Well of course Romney opposes the debt deal. He wasn't around when the deal was cut so all he can do is side with the Tea Party. What a loser!

Romney bleets so pitifully, "President Obama's leadership failure..."

Without the President patiently herding the sheep and the recalcitrant children on the Right, the exorbitantly self-seeking and cunning congressional GOP sons-of-Norquist corporate lackeys, this country would default for the first time on its national debt:

Thus endangering our economy, the world economy and potentially the other seven billion people that are not Romney.

Romney brought up the capping spending approach again.

This whole issue about capping spending is a farce.

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.

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 cap spending or 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.

The approach is unworkable.

Both of those options mean we would just be plain stupid.

@Nash

Now this is why if Romney is the choice I will not be voting (again). Just as entitlements have to be cut (sorry reformed), because we cannot afford that level of spending, the same is true of defense. How long do the right think we can maintain this level of defense commitment around the world. We are NOT in an existential struggle. However, I do agree that Bin Laden's plan to bankrupt the country is working. It seems we have spent $4T to find and kill him over two Administrations.

I read a report that in 2001 the debt was $6T. Bush added $6T and now they've agreed to this deal Obama will have added another $6T by 2013. This is insanity and it affects both parties.

It would be nice if Huntsman could actually get through the primaries and we might actually have a choice in November of 2012.

Ira..I agree the BBA is just political stunt.

Anybody gonna take this one? The silence is deafening...

I would like to ask my right leaning friends a couple of questions. Anyone can answer.....

1) With our economic growth dismal, jobs still being shed, and investment still very cool, how does removing 2.8 trillion dollars from the system impact our staggering economy?

2) Can ANYONE give me one peice of empirical evidence that tax breaks to the top produce jobs? It's been ten years, there should be some sound evidence by now one way or the other....

Thanks,

PS. I'm soooo glad that this is almost over, so we can get back to focusing on JOBS; where the focus should have been this entire time....

Romney's just trying to pick up some right-wing credentials by staking out a position when there's nothing at stake for him.

The conservative movement is riddled with cynicism, but this move is an over-the-top example. Why anyone now would give Romney any credibility is more a question for those who study mental illness.

You lost me Ira - the Feds, just like all of us and the states can simply spend less money. OR as the brig brained libbie Johnny Alter said repeatedly yesterday [as he engaged in a double face palm] - this is the beginning of the age of austerity.

It is time to live within our means. That means all of us. No more a case of the wants, now just the needs.

Say Ron - I don't suppose you'd care to apply your words to Obama? You say Romney wasn't around, and Romney is a loser. Ok, so Obama was not around either, and Obama didn't win.

Does that also then make Obama a Loser in your eyes? Of course not. I'm sure those glasses of yours are still rosy.

Ted, I did give you an aswer on the prior thread - the one which the collapse cowards have temporarily shut down. I also commented on David Walker's reply to you, in the same post.

Ted, Mid Michigan

1) With our economic growth dismal, jobs still being shed, and investment still very cool, how does removing 2.8 trillion dollars from the system impact our staggering economy?

No, Ted, it's truly stupid....actually will hurt a fragile economy that grew 1.3% last guarter.

So why is the President and Congress for this plan? Why doesn't Obama veto it?

2) Can ANYONE give me one peice of empirical evidence that tax breaks to the top produce jobs? It's been ten years, there should be some sound evidence by now one way or the other.

No Ted, there is no empirical evidence. Trickle doesn't doesn't work.

So why did the President extend the Bush era tax cuts until 2012?
Seems like there's just one person to blame, doesn't it?

Your turn.

Ted, here's a link to the post (you'll have to uncollapse the thread to read it):

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/01/7216686-first-thoughts-nobodys-really-a-winner#c56564930

1) With our economic growth dismal, jobs still being shed, and investment still very cool, how does removing 2.8 trillion dollars from the system impact our staggering economy?

Remember, this is over 10 years and as usual the cuts will be larger in the out years. The problem is that we have government services we like, as promised by politicians, but that we are unable or unwilling to pay for. This is true at federal and State level.

Ted:

1 - the government does not create jobs. Getting it under control will allow the private economy to prosper. Or should we pump $5 trillion in an just hire everyone? See that sure didn't work out too well in Europe.

2 - The more money they takeout of my pocket individually and my business through taxes, the less I have for all expenses. Ted - you happen to know what the highest cost to most businesses is? I bet you do. I know Ira does. And we all know Obama does - he signed the current tax rates into laws.

Lower rates = more tax revenue. Higher rates = less tax revenue.

Spanky,

Since the Feds do not distinguish between capital investments and operating costs, all revenues go into one big pot. Operating costs can be balanced. Capital expenditures, usually require borrowing. Borrowing in NOT a bad thing as long as it is done moderation and it improves cash flow. Called credit.

Unless you want to pay for health, military, social security, education, etc., out of an operating fund vs moderate borrowing, your taxes will have to go up to cover all these costs. It's not just reducing spending, it's making the best of your cash flow and not not turning this country into a pay as you go nation. That's just insane.

John,

I got your response. What I didn't get was the GOP defense of these actions which is conspicuously missing. Thanks,

I'm wondering who in the Republican field running for President do most of the Republican posters who post hear support?

