good for a pro-growth economy.

Anyone that attributes a boom/bust economy to just a tax rate isn't thinking straight.

MB: Isn't she supporting the President tonight?

The LibsRUs gang ALWAYS support their President. He's the best they've got, or will ever have. They have nowhere else to go.

AM: Or maybe skip the preliminaries and go straight to Hades.

Mixed, Annie's on-board with Barry. That's progress.

Hey, NorthstarDFL, I see JAS1 has weighed in, but since I have her on ignore, too, I have to ask if she offered any proof or if she just tried to deflect. Darn it! I just keep answering my own questions! Of course she did a deflection. It's not even worth opening her posts to find out.

Poor Matty - he got an answer he doesn't understand. Now he's all confused and irritated - like that's different.

I don't have you on ignore Matty. I find you comical and amusing - just like a clown.

Matt, don't open her post. You are right on about her response.

1) Matty Boy: Just asking as I have bag boy on ignore.

2) Matty Boy: Hey, NorthstarDFL, I see JAS1 has weighed in, but since I have her on ignore, too

Matty is so vain, the only person he doesn't have on ignore is himself.

Mixed Bag, the power presentation is still unclear to me. i will answer your question when the votes are taken.As Lawrence O"D says. "Nothng is agreed to until everything is agreed to". Right now we have what pundits are calling a framework.

We can all wait until tomorrow or Tues.

Thanks, NorthstarDFL, I won't. If I remember right, she can be a really vile b1tch at times, especially when she is ignored, and I choose not to bring that into my life.

Mixed, Annie's on-board with Barry. That's progress.

Nope. That's entertainment. Unfortunately, we're all on board ... the Titanic.

I LOVE the version of the movie where they all stand heroically on the deck at the end singing, Nearer My God to Thee.

In fact, I can hear it now.

Matt-

You may think that you're ignoring this along with everything else...but you aren't really, are you?

I'm not sure you really understand the underlying concept behind the "Ignore This Author" Newsvine feature.

Nash and Clara struggle with this from time to time as well.

Mind you...

I'm not suggesting that JoAnna or I are easy to ignore...heaven forbid.

But surely you can manage something better than this effort...eh, Matt?

ROTFLMAO!!! matti you are such a cut up, placing the right on ignore and then asking your silly questions. No wonder you are baffled.

MATT---I'm not a righty and I don't claim to know everything like many do, I don't know if raising taxes killed jobs but I DO KNOW FOR SURE lowering corporate taxes in your stae WORKED. Texas has had MORE companies incorporate in the last three years than the rest of the U.S. combined. I don't think raising taxes always means job killer but in my humble opinion raising taxes in this economic climate is political suicide. Just an opinion which most of the crap spewed here is ...not fact.

time 4truth ~ I think you might benefit by reading a bit more about that. I posted an article a few days back about how Perry has used government money to induce businesses to create more jobs, and this Keynesian sort of approach -- the same approach used in the stimulus -- and the same approach that conservatives -- including Perry -- always say they reject -- has, in fact, been one of the linchpins of Perry's job-creating record. You should really read up about it before you speak so derisively to Matt. Here's the link, in case you missed it:

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/27/the-cracks-in-rick-perrys-job-growth-record/

Perry’s biggest tool for job raiding is controversial. Beginning in 2003, he persuaded the Texas legislature to give him control over several massive, largely unsupervised funds that provide subsidies to businesses that move to Texas. His office proudly claims that the two biggest funds have created more than 54,000 jobs in the past eight years. “They’ve been immensely important to our state’s economic development,” says Catherine Frazier, Perry’s deputy press secretary. “This is about attracting jobs and making Texas a destination for companies to relocate and expand.”

The largest fund, the Texas Enterprise Fund, was created in 2003 and has awarded some $412 million in subsidies to companies nominally to create jobs. A December 2010 analysis by the Texas comptroller found that $119 million of that money went to companies that didn’t deliver on the jobs they promised. The governor’s office took back only $21 million from those underperformers, often choosing to define downward the job-creation requirements. GOP Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom Perry beat in last year’s GOP gubernatorial primary, called revelations that taxpayer-funded contracts sent money overseas to create jobs “disturbing” and “unacceptable.”

The second major fund under Perry’s control, the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, has also proven controversial since its creation in 2005. It has spent some $320 million on tax credits and other subsidies for high-tech companies willing to move to Texas. An October 2010 investigation by the Dallas Morning News found that $16 million of that money was awarded to companies with investors or officers who are large campaign donors. Perry denied that politics influenced the awarding of money from the funds. He succeeded in fending off efforts to cut his massive subsidy fund budgets in the legislative session that ended last month, but the legislature did impose new controls and oversight on the funds.

You might also find this part particularly instructive on Perry's job-raiding strategy -- i.e., the part where he goes into other states, like California, and lures them to Texas with promises of tax incentives and lower wage rates. Turns out this isn't always such a good thing, or even a permanent fix.

