[Big Mac]

In his forced address on the runaway deficit and debt crisis, President Obama once again trotted out his tired old class warfare mantra: No more tax cuts for "millionaires and billionaires." But his definition of a millionaire is, according to his own statements, a couple that makes over $250,000 a year (and presumably an individual who makes more than $200,000 a year). It's also insulting to me that he refers to this class as the "most fortunate among us," as if to imply that most people who have high incomes enjoy them because of good fortune instead of industriousness, ability and personal worthiness.

Doesn't the "millionaire and billionaire" demonization imply to Jon Q. Public that he's proposing to increase taxes on those who make $1,000,000 or more? If so, is it not pure, craven demagoguery to rhetorically target "millionaires and billionaires" while in truth proposing to hit people who make much less? Who else around here is exasperated with this tired, old despicable class warfare tactic by this arrogant, smirking jerk-off of a president?

[hyteckit]

I thought that's how Christians talk?

Don't Christians always thank God for their good fortune and pray for those who are less fortunate?

To me, he sounds like a Christian.

To you, he sounds like an arrogant, smirking jerk-off of a president.

[Chongo]

A great number of those making over $200K a year are small business owners. Enact the Fair Tax and be done with it.

[turtle777]

Obama has no clue what he is talking about. No clue at all.

-t

[Dork.]

You're right, its pointless class warfare. He should be raising taxes on everyone.

[Chongo]

How about cutting spending instead? (or at least freezing it) How high do tax rates have to go to satisfy the "tax the rich" crowd?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You're right, its pointless class warfare. He should be raising taxes on everyone.

Like all those other countries that successfully taxed themselves (back) to prosperity ?

-t

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How about cutting spending instead? (or at least freezing it) How high do tax rates have to go to satisfy the "tax the rich" crowd?

How about both?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

How about both?

Sure, that's just realistic.

But listening at those clowns in Washington right now, it seems like tax increases is the only thing that's gonna happens.Did you see how they just cut the Budget by measly $352M ? F*cktards.

-t

[olePigeon]

Raising taxes on the "rich" does nothing except create a financial barrier for middle class and business owners to increase their wealth. The rich generally don't have a normal paycheque, ergo income tax is negligible at any rate. That's why Warren Buffet pays 17% on $40 million in net revenue, and that 17% isn't going to change even if you make income tax 95%.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You're right, its pointless class warfare. He should be raising taxes on everyone.

The argument is that by taxing the job-creators and majority spenders, you're in essence taxing everyone. The top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes paid in. Should they be paying 60% of all taxes paid in? 70%? 80%? 100%? Then you mentioned taxing everyone, but I'm not sure you really believe this is a good idea during a recession. Isn't an 8+% unemployment rate already quite the "shared sacrifice"?

Let me pose the question another way; does your view of increasing taxes have any principled boundary or is it only contingent upon how much government spending occurs?

[ghporter]

Look at how the wealth is distributed, and tax based on that. I don't have the actual numbers handy, but I recall something about somewhere 80+% of the nation's wealth being held by something under 5% of the population. Should not those with the most wealth pay the most in taxes?

Having finally gotten established in my profession, I have moved up into an uncomfortable tax bracket. But corporations and the ultra-wealthy have a number of ways to make their actual taxes paid amount to a much lower percentage of their income than I paid.

I would really like to have paid less in taxes than GE, for example, but in REAL dollars, I paid a whole lot more than they did-GE apparently paid zero income tax for 2010' while I paid thousands. So while I'm not much for political rhetoric, I see the current crop of "Republicans" as being unrealistic about demanding "no tax increases." I want tax fairness, with our progressive taxation system actually working as intended so more wealthy people pay more in taxes (in real money, not just "before deductions and credits") than poorer people.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The argument is that by taxing the job-creators and majority spenders, you're in essence taxing everyone. The top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes paid in. Should they be paying 60% of all taxes paid in? 70%? 80%? 100%? Then you mentioned taxing everyone, but I'm not sure you really believe this is a good idea during a recession. Isn't an 8+% unemployment rate already quite the "shared sacrifice"?

Let me pose the question another way; does your view of increasing taxes have any principled boundary or is it only contingent upon how much government spending occurs?

As a country, we need to decide what we need the government to fund, and what it's appropriate for the government to fund. Part of that discussion needs to be how we're going to pay for all that, otherwise we're deluding ourselves.