Spanky,

1) See FDR's CCC, now translate that same idea to our failing infrastructure and alternative energies.

And, my question wan't about the government creating jobs. It was about the impact of 2.8 trillion dollars being taken out of the economy at large. this has to mean less spending power for someone, which will (in my head) soften if not kill our extremely weak recovery.

2) I asked for imperial evidence, not your opinion. Facts, figures, and PROOF that tax cuts create jobs. I have looked for ten days and counting and can find nothing, nada, zip.

Ira,

Thanks for the response. I beleive that the President is going to sign this bill (if it makes it out) to get this mess behind us, and move on to more important issues. Notice I didn't say he agrees with the bill, I don't think he does. But unlike others in this town, he fully understands this needs to be done. As for the tax cut extension, I call that extortion. The negatives of not extending unemployment were higher than extending the tax cuts.

Yes, there is PLENTY of blame to go around. I am trying to focus on the overall philosiphy of the right.

Romney opposes the deal today, but when it passes, it will have been his idea, like the GM bailout.

Sad thing is, no one ever remembers this stuff.

imperial evidence....LOL. I meant empirical.

Ted, Mid Michigan..

I'm not on the right.

I'm a pissed off centrist who can't believe that the President caved again...

You can't say on national TV that you will veto a bill that doesn't contain revenue increases and a few days later abandon that principle and agree to a bill that has none...in fact...he doesn't even know what the cuts are...it's a frame work. So it stage 2.

Sorry to have failed you in your quest for "imperial" evidence. Perhaps you could inquire of the dead emperor of Japan, or Senator Palpatine/The evil emperor and sith lord?

All I can give you is the facts I have to deal with in running my business.

Ted, how do marginal tax rates effect you hiring decisions? Are you as scared as I am about the effect of Obamacare/insurance costs in general? See taxes rates are but on of the many pieces to the hiring puzzle.

Ira - Maybe it's time for the feds to actually pay attention to the types of debts they have? Cause see the feds can't make the best of anything, especially spending our money.

Ask Ted. He no like-y the way they tax. And these are Obama's rates no less.

Spanky: by your logic on tax rates, if we lowered tax rates to zero, then we would have massive amounts of revenue and huge increases in jobs, right ?

Why is it that when the tax rates were much much higher, the employment rates were as well, historically ?

While Mr. Lafer's curve may apply for short term reductions in tax rates, over a sustained period, they do not apply.

There have been multiple statements that taxes should not be raised during a recession, yet I am not aware of any period where increased taxes during a recession has hurt. Didn't saint Reagan increase taxes during a recession, and then realize increased job growth and an improved economy ?

Ira - does it bother you that so many here think you are a conservative?

You are so clearly not, but it's all your talk about taxes, and spending that just keeps throwing them.

Hint: dumb it down, use less specifics, and toss in an occasional "tea-bagger" comment.

You poor conflicted bastard.

Spanky-

BTW....good morning.

So what you're saying you don't trust the way the feds spend our money.

No one does...no one.

On that everyone can agree.

I no likey the way they tax either.

Need to get back to work....later.

Ted, there have been several excellent books deconstructing the ideology of the ultra-right in the conservative movement. By far the best of these is Thomas Frank, The Wrecking crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves and Beggared America. Another that is outstanding, and that in fact predicted the tactics and objectives of the right in the debt ceiling vote confrontation, is Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

Matt Taibbi presents a very good examination of the manuevering of the banks, insurers, and other in leagues with the conservative movement that led to the collapse - Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America.

There are several more I can recommend, but this is a good start on learning in detail what is really going on.

It's just a historical fact that when rates are lower more revenue is received Dirp101.

You have to stop focusing on tax rates. The rate is irrelevant, it's what is collected that matters. Take the 1950's. Rates through the roof, right? But so were deductions and shelters and all else. So guess what - rates may have been 50-70%, but nobody really paid at those rates.

Fact is regardless of rates the tax intake has been consistent, it is the spending that has gone through thee roof.

If you don't believe me, cause I am an evil greedy conservative bastard, ask Ira. He's smarter and one of the "good" guys.

Right Ira? Beside he bills out at double what I get, so he must know what he's talking about.

Spanky,

Your clever comebacks and gramatical watchdogging aside. I asked for evidence. You have none. Just say it: "There is no evidence that supports my position, but I still think I'm right"

So, Spanky, if tax cuts are so great for hiring, why is the unemployment number only gone down (with a very small exception right at the beginning) on these rates?

That's the employment number going down....unemployment going up....you get my drift.

For crying out loud, Ted

Reagan's policies are widely recognized as bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, surpassed in duration only by the 1990s expansion that began under George H. W. Bush in 1991.[11][12] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[13] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 9.5% in 1982 and 1983.[14] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan's administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[15] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaked at 20% in June 1981).[16] The latter caused a brief recession in 1982: unemployment rose to 9.7% and GDP fell by 1.9%.

So, the Reagan tax cuts increased net jobs by 21 million.

Happy now?

Geez. You could have looked it up yourself.

By the way, what proof do YOU have that Obama's stimulous produced any jobs in this country? I ask because, while the unemployment rate is reported out as 9.2%, that number is reflective of a vastly diminished labor force. Seems BLS has recategorized MILLIONs right out of the labor force. If the same number of bodies were, in fact, still in the labor force from two short years ago, unemployment would be 12%.