Even those subsidy-chasing companies that do produce jobs don’t necessarily create long-lasting ones or increase a state’s overall prosperity. While 18% of all jobs in the U.S. failed to last the five years from 2001 to 2006, 26% of jobs created through interstate moves failed during the same period, according to researchers Jed Kolko of the Public Policy Institute of California and Donald Walls, a consultant and researcher.

Professor Michael Porter of Harvard Business School says tax-credit funds used to lure jobs from one state to another often “ultimately don’t support long-term prosperity” because companies that can move easily “are looking for the best deal, and when the deal runs out, they move,” taking their jobs with them. Anti-corporate-welfare advocates, like Greg LeRoy, executive director of the Washington-based group Good Jobs First, say the tax-credit game is worse than zero sum, because when a company gets a tax credit to move to a new state, the departed state loses jobs, while the destination state’s residents get stuck with higher taxes or worse services.

In addition, of course, it is well-known that Perry used $6.4 billion of federal stimulus money to close Texas's short-term budget deficit, thus passing its own credit card bill off on the rest of the country, which now has to pay that back to whomever we borrowed it from.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jun/25/martin-omalley/democratic-governors-association-says-texas-gov-ri/

It’s no secret that Texas, like other states, leaned heavily on stimulus aid in 2009, when lawmakers wrote the 2010-11 budget. Earlier this year, we rated Mostly True Obama’s statement that Perry "helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help." State budget-writers in 2009 used $6.4 billion in stimulus aid, accepted by Perry, to help pay for programs over the next two years that historically had been financed with state revenue.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/23/news/economy/texas_perry_budget_stimulus/index.htm

Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.

"Stimulus was very helpful in getting them through the last few years," said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers, said of Texas.

Even as Perry requested the Recovery Act money, he railed against it. On the very same day he asked for the funds, he set up a petition titled "No Government Bailouts."

"Join our fight and add your voice to a growing list of several thousand Americans who are fed up with this irresponsible spending that threatens our future," Perry wrote on his blog on Feb. 18, 2009.

It may have worked for one year, but leaves a long-term deficit of between $18 billion and $25 billion yet to be closed. Even the Wall Street Journal recognizes that Perry's use of stimulus money in this way, in combination with his hypocrisy when it comes to the stimulus package itself, spells real trouble for him should he try to run for President.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704513104575256734081528528.html

Texas doesn't levy an income tax and boasts that it has one of the nation's lowest overall tax burdens. Those policies, Mr. Perry has argued, have attracted businesses to the state and strengthened its economy. While many states saw their economies shrink in 2008, the first year of the national recession, Texas continued to grow.

But the economic downturn is catching up with Texas. Sales-tax revenue started falling in February 2009 compared with the previous year, and only started to recover a bit in April of this year.

Although Mr. Perry has railed against the federal economic-stimulus program, billions of dollars from that initiative helped Texas legislators balance the current budget. Those funds won't be available for the next budget.

If Perry's sort of money kiting is your idea of fiscal conservatism, perhaps you should rethink it. Lowering taxes and paying people an average of $11 per hour (which is Texas's average hourly wage) is not likely to generate the necessary tax revenues that you would expect from a growing economy and is unlikely to fill that deficit gap. Without more stimulus money available, it would seem that Perry may still be in big trouble in Texas.

So before you start accusing other of spewing "crap," perhaps you ought to address these facts.

If you really value "truth," that is.

I agree Matt about the "job-killing tax hikes" as pure propaganda -- Even conservative economists don't support this chicken crap. And then this gave me a second laugh:

And it would also guarantee the American people the vote they have been denied in both chambers on a balanced budget amendment...

First of all "the American people" consist of far more than Teabaggers. Second, a balanced budget amendment based on "starve the beast" 16% of GDP spending and no revenues is assinine. Let a qualified economist like Paul Krugman write your stinkin' amendment for you, and then maybe "the American people" and I would give a sh!t about it.

Go ahead, vote on the BBA to start your own country, it's just sucking more oxygen out of the air while accomplishing nothing. It won't pass and you know it. Teabaggers and Norquist just want to put Republicans on the line if they vote against it. If they think they can use it in primary fights, got news for you Teabaggers, it's YOU who will be exposed and thrown out.

This is Boehner's original bill with a few tweaks--no vote tied to the debt ceiling, instead there is a trigger for a commission to propose additional cuts. No trigger for revenues, not even closing loopholes for corporate jets, Big Oil, etc.? At least the Bush tax cuts are still scheduled to expire...

JS1 -- How can you learn if you're always talking? Lay off the posts a bit, it's like you're arguing with yourself.

The amazing thing that has not really been disucssed is that all this Republican debt negotations and bills were built without earmarks or special favors to any specific congressman to buy their vote! What a concept and what a major change from the Pelosi. She bought the OBAMACARE through sweet deals to her constituents and is now completely lost because she has no idea how to work in such an environment.... which makes her irrelevant as usual!!!

The democrats got what they want in this deal... the opportunity to cut our defense... which has been on their agenda for years!

Wow. Thank you, Anna, thank you, True.

