E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe automatic spending cuts, just days away, would cut $85 billion a year, having an impact on federal food inspectors, TSA officers, Department of Defense and civilian workers. NBC's John Yang reports.
President Barack Obama used his bully pulpit Tuesday to warn of calamitous consequences for the U.S. economy should the automatic spending cuts known as the “sequester” go into effect next Friday.
The president warned that the automatic cuts, totaling about $85 billion over the course of this year, would prompt job losses, weakened national security and canceled government services – among other consequences.
“So these cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls,” Obama said in a statement at the White House. “This is not an abstraction; people will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again.”
The speech featured no new, concrete proposal from the president detailing how he would prefer for Congress to replace the sequester.
NBC's Chuck Todd says it may feel as though the sky is falling (once more) but it's likely the spending cuts will go through March 1, the government will come up with a compromise deal, and they'll punt something else down the road.
Democrats in Congress released a plan last week that called for $55 billion in new revenues from closing tax loopholes and deductions, and additional cuts by $27.5 billion to each the defense and discretionary spending budgets over the course of the next decade.
Obama’s speech was otherwise spent reiterating points he’s made for the better part of the last two months. He said that any sequester replacement should be “balanced” – shorthand for a combination of new tax revenue and spending cuts – and Obama urged lawmakers to approve a shorter-term replacement for the automatic cuts if they couldn’t reach consensus on a broader package by the end-of-February deadline.
Rather, the president, who was flanked by first-responders whose jobs Obama said would be threatened by the sequester, was making use of political optics and the presidential bully pulpit to pressure Congress to act.
Still, the urgency appeared to have little effect on Republicans, who dismissed the president’s remarks as unserious about reaching a solution.
"Once again, the president offered no credible plan that can pass Congress – only more calls for higher taxes," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.
President Barack Obama voices harsh words toward Republican lawmakers Tuesday while speaking about looming budget cuts.
“Today's event at the White House proves once again that more than three months after the November election, President Obama still prefers campaign events to common sense, bipartisan action,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.
Indeed, many Republicans have treated the sequester as a fait accompli; Congress is out of town this week, and lawmakers would only have a handful of days next week to act upon the sequester. Some Republicans have also argued that even if the sequester is replaced, its $85 billion in cuts should set a baseline for offsetting cuts in other areas of the budget.
“I have to say, though, that so far, at least, the ideas that the Republicans have proposed asks nothing of the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations,” Obama said of the GOP proposal. “So the burden is all on first-responders or seniors or middle-class families. They doubled down, in fact, on the harsh, harmful cuts that I've outlined.”
The president added, as if to drive home the point: “Well, that's not balanced. That would be like Democrats saying we have to close our deficits without any spending cuts whatsoever. It's all taxes. That's not the position Democrats have taken, that's certainly not the position I've taken.”
This story was originally published on Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:04 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
OK, this president is saying that if we cut 2.4% of Government spending that has exploded over the past 5 years that it will destroy American?
So if I was spending $50,000 five years ago and I am now spending $75,000, that if I cut my spending back to $2000 to $73,000, I would have to file for Bankrupty???
Did he not just get a 2% rate increase or so on people making over $400,000 a year. Now he wants to also cut loop holes? The Republican were pushing for loop holes instead of a tax % increase but the President want the % increase and NO spending cuts (in fact he wanted to add more programs), so he got the % but ,not on $200,000 but on $400,000. Now he also want the loop holes.
He says he is willing to cut military (big surprise for a Dem wanting to cut defense spending) and some non mandatory spending budgets. I forget how much is the % of all our spending is NOT Mandatory - say 10%. This is not a plan, this is a ploy to push the credit onto someone else and continue to buy votes for the Dem party. A ploy to grow government to a point where they have to have all the GDP in order to get close to reaching all the promises they have made.
When are people going to wake up?
No, that's not what he's saying, and I think you know it.
He's saying that if you make drastic cuts to the federal budget right now, throw a bunch of people out of their jobs and show complete dysfunction while doing so, you'll likely cause damage to the economy and potentially send us back into a recession. Keep in mind that the uncertainty caused by all the GOP obstruction over the past 4 years has been extremely damaging already, including the downgrade we saw after the GOP refused to compromise in 2011.
The President has been asking for a balanced approach the whole time, but the GOP has been trying to outflank him by proposing things that would protect lower tax rates for the upper income earners. Their ploy with the loopholes last time was intended to keep him from allowing the Bush tax cuts on the upper income people to expire - because they wanted to keep him from fulfilling a primary campaign promise. When he achieved it, they cried foul. Now he comes back with the loopholes as part of the current negotiation and they cry foul again.
Nobody is buying votes. The reality is that the President has proposed real cuts and John Boehner was unable to get his caucus to go for them. Boehner made the wrong assumption in 2011 - he thought the Tea Party guys actually wanted to govern in a sensible manner. He realized too late that they were only trying to voice loud opposition to President Obama to either derail his presidency or tank his reelection. And now Boehner seems unable to get these guys to listen even after the President was re-elected.
Your question about people waking up would seem to be an appropriate one to ask the House GOP members. And we would, if they hadn't fled Washington.
@DAVIDBAN
coxforusa is correct Obama is a blatant liar but I do agree the republicans are stupid for even working with this mutt.
Obama and the MSM are lying as usual. The Sequestration still gives us an increase in spending over FY2012 of $188 Billion dollars.
Add in the tax increases on All Americans from Obamacare and the tax increase on upper middle class Americans and the wealthy and it shows what a lying marxist the occupier in the White House truly is.
Bottom line: Republicans have sacrificed our prosperity, hence, our national security and our competitiveness around the world. During the biggest financial crisis in world history, Republicans are not partners in problem-solving but instead chose to spread ridiculous notions and lunacy within its political base to foment hatred and racism while using obstructionism and sabotage against every effort, idea and proposal from the Democratic side, somehow thinking this is a strategy for winning a permanent lock on power. And instead of representing the People who elected them, they insult their own base with nonsense while at the same time acting as a lobbying group for the wealthy and powerful - who really don’t need their help. Unfortunately, the Republican base takes all this in and then regurgitates it as political gospel, kind of like musical puke that spews across this nation and leaves the rest of the world scratching its head and holding its nose. During the Bush-Cheney era, the rest of the world was – literally – wondering if the United States was going fascist. This soured relations even with our allies. Obama has repaired a lot of that damage but still the Republican-Tea Party-Right Wing Cartel continues to work against our economic recovery, prosperity and security and play the same stupid game plan over and over and over again. Looking at all the chaos, damage and destruction, here and around the world, it is clear that the GOP-Tea Party-Right Wing Cartel is truly the enemy within. Their product of hate, self righteousness, greed, narcissism, etc. has been, and continues to be, the undoing of our formerly great nation. Thanks to Republicans of all stripes, the U.S. has little credibility on issues such as human rights, freedom and fairness. Again, Obama has done much to repair these but in some cases the damage done is permanent; for example, the invasion of Iraq by the Bush-Cheney administration. Neither G.W. Bush nor Dick Cheney (Dickless Cheney actually) dare travel overseas for fear of being charged with war crimes. Looking at the history of the Republican Party, just since 2000, the incompetence, corruption and damage they caused is blatantly clear….