Don't you find that strange, Ted? Millions of people jut suddenly decided that working for a living was not for them?

Know what else is strange? We get inputs that are reflected in the GDP numbers- used to be as regular as clockwork. There were adjustments to the initial reported number- a couple of tenths of a percent here and there. Well, the inputs that can only come from the government- like import/export data- are pretty darn slow. Kind of makes it hard to make predictions.

Also makes it real hard to believe anything coming out of Commerce. They just cannot get it right. Quarter one was reported put at 1.8%, adjusted to 1.6%, readjusted to 1.9%- then, suddenly, it's 0.4%.

Oh, and quarter four? Another huge downward adjustment.

Spanky asked me when we'd get to zero growth in GDP. I told him that we were there- but it would not be reported until the third or fourth adjustment- to which very few pay attention.

Well, Spanky, (and Ted, I haven't forgotten you), let me be the first to tell you- quarter one was actually negative, and so is quarter two.

That's a double dip, fellas.

So, Ted, what hard, empirical data do you have that shows Obama's stimulous created jobs here in this country, rather than in China?

Cause, I'm not seeing it, and neither is anyone else.

Sorry Ted, there are too many variable to allow a pinpoint cite to one particular factor. At the end of the day, taxes are one of many expenses that go into the hiring decision.

And of course I think I'm right. But then again, so too does Obama, which is why he signed the rates into law.

Unemployment is not going to go down for a long time. These are very bad times

No Jo,

Reagan's tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and resulted in him raising taxes. Several times. the quote you give does not mention tax rates at all.

The stimulus is harder to nail down. Where the tax policies can be meshed out comparing them to unemployment numbers for the same period of time, the stimulus doesn't have that luxury. We were in freefall, now we are limping along. Was it the stimulus? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But the meme that tax cuts for the rich equal jobs is false. NO ONE, even after ten years of such low rates, can give any evidence to the contrary.

No Jo, as far as the stimulus; I got nothing. Except for 20,000 pages on google of people arguing one way or the other. CBO states that jobs were created as a result, Cato says it was regular cycles, and others say that the stimulous created lots o' jobs and stopped the rise of the tide. I would remind everyone that over a third of the stimulus was tax breaks, and to my deepest shagrin, none of it was focused enough on Jobs, thanks to gop c#@kblockers.

What a crock of nonsense! The country was not going to default! That is unless Obama wanted it to. There was enough money to pay all the debt responsibility, Social Security Income, the Military and a lot more. A few agencies may have had to be shut down for a while but so what.

The stimulus was passed by democrats, the GOP had nothing to do with it, because it was nothing but a waste. It was money thrown away.

I understand Romney's support of Cut, Cap, and Balance as it is the only way to get the debt under control. The politicians love to spend our money even when we don't have any. So we have to do something to curb that. This nation cannot stand if we continue to spend.

DD: I oppose him, no I support him, except when I oppose him, except when I support him.

If Mitt Romney had a consistent position of leadership, I might be able to take a position. However, I can't be sure which way the wind is going to blow, os I can't be sure I support him or oppose him...

JK... I oppose him, and will continue to do so.

Ted, Mid Michigan

Sure spending trillions creates jobs... TEMPORARILY. The problem is Government DOES NOT PRODUCE anything... it is a consumer of things...

We must fix the underlying causes of our demise and that includes MANY things, but for one example is our "free" trade that helps money leave the nation but brings very little in.

Germany, is one nation with relatively high taxes, that has a somewhat decent economy right now primarily due to the fact that is uses tariffs to ensure a HUGE trade surplus while we have hundreds of billions annually in trade deficits.

Now I am opposed to huge tax increases for the primary reason that in my belief, the government should not tell people how much of their own money they are "allowed" to keep. This is not my idea of freedom.

But, when you break it down, it is very simple... money in and money out. We are not doing good here, primarily to the corporate control exercised over BOTH PARTIES in DC.

Dirp, I jut saw your comment at 1.22

You're kidding, right?

Hoover raised taxes at the beginning of the Depression. Read here

Hoover's fiscal policy accelerated the decline. In December 1929, as a means of demonstrating the administration's faith in the economy, Hoover had reduced all 1929 income tax rates by 1 percent because of the continuing budget surpluses. By 1930 the surplus had turned into a deficit that grew rapidly as the economy contracted. By the end of 1931 Hoover had decided to recommend a large tax increase in an attempt to balance the budget; Congress approved the tax increase in 1932. Personal exemptions were reduced sharply to increase the number of taxpayers, and rates were sharply increased. The lowest marginal rate rose from 1.125 percent to 4.0 percent, and the top marginal rate rose from 25 percent on taxable income in excess of $100,000 to 63 percent on taxable income in excess of $1 million as the rates were made much more progressive. We now understand that such a huge tax increase does not promote recovery during a contraction. By reducing households' disposable income, it led to a reduction in household spending and a further contraction in economic activity.

It's from the online Econ library.

By the way, that, along with his other progressive ideas, (like wage stability in the face of crushing unemployment, and the Smoot Hawley tariff), exacerbated a truly bad situation.

It's hard to believe you did not know that.