Thanks for cutting and pasting a bunch of bullsh**. It's hard to argue with results though, companies from all over the U.S. are flocking to Texas in turn brings MORE JOBS FOR TEXANS. I don't like Perry, I don't like Most repubs. I don't like most Texans and their don't mess with Texas Bull sh**. Perry isn't the first Texan to suggest secession, many Texans have been calling for it for years. Go ahead and leave see how you do on your own. There is a reason for Six Flags, can't get right I guess.

That's okay, tea-party-fan, the way your Republican/TP Inc. representative, and the Republican/TP Inc. caucus, in general, has been acting has guaranteed they will not be going back to DC, anyway. No need to worry.

Matthew...

Oh, you mis-read my rant. The next time, I will vote for someone who is even more of a person who will stick to their campaign promises to actually cut some spending. You know, like SPEND LESS NOW !!!!

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but I think (hope & pray) that the days of the drunkard, stupid, crazy, can't-keep-it-up spending has and will come to a screeching halt...

Just Hoping...

No misunderstanding on my part. They also ran on the promise to create jobs, yet every single bill they have proposed, that wasn't trying to impose their narrow religious and social beliefs on everyone else, actually caused more people to lose their jobs. Yeah, you picked real winners there. If the Republican/TP inc. party run the same, or the same types of candidates next year, they are going to get only about 10% of the votes cast because the left is very fired up about the way the Republican/TP Inc. party has acted.

So, are you telling me that they are repealing the Bush tax cuts, unfunded Medicare prescription drug plan, and ending the wars that caused us to borrow so much, which raised the payments (also known as spending) owed on the debt?

Matthew.....

You know, its people like you and the other socialist that really pi$$ me and a lot of others off. You people always talk about the Bush tax cuts. Well, kiss, my a$$, that money belongs to those who earned it, not the stupid government. Government has no money except what they confiscate (tax) from the people. Don't talk to me about giving me a tax cut is equal to more spending by the government. Thats CRAP, because it was our money to start with. How dare you socialists claim that by me getting some of MY money back that it is an expense to the government. Pal, that ain't so !!!!!

Just Saying...

Hey Teapotter- Did you take out a mortgage to buy your house? Did you take out a loan to buy your car?Do you carry a balance on your credit cards? If so you are living in debt. You better stop your spending on everything else so you can pay your debts off.

Leigh...

Yes, I did take out a mortgage to purchase my home and yes, in the past, I have taken out loans to purchase an automobile. I do not carry any balance on any credit cards. However, unlike the idiots in DC, I paid off my home and paid off my autos. I am now debt free except for utilities and thats because I planned it that way. Thats a hell of a lot more than I can say about the FEDS. Now, if I were in debt because of purchasing stupid stuff like turtle tunnels, sidewalks to nowhere, scrimp treadmills, purchasing GM & the union and all the other stupid stuff, my wife would have an intervention (like we are doing now with DC), and put my a$$ on a strict budget with a finite spending amount.

Just Saying...

tea party supporter, every single piece of infrastructure and benefit you get from living in a first world nation did not magically appear. If you are going to attempt to live in a civilization-less society, i dare you to move to an empty piece of the Midwest and sustain your damn self while the rest of us build a country.

To think you learned to read and write in the government schools only to cast a vote to defund them.

Ahh, I see, 'those people' who earned it didn't use any of the infrastructure that previous taxes paid for? They weren't protected by the military that ensures they can make that money? They aren't willing to pay for the maintenance and future infrastructure and services that government provides so that they, and future generations can continue to succeed? They haven't benefited from food inspecters? They haven't benefited from the federal law enforcement?

Socialist? You don't have a clue what socialist means. And what the heck does that have to do with anything I said before?

Ahh, I get it, you just don't like the fact that the know nothing, unAmerican fools that you voted in are getting punked, so you have to call me a name. The TEA Party wing of the Republican/TP Inc. representatives are too stupid to even realize that their actions could make the economic situation worse than it already is. They aren't even smart enough to realize that they are being taxed less now than in the last 50+ years, I mean, look at their name 'Taxed Enough Already? Party'.

Here is the problem with your theory. If the rich don't ay their fair share, and they do not, everyone else has to shoulder the burden. Here is a statistic that is very pertinent:

From 1970 to 2000, the average rise in compensation (adjusted for inflation, etc.) for all income earners was $0.05/hr over the entire 30 years. Over the same 30 years, the average rise in compensation for the top 1% of those same income earners was $646.00/hour . . . every single year.

It's obvious that we shouldn't ask those poor people in the top 1% of income earners to sacrifice anything to help this country, we need to make sure the other 99% bear all of the burden. After all, the bottom 99% get the equivalent of a whole nickle more an hour than they did in 1970, they can afford it more than the upper 1% who only got the equivalent of $19,380.00 per hour more than in 1970.

And its only gotten worse since 2000, due to the Bush tax cuts.

Are you one of those in the top 1% who rarely pay any taxes at all? I doubt it. Now go reload your gun, you can only shoot six toes with a revolver and you have 4 toes left to go.

Amazing the level of ignorance, ain't it, dante2308?

dante....