If we decide that an activity is important enough for the Government to fund, then we are doing ourselves a disservice by not finding a way to pay for it. And if we decide that we can reduce taxes, then we do ourselves a disservice if we do not make sure that money can be released without affecting those things that we need the government to fund.

I'm not saying that we can't cut spending. I'm not saying that we need to boost revenue to match our current level of spending, either. I'm saying that attacking the issue on both ends is the prudent thing to do, and that we no longer have the luxury of considering all tax increases DOA.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

As a country, we need to decide what we need the government to fund, and what it's appropriate for the government to fund. Part of that discussion needs to be how we're going to pay for all that, otherwise we're deluding ourselves.

If we decide that an activity is important enough for the Government to fund, then we are doing ourselves a disservice by not finding a way to pay for it. And if we decide that we can reduce taxes, then we do ourselves a disservice if we do not make sure that money can be released without affecting those things that we need the government to fund.

I'm not saying that we can't cut spending. I'm not saying that we need to boost revenue to match our current level of spending, either. I'm saying that attacking the issue on both ends is the prudent thing to do, and that we no longer have the luxury of considering all tax increases DOA.

Exactly. There is no "principled boundary" for increasing taxes. It's contingent upon how much government spending you want to occur, which is where the principled boundary comes into play. One of the sillier aspects of the Republican platform is to divorce these realities, and assign what amounts to a moral imperative to lower taxes, when the difference in taxation that is commonly being argued over is relatively trivial, amounting to the difference between tax rates that existed 15-20 years ago and tax rates today.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

As a country, we need to decide what we need the government to fund, and what it's appropriate for the government to fund. Part of that discussion needs to be how we're going to pay for all that, otherwise we're deluding ourselves.

If we decide that an activity is important enough for the Government to fund, then we are doing ourselves a disservice by not finding a way to pay for it. And if we decide that we can reduce taxes, then we do ourselves a disservice if we do not make sure that money can be released without affecting those things that we need the government to fund.

I'm not saying that we can't cut spending. I'm not saying that we need to boost revenue to match our current level of spending, either. I'm saying that attacking the issue on both ends is the prudent thing to do, and that we no longer have the luxury of considering all tax increases DOA.

QFT.

And here's the really interesting part ....

A trick question: If Congress takes no action in coming years, what will happen to the budget deficit?

It will shrink — and shrink a lot. This simple fact may offer the best hope for deficit reduction.

As federal law currently stands, some significant tax increases are set to take effect in coming years. The most important is the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2012.

Of course, both parties favor the permanent extension of most of those tax cuts — the ones applying to income below $250,000. Both parties also oppose big cuts to the military, Social Security and Medicare, at least in the short term. Unfortunately, the deficit is likely to remain frighteningly large over the next decade without either cuts to those programs or tax increases.

....

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, he could simply refuse to sign any budget-busting tax cut for the rich — who, after all, have received much larger pretax raises than any other income group in recent years and have also had their tax rates fall more. Republicans, for their part, could again refuse to pass any partial extension.

And just like that, on Jan. 1, 2013, the Clinton-era tax rates would return.

This change, by itself, would solve about 75 percent of the deficit problem over the next five years. The rest could come from spending cuts, both for social programs and the military.

Over the longer term — 20 years — letting all of the Bush cuts lapse would close only about 40 percent of the budget gap. But 40 percent is a great start. No one is seriously suggesting that all deficit reduction should come from higher taxes. Much of it will have to come from slowing the growth rate of medical spending, which is the main cause of the long-term deficit.

To be clear, the end of the Bush cuts is not the ideal way to raise taxes. A better approach would be to close some tax loopholes while possibly even reducing rates. The tax code would then become simpler. Businesses and households would have to waste less effort trying to qualify for tax breaks.

Do-Nothing Congress as a Cure - Gridlock Could Eventually Shrink Deficit

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW's source NYT

Over the longer term — 20 years — letting all of the Bush cuts lapse would close only about 40 percent of the budget gap. But 40 percent is a great start.

I really would like to see the calculation behind that, because to me, it seems might exaggerated.

The current Budget deficit is almost $ 1.7 Trillion.
The Bush tax cuts are estimated to be worth $5 Trillion over 10 years => $0.5 Trillion per year

By my math, that's just under 30%. That's far away from eventually shrinking the deficit.

Now, I know how they came to that 40% number: they assumed that future deficits would be magically lower than todays. Bullshit. W/o any action, there will be no reduced deficits. So it's one of these optimistic scenarios that never come true. The nature of the beast is GRWOING deficits, it's been like this for years.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I really would like to see the calculation behind that, because to me, it seems might exaggerated.