Forgot to add the link

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html

I suggest you go there and read for yourself. You might be surprised at what you learn.

Ted, Mid Michigan

Spanky,

1) See FDR's CCC, now translate that same idea to our failing infrastructure and alternative energies.

And, my question wan't about the government creating jobs. It was about the impact of 2.8 trillion dollars being taken out of the economy at large. this has to mean less spending power for someone, which will (in my head) soften if not kill our extremely weak recovery.

How do you figure $2.8 trillion is being taking out of the economy? It is actually staying in the economy by not being spent by the government.

Take a look at the stimulus and how much the government wastes when it comes to "creating jobs". How much did that trillion help the unemployment rate? Do you realize that it cost over $200,000 per TEMPORARY job? Do you know that most of the green money stimulus initiatives were sent to China?

Why isn't there any budget talks about cutting foreign aid?

What is it about a balanced budget that democrats find so distasteful? Why is a cap on spending so bad?

How can you continue to support a government that spends more than it takes in by 100%?

I see the resident fibber still denies that the Stimulus did work - See Below

Did the Stimulus Work?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/wait-did-the-stimulus-work/

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2870

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2910

As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. Bush’s supply-side economics “fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,” along with “sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth,” the Center for American Progress’ Joshua Picker explained. “On every major measurement” of income and employment, “the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms,” the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein observed, parsing Census data.

Rummy and Bachmann=> flip flopper and an incompetent; remind anybody of another duo that failed to get elected

John A:

Outstanding posts today, kudos. The GOP/TP just keeps dancing around all the issues with baseless rhetoric. The cannot even point to a source that proves their point.

Same old talking points and false information that has been debunked for a year now in many cases.

How do you figure $2.8 trillion is being taking out of the economy? It is actually staying in the economy by not being spent by the government.

What? Seriously?

The GOP wants to "Cut Government spending" this deal cuts government spending.

The government spends that money, mostly here, in the US. So, cutting 2.8 trillion is cutting 2.8 trillion (That we knew was going to be spent, for a fact) out of this economy.

Again, What?

Mr Intelligent (Mitt Romney), huh? Intelligence will only get you so far because first you have to

know something Saying it is not personal will cost him big time because opposing the deal

would hurt all Americans. And the personal is polltical. I am so disappointed in him and would

not vote for him.

First smart thing I've heard Romney say. Will that help me decide to vote for him? Nah he is still an insider, he only says what he thinks people wants to hear.

1992 -- The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Earth Summit takes place in Rio de Janeiro this year, headed by Conference Secretary-General Maurice Strong. The main products of this summit are the Biodiversity Treaty and Agenda 21, which the U.S. hesitates to sign because of opposition at home due to the threat to sovereignty and economics. The summit says the first world's wealth must be transferred to the third world.

The DISEASE must be addressed not only the symptoms.

United States out of United Nations.

Then,

Ban the Federal Reserve Bank.

Ban Fiat currency.

Ban fractional Banking.

Then,

Close 90 percent of military bases.

Reduce Military budget by 80 percent.

Enforce our borders.

Allow alien entry by green card only.

Then,

Eliminate Homeland Security.

Eliminate criminal CIA activity.

Eliminate war on drugs.

Legalize marijuana.

Free non violent prisoners.

Stop all privatization of government functions.

Then,

Term limits for Politicians.

Eliminate Electoral College.

Limit political campaign funds.

Ban all professional lobbyists.

Then,

Restore funding to Social Security.

Begin single payer universal health care.

Eliminate useless government agencies.

Line by line review of pork.

Review Politian’s benefits and salary.

Tariffs on all foreign manufactured items.

Then,

Prosecute governmental Traitors.

Eliminate CFR, IMF, Bilderburg, etc.

Enforce the Constitution.

It kills me how all you folks were trashing Romney for not weighing in on the debt debate when there was as of yet, no deal to weigh in on. Then, when their finally is a deal to weigh in on, you don't like that he spoke up. What Romney did is was simply smart. He left it to the best and brightest of both sides to come up with the best deal they could and then he commented on whether or not he liked it. That is simply the most sensible thing to do. The only people who should have been commenting at all prior to this point are Bachman and Ron Paul and that is because they actually have a vote on the issue. Everyone else (that means you Perry, Pawlenty, Cain, and Palin) where just blowing smoke trying to get a little free airtime.

And yes, this is an enormous failure of leadership on the presidents part. He should have never allowed it to get this far. Our nation now looks like a family picking up aluminum cans on the side of the road in the hopes of making our mortgage payment.

Alan, NJ:

Now this is why if Romney is the choice I will not be voting (again). Just as entitlements have to be cut (sorry reformed), because we cannot afford that level of spending, the same is true of defense. How long do the right think we can maintain this level of defense commitment around the world. We are NOT in an existential struggle.

Though I am in the middle, probably leaning a little left, I just thought I'd quickly say that I appreciate the fact that you recognize the defense budget eats such a huge hole in our federal spending and that it should be reduced.

Most Republicans, or conservatives, are very quick to label anyone who says such things as anti-patriotic, so it was very refreshing to see you write that.

My father was an officer in the USAF and my brother is an officer in the US Army and they both think that the defense budget could stand to be trimmed some. So kudos, Alan, and I appreciate your maturity in your dialogue with the other posters.