I don't remember ever ranting about taxes for the stuff that is the FEDS responsibility. I am not against ALL taxes, just stupid and un-needed stuff and then not paying for it. Damnit, if the feds want to spend on something, then if they don't have the money, raise the taxes and then go in front of the tax payers and "man-up".

There are many, many (too many) things that are un-necessary and wasteful and too many payoffs to organizations for their votes.

Just Saying...

Leigh,

Most responsible (...keyword = responsible) people will carry some debt - home loan or car loan. Even a small credit card balance is okay in certain circumstances. If you are financially responsible, your mortgage payment will be manageable in good times and bad times. Typically your mortgage payment and property taxes should be less than 33% of your income. You should have at least 6-12 months of money to pay your bills in reserve.

Remember when banks were giving loans to people who couldn't afford them? Those people lived stressful lives and eventually lost their homes.

The Government has maxed out it's credit card. It's liabilities exceed it's income. And the reserve fund has been depleted. Something's gotta give or eventually the services you enjoy will be gone. The Tea Party (love 'em or hate 'em) have brought these realities to the forefront and are the only ones demanding the issues be addressed.

You're not maxed out on your credit cards and struggling to make your mortgage, are you Leigh? Because your post indicates you think that unstable financial situation would be okay.

Matthew...

One thing is for sure - if it wasn't for the Tea Party, we would not even be having this conversation. They would have just matter-of-factly raised the debt limit and we would be $2.4t more in debt. Just how long to you people on the left (socialist) believe that this country can survive without starting to be just a little more frugal. Its just a matter of time, before we finish committing financial suicide. Can anyone say "Greece"?

Just Saying.....

I want my taxes cut, I want to pay what many corporations pay, which is zip nothing, I would at least like my taxes cut to 15%, so I can pay what a hedge fund manager pays, I don't think I should pay more than they do, so how does that make me a Socialist, Tea Party Fan. Either raise their rate to my rate or cut my tax rate down to their rate. I am tired of paying higher tax rates to support billions of dollars in subsidies for the oil companies who post tens of billions in profit per quarter. These lazy corporations just want welfare, they don't want to earn their money just always looking for a government handout, so is that socialism, it sure isn't the free market. Tell me what that is. Do you know what those CEO's do with their tax welfare checks, they buy booze, and drugs, and they gamble with that money, that is what welfare does to people.

tea party fan, what on earth do you mean? The democrats passed pay-go and cut middle class tax rates in 2009, cut medicare by 500 billion in 2010, and formed the bipartisan deficit commission. The Republicans managed to scare the bejebuz out of the economy so they could write themselves out of the final deal. Democrats were always willing to cut spending... Before January, Obama was already cutting more from the baseline than anything he added to it.

Now tell me what was the point of all this? Democrats have never been against reducing the deficit and would have negotiated a deficit reduction bill under any circumstances. Without prompting, they cut medicare, got attacked for it and then cut defense spending and got attacked for it, started to draw down Afghanistan, and got attacked for it.

Now they want to end loopholes and subsidies and get attacked for it. Sorry for them defending the tiny, tiny part of our budget that goes to education. How thoughtless of them.

There you go again, proving that you do not know what you are talking about.

1) The debt ceiling does not add any money to the debt, it only allows the US to pay for obligations already owed.

2) This 'conversation' has made the world think that the Republican/TP Inc. party are some the stupidest people on the face of the earth when it comes to economic policy. Not only are they, literally laughing at us, they now wonder if America can be trusted to keep its promise to pay the already incurred debts. It will now be harder to borrow money and the interest rate will be higher, costing us more in interest payments, thanks to the Republican/TP Inc. party. Real nice. Way to go, you've managed to alienate the rest of the world and made us the laughingstock on top of it.

3) Can anyone say, "comparing Greece's economy to the US economy is like comparing a state's budget to the federal budget?' In other words, they are not the same as Greece does not control it's money supply, interest rates or their own banks. You see, Greece is part of the EU and uses the Euro as it's currency. Not to mention that their debt was much, much, much worse than the US's.

You're making this waaaaayyyyyyy too easy, tea-party-fan. You're running out of toes and may have to start cutting off your nose, to spite your face. Your Republican/TP Inc. party is pretty good at doing that, as they proved by holding the debt ceiling hostage to get concession that will only harm the economy (e.g. instant cuts and a balanced budget amendment).

I still don't get the Taxed Enough Already movement. Why form right after all Obama did was cut taxes? When has Obama ever raised taxes? He should be your damn hero.

Dante2308, it kind of speaks to their awareness of what is really going on, doesn't it? When you don't think for yourself, and get all of your information from Faux Noise, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, et. al., it is pretty easy to get it wrong.

BTW, I like your thinking. Good posts.

dante2308 and Matthew

You are my heroes. You make alot of sense. I can so tired of hearing the right-wing talking points repeated endlessly in the media until folks take them as fact, when they are anything but.