The current Budget deficit is almost $ 1.7 Trillion.
The Bush tax cuts are estimated to be worth $5 Trillion over 10 years => $0.5 Trillion per year

By my math, that's just under 30%. That's far away from eventually shrinking the deficit.

Now, I know how they came to that 40% number: they assumed that future deficits would be magically lower than todays. Bullshit. W/o any action, there will be no reduced deficits. So it's one of these optimistic scenarios that never come true. The nature of the beast is GRWOING deficits, it's been like this for years.

-t

If one is going to tackle the short-term deficit then one has to be realistic about the fundamental causes of it:

- Bush Tax Cuts
- Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan
- Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit)
- The Great Recession


If one is going to tackle the long-term deficit then one has to be realistic about the fundamental causes of that:

- Bush Tax Cuts
- Medicare/Medicaid

Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to lapse has more of an impact on the short-term deficit because the projected costs of health care spending will only increase so much in that time frame ... and as the economy continues to recover there will naturally be more tax revenues to work with. But the long-term deficit is another story altogether. The fundamental problem there is not the government. It is out-of-control health care cost inflation in the private sector that is being paid for by the government via the Medicare/Medicaid programs. Coupled with the Bush Tax Cuts that are simply unaffordable in that scenario especially as the baby boomers begin to retire in greater numbers. So as Dork said earlier ... we have to attack the problem on both ends. On the revenue side we have to expand federal tax revenue. Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to lapse is a rather crude way to do that. A better approach IMO would be to fundamentally reform the tax code. Significantly reduce the number of loopholes and deductions so companies like G.E. that make billions in profit yet pay $0 in federal taxes are a thing of the past. Structure the tax code in a manner so that the Treasury collects a "smaller amount of taxes from a larger number of people" as opposed to a "larger amount of taxes from a smaller number of people". Lower the tax rates and expand the tax base.

As for the spending side, again the issue is out-of-control health care cost inflation. Market forces don't really work when it comes to health care because it is extremely inelastic. If you've been in a car accident or you have a chronic disease like diabetes or cancer you aren't shopping around looking for the best deal. There's no incentive for health care providers to keep costs low. There's every incentive to extract as much as revenue as possible as long as the health care delivery system is organized around the profit motive. If the country doesn't have the political will to implement cost controls in the industry via regulation ... then at a minimum it would be prudent to allow the federal government to negotiate for volume discounts with the pharmaceutical companies for Medicare/Medicaid participants ... like any other private sector entity would do. To negotiate with healthcare providers for volume discounts on testing and diagnostic services, preventative care, etc. Yet inexplicably we have politicians in Washington who explicitly write legislation that prohibits the government from using its market power to do these very things that could counter rampant inflation in health care costs. Well actually it's not all that inexplicable when you consider that the GOP is clearly more interested in protecting the profits of pharmaceutical companies than they are in protecting the wallets of taxpayers. The fact that they insisted on these prohibitions when they passed Medicare Part D is a clear and undeniable indication of that. But I digress .....

In any event, my point is that the issue isn't that the government program itself is the problem ... as our good friends on the right would have us believe. The problem is the rampant (and unjustifiable from a supply/demand standpoint) inflation in healthcare costs that are driving up the price for the government program. And if health care costs continue on this upward trajectory to the point where even a relatively efficiently run, non-profit program like Medicare can no longer afford to pay for them .... them God help us all. Health insurance ... in the public or private sector ... will simply be unaffordable for all but the wealthiest and healthiest few.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

If one is going to tackle the short-term deficit then one has to be realistic about the fundamental causes of it:

- Bush Tax Cuts
- Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan
- Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit)
- The Great Recession

- Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan - aren't those OFF blanace / budget, and therefore, in ADDITION to the $ 1.7 Trillion ? And, btw, why the f*ck does Obama start MORE wars (like Libya) ?

- The Great Recession - that's not a valid excuse. Perverted Keynsianism is ruining this country.
Every child knows that you should cut back with spending in bad times. Only the government thinks they can "turn things around" by more spending. BS.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

- Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan - aren't those OFF blanace / budget, and therefore, in ADDITION to the $ 1.7 Trillion ?

Actually it was "off budget" during the Bush Administration. Not so much now.

After eight years of budget practices that often camouflaged federal spending, President Obama is planning a new strategy of putting on the books as many costs as possible to demonstrate the extent of the nation's economic troubles, senior White House officials say.