@will4203
Dear Willard once again your recollection of the facts along with the rest of the slime ball liberals is lacking in facts read below and apologize to the conservative for you ignorance.
The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. census.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[2] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.[3] The House also received the first Muslim (Keith Ellison)[4][5] and Buddhist (Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono)[6] members of Congress.
Contents
[hide]
[edit] Major events
Members debated initiatives such as the Democrats' 100-Hour Plan and the Iraq War troop surge of 2007.[7][8][9]
President Bush delivered the 2007 State of the Union Address on January 23, 2007
President Bush delivered the 2008 State of the Union Address on January 28, 2008
[edit] Support for the Iraq War
Following President Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address, Congress debated his proposal to create a troop surge to increase security in Iraq. The House of Representatives passed a non-binding measure opposing the surge and then a $124 billion emergency spending measure to fund the war, which included language that dictated troop levels and withdrawal schedules. President Bush, however, vetoed the bill as promised, making this his second veto while in office. Both houses of Congress subsequently passed a bill funding the war without timelines, but with benchmarks for the Iraqi government and money for other spending projects like disaster relief
Comrade Chaos above, nice try on blaming everything one way. It's of course based on Rush Limbaugh's usual screed about President Obama.
Let's look at it again. In 2011, President Obama's people proposed the automatic cuts as a large prod for both Dems and GOP lawmakers to come up with real solutions to the budget issues. The point of the automatic cuts was that neither side would want them to happen, so a bipartisan committee was created to come up with a better solution together. Instead, the GOP members scuttled the committee by refusing to allow any taxes to be considered, and the committee fell apart. Ever since he was re-elected, President Obama has been addressing this issue again, and urging Congress to take action to do the right thing here. Unfortunately, the GOP House Majority decided it would be a better idea to go home and not do their job for the next week. The current screaming by right wing pundits like Rush is just an attempt to distract from answering the real questions most people understandably have about why their congressmen chose to run away from their duty again.
The other thing about the selective 2011 recollection you showed above is that you forgot the rest of the story there. The discussion at the time was that there were undesirable cuts on both the defense and domestic side. The GOP would not be able to stomach the defense cuts, and the Dems wouldn't want to see the domestic cuts go through. The talk in 2011 was that the GOP would simply vote to avoid the defense cuts and leave the domestic cuts in place, thus allowing them to have their cake and eat it too. President Obama's statement at the time was saying that they actually needed to do their jobs and not just play games about it. If they tried to just protect what they wanted and not work with the Dems, he was telling them it wouldn't go through. Because if they could have gotten away with that one, they would have.
So, one wonders whether the GOP congressmen and the right wing pundits really do want the sequester to go through. Are they hoping they can just blame any resulting chaos on President Obama and then try to use it against him in the midterms next year? If so, this would just be a repeat of the failed GOP policies inflicted during the first Obama Administration - obstruct and oppose everything and try to blame the mess on the President. Wasn't a winning strategy in 2012, was it?
Conservatives want the sequestraton to go through because it's the ONLY way to force Washington to even reduce the rate of growth in spending.
The Sequestration still gives the US Govt an increase over FY2012 of $188 BILLION dollars to the Budget.
We need a budget cut of 1-1.5 Trillion this year to actually show they are serious about fiscal responsibility.
A 1 Trillion dollar cut would put the budget back at the FY2008 level. That's how much Obama and the other marxist Democrats have increased spending.
Conservatives had an opportunity to reduce spending considerably in 2011 and chose to reject it. That was when John Boehner's work with President Obama was thrown out the window in a temper tantrum that resulted in a credit downgrade for the country.
You sound like you're hoping sequestration will go through. That's a pretty ballsy position to be taking.
Nice try on the name calling. It doesn't help your cause.
....sounds pretty much like the current batch of DNC leadership of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the other asshats with a (D) at the end of their names.
Sequestration needs to happen because budget cuts need to happen. America cannot afford to go another $5 trillion in debt like it did over the past four years.
DavidBan keeps thinking this is a Dem vs Rep. It is not. The question is this: "Should America continue on the path of deficit spending? We all know the answer is, "No" and we all know that everyone will have to cut back in order to get the mess straighten out.
...in a word..."Duh"
Namecalling with "Marxism" and "asshats", and that lovely grouping of anyone "with a (D) at the end of their names" will not allow anyone to make much of a case for their opinion.
Sequestration does not need to happen, provided that the Congress can do its job and come up with a real solution. Sequestration was intended as the consequence of them not doing their job. It appears right now that the GOP is willing to not do their job just to score some political points. Not sure that the approach will work for anyone.
The issue of Dem vs GOP is that the Dems have actually been trying to negotiate and get something done, but the GOP has been folding their arms and just saying "NO!" for several years now. The issue at hand isn't the deficit spending, since President Obama has repeatedly proposed ways to deal with it. And that increased spending during a recession was what kept things from completely bottoming out. One must suppose that the people who opposed that spending would have preferred to see the country go into a complete depression. The GOP could have tried to blame that on Obama but it would have been a matter of pouring gasoline around a burning house and then blaming another resident for not having enough fire extinguishers.
I would agree with that last comment. "Duh" is right. The GOP should learn from their mistakes and actually take some time to do their jobs in Congress. It might work out better for them in the next electoral cycles.
...one must offer pity to those who live in their ideological bubbles of DNC & GOP.
Maybe if I would have offered a critique of the GOP, it would have given a 'warm fuzzy' to those whose ridged caveman-like mentality is "Ugh...Ugh...Dems are good, Reps are bad...Ugh...Ugh."
And while the current crop of GOP politicians are equally at fault (and as equally inept) as their DNC cohorts, I do not see their pie holes in front of the microphones 24/7 stating they want to raise $1 trillion more in tax revenues (Pelosi) or that critical portions of the nation's infrastructure are going to be crippled (Obama). All the while the truth is that the overall budget is being cut by less than three percent.
...yes 'Duh' is right, DNC should stop spending our taxpayer money like it is their right to take it and spend it.
Oh...and BTW, Marxist & asshats is not name calling; it is considered an accurate identification of ideology & mentality.
Don't think anyone said that the situation is automatically "GOP Bad, Dems Good, Fire Bad". You were the one throwing insults at the Dems and calling them names. Calling someone an "asshat" is not an "accurate identification of ideology and mentality." It is a juvenile tactic of name-calling that one would expect on a school playground, not in a discussion of important political matters. Similarly, labeling a politician "Marxist" just because you dislike them is an empty attempt to attach a negative label. If you're serious re Marxism, you should check out what real Marxists today say about President Obama. To their thinking, he's way to the right of them.