Lehigh not a great analogy many people borrow money. I have a mortgage I know I can payoff (not like the ones who borrowed too much then blamed the banks) my credit cards are paid off EVERY month. The government CAN'T say the same, this is not a partisan issue BOTH side F'd this up.

gee whiz matti, what plane of nonexistance are you from? Must be the "strawman" plane.

The following must be from your book of mattisms...

Are you one of those in the top 1% who rarely pay any taxes at all?

Just in case real numbers matter to you what part of the following income tax generated tables don't you understand? I suppose that IRS numbers mean nothing to you...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Don't know what your problem with greece is, but IT IS a prime example of what happens when a soveriegn nation takes on more debt than it can handle and has to seek outside lenders for help. If the US continues down its current path who is going to bail us out? Perhaps a more simplistic approach would be better understood by you and one that was made by obama recently in a televised press conference about 1 1/2 weeks ago. He likened the federal budget to that of everyones household budget. You know, when one runs out of people willing to extend affordable credit or being unable to generate more income that household has a problem. Just like greece has a problem, and no, the EU didn't create greeces' problem, greece did it all themselves. It is apparent that you are incapable of understanding the basic fundamentals of economics regarding income and expenses or in simpler words, cash flow.

While you may run off at the mouth saying that the world regards the right as being stupid you fail to realize that it takes two (R&L) to create your fantasy observation. I guess your liberal arts education needs more attention in the logic department.

Tea party fan,

You and your gang don't know your real end from a hole in the ground.

Matthew, i think I will put old"Tea-party-fan" on ignore. He is really getting worked up. He doesn't think he needs to pay taxes. Calls it confiscation by the govenment? Next he will be talking about Posse Comitatis...

I think you should wait, NorthstarDFL. He has yet to parrot the 'job killing tax hikes', 'left wing communists', . . . hmm, must be late, I can't think of any others. Anyway, his rants are quite amusing and the grammar makes them very interesting to read, difficult, but interesting and rather humorous.

Wrong, Herman'. Because of tax shelters, accounting tricks, and outright illegal actions, the average tax rate of the corporations that actually pay taxes is around 18%. One of the lowest in the world. And then there is the fact that over 50% of corporations don't pay any taxes at all. Never mind the congress has steadily defunded enforcement of the tax laws and has directed the IRS to concentrate their oversight on people claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (i.e. the people with the lowest incomes and the lowest cheating rate . . . but I digress).

Now, I suggest that you take a few classes on spelling (or at least learn to use the spell check, jeez) and grammar. And then, try reading some books. Here is one you really need to read: 'Perfectly Legal' by David Cay Johnston.

matti - all of which the current tax codes allow. BTW - no income class is immune from a few individuals that intentionally or not try to scam the system. Care to cite a credible news source that will back up your numbers and allegations? Perhaps you can point out what congress has defunded tax law enforcement?

If you want to say "fact" why not cite the source? Perhaps you haven't been taught that in school yet?

BTW - op-ed pieces usually don't qualify as factual either without adequate citations.

All you need to do to prove this is to google corporation tax rate paid. If I could post a few links here I would, but MSNBC won't let me.

jonesy - patience, I don't recall the wait period newsvine has on link posting.

Regardless, the poster citing "facts" is the one that needs to provide the citations, otherwise it is nothing but personal opinion. If one wants to complain about tax rates then they need to lobby to change the tax codes to a simpler form and with fewer exemptions. Tax code books would easily keep an automatic door from closing.

It will be interesting to see if congress does anything about the codes.

Once, just one time, I'd like one of you from the right to provide proof that raising taxes have killed jobs.

I would like to see a "trigger" for tax breaks that goes something like this: If a person making over 250K a year can show documentation that he or she has created n jobs, then the tax break kicks in.

I would like to see a "trigger" for tax breaks that goes something like this: If a person making over 250K a year can show documentation that he or she has created n jobs, then the tax break kicks in. If the insane profits are truly used to create jobs then the uber rich and the large corporations should jump at the opportunity to prove it AND get tax breaks. Do you think the KoolAde Party would really really like this idea?

How does a profit feed me? Seriously, explain it well. Profit is unspent money. If they spent it on something, then it wouldn't be a profit so it really has nothing to do with my food. Usually they use the profits to eventually buy the competition and create monopolies.

I don't begrudge profits, I just don't see how bigger profits help the economy. In pure capitalism there is no such thing as a profit because margins are close to zero. A high margin means that it is just a transfer of wealth away from the consumer who gets a bad deal and the worker who doesn't share in the benefits.

This occurs because we don't have a perfectly competitive economy and that happens when corporate interests affect government policy to favor one side of the equation.

I'll make it simple by saying it again. High wages feeds people, high profits does not.

Dante - "high wages feeds people, high profits do not"

What is yoiur defintion of high wages? high profits? What would you consider an acceptable profit margin to be? IE, for every $ of revenue, what % is acceptable as profit?

Profits are what business needs to expand with, diversify with, pay off loans with and to provide acceptable returns to their investors such as pension funds, 401k's, etc. So yes, profits do have a lot to do with food oir anything else the investment groups want to have.