Obama's first budget, scheduled to be released in broad outline Thursday, will include at the outset money for the Iraq war, the military buildup in Afghanistan and other expenditures. The approach is in contrast to that of the previous administration, which often tucked such costly commitments into separate spending requests that would go to Congress later.

Transparent Budget - Obama plans a more transparent budget - Los Angeles Times

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And, btw, why the f*ck does Obama start MORE wars (like Libya) ?

F*ck if I know! While I understand from a humanitarian standpoint that he didn't want to have another Rwanda type situation go down on his watch .... at the end of the day we've intervened in a tribal civil war. The Obama administration took swift action on the diplomatic front. I think they should have left it at that. I'll give him half a point for getting in and out ... and ensuring that our role stays limited. Hopefully it won't turn into yet another clusterf*ck.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

- The Great Recession - that's not a valid excuse. Perverted Keynsianism is ruining this country.
Every child knows that you should cut back with spending in bad times. Only the government thinks they can "turn things around" by more spending. BS.

-t

What does Keynesianism have to do with what I said? All I was saying is that the Great Recession has contributed heavily to the short-term deficit because the economic downturn has severely diminished federal tax revenues ... while at the same time automatic social safety net spending has increased as millions were laid off. You know ... revenues and expenses going in the opposite direction and all that. Perhaps you think I was speaking on the Stimulus and the efforts to get us out of the Great Recession? But for the record, I wasn't.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually it was "off budget" during the Bush Administration. Not so much now.

Transparent Budget - Obama plans a more transparent budget - Los Angeles Times

You are right, *most* of it is now included, but not ALL.
Obama has not completely stopped "supplemental budgets".

PolitiFact | The Obameter: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war - Obama promise No. 161:

Still a big reporting improvement over the Bush budget gimmicks.

-t

[Athens]

Who has a bigger role in tax collection and tax dollar spending. State Governments or the Federal Government. And who provides the most services to the people, the state or the federal governments?

Canadian News is now picking up on the debt of the US, from creation to the 1980s the debt rose about the same as the inflation rate, then from the 80's on it shoot up into the sky. What the hell changed in the 80s, 90s and now to cause such a massive debt

[Athens]

This is a fearful outlook

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

The Liability per Taxpayer is listed at 1 Million, the Assets per citizen is listed at 250 000, the amount of debt per person and per tax payer is massive. Top right corner you can see its 2015 projection which is a debt of 22 Trillion dollars at todays spending rates.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What the hell changed in the 80s, 90s and now to cause such a massive debt

Well, between 1981 and 1993, and between 2001 and 2009 (the end of the graph), the slopes on that curve are definitely steeper than the rest of the time. Any clue as to why that's significant?

[Athens]

Politics aside, where is the money going now that it was not going between 1940 and 1980? Whats the new spending that was not there before? Or did everything that was being spent on just get more expensive?

Whats interesting is Canada's debt is the exact same pattern for the most part. Took off during the 80's



Could it be the baby boomers after world war 2?

[Athens]

Lets look at the 2009 Budgets for both countries because we both have the same trend going on. The one pattern I see for both, is massive spending on Social Security, Medicare and Debt payments. Add to that lots of tax cuts over the years. Its no wonder we are all going in debt. Just looking at Social Security and Medical in one decade its increased by 570 Billion dollars alone.

US

The President's budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2008. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)
$644 billion - Social Security (1999 it was 389 Billion difference of 255 Billion )
$408 billion - Medicare
$224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
(1999 both Medicare and Medicaid was 320 Billion a difference of 312 Billion)
$360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$260 billion - Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)
$515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
$70.4 billion - United States Department of Health and Human Services
$68.2 billion - United States Department of Transportation
$45.4 billion - United States Department of Education
$44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$38.5 billion - United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
$38.3 billion - State and Other International Programs
$37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security
$25.0 billion - United States Department of Energy
$20.8 billion - United States Department of Agriculture
$20.3 billion - United States Department of Justice
$17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.5 billion - United States Department of the Treasury
$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion - United States Department of Labor
$8.4 billion - Social Security Administration
$7.1 billion - United States Environmental Protection Agency
$6.9 billion - National Science Foundation
$6.3 billion - Judicial branch (United States federal courts)
$4.7 billion - Legislative branch (United States Congress)
$4.7 billion - United States Army Corps of Engineers
$0.4 billion - Executive Office of the President
$0.7 billion - Small Business Administration
$7.2 billion - Other agencies
$39.0 billion(2008*) - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

Canada

2009 Canadian federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its more broken down and a much larger list so I didn't bother posting it.