As for GOP spokesmen and radio voices, they've been spouting their own talking points 24/7 for some time now. The newest one is a familiar refrain that we heard from the House GOP when they triggered the credit downgrade in 2011 - the Rush Limbaugh talking point that the sequester is a tiny fraction of the budget and won't have that much of an effect. That's their "I don't care anyway!" argument and it's clearly meant to frighten the Dems into caving. Since we know that won't work, the GOP will have a choice between owning the consequences of the sudden cuts, or behaving like adults and actually doing their jobs for a change.
@davidban
So where is the budget Obama promised ohhhh he was playing golf with Tiger Woods wasn't he. You liberal folks are quick to pass blame on the republican and give this guy a pass. Why ummmm!!! lets see oh I get it he's black and you white liberals {blacks as well} do not expect much from him right. And to be honest with you COMRADECHAOS IS RIGHT
LGSTO, what a happy, happy post you've contributed.
If you were truly interested in the budgets President Obama submitted, you could do a google search that would take you all of maybe 5.3 seconds. You'd find he's repeatedly done so, and that the House GOP has ignored them in favor of much more extreme ideas that have no chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law. This has been going on for years, which you might know if you were looking past the right wing headlines for the past couple of weeks.
I don't recall giving President Obama a pass, nor do I see the relevance of whether he played golf on the weekend with a pro. (Nor do I see it as much of a story for anyone that he did.)
If you believe that the person posting as Comrade Chaos is indeed correct, please state the facts that support your assertion. Just throwing in an exclamation point does not your argument make.
...so Americans should be thankful that under Obama the debt rose by $5.9 trillion instead of $8.4 trillion?
...yeah...thanks a bunch...
No, CC, Americans should be thankful that the Dems didn't follow the hardline right wing course of just watching the entire system collapse. Had they done that, we would still be at the bottom of a depression and the GOP would have attempted to run with that in 2012.
September 17, 2012
Majority in U.S. Still Say Government Doing Too Much
PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of Americans (54%) continue to believe the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses, although that is down from the record high of 61% earlier this summer.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157481/majority-say-government-doing.aspx
Is the country headed in the right direction?
37.2% - right direction
56.0% - wrong track
6.8% - too stoned to care.
Latest polls...52% approval rating for Obama; 14% approval rating for Congress.
Now, where's the problem?
Sorry stone6, but approval rating (likability) of Prez-0 has nothing to do with the out of control spending by his administration & Congress.
How is America going to tackle a $17 trillion dollar deficit when it can't even agree on a measly ~2 % budget cut?
Approval ratings, in a political system that elects its representatives, is VERY Important...particularly when they tend to confirm a recent election. Are you suggesting the minority should win?
No one disagrees that current spending levels are too high for the size of the current economy. The disagreement is over how to improve the economy and that is basically regarding Keynesian economics vs. Reaganomics.
Obama is pushing for higher taxes and government spending as both economic stimulus and to lay the foundations of a new infrastructure to make us more competitive in the global economy. Republicans are complaining that that is not the role of government and a reduction in spending, to put more money in the hands of the "investment class" is the way to improve the economy.
If Reaganomics EVER WORKED, it was in the context of a domestic economy and a relationship between economic growth and low unemployment rates. Both of those principles have substantially changed with the growth of technology, the end of communism, and the free flow of capital investment around the world.
The interests of global investors and national investors have diverged. If you expect a prosperity that improves the lot ofd ALL of us, it will require investing in a new business model, based on new infrastructure.
That costs money.
P.S. What we have experienced is the "perfect storm," increased spending for the rising social program costs and wars combined with an economic recession, reducing revenue. We can correct the imbalance over time...which is really what the financial markets want to see...a long term plan to return to fiscal sanity. Doesn't have to be done tomorrow. We really took 30 years to get to this position...we can afford to take 20 to get out.
What would be worse would be to try and correct it too quickly, based on another unsustainable "bubble" economy. Build slowly and surely.
Approval ratings are merely stats that can be slanted in the direction of those wanting to use them.
@STONE6
P.S. What we have experienced is the "perfect storm," increased spending for the rising social program costs and wars combined with an economic recession, reducing revenue. We can correct the imbalance over time...which is really what the financial markets want to see...a long term plan to return to fiscal sanity. Doesn't have to be done tomorrow. We really took 30 years to get to this position...we can afford to take 20 to get out.
What would be worse would be to try and correct it too quickly, based on another unsustainable "bubble" economy. Build slowly and surely.
Why yes stone we can spend our way out of debt in 20 years like we are doing now right then we we la be in utopia.
Obama and the Dems are moaning now about Sequestration but look how Obama framed it in a Press Release after the deal was signed
Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline
Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline
Removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;
Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;
Establishes a bipartisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;
Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs
Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.
The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.
Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.
The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people
Did you actually read that statement? It totally disproves your points.
The whole idea was that the Congress was supposed to have an incentive to make a much better deal. The sequester was intended as a disincentive for either side to act in bad faith. Unfortunately, the GOP acted in bad faith and scuttled the bipartisan committee that was working on this issue. And now, instead of trying to do anything about the situation, they've fled DC and are shouting "It's his fault!" at Obama over their shoulders. Not much of a way of governing the country, is it?
How did republicans scuttle the committee? Where was Obama? You do know the President to call congress into session, why didn't he?
As you must now NCS, the GOP hardliners refused to negotiate with the Dems, saying that they would not go for any taxes, which of course blew the whole point of the committee. So the Dems were left negotiating with themselves and the committee fell apart in disarray.
Where was President Obama? He was at the White House doing his job, unlike the GOP hardliners who decided they'd rather honor Grover Norquist than their duty. President Obama can't tell any committee to reconvene - we do have this thing called Separation of Powers. It's built into this document called the Constitution. If you were watching the 2011 Congress, you would have seen the members read most of it into the record on the first day.
@davidban
What part of bi-partisan committee did you not understand
LGSTO - Not sure what you're asking here. You of course are aware that the bi-partisan committee was derailed by the GOP members refusing to negotiate with the Dem members, right? You do know that the committee broke up when the GOP members essentially told their non-GOP colleagues that taxes could not be part of the discussion, thus making sure that the committee could discuss nothing but the GOP agenda items. Which left the Dems effectively negotiating with themselves and the whole thing sputtered out at that point. But you knew that already, didn't you?
With debt looming because of the tax cuts, this $1.2 trillion cut in spending is not even close to enough. More revenue will have to be generated. Tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthy are going to be taken away.
Many studies have proven that taxing the rich, even at 100%, will do very little to close the deficit gap. It will have almost no affect on the debt. It's simple math. So take the "tax breaks" and whatever away.
Revenues do have to go up. Three things need to happen to reduce our debt. One is the economy needs to grow. That will happen eventually no matter what any sitting President does or doesn't do. The second is the big one. Taxes, direct or indirect, on the middle class have to go up. For instance, you can tax 20,000 "rich" people $50,000, or you can tax 50 million middle class people $500. You do the math and see which one can actually reduce the debt. The third is inflation. The only way to lessen the effects of $17 trillion in debt is to cause inflation. It's the government's only long term choice. Invest your money accordingly.