American's wanted a balanced approach not "cut, crap, and fumble".

Who cares what Bachmann thinks shes a stupid a$$, this baglady is a total loser.

Listen, everyone knows that the Republican war mongers profited from the wars so why shouldn't they pay more taxes?

Such hatered of the government.....

Ok - here's what happens when you pass a balance budget ammendment - the books have to balance...

Well - I guess it would really suck if you live along the Gulf or Altantic Coast and a Hurricane hits like "Dennis", "Katerina" or "Rita" (just to name a few) your on your own - because the money isn't in the balanced budget.

If you get flooded for living on the Mississippi or Missouri - your on your own, because that isn't in the budget either.

Hello "Ted, Mid Michigan"

The right-wing doesn't have any credible evidence that lowering taxes increases employment numbers in the mid or long term.

There is a cumulative historical and economic body of evidence though, that raising taxes does contribute to a healthier economy, and that cutting taxes on the wealthy increases the gap between the Haves and the Have-Nots. No "trickle down," effect was observed. Even the architects of the Reaganomics theory had to reverse their assumptions and admitted they were wrong, after they saw a gross failure in this national experiment.

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

A. Higher Taxes Do Not "Kill" Jobs. They Contribute To A Healthy Economy Instead.

B. Higher Taxes & Government Spending Based On Tax Revenues Instead Of Borrowing Contribute To Better Paying Jobs Within A Healthier Economy

C. It's Long Past Time For America To Wake Up And Return To Real Market Pragmatism As Opposed To "Free Market" Ideology As The Basis Of Our Tax And Regulatory Policies.

www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2011/04/29/oh-those-job-killing-taxes-and-other-gop-1?blog=214

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

Repost:

Extending Bush Tax Cuts WON'T Create Jobs, Says Leading Economist

Excerpts:

"Not all budgetary dollars are created equal," said Alan Blinder, professor and co-director of Princeton University's Center for Economic Policy Studies, in a conference Wednesday morning. "Some have a lot of bang for the buck, and some have very little. The GDP increase per dollar of budgetary cost is in the range of 1.6, 1.7 for things like food stamps and unemployment benefits, and in the range of .35 for extending the Bush tax cuts. We could get some substantial job creation by simply reprogramming the $75 billion that would be saved over the next two years by not extending the upper-bracket Bush tax cuts and spending it instead on unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the like."

Blinder's economic advice supports the tax policy of President Obama and the Democrats, who would like to maintain tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans, while letting the cuts for those with incomes above $250,000 expire. Letting the tax cuts lapse is projected to trim approximately $675 billion from the deficit over 10 years, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Blinder said that extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would only exacerbate an ever-increasing income gap.

"One of the objections a lot of us raised back in 2001 when the Bush cuts were originally enacted was that they were...adding further post-tax income inequality to an economy that was already producing a lot of pre-tax inequality," he said. "I still feel that way. On the other hand, unemployment benefits and food stamps tend to go to people with much much lower incomes [who] need it a lot more, and you get substantially more GDP boost and job creation than if the same amount of money were spent extending tax cuts at the top."

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/bush-tax-cuts-extending_n_662743.html

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

Patriotic Millionaires

Patriotic millionaires with a simple message: "tax me."

Youtube:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlttMTDCDwY&feature=player_embedded

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

The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago...

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you.

"There's still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money," Hatch said.

Schoenberg said Hatch's suggestion misses the point.

"This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42633769/ns/business-your_retirement/

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

Why the Wealthiest Americans Are the Real 'Job-Killers'

The top 1 percent takes in more than twice the share of national income today than they did 30 years ago, and that's a big reason why consumers are tapped out.

Paul Buchheit, a professor with City Colleges of Chicago, crunched some numbers using IRS data and found that "if middle- and upper-middle-class families had maintained the same share of American productivity that they held in 1980, they would be making an average of $12,500 more per year." In other words, because the share of income going to the top has increased so dramatically, ordinary people have $12,500 less in their wallets today.

Studies have shown that when wealthy people grab more post-tax income they're more likely to bank it than to spend it, so much of that $12,500 also represents lost demand, and hence less jobs. Wealthy Americans' avarice is a job-killer.

In 1978, the top 1 percent of the ladder took in just under 9 percent of the nation's income, leaving a bit more than 91 percent for the rest of us. In 2007, the year before the crash, they took in 23.5 percent, leaving just 76.5 percent for the rest of the population to split up.

They banked most of that income, whereas we would have spent it. The fact that we're broke means that businesses are facing less demand for their goods and services than they otherwise would, and have less need to hire a bunch of employees. And that dynamic explains why it's the wealthiest Americans who are the real "job killers."

www.alternet.org/economy/151705/why_the_wealthiest_americans_are_the_real_%27job-killers%27/

There is some classically idiotic logic posted here - regarding "investing in infraxtructure" and such, if the federal government acted like the states, they would actually reduce the debt from time to time, paying off "projects". What we have now is an "interest-only" with ever increasing borrowing for operations as well as "infrastructure". We are borrowing $0.40 of every dollar spent!

As to Romney, he's right, it's a crap deal, but this is compromise. And this nation was NOT built on compromise, it was built on violent revolution.