US Spending a decade earlier which included a 124 Billion surplus

Revenue

879B - Personal Income Taxes
184B - Corporate Tax
611B - Social Insurances Tax
70B - Exercise tax
81B - other
[edit]Spending

300B - Defense
389B - Social Security
139B - Income Security
85B - Federal Pensions
229B - Interest on Debt
320B - Medicare/Medicaid

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

...when the difference in taxation that is commonly being argued over is relatively trivial, amounting to the difference between tax rates that existed 15-20 years ago and tax rates today.

With the differences in tax rates between now and 15-20 years ago being trivial, the one glaring difference between today and 15-20 years ago is spending. Therefore a focus on taxes would produce a trivial return while a focus on spending would produce a much larger return going forward.

Some might be surprised how willing folks are to give more when they see a little more care being taken with what they've already given.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With the differences in tax rates between now and 15-20 years ago being trivial, the one glaring difference between today and 15-20 years ago is spending. Therefore a focus on taxes would produce a trivial return while a focus on spending would produce a much larger return going forward.

Some might be surprised how willing folks are to give more when they see a little more care being taken with what they've already given.

I agree. But tell that to most of the Republican caucus who have made eliminating the Bush tax cuts a complete non-starter, no matter what spending cuts the Democrats might propose. That's what I'm talking about. Tax cuts have become an article of faith, rather than tied to any spending goals.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I agree. But tell that to most of the Republican caucus who have made eliminating the Bush tax cuts a complete non-starter, no matter what spending cuts the Democrats might propose. That's what I'm talking about. Tax cuts have become an article of faith, rather than tied to any spending goals.

You can't blame Republicans for whatever cuts Dems may propose when they've not shown they're serious about the deficit at all. Besides, the contention deals with much more than Bush tax cuts SpaceMonkey. Ryan's plan for example does not even regard the Bush tax cuts, but presents an entirely new tax proposal in tandem with a wealth of aggressive cuts. BTW, if it hadn't been for this move, we wouldn't be talking trillions. I'm skeptical much of this will go anywhere, but I don't think too many paying attention insist the problem is Republicans holding on the Bush tax cuts. It's time to move beyond Bush.

[BadKosh]

Obama doesn't understand. His speech had no details,just more vague BS we've come to ignore. Its NOT a tax problem, its a SPENDING PROBLEM. How hard is it to stop pissing away tax dollars on idealistic BS?

[Big Mac]

The other thing I really adore to come out of this speech is Obama stating that our Entitlement programs are the things that make us a great country. So for the first 150 years of our country when we didn't have a Entitlements we weren't a great country. And it's not our freedoms, our Constitution, our free enterprise, our rule of law, or anything of the sort that makes us a great country. It's the modern, forced confiscation and redistribution of wealth from the productive sector to the general populace and more importantly the "less fortunate" that makes us great. The very same programs that are destroying the country financially are the things that are great about this country according to Comrade Obama.

Wow. I give. I think I want out. I want him out. ASAP. Can we have the election now? I used to think Obama was Carter 2.0. Now I realize in many ways he's much worse.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You can't blame Republicans for whatever cuts Dems may propose when they've not shown they're serious about the deficit at all.

I can blame them for their current negotiating position, which is that the Bush tax cuts are not on the table.

Besides, the contention deals with much more than Bush tax cuts SpaceMonkey. Ryan's plan for example does not even regard the Bush tax cuts, but presents an entirely new tax proposal in tandem with a wealth of aggressive cuts. BTW, if it hadn't been for this move, we wouldn't be talking trillions. I'm skeptical much of this will go anywhere, but I don't think too many paying attention insist the problem is Republicans holding on the Bush tax cuts. It's time to move beyond Bush.

I was using the Bush cuts as an example. I don't think Paul Ryan's plan breaks out of the mold of what I'm talking about. The question should be what do we want the government to do, and then, how do we pay for it, not the other way around.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The other thing I really adore to come out of this speech is Obama stating that our Entitlement programs are the things that make us a great country. So for the first 150 years of our country when we didn't have a Entitlements we weren't a great country. And it's not our freedoms, our Constitution, our free enterprise, our rule of law, or anything of the sort that makes us a great country. It's the modern, forced confiscation and redistribution of wealth from the productive sector to the general populace and more importantly the "less fortunate" that makes us great. The very same programs that are destroying the country financially are the things that are great about this country according to Comrade Obama.