There is plenty of money still available from the top 2% before we have to raise taxes on the middle class.
J.,
Sounds like you've bought into Obama's class warfare. Go ahead and tax the "rich". It won't do a thing to reduce debt. It will penalize people for being successful. Not very American.
We are all going to pay the tab. If you don't believe it, then you've been drinking too much kool-aid.
Class warfare is over, the middle class won. Go back to the tax rates before Reagan and little Bush mucked them up. Top rate was 70%.
J.
Okay. I not sure what "winning" means in this case. Then what do you propose to do to actually reduce our debt? Or do we just keep spending into oblivion?
A deficit has TWO components, revenue and spending. Revenue needs to go up while spending needs to go down. This is a no-brainer.
J.,
Yeah right. Very novel approach. Where is the revenue supposed to come from? "Rich" people don't have enough money for us to
stealtax to pay for all of it. So where do these "revenues" come from?The Money will come from people that have money. Taxing people that don't have money does not work.
J.,
That would be the middle class and rich people then. Good answer.
J. - you do realize that companies are cutting peoples work hours back to less than 30 hours per week to avoid the regulations imposed by the ACA, which was a piece of legislation pushed by Democrats and Obama, don't you? Some of those same people are now on food stamps and other social programs as a result and may face further financial difficulties in the future as a result.
You said it yourself: "Taxing people that don't have money does not work". Through the stroke of a pen on the ACA legislation, Obama removed the ability of some citizens to be productive taxpaying citizens.
To complicate matters futher, insurance companies have been increasing premiums that employer/employees must pay for insurance. Some employers have dropped insurance coverage and now employees are having to forgo medical care, go through the ER, indebt themselves for medical care that has been proven time and again as over-priced when it comes to uninsured patients.
Not one action to turn the economy around has come out of this administration that hasn't had a negative impact.
the president has no one to blame but himself if the economy tanks - he caused this mess - he can clean it up - or better yet, resign and let somebody who knows what they are doing take over.....
Nice try m. You lost the election. Get over it. Better to work with this President, as the Dems did with George W. Bush for years, than to be forever tarred as the party that only wanted to say no.
m,
That's right. You lost the election so it doesn't matter how bad the President screws up the economy. After all, he was elected. That makes him right.
On the bright side, you don't have to accept any blame for what happens. The Progressives own it.
Bush tried and tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie and thereby bring the rest of the home loan business under control and democrats blocked his every effort.
That's not exactly what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, regardless of how the GOP hardliners and pundits wish we would remember it. Look into that one a little more closely.
Yes, there were isolated things here and there where the Dems didn't give George W. Bush EVERYTHING he wanted. They appropriately had issues with John Bolton, who Bush snuck through on a recess appointment. They didn't let him privatize Social Security, which would have resulted in financial ruin when his recession really set in. They didn't approve a few of his worst judicial choices.
But they let him do the overwhelming majority of things he wanted to do. They let him have his two Supreme Court nominees even after one of them openly lied to the congressional panel. They approved his wars. They approved just about everything he wanted, and when he didn't get his way on a few things, he and the right wing press accused the Dems of not working with him. One imagines that President Obama would be happy to have the GOP practice that same amount of "not working with him" rather than the total obstruction we've seen since they started throwing their tantrums in 2008 and 2009.
The Bush administration complained a lot about the undue lobbying influence the GSEs had in Congress and the accounting scandals, which involved "double bookkeeping" on profits to justify executive bonuses. On a more philosophic basis, they were concerned about the "moral hazard" of a quasi-government orhganization being immune from failure and requiring a tax-payer bailout.
But, they never complained specifically about excessive sub-prime lending. In fact, in 2004, at the height of subprime lending, they urged the GSE's to participate MORE in sub-prime underwriting and securitization, telling them they should be leading the market, to support the Bush home ownership goals.
So, Atavist, would you like to repeat the mistakes of the GOP over the first Obama Administration then? Would you like to just fold your arms, stamp your foot and yell "NO!" to anything President Obama or the Dems do? Would you like to campaign on that winning strategy of "Well, I didn't vote for that"? Because it sounds like that's your approach.
As you no doubt already know, my comment about Obama having won the election was a direct answer to an angry right winger telling him to resign. We're only a month into his 2nd term and the right wing already has this stuff roiling. Truly a shame.
The Repubs have their problems just like the Dems do. Every President has to find a way to work with Congress. Obama seems to lack this talent. It's called leadship. Clinton did just fine at working with Congress. He didn't always get what he wanted, but he got stuff done.
The Repubs are stubborn. They actually want to control spending. Obama wants to tax more. The right answer is in the middle. At the end of the day it's Obama's responsibility to make it work. If he can't, then people elected the wrong guy.
Obama is not fiscally responsible. He apparently doesn't know how to budget or control spending. Maybe he is more interesting in securing His Legacy. His first big mistake was forcing through Obamacare. It was very unwise to upset our entire health care system in the middle of the biggest recession since the Depression. It has contributed to paralyzing businesses and the economy. It created huge uncertainty at the worse time. But it's part of His Legacy. No one, including the CBO, has been able to show how it will be paid for. We all know really. We will all pay for it in the end.
When the CBO Director was asked last week during a Senate Budget Committee hearing how much additional deficit reduction was needed (in addition to the sequester cuts) to get onto a sustainable financial track for the federal government, he had a simple answer - around $5 trillion over the next 10 years or so.
The CBO is already projecting pretty good GDP growth over the next 10 years so we are not going to be able to grow our way out of the problem. There is no way to get more than a very small portion of that big number by just taxing high income folks a little more. So it boils down to a combination of two choices, much higher taxes on the middle class and/or very deep federal budget spending cuts. Those in the middle class are going to have to start paying for the government programs and benefits they desire. My guess is they will vote for limited tax increases and deep spending cuts.
Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress from 1996 on, during Clinton's terms. Big difference. Plus, Clinton had Rubin, Summers and Greenspan, all of whom agreed with the deregulation of financial markets. To some degree, BOTH Clinton and Bush relied on the expansion of government revenue via unsustainable "bubble economies." Clinton's economic policies brought on the dot.com recession; Bush's, the housing/credit recession.
Peter - didn't the CBO predict a $5.6 trillion surplus over ten yeats in 2001? Wasn't that projection the basis for the Bush tax cuts? Ten years is a iong time in today's world...they're better on 2 to 4 years...but would have missed that badly in 2001.
P.S. You can't squeeze water from a stone. The middle class would happily pay additional taxes, IF they were making enough to pay taxes. They'll continue to vote for social programs, which become MORE important to them, as their wages fall. And,, they'll vote to raise taxes on the upper brackets to help pay for those programs, whether it makes sense or not, and borrow the rest.