I dare say you need some practice in running a business profitably for many of your observations are badly skewed with how profits are used. Rather sad that you don't understand what herman said.

Think of it this way, without a profitable bottom line a business will eventually fail to exist, regardless of salaries paid. When out of business, government has lost a source of revenue from the business itself and those that they once employed. If enough businesses close the government no longer has the revenue to support their programs. IE, the government worker can't be paid and government programs can no longer be funded.

I have a business.

In true capitalism, there is always capital available for expansion as long as there exists a market for capital (banks, stocks, bonds) which means that any sustainable arrangement does not need to draw on profits to succeed.

If you use revenue to invest or pay something off or expand or diversify or pay out as a benefit, it isn't a profit, it is a cost. The free and competitive market will set wages based the smallest margin (highest sustainable) to the company using the laws of supply and demand equilibrium; a balance between attracting the best talent and the most sales at the lowest price. If there is a large margin, then there isn't enough free market competition to bring about high wages and low consumer costs.

The bottom line of a company being near zero doesn't mean the business has failed, it means it is running at peak optimal capitalism. If the business needs to raise money in unpredictably hard times, it can sell shares of its capital investments (stocks). If that isn't enough, then the value of the business itself comes to question and the market will pick a more prudent structure and the entire system evolves. Ex: move to telecommuting from rent-intensive skyscrapers of offices.

Reducing the taxes on profits actually makes the company less efficient because they are dis-encouraged to invest their revenue on improvements to a product and attracting talent. Instead they might be inclined to save up money in order to afford a takeover and gutting of a smaller, superior company in order to secure their future profits without becoming more competitive themselves.

They also might be inclined to invest in the political process to secure subsidies and tax breaks. Hell they might create an entire political party dedicated to protecting corporate profits from competition or the need to improve a product.

Enough economics, I'll just say that perhaps the right-wing position on the issue isn't capitalism or democracy at all, but the act of a powered entity to protect itself at the expensive of the standard of living of the rest.

Growth will some when customers, empowered to spend with living wages and empowered to own with fair prices can consume and contribute. The more empowered persons there are and the freer the market is for FAIR competition and innovation, the more business can exist and employ and sell to the middle, upper and working classes.

Capital should be and almost is available to ALL people who have a sustainable plan. In a good capitalist system, a genius college drop out with no resources can start Microsoft and the next genius can create something better than Microsoft and not be crowded out through sheep force of monopolistic influence. The job creates are NOT the rich, but those who conceive create the most competitive product and companies from inception. A rich person is actually killing jobs in many, many, many ways.

Sorry for the missed words, I'm very sleepy now. I do wonder when the well reasoned, non-populist, non emotional economic argument is for tax-cuts will appear. Its their money doesn't quite cut it for me. Neither does the phrase tax and spend or allegations that Obama is a Marxist.

I don't buy that only the rich can create jobs. That goes against everything the American Dream and capitalism stands for. It also goes against the reality of how many small, medium, and even large businesses the middle and working class have created. Perhaps that's what the large corporations want: complete control over the labor force, but that isn't the reality.

So what is it?

dante...

What is yoiur defintion of high wages? high profits? What would you consider an acceptable profit margin to be? IE, for every $ of revenue, what % is acceptable as profit after taxes?

What is your idea of a living wage or fair price? Should it be the same for everyone?

As for the wealthy creating jobs it is like anything else some will and some won't, it really depends on the investments they make and what returns they expect. One thing for sure is that they are more likely to create jobs than the average man in the street. Venture capitalists and investment bankers come to mind as job creators when they back entrepreneurs

Really Herman, without corporations there would be no food, water, or shelter? How did man exist before corporations? Hermann are you joking?

Hell they might create an entire political party dedicated to protecting corporate profits from competition or the need to improve a product.

And they have by golly! The Tea (KoolAde) Party!

american, I think I made it clear that a market would set those in a competitive environment so I can't tell you up front what they are, we need to focus on making it more competitive. It is skewed at the moment.

And no, they aren't more likely to create jobs than a man on the street. There is nothing about a rich person that makes them have a better job-creating business model. Most of the rich people are just investors in stocks and other paper money establishments, not people who build a factory or office building.

In the real sense, with a good education system and a good capital market, the middle class is more likely to create jobs than the upper class.

dante - in other words what you are saying is that it will be the individual that determines what a living wage will be for them individually and likewise for what is considered to be a fair price. For a moment there it sounded like you wanted to institute some type of wage and price control system.

Interesting that you stll maintain that it will be the middle class that cretes jobs. This is true only to the extent that they help create the demand for goods and services. But it is the investors (wealthy, if you like) that supplies the capital to build the infrastructure (including labor, jobs if you will) capable of meeting that demand.

Regardless, we agree that it is an entrepreneur who identifies the need without regard to the entrepreneurs income level,

Furthermore, would you agree that it will be those of wealth that makes it possible for the cash flow to be available for meeting initial payrolls and capital needs until such a point demand is created to sustain operations and possibly expand?

Candice...

As I understand what I have read, there are NO actual cuts to current or future spending, only decreases to the increases in spending. That is what really pi$$es me off. Its not what my 2010 vote was for. I will have to do a better job in 2012.