Here is the paragraph in question. It's pretty clear that the statement was not meant to be exclusive. That is, we are a great country because (insert your reason of choice from above), but we would not be one without our social safety net. This makes perfect sense to me, as the social costs of not having one in the industrial and post-industrial age are much different than previously.

"Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments."

[Big Mac]

"We would not be a great country without those commitments." That's an exclusive term - if not for entitlements we would not be a great country. And if you think that makes sense you're just as hopelessly lost as Obama. Those "commitments" don't make this nation great. They're killing the country, fiscally and morally. The Entitlement mindset, the notion that government is supposed to provide the masses with all kinds of benefits instead of them securing their own benefits, that's killing the country. That notion, far from being the only thing making us great, is sabotaging us and will be the death of the United States as we know it if Obama and his Socialist cohorts get what they want.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We would not be a great country without those commitments." That's an exclusive term - if not for entitlements we would not be a great country. And if you think that makes sense you're just as hopelessly lost as Obama. Those "commitments" don't make this nation great. They're killing the country, fiscally and morally. The Entitlement mindset, the notion that government is supposed to provide the masses with all kinds of benefits instead of them securing their own benefits, that's killing the country. That notion, far from being the only thing making us great, is sabotaging us and will be the death of the United States as we know it if Obama and his Socialist cohorts get what they want.

I read it as a "necessary but not sufficent" sort of thing. Our social programs do not make us great by themselves, but we would not be great without them. I think that makes sense in the context of the social ills that programs like Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc. were designed to address in the first place.

So is your position that there should be no safety net at all? If that is the case, I don't think there is an American politician for you.

[BadKosh]

Those "Bush Tax Cuts" were cutting the retro-active tax increases from the Clinton Administration. More mis-representation of facts from the MSM.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I read it as a "necessary but not sufficent" sort of thing. Our social programs do not make us great by themselves, but we would not be great without them. I think that makes sense in the context of the social ills that programs like Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc. were designed to address in the first place.

So is your position that there should be no safety net at all? If that is the case, I don't think there is an American politician for you.

Find me authorization in Article 1 Section 8 for such a "safety net" or Entitlement society. It's not in there. (And please don't cite the general welfare clause as authorization for such things because that's well known to be a false interpretation of the clause.) No, that's not what the federal government was ever meant or authorized to provide.

The states, if they so choose, can implement whatever safety nets for their citizens they want. But the federal government is not so authorized. It's the New Deal's unconstitutional perversion of the system that made such things possible on the federal level, and they are fundamentally as unconstitutional today as they were when first proposed. But it's not just a matter of the federal government not having the legal authority to provide such benefits, it's that they're imperiling the financial existence of the country and threatening to make the dollar worthless because of a massive debt crisis that is probably the most easily foreseen crisis in American and world history (and it will be a world crisis if and when it hits).

There are American politicians for me. Ron and Rand Paul for instance.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Find me authorization in Article 1 Section 8 for such a "safety net" or Entitlement society. It's not in there. (And please don't cite the general welfare clause as authorization for such things because that's well known to be a false interpretation of the clause) No, that's not what the federal government was ever meant or authorized to provide.

That's a fine opinion, but again, you are not going to find many people who agree with you. It makes you look a bit silly to be calling for Obama's ouster as if he is personally overseeing the destruction of the United States when you know that whoever comes in to replace him, Republican or Democrat, will disagree with you on this fundamental question.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Every child knows that you should cut back with spending in bad times. Only the government thinks they can "turn things around" by more spending. BS.

-t

I'm still not so sure it's obvious BS as your statement implies, because I have real trouble accepting this analogy that government spending is akin to household/personal spending. (This is how I read your statement - sorry if it wasn't what you were trying to say.) The overal structure is the same in terms of "are you in the black/red", but the government is presumably spending for other people, i.e. its citizens. I feel that adds a whole new element to the equation. In fact, if you were actually spending for me, wouldn't it make sense not to give much money when the economy is roaring and I'm rolling in money, and to start doleing out funds when there are cutbacks and I don't have much to keep me going?

The Greater Plan for government spending, as I've understood it here in Canada, is to limit spending in the Good Times, and run a surplus and decrease your debt. When the Bad Times hit, you increase spending and thus run a defict in order to keep the economy stimulated, whatever that means. On the whole, some level of debt load is maintained - I don't know if any country in history has ever been debt-free; Canada certainly hasn't, anyway