As to the top 1 or 2% - why did Obama waste 2 years on healthcare and travel when he could have easily raised taxes on the upper 2% - probably in the first 6 months of being elected? Because he is a liar.

But what I fail to hear from these lunatic lefties is this - after you get the $70-$100 billion from the rich (that is the estimate on the Bush tax cut difference) then what? Your idiots are overspending $1,3 - $1.5 trillion EVERY YEAR!!! Bush was overspending what, $100-$200 billion? Yeah, yeah, the wars, etc... adding that in, it would have only added about $100 billion a year. So again, with Obama waging more wars, and contemplating even more wars, having already expanded spending in every direction, how are you idiots going to pay the bills?

I know the answer - you're not. You will just keep acting like the rich kid at college using his daddy's credit card. A bunch of spoiled idiotic children.

As to redistribution of wealth - why did Obama give Trillions to the banks through the Fed ($16 trillion I believe) while nothing of note to the lower 95% of citizens? Why is the President such a liar? Why does he keep such close company with the CEO of GE and other billionaires while saying he is fighting for the middle class? LIAR.

Ah, please excuse me Feisty Redhead Rosells IL, but are your referring to Mitt Romney? I am just learning about your second langugage when you talk about people in the Republican Party.

How about that Barry O, Presidential Rockstar decision-maker for the Progressive/Democratic Party? Gotta love what he does. First the Obama Tax Credit Bill and now this.

"Hunky" (i'm sure that is an oxymoron),

Did you just criticize Feisty for calling Mitt Romney "Mittens" and then call President Obama "Barry O."? Did you seriously do that?

My freaking head is going to explode. Please explain how you think this is acceptable. Please.

Feisty: it comes as no shock that you waited until Romney made his statement before you came out against it. That way nobody could say you were against it before you knew what he said. Gee that almost makes sense now doesn't it?

Sheesh.

Are you telling me Romney's "opinion" may not be based on what he actually believes but rather what is politically expedient?

Shocking!

He's the modern day Eddie Haskel. My, what a lovely dress you're wearing Mrs. Cleaver...

Well Ira, I would posit this: I think that Presidential candidates have to be very careful about what they comment on, not only for their sake, but also for the sake of what ever conversations/negotiations are going on in the background that they know nothing about. This goes both ways.

Now, of course, a candidate is going to come out after a collective decision and be on whatever side he/she thinks will best help them get elected. Again, doesn't matter what side.

What is funny, though, is that the usual Libs around here always act like it is only the Republicans who play like this.

Come on Ira - it's called leading from behind.

All the kids are doing it these days.

So how does this new deal work? Cause last time I checked there is still no federal budget, and the CR is set to expire in a few weeks.

Perhaps Reid is "leading with hindsight" as well?

Spanky..

No, Reid had a $2.7 trillion deal that was voted down by the House before it ever got there.

Romney didn't say a word. Bachmann, as much as I despise her, came out and said what she would do.

Romney won't give an opinion about anything so he doesn't jeopardize his first place standing. That's a lesson he learned from 2008, isn't it?

It's not leading from behind...it's not leading and saying the PC AFTER it doesn't matter more.

We're not talking about foreign policy--in that instance, yes, candidates and politicians in general need to keep quiet until a US position is taken. There's no reason for candidates not to express they are for or against domestic policy. Debt, deficit, spending cuts, taxes are policies that voters want to know where a candidate sits.

Ira, were you hoping Romney would strongly opine about a deal that has not been made yet? Sort of lacks credibility don't you think. Kind of like writing a book review before you have read the book. Romney was right to wait. It shows he is not just trying to get his face on the news as much as possible. The only two people who should have been saying anything before this deal was reached were the ones who actually had a vote on it.

Jody: sorry but your comment is a little naive. It does matter. Whether your desire to hold office comes from a genuine desire to serve, or from a desire for power, you have to acknowledge that everything you say will be scrutinized. Sometimes it really is better to say nothing, at least until you have something worth saying. Romney knows that. Everyone else who voiced their opinions in advance were just trying to get a little free news time. Is there anyone here who thinks Pawlenty, Perry, and Palin had any actual sway over the outcome? I would really like to know.

Huntsman is scary good. Way too good to get the nomination.

Hard to control what they welcomed with open arms.

Therein lies the challenge, Jody. Moderate Republicans have not welcomed the "Tea Party" and perhaps our greatest failure has been our silence.

In a sane republican party, Huntsman may well be "the only viable gop candidate", but Huntsman doesn't stand a chance. He's way to sane, reasonable and intelligent for the tp/republicans today. There's no way he'll get nominated.

Yeah, why should anyone want to have a sane moderate when they can have Rick "I'll secede from the union right after I balance my budget with federal money" Perry ?

If the Republican party actually nominates Rick Perry, you can almost guarantee a landslide victory for President Obama.

Jon Huntsman, on the otherhand, has proven himself to be a statesman who puts country above party. THAT makes him electable. And he doesn't owe anything to Grover Norquist, that alone gives him my vote.

You cannot control what is uncontrollable. This train wreck [Americans in Name Only => "Radical Right"] has already left the station and will derail by itself if History has taught us anything.

He also wants additional tax breaks for outsourcing jobs---based on his experiences there.