Nice perspective, Atavist. Very right wing of you.
I'll note that I agree with you that both the GOP and the Dems have all sorts of problems. I also agree with you that the right answer is in the middle.
However, the cheap shot at Obama for "lacking leadership" (another right wing meme) simply doesn't hold water. The fact is that the GOP higher-ups made a decision in 2009 before he was even in the Oval Office that they would try to obstruct him at every turn. This isn't a secret - it's a well-known fact that this was the chosen GOP strategy to undermine President Obama and hopefully keep him from being re-elected. When you have one side in a negotiation refusing to negotiate, it's rather difficult to get anything done. And the GOP knew this when they folded their arms and just said NO as many times as they could. Rush announced that he hoped Obama would fail and the right wing media then declared Obama a "failed President" as soon as they could, as though that would make their hope a reality.
Bill Clinton's relationship with Congress was quite rocky, as evidenced by Newt Gingrich's sneering contempt for him at that time, and by the impeachment proceedings. Clinton's talent was taking GOP positions as his own, thus leaving the opposition solely with their personal dislike of him. Newt may have taken a different tack during his failed campaign last year, but even Rush Limbaugh still has an unabashed hatred of Clinton. We must remember that it was during the Clinton presidency that the GOP tried the wild stunt of shutting down the government only to see it blow up in their faces.
You're correct that the GOP is stubborn, but it's not just because they want to control spending. President Obama has also proposed ways to control spending, but they rejected those in 2011. The choice at that time was to see if they could blame any fiscal consequences on Obama and then campaign against him with them. Their other option would have been to compromise and get some real budget work done, but that would have meant they would be giving Obama something he could campaign with in 2012 and that wasn't going to happen.
At the end of the day, the Obama Administration will be remembered for the fact that he did get things done but had to fight every day for every one of them against a Congress that was dedicated to blocking him on a personal and partisan basis. The notion that "people elected the wrong guy" is the same right wing meme we hear from pundits who say it was the "low information" voters who re-elected him.
President Obama has indeed shown fiscal responsibility, particularly in the work he did with John Boehner to address all these issues before the House GOP rejected the work. (See above) I don't know that it's Obama who is more interested in his Legacy than the GOP hardliners and pundits who are obsessed with denying him one.
The Affordable Care Act was not a mistake, although most Americans did wish (as shown through polling) that he would have stood up for the Single Payer system we'll eventually have in a few years. The problem there was that Obama was trying to negotiate with the GOP to get this passed, and their actual position was that they wanted to kill the idea in committee the same way they did when Hillary Clinton tried the same thing in the 90s. Had the GOP gotten what they wanted, they would have defeated the idea before it could come to a vote and thus allow them to campaign on the idea of "He can't even get anything through the Congress!" When the bill actually got through and was signed, the GOP was infuriated and immediately declared the matter a huge mistake for Obama.
The paralysis of the economy has been partly due to the depth of the recession, partly due to banks being unwilling to make big loans after getting burned, and partly due to the uncertainty caused by GOP congresspeople and pundits who proudly discuss shutting down the government and not paying our bills just to score cheap points. You're correct that this will be remembered as part of President Obama's legacy, but the intransigence of the GOP will be a big part of it. People will remember these 8 years as a large black eye on the GOP because instead of participating in government and trying to be a part of the solution, they instead chose to throw a public tantrum. It's an unfortunate mistake for them, and one that hopefully they'll learn not to repeat in the future.
David,
I'm not "right wing". I'm all about the numbers. Yes, there is a war between both parties. I disagree about the Repubs only being at fault in negotiations. It has been clear to me that Obama has an ego problem. Even before this current round of sequester negotiations, Obama came out public and spoke in euphemisms that taxing the rich must be a part of the sequester outcome. Period. He dug his heels in publicly. In my opinion that just exacerbates the tension. His closed door sessions with Boehner last time around was a bad mistake. I think Boehner learned from that. Obama needs to work with all of Congress openly and through channels. He can't always have what he wants. And threatening to use Executive Orders to get around Congress doesn't help. We wields them like a threat. That's not what I call leadership.
stone - the middle class will not "happily pay additional taxes" under any scenario. Europe realized long ago that the only way to fund "big government" was through a consumption tax, a VAT. Anyone in Congress that would even suggest such a plan to fund the federal government had better be ready for retirement.
Absent big tax hikes, the credit markets will force spending cuts here just as they did in Greece. Even with the sequester cuts in place, the CBO projects that by 2023 our total national debt to GDP ratio will be above 100%. It is after the next ten years that Medicare really begins to hammer the federal budget because of baby boomer retirements. There is no free lunch. We cannot continue to add debt at this rate forever. At some point you run out of money to borrow, even at high interest rates. The sooner we begin to pare down the size of the federal government and the cost of funding it, the less draconian the final solutions will need to be.
That was the same CBO that projected a $5 trillion surplus by the end of the Bush administration.
Peter - we basically agree on the long-term. But Europeans combine a VAT with high income taxes, which "balances" their regressive nature. If you want to raise the upper bracket tax rates, I'll buy into the VAT tax.
On how much credit do we have? Surely you aren't comparing tiny, corrupt Greece, with 55 year old retirement ages with the United States are you?
And, although I don't know what the rates are now, but a year or so ago, Greek debt to GDP ratio was 150%+, yet you could still buy Greek bonds that paid 30% return. We're not close to 150% and our bond rates are virtually nothing. Nor, does Greece still have its own currency. In sum, it is a bit of a stretch to use Greece as an analogy regarding the future of the U.S. economy.
You will agree, I believe, that the Fed is now in the process of "monetizing the debt." You want to hoard the money you already have and not invest it in this economy, to crerate jobs? Fine...then expect the Fed to "steal" your savings through devaluing the dollars you hold, while simultaneously increasing exports by making them less expensive to purchase.
I believe the phrase is "use it or lose it."
We are not going back to an economy based on the mass consumption of the past. That means a new business model based not on consumer credit, but new manufacturing technologies to provide for high value added exports abroad...as we've discussed and with which you have agreed in the past.
Gearing up for that new business model means no more "drags on the economy," wherein the only time low unemployment can be achieved is through a "boom" of some sort and a temporary unsustainable economy, based on overvalued assets. While not completely abandoning financial services and their involvement in a global economy, it does mean shifting capital investment from there back to our own economy...in educational and health care reform, to prepare for global competition in the 21st century.
However, until such time has that new model is constructed, those impac ted by the recession and unemployed due to a lack of skills or education have to at least be housed, clothed and fed. As the economy recovers, those costs will be reduced.
stone - the problem is that events are moving more rapidly than you seem to suggest. Just today the Fed minutes indicate growing concern over the their asset purchases of bonds. Interest rates are beginning to rise. Erskin Bowles noted that when interest rates get back to normal levels it will add an additional $400 billion of interest on the debt to the federal budget PER YEAR, up to about $650 billion. That would make interest payments equal to the defense budget, and that is just on the existing debt.