I mean, do the math - if they cut $2.7t in 10 years, thats only $270b per year and we currently have a $2.4t deficit each year. That means in 10 years, we will still be an additional $11t in debt for a total of $26t.

How can we survive like that?

To me, its only a matter of time...

Just Saying...

We don't have a 2.4 trillion dollar deficit. I have no clue where you made up that number from.

How about this? We grow out of our deficit and we don't cut 10% of our economy in six months? I'm sorry but what on earth could be worse than a sudden 10% drop in gdp? A default? No, that would actually be better than that.

Really, what is the most important thing to us? Are we going to have all our seniors starve to death so we borrow a little less? If we work on a 30 year time period, we can reduce our debt responsibly and without killing anyone.

I do suggest we reorient our military to defense. If Russia has a half of an aircraft carrier and China has none, we don't' need 22 (11 super carriers and 11 LHA/LHD). Sorry, no one can invade us or attack us so we don't need it or to employ and care for 3 million soldiers.

dante,

Do you think the Chinese are really going to use that air craft carrier as a casino?

Tea Party Fan,

Not increasing spending is not cutting spending, but that's Washington mentality. And people wonder why we're in the mess we're in. What happened to going through the budget line by line, getting rid of programs that don't work?

a bipartisan committee that must report to Congress by November that would further reduce the deficit by looking at taxes/revenues and entitlement spending

Sounds like the balance of the plan focuses on taxes and the third rail of entitlements. Where's the additional spending cuts?

Very disappointing.

Candice, they will one day decode it and create a Soviet-era half carrier. Then they will one day invent a carrier-based aircraft. When they put it all together, they will be able to sail half way to Japan before an Aegis gets bored and wipes it out.

That puppy can even hold as many as fifteen jets. Man, scary. I mean for the pilots. That's 15 planes who wont have anywhere to land and have zero chance of making it through the air defenses of Eritrea much more the USA. They might as well turn it into a casino or a museum like we do to some of our similar relic-age machines.

dante...

Take a look at the us debt clock. You're right, we do not have a $2.4t deficit. We have a $1.4t deficit currently and the year is not over yet. I might be right about the $2.4t by years end. We will see.

As for the rest of whatever you are trying to spew, I have no problems with a 10% cut across the board. Then maybe a "little" of the waste, fraud, abuse and duplication of un-needed programs will be "oriented" a little better and give the US taxpayers a little more for their hard earned tax money. I doubt very seriously if the US agencies would even miss 10%.

Just my opinion...

Thanks..

10% across the board? You really think everything is equally necessary and equally well funded? I'm sorry but that is very, very irresponsible. Anyway that's a 2.2% cut in GDP which is about as bad as the Great Recession. What fun.

By the way, deficits are by fiscal year (October-September)

Dante - what's wrong with across the board cuts, especially in discretionary spending? Not agreeing that 10% is right and not knowing how you derived your GDP figure, but yes cuts do affect GDP. When obama offerred up $600 billion in entitlement cuts, did that give you a warm fuzzy feeling? My own personal take was that he would never have carried it through.

Interesting thing about cuts. When businesses make cuts they are forced to restructure and redeploy. Seems that the government should do the same, regardless of GDP hits, BTW - there is nothing written in stone that the cuts will be immediately made. Nor is there anything written that says that pay and future planned expenditures can't be frozen/reduced.

You personal feeling isn't a mathematical fact. Medicare has already been changed. Before this, the last person to cut it was Clinton under a Democratic House and it has already been cut.

First of all, we are not a company or a family, or a farm or a kitchen table. A company doesn't make across the board cuts either. They make targeted cuts in order to become more efficient, not to equally destroy a bit of everything regardless of value. They attempt to increase sales, ie the value of their product, and improve their inputs, ie the quality of their human resources. They might also be inclined to increase revenue with pricing.

As a technocrat (not a democrat, nor a person with warm fuzzy feelings about policy) I would suggest political benefit exit the equation immediately. We need to cut exactly what we don't need and we need to do it without exacerbating the quality of life of Americans. I suggest because we are NOWHERE near default that we improve the quality of outputs so that our GDP can exceed the growth of of the need for services. And we do have a need for services. If we cut education to the bone, there wont be a way out of debt, end of story.

There are many things we don't need. We don't need to subsidize profitable companies or rebuild other countries and we don't need a military as large as we have. The military contracts, at the very least, should be at NO PROFIT to the contractors. I also think we should be realistic about revenue. Reducing taxes on profits is not economically viable and I have gone a ways to explaining how it actually kills jobs above.

The government spends 25.46% of GDP. If we cut 10% of that, our GDP drops 2.55%.

point taken on the targeting scenario, but and it is a big BUT. The federal government can impliment effectively across the board cuts as each agency head can determine where to target the cuts, just as a CEO does. Based on all the discourse made while trying to get the FY2011 budget passed and the current debt ceiling deals being made. Straight across the board cuts of discretionary spending ensures that everyone pays a price based on how each agency targets the cuts. No worry about favoratism, just do what is required to maintain, as you say, the quality of the outputs.