He also wants additional tax breaks for outsourcing jobs---based on his experiences there

He also likes to take the credit for things he did not do as well. Flip Flopper and not very honest either.

Oh please. First you people trash Romney for raising "fees" in MA. and label him a liberal in republican clothing, then you turn around and and try to label him an uber right wing conservative who is only interested in the lining the pockets of wallstreet. Well, make up your mind. Which is it?

Disabled Vet: please give an example of something Romney took credit for but did not do. I would love to hear it.

Amy B. Portland, ME

Politicians like Romney can go out onthe campaign trail and LIE everyday because the MSM allows to say whatever without a challenge.

How else to explain that for 30 months now the Republicans have been railing that President Obama has run up a 14 trillion dollar debt! No bobody ever tells them to stop with that lie!

They figure if they say it loud enough and long enough there will be enough ignorant people who will believe it and keep putting them in office.

We are a pathetic and uneducated nation getiing dumberer and dumberer by the day. And oh yeah, let's cut education some more so that the rich can keep their tax cuts.

Just exquisite!

How do politicians like Romney look at themselves in the mirror every morning knowing they're going out on the trail spreading such lies?

Amy: I think I figured it out - They do not have a reflection. We know they do not have a soul.

I Just Hope That Obama and Co. have enough time to really run this country into the ground. I mean really MESS!! it up so that the Chinese just walk right in and take back what we owe them. LOL Im going to love hearing all you BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS sitting around asking, "What happened, Why did this happen?"LOL Im can sit back and tell everyone of you communist "People" Ha Ha!! "YOUR THE REASON" that this happened. Then I can watch the Chinese Firing Squad Shoot Every Last One Of Ya, Just for Typing the same kind of thing that you Type about ANYBODY that is republican. GOD I CANT WAIT... I HOPE IT HAPPENS TONIGHT!!!!

One could say, Romney is "leading from behind".

One could say, Romney is "leading from behind".

I would like to say, that Romney is a "Big Behind"!

Kate, what Romney does, is keep a level head and waith until all the information is in before he opens his mouth. Seriously, do you people really want a leader that is just a whore for the camera. Someone who is constantly spouting off about everything before anyone has all the information.

Devie, you think Romney is an a$$? Thats fine. But why? What has he done that so offends you? is it his business career, his education, his term as governor, his handling of the Olympics? Please give examples. I'm willing to bet you either A. don't know what you are talking about, or B. you are simplly afraid of him beating your boy Obama. But I would love to hear your reasons.

The People'sView

Here's a few segments taken from an interesting article on the pluses of what the President got - and it's good:

"But as I said, Paul Krugman is a political rookie compared to Barack Obama. He is either unwilling or unable to actually look at the deal that was announced and realize what just happened: Barack Obama ate John Boehner's lunch, and then he turned Boehner out to go preach to his conservative colleagues that this eating of the lunch by Obama is actually politically good for them.

The President agreed to no Medicare benefit cuts in the "trigger." None. The cuts, if they automatically happen, would go to whom? The providers. Who are these providers? Doctors, hospitals, clinics, Medical device makers, service providers, drug manufacturers. Who do you think they mostly donate to in the political season? The entire pressure on these Medicare cuts are on the private medical (and pharmaceutical) industry! So let's ask that question again. The Medicare "trigger" is a trigger really from whom again? As a matter of fact, both big triggers (Defense and Medicare provider cuts) are triggers for the Republicans!

So while Krugman is correct in pointing out that the Teabaggers will hold everything and its mother hostage in order to get what they want, what they want is already being taken away from them: they will not be able to threaten the deficit reduction group with looming cuts in Social Security, or programs for the poor, civilian or military retirement, or Medicaid, or even Medicare benefits. Instead, if the Republicans do not let the deficit committee act in a manner commensurate with the President's demand that it include tax revenue increases, they will be setting up big defense cuts and setting themselves up for dry campaign coffers on donations from the medical and pharmaceutical industries.

And oh, by the way, has Congress ever adjusted Medicare provider payments that are scheduled to decrease by law? Oh, that's right. Congress does that every year. It's called a Doc Fix."

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/paul-krugman-is-political-rookie-or-how.html

_____________________________________

We'll learn more as the day goes on.

Cheers for that, Pat. Absolutely agree, where were the activists, the democrats last fall? They stayed home and now complain because President Obama had to negotiate with TP extremists. If they had been more involved politically, this unnecessary debt ceiling crisis would not have taken place.

No one got everything they wanted. Revenue increases can and will be addressed during budget talks where all this should have happened in the first place.

When I heard Steny Hoyer comment that President should have embraced the Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission, I couldn't help remembering how Hoyer and other democrats pronounced it DOA in both the House and Senate.

Just as during the lame duck session and the near Government shutdown this spring, it is best to wait to see exactly what it is before claiming victory or defeat. I would think people would have learned that by now.

Good points, Pat. Reading the LA Times summary this morning the thing that really caught my attention was exactly what you brought up - Medicare cuts affecting the providers. Sounds like reform to me.........

I agree with you, Pat---where were all the Democrats last fall? Elections have consequences and to criticize the President for making the best out of a lousy hand of cards which they helped deal him is wrong in my book.

Romney has shown such a lack of leadership in the whole situation it is astounding. Contrast it to when the economy started crashing in the midst of the 2008 election and Obama stepped up.

Thanks Pat, my BP started to stablelize when I went to "The People's View" last week after reading a post here by Deaniac83. Deaniac83 is Rachel Maddow on steroids. "Nothing but the facts maam", with detailed, easily understood expanation from all sides of the argument.

Good looking out Pat and a great post.

Obama/Biden 2012

But isn't cutting funds for providers such as, doctors, hospitals, etc. the same as reducing benefits for recipients of Medicare? Doctors, hospitals, etc. will simply reduce their services or maybe even refuse to accept Medicare patients. Doesn't that constitute a reduction in benefits? Obama promised me and millions of other seniors that he would not touch Medicare and Social Security. Has he lived up to that promise? Social Security is not to blame for this financial crises. The first priority should be to replace the billions/trillions back into the SS Trust fund and not to pay foreign aid to some other country. As it is now, your payroll tax to support SS and Medicare is just a back-door income tax. The generated revenue is placed in the General Tax Fund.

Pat:

The post of the day. Great job sorry I could only vote once.

Agent Orange aka the Tan Man got schooled by the community organizer...AGAIN??? Say it ain't so!

Flip Flop! No doubt about it.

So you would rather have a President Palin? Or Bachmann? That could be as bad as the 2nd Bush. Not a lot of good choices out there in the field right now.

Here's the truth about foreign spending: it really doesn't amount to much. Substantially less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget goes to foreign assistance. In the simplest possible terms, our current financial crisis was caused not by foreign assistance, but by massive tax cuts beginning in the mid-1980's and continuing to this day, combined with heavy domestic spending, heavy military spending, and substantial increases in debt service due to increased borrowing. Of these, the biggest problem is reduced tax revenues. Consider that tax revenues are currently 15% of GDP, the lowest in the last 50 years. Simply put, our government is asking Americans for less tax revenue, in proportion to gross output, than it has requested at any time since 1959. Most of the benefit of that reduction has gone to corporations, followed closely by the wealthiest 5% of Americans, who, not surprisingly, are richer than they have every been, both in absolute terms, and relative to other Americans.

Rummy on any question => "And the answer my friend is blowing in the wind"

Oh yea! I'm sure that corporation that paid no taxes last year is rushing out right now and hiring hundreds of new workers. And I'm equally sure that Wall Street fat-cat that just got his $100 million dollar bonus is using it to hire more employees (for his new yacht maybe).

Such a lame argument the "no tax increase" has become.

Nobody is socialist. That is just a boogyman used to scare children.

What probably irks me the most is the "committee" will be a cop-out based on what's been coming out of the Congress so far. Let's look at a few examples ...

Adjustments to medical, miscellaneous deductions, property loss – all of these have minimum threshold limits – minus 7.5, 2, and 10 percent of adjusted gross income respectively. Does anyone really believe these types of adjustments affect the rich? No, they affect the poorest first and the middle-class second. And what is Congress proposing – more limits like this on mortgage interest and charitable deductions. Real solution: Remove these minimum thresholds and phase out these deductions for income over $1 million.

The Alternate Minimum Tax – originally, a good idea to exclude the rich from deductions – except the threshold was not adjusted for inflation and caught up with the middle-class, not to mention all the loopholes the fat-cat lobbyists got thrown in over the years. Solution: adjust the AMT threshold for the last 30 years of inflation (would put it well over $1 million); adjust for inflation in the future; and get rid of the loopholes. Congress has had 30 years to fix the obvious and has refused. Their recommendation: eliminate the AMT. Gee, wonder whom that will benefit.

As for Medicare – everybody whines it costing too much, but what Congress has failed to do is identify and correct the root cause – why medical costs and prescriptions keep skyrocketing; your lobbyists at work again. Solution: Make lobbying illegal and identify the root causes of the skyrocketing costs – hint, look to the insurance companies. And no, "Tort Reform" is not a bad word.

If you really want an example of socialism, you need only look to TARP, which was championed by President Bush. Part of our health care system is indeed socialistic in nature but our current president had nothing to do with that... these are programs that have been around for decades...so please stop throwing around the debunked Obama as socialist meme.

America has never had a true capitalist system. It has parts of both capitalism and socialism. For example, the government manages and own our National Parks, military, etc. Each system relies on the other system for support.

President Obama has cut $500 Billion from Medicare. It is in his HCR Law go read it and learn something - and it is called "Medicare Advantage". This is a cut to the Insurance Companies for what is basically redundant services and is not a reduction of one dimes worth of benefits. You AINOS keep trying to make this a cut to benefits it is not - You are lying (again).

The cuts to the DOD are mostly getting rid of programs that do not work - like the second engine for the F-35 and the floating tank that sinks, old technology, fraud like we just saw from Boeing and other contractors, redundancy and a bunch of other crap. Again there is no cuts to any benefits of the Military Personal or any programs that would put them in harms way.

You guys just keep on lying and lying thinking we are not watching. Wrong we are.

Hello, "US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired,"

Excellent job refuting the radical right-wing posts on this site!

Bravo, USNDVR ! Couldn't have said it better!

Regards,

R. Oliver Radiko