If we wanted an orderly progression to the new economy you note above, we should have started years ago.
In terms of the "use it or lose it" philosophy, I would point out that there are now brand new "absolute return" investing philosophies being deployed as alternatives to the traditional fixed income investments. The focus is on protecting principle while growing at just a percent or two above the inflation rate. Economic theory works fine until it doesn't. Just ask the folks who predicted that we would NEVER see a big drop-off in property values.
Atavist, for someone who is not right wing, you're doing a superlative job of quoting their talking points. So I would have to wonder if you're self-identifying as libertarian or "independent conservative" in the way that Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity regularly do. And in both of their cases, their positions pretty much follow the plan of what can help the right wing and the GOP the most. And this isn't the same thing as the right wing pundits who regularly call President Obama "socialist" or "marxist". Those are more extreme labels. "Right wing" is not an extreme label, any more than "left wing" is.
I would agree that President Obama has an ego, as do all people who seek the highest office. Kind of comes with the territory. Is he more egotistical than George W. Bush and his statements about spending political capital or being "the decider"? Is he more egotistical than George H.W. Bush yelling "Read my lips! No! New! Taxes!" Is he more egotistical than Bill Clinton? I don't think so. He's pretty much in the ballpark with all the others.
I don't have an issue with principled opposition, but that's not what the GOP has obviously been doing since 2009. The closed door meetings with John Boehner were to allow the two men to work out a solution that both men could present to their various party members. It was a solution that neither man loved but both could live with it. That's the entire point of negotiation and compromise. When Obama brought his part of it out, he was able to convince his people to go with it. When Boehner brought his part to the House GOP, they immediately and petulantly rejected it out of hand. Several of them made statements that they would rather shut down the government. It became obvious that the GOP members farther over to the extreme side had decided to make sure that Obama couldn't campaign on that Grand Bargain, and if this meant the US credit rating suffered, so be it. We all saw the unfortunate results of their tantrum.
You're correct that no President gets everything he wants. And President Obama has repeatedly, repeatedly compromised with the GOP in trying to get things passed. The GOP response has regularly been to push away from the table, fold their arms and demand more capitulation from him. Their purpose has never been to work with him - they've stated multiple times in public that their purpose was to limit him to a single term. Now that he's won a 2nd term, they seem to be trying to just make as much of a mess out of his Presidency as they can. It's not an organized mess, I'll give you that. The GOP seems to be in complete disarray about how they can move forward. But I haven't seen anyone actually trying to work with the Dems.
As for the Executive Orders, President Obama isn't the first President to use them or to announce he would do so. George W. Bush did so, Clinton did so, Reagan did so. Obama won't be the last, either. It's just interesting that the party out of power is always the one that makes the most noise about it.
Not sure I understand what's new about that type of investment philosophy...tax free munis accomplished basically the same thing. I've always considered a "fixed income" to be pension and social security income that did not grow as fast as safe low risk investment income.
I see the shift into equities which are beginning to pay competitive dividends to bonds that are being recalled and reissued at lower rates of return.
But, that will eventually pass, as global demand slowly returns and those profits have to go toward expansion to meet demand, rather than in dividends to investors.
Haven't caught up with today's news. I feel reasonably comfortable with Bernanke and the Fed and that they will begin an upward movemenbt in interest rates to counter any substantial increase in inflation. Bowles? Ah, you mean the DINO Bowles, who married into a huge textile company...and tinkers at being a Democratic intellectual.
Hahaha...kidding aside...he has a valid concern...don't know how urgent it is. Simpson-Bowles 2.0 seems to be another version of Republicans "doubling down" on their failures.
And how many of the European Union countries are currently undergoing unrest over austerity cuts? Three or four? Too many peole become used to government handouts. It's time for the USA to make the cuts as well. Even it it means unrest. The middle class can't keep working until they drop just so the majority of citizens can get their entitlement checks each month.
I have a co-worker who is a Democrat and he openly admits that he is in favor of the government's entitlement programs becasue that means he doesn't have to take responsiblity for his future. He spends all his money and looks forward to the day that he can retire and start drawing all his government entitlements.
Everybody PAYS for social security and Medicare. You need to define exactly what programs you would scrap and which you would retain.
stone - these are not the same as tax-free munis. They involve a portfolio of products designed to hedge against higher interest rates, and they include hedge funds, MLPs and other more sophisticated investments.
While it is true that everyone pays into SS and gets benefits based on payroll tax contributions, the amount paid into Medicare is nowhere near what it takes to fund the benefit, and never did even on day 1 of its existence. Everyone gets the same benefit and everyone is covered when you turn 65.
Hmmm...out of my league. Side bets as insurance. My general feeling is that making investors rich and richer should be a by-product of genuine economic growth that results in "a tide that lifts all boats," NOT simply protecting existing wealth.
If I didn't believe in ALL of this country's people and its very soil...I could go live in Switzerland or Luxembourg, both of which are very comfortable places to live.
I think we'd agree on social security...i.e. it's a relatively minor problem and will "right itself" once we get over the baby boomer generation and back to a low, but more uniform population growth. Medicare is THE problem...agreed. It won't go away...the retired LIKE THEIR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, which is basically what it is. Rather than scrap it, I think we are probably going to have to resolve the problem through a combination of cutting costs, paying more, and public education that emphasizes good health practices and teaches that we can't all run to the doctor for every little aliment...and, of course, as a last result, larger insurance pools (private or public) that allow the healthier young fund the care required by retirees.
And AvgJoe pulls the "Dems are takers" card with the charming story of the craven co-worker who intends to leach off the system, I don't doubt there are both Dems and GOP people who would do the same - it's not a partisan thing. There are also plenty of both Dems and GOP retireees who are very happy with their SS and Medicare benefits and would resist seeing them cut. Doesn't make them "takers".
DavidBan - My co-worker has always claimed that he voted for Democrats because he is only interested in his entitlements. If I had a Republican co-worker make that claim then I would not had to identify the political party. I have noted though that you take a great deal of effort to lambast Republicans in your postings. BTW - I am an independent voter. I have no political party preference. I vote with facts, not emotion. As for: "...both Dems and GOP retireees who are very happy with their SS and Medicare benefits...", did they actually earn them or are they takers who used the system? I know retirees that didn't plan for retirement and I'm sure they are happy with their SS and Medicare benefits as well. Social programs are the bane of the economy. People need to be responisible for themselves. I don't want to see my hard-earned income taxed, then have it wasted by poor government spending.
Interesting post, AvgJoeTX. You smear your co-worker and Dems at the same time, and then you claim you're voting only with facts, not emotion. That's a little hard to believe, frankly.
My comments regarding GOP obstruction are a discussion of the factual record. It doesn't take "a great deal of effort" to remember the facts of what has been happening in this country's political environment for some time now. The point of my posts has been as a corrective to people who have been making wild, unsupported statements apparently with the intention of smearing politicians with whom they disagree. When these statements are left unanswered, it allows others to assume that the unchallenged assertions, even when untrue, must have some grain of accuracy. So I see my contributions as simply correcting the record and avoiding confusion for people coming a little late to the discussion.