Actually we are close to default as by law the treasury can't exceed the debt limit, and the treasuries options are increasingly being limited by cash flow.

We can also limit and cut back the size and bureaucracy of the federal department of education, we don't need a duplication of services that the states own dept of education provides. At the federal level all the department needs to provide is a uniform set of goals for the states to achieve and abolish the "no child left behind" regulatory requirements. Any funding to the states should be conditional on the results that the states achieve the educational goals provided.

Sorry I don't buy off on much of what you said above. the idea of running a minimal near zero profit ignores exogenous events such as natural disasters, equipment failure, economic downturns, legal actions and unexpected business expansion opportunities. Don't think for a minute that when one of these events happen and you go to a bank for a loan that they aren't going to to look at how good of a risk you are and that you have the ability to pay off the loan. the only exception is that you have someone to draw $$$ from that doesn't care if they get paid back.

Unfortunately, feelings are of consequence since their exists ABSOLUTELY NO mathematical proofs in economics, social or politics that has definitively predicted social-economic events or how they can be resolved or avoided. Generalities yes but there are two many variables and unknowns for a definitive answer. We are a long ways from asimovs foundation series social-economist mathematician of predicting future events.

BTW - what constitues a living wage to you? What constitutes a fair price to you? Is an apple ipad2 priced fairly?

Favoritism? What exactly is wrong with foregoing one program over another? Some are just plain stupid. We don't cut the oil subsidy and education equally because we want to be fair...

Good, one less vote for the failed President in 2012. Make sure and vote for Ralph Nader.

Love the sound of moonbats whining that taxes weren't raised...

So, it will be so much better when Michelle Bachmann is president?

This is what happens when we hire someone with no real experience. EVERYONE (yes, even Michelle Bachman) named as possible opponenets of the this very bright young President has a much more solid resume than he did when he ran in 2008. That did not seem to be an issue then - so why is it such a big deal now?

and no one can disprove it doesn't, but a correlation can be drawn.

The fun thing is that as discretionary income grew in the US, the economy grew as well and visa versa. Just looking at the historical growth (the proof, if you will) of the US shows this correlation, boom and bust cycles as well as military conflicts.

The next step is determining what makes up discretionary income, you know income that is left over after the basics are met. Tax cuts will generally boost discretionary income to be used as the recipient decides while tax increases reduces the discretionary income and therefore limits what the recipient uses it for. The caveat in all of this is that the recipient doesn't always use their discretionary income wisely.

The biggest caveat is that there is no current economic theory that can prove definitively the whys and wherefores of economic growth or decline because of all the societal and political variables involved. I am sure that as economics is studied more closely and the variables better defined that predictability will improve.

For now all that can be proved (whatever you define proof to be) is by correlating data to historical growth. There is no mathematical proof such as exists in physical sciences. Anyone demanding such proof is a fool.

What's with the coffee comments. FOCUS - we don't have the money!!

sorry suz - Obama offered hope and change and only a fool would think that the economy would change over a short term or that continued due diligence wouldn't be required in addressing the economy. By economist standards, structural economic changes generally take a year or more to start showing results. Obama and company + the FED owns the current 2011 economic numbers until such time as the right can put behind them the roadblocks put up by the left since january.

You seem to have misunderstood the mantra of the tea party as in no new taxes, not no revenue.

Suz - Focus - We need to run the national finances in a responsible way, or we will go broke. We've maxed out the credit card. What does one sleazy congressman have to do with that?

Hopefully, the congress will not agree to this 'deal' - The credit rating agencies are already downgrading our debt anyway ( as they should have long ago ). We need to get serious about cutting spending NOW - not 'over the next 10 years' If they can really do that - just once, then (and only then) we can begin to look the finacial markets in the eye and say that we are really serious abut getting our finances right.

Putney - You sound like a very nice person. I wish that there were more citizens like you.

Jonathan, I'm an independent thinker and voter and I try to see reality when I can. To blame Democrats alone is just not "real". The Republicans under GWB started two wars funded on a "credit card" rather than a responsible reasonable economic plan. Where were the "war bonds" etc.? GWB also funded a very expensive drug program for the elderly which also added to our outrageous deficit. There is ample "blame" to go around for everyone, including all of us who spent like drunk sailors on shore leave due to the lower interest rates and easy loans. Clinton juiced the economy to get an inflated bottom line via deregulation of the economic engine that drives our country. This deregulation started under Regan and has continued until our 2008 collapse.

My complaint against Obama is that he did not really push hard for congressional hearings and indictments for the major "evil doers" who savaged our economy for personal gain without any thought given to the damage to the rest of us. That told me that Obama was just as beholding to the major corporations as the rest of the crooks involved.

Madison, your recap on Washington's efforts toward job creation is spot on. I too believe that the Republican Party is more about party politics and winning at any cost rather than the real business of government. Bipartisan accomplishments should be the hallmarks for both parties and any actions contrary to that end should be viewed with disgust.