It sounds like you believe that people who make use of Social Security and Medicare are "takers" and that these programs are "poor government spending." If that's correct, are you saying you'd prefer to do away with these programs? You'd prefer for retirees who worked all their lives and paid into the system to fend for themselves for their health care and for their income? In some cases, I can understand if you're talking about someone who has retired as a multi-millionaire and doesn't need to be trying to draw a check from SS. But if you're talking about, say, a factory worker who never made that kind of money, who raised a family and paid for his kids' schooling, etc, and who retires with either a small pension or no pension due to the company going under, is that person to be told "Tough luck. You should have saved a lot more money"?
You say that you don't have any political party preference. Let's put that to the test. Are you saying that you're truly an independent, meaning that you don't vote for Dems or GOP in the general elections except maybe in rare cases? Or are you saying that you're more of the libertarian right wing, which most right wing pundits claim to be? In that case, you'd be a lot more likely to vote for a GOP candidate or maybe a libertarian one than for a Dem at any time. In my case, I've only voted for a major party candidate in one election since 1998. In three presidential elections, I chose to vote for independent candidates since neither of the major party candidates had addressed my concerns. Can you say the same?
70% of corporations pay zero corporate income tax. Lower the rate significantly, but make it a flat tax.
J.
Fine, I'll trade ya. Corporations pay more and the 47% of Americans that don't pay any Federal Income Tax must pay at least something.
Most of that "47%" pay the payroll tax, which most wealthy do not.
J.,
I wish all that I had to pay was payroll tax. That would be grand! I think "rich" people wish they could do that too.
Perhaps you should think about Larry's solution...renouncing his citizenship and moving his businesses overseas?
Or, consider yourself fortunate to be able to contribute to building a future, stronger U.S. economy.
Many if not all of the wealthy get their income from their investments. Apparently some of you don't get out much but if the "wealthy" pays tax on their income, it has gone up to near 40% and the return on their investments has gone to 20% from the previously 15% rate. That is unless I missed something and Obama did not sign that.
Nobody pays the top rate (39.6%) just the standard deduction alone lowers the effective rate, not to mention home mortgage interest, property and sales tax etc.
You mean the increase on capital gains for those in the top 1%...right?
Shelia Bair, a conservative Republican and former head of the FDIC, recommends eliminating all special capital gains rates and treating capital gains as ordinary income. She estimates that would add $90 billion/yr. to revenue.
Excellent idea stone6.
That is not the point, Obama wanted tax increases and promised 3 for one in return in spending cuts. He got his tax increases and in return has promised spending cuts in the form of cuts in programs that were ending already and a 700 billion cut to medicare that wasn't a cut prior to elections.
Now he is coming back and demanding more taxes with no spending cuts in return.
Raising capital gains taxes would probably affect the retired more than anybody of course democrats don't really care about the elderly.
It would impact the retired less than cutting their social security checks. Roughly two-thirds of those on social security depend upon it as their sole or primary source of income. These are the sort of trade-offs, we're going to face.
Obama wanted higher tax rates for those at $250K and above, but settled for the $450K "compromise. Anyone know what the lost revenue is estimated at for that compromise? Think he might settle for additional revenue increases that would make up that loss?
The tax increases so far are about $60 billion per year. Plenty more to come with a deficit of $1 trillion per year. Spending cuts alone will NEVER close the gap.
As a part-time small businessman who has a full-time job as well, I get "dinged" at tax time if I have over $400 profit from my small business. It doesn't matter that I paid more into taxes from my full-time job that would cover my tax liability for both jobs. In essence, I get hit with a tax rate that significantly impacts my profits. I'd gladly take a flat 10% tax than have the BS tax code that is a dis-incentive to small business.
Marroitt - good point. No reasonable person, in either Party, expects a "balanced budget" for at least 5 to 10 years.
AvgJoeTx - talk to a tax consultant.
J. - "Most of that "47%" pay the payroll tax, which most wealthy do not".
At one time I actually got money back that i didn't pay in, because of various allowed credits. In fact, many people in the poverty level get those same credits today. Free money and no work required. How about we end the credits for that 47%? Let them get a tax refund on taxes they overpaid. The money saved by the government on tax credits can amount to quite a large amount of money. Over 10 years it may even be significant.
A careful and judicious removal of tax credits for all taxpayers would result in significant cost savings for the government. It would also be a great first step toward ending the entitlements. People will not make efforts to help themselves unless they are forced to. Keeping people on the dole is not good for the country.
Capital gains are tricky. Realistically they are gains made on investments that were purchased to earn income so it is much the same as a workers earnings only people with capital gains don't get their hands dirty. I believe the whole situation with capital gains being treated differently is that generally the investment purchased that makes the gains is purchased with funds that have already been taxed. I guess they could be taxed the same as your 401K payouts which were tax deferred funds at time of investment but become taxable income when drawn out. But yes generally you will be affecting the retired more than the average working man who does not make enough these days to invest.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is a welfare program that encourages work and supplements low wages with welfare. Do away with that and you'll turn those receiptants back to purely welfare programs, usually at the State level, that do not encourage work.
Marriott - the problem is that the income from both jobs drives me into a higher tax bracket. The side business hasn't grown to the point that I can quite the full time job. Part of the problem has been the economy. No one wants to spend money that they may need for food later. When I started the business in 2006 things looked good, but the recession has dried up everything. To make matters worse, a former employer folded up his business in 2009 and owed employees hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. He owed me over $25,000 that I'll probably never see, despite liens on him.
stone6 - that's BS. It doesn't encourage work and it doesn't supplement low wages. The Earned Income Tax Credit is only paid when taxes are filed the following year. During the year there is no additional income paid the the citizen. By the time the citizen gets their refund, the refund will be spent on things they did without for nearly a year. As for state welfare programs not encouraging work...just look to the executive order Obama made, that encourages states not to require work for welfare. Now that's real sane fiscal planning <sarcasm>.
Mike from post 467.1
Just another lib/prog/soc whining about criticism of dear leader
Where are you when white libs berate black politicians? You're all slime.
RP - I wish you would have mentioned the liberals war on Republican women as well.
There running story after story out in Cal (mountainview, los altos, palo alto area) of the gigantic salaries of these "public servants" and all their overtime and double dipping..
Pretty embarrassing seeing they are out of money...
And the legacy cost are enough to float Greece, Italy, and Ireland to boot.
It's what happens when public officials are elected by public employees and their extended families.
Italy and California have comparable GDPs. Italy is the world's 8th largest national economy. If California were a nation, it would be about the same size - economically - as Italy.
Are you suggesting that there are voting "districts" (whether for Sheriff or Congressional representatives) where public employees and their "extended families" outnumber the rest of the voting population? Interesting.
But, what's your point? Do you want to do away with elections?
No, I'm claiming when unions are the largest voting block ( outside the unimformed voter, who is easily scared when they drag out police and fire to be props )and they back friendly politicians that negotiate sweetheart pensions and salaries with overtime, they dominate elections.
Unfortunately, the non-union public is not organized by anyone, and are to busy ( or dumb ) to care. As long as they have a job, they don't care.
But, I don't think they had any idea how much these "civil servants " make. Have open tryouts for these positions and see how many people will come out to do these jobs.
$190,000.00 a year for a police officer in a town where public drunkeness is the main crime is pretty good....don't ya think?
The mayor just retired with a pension over $200,000.00...Daaa
I don't disagree with you. Part of the problem is that we have local, relatively unsophisticated elected representatives, with limited legal and negotiating resources (and in SOME cases, corrupt) going up against national organizations with greater resources.
Sort of like a small business dependent on a huge corporation as a supplier. The large supplier, who is nominally subordinate to their customer, in reality has the clout to virtually dictate terms.
Not sure how we deal with this...other than through increased transparency AT THE TIME OF CONTRACT NEGOTIATION. A lot of these contracts would not withstand the "light of day." But, a good, fair contract will protect BOTH sides and drive neither into bankruptcy.
Sequester???? Obama proposed it and he signed it. Now he's attempting to blame the Republicans.
Obama is a cowardly lying sack of crap with the aid of his butt kissing media.....
Hey Obama, where are YOU'RE cuts??? Huh??? Hey Democrats, where is YOU'RE budget??? (none in over 3 years....Arrogance and Irresponsibility )...
Obama is the empty suit doofus president for the ignorant voter..... what a shame for the future of America.
obama the ass is pathetic....he is fast becoming a serial liar........someone in congress needs to step up to the plate and draw up articles of impeachment on this shiat president....he has done enough damage and the country won't survive another four years of this douchebag....nah...we will survive....i still think the american people will rise up and stop this ass obama.......
The President has submitted budgets to Congress each year he's been in office, although often late. As far as I can remember, the Senate voted one down, without giving it a single vote, primarily because they knew it would not be accepted by the Republican controlled House and voting it down would leave it open for negotiation.
The other time, a budget was actually voted on I believe was the Ryan Budget, which passed in the House and was voted down in the Senate.
Basically, it is the responsibility of the House to propose appropriations and then to send them to the Senate for approval. A Conference Committee composed of both Senate and House representatives works out differences, if any, and they are then voted on again and sent to the President for signing. If he doesn't like it, he may veto it, requiring both the Senate and House to overcome his veto by a two-thirds majority.
Sooo...in the first instance, a House bill should have some assurance of passing the Senate and in the second instance surviving a Presidential veto.
yeah stone we all know obama the ass isn't responsible for anything....
Why do you think it logically acceptable to take every point to its extreme? It's stupid Limbaugh Logic and, like Rush, you only show your own ignorance.
Did I write that "the President isn't responsible for anything?" I only pointed out that contrary to "jblasts" implication, the President has, in fact, submitted budgets every year he's been in office.
Do you disagree with that?
Why don't you go ask the Librarian for another ten minutes at the terminal and answer the question?
yep...and they've all been voted down by his Democratic Senate.
I think only once and gave my reasoning for it above. I don't think the others even came to a vote.
Economics 101
Never hire a socialist to run a capitalist country...
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Economics 101: Never cut taxes and then go to war. If the war is absolutely necessary, repeal the tax cut to pay for the war.
History 101: More empires and nations, in history, have become bankrupt by fighting wars that it could not afford, than due to overspending on its peoples.
The above story about the economics professor is an Internet myth. You can look it up on Snopes.
Nice try.
obama the ass is a feckin' liar.........if the sequester happens, the federal budget will not be slashed...it will be the same as last year.....and really.......police and fire and teachers typically receive their paychecks from local jurisdictions...not from the federal government.....yet that doesn't stop this liar obama from going out and threatening that they will be laid off........what a LIAR!!!!.....of course the loony libs refuse to deal with reality and the freeloaders and deadbeats don't give an eff.......
Last month it was the fiscal cliff, now it's sequestration, next month a government shutdown and in April it's a debt ceiling default. The republican teabaggers are economic Al Qaeda terrorists and they will continue to try to slit America's throat until the voters remove them from office.
You obviously need a med check. It's your dumbocrats policies of tax and spend, spend, spend that have us in this mess. You dumbocrats need to pull your head from the sand. Oh wait.....you like Obama giving you the business from behind don't you?
Who cares,bring it on,,,
Obama has as much a clue as a blind man trying to stroll across the 405 freeway during rush hour. Disaster is imminent and could be avoided if he presented a plan instead of taking vacations to play golf with Tiger Woods.
Please everyone!
Mr Obama has been the president now going on 5 years and he did sign the sequestration into law and must be totally responsible for this law, no do overs he owns it and it's his job to figure out the cuts no one else!! No passes, blame anyone you want but he signed this into law, he must know his job! Right!!!
Boehner owns the sequester.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/the-powerpoint-that-proves-it-s-not-obama-s-sequester-after-all.html
Not true Willard
@davidban
You missed the point your commander in chief criticized the congress for taking a recess while he went to play golf. But for the record his budgets are due by law February 1 of each year he has been late four out of five times. But any way your boy did not come back with alternative cuts {his fault } so now he demonizes the republicans what a sad little president. I hope they let it go through then you low life's can bitch about something else.
LGSTO, your comments make very little sense. I assume you're equating the President's activities on a national holiday when no governmental offices are in session with the behavior of the GOP House members who decided it would be a great plan to leave town for over a week right on the verge of what they have been saying would be a potential major problem for the country. Of course, they then started following the Rush Limbaugh talking point that hey, the sequester isn't a big deal at all, so let's just do it and not worry about it. One wonders if they'll be saying the same thing after they're being blamed for the consequences.
Not sure there's any point to your carping about when the President turns in his proposed budgets. Although you've just blown the position some of your friends here have taken - they've been accusing him of not even proposing any budgets. You might want to let the right wing folks here now that he actually has been proposing budgets, and it's nice that you've admitted that here.
As for your comment about the alternative cuts, you probably know that the President can't submit much of anything when the House GOP members have left town. They need to be present for anything to happen. Although we do know that President Obama has been trying to discuss the matter with Boehner and McConnell. We just don't know if Boehner can actually get the House GOP to agree to do anything other than watch the cuts go into effect and then desperately try to blame anyone else they can for the fallout.
As for your bizarre attempt at insulting the President by calling him "sad" and "little", I find it actually quite sad that this is your only response to the reasoned discourse people have been trying to have with you here.
Typical government confusion when they are only cutting the increase and not the current budgets.
obama negro is running america like he ran chicago. and they are doing great, RIGHT.
All a front to raise our taxes. Thanks POTUS. You are a joke!!! Worst President in our history by far. Coolidge has nothing on you and your socialist policies that are destroying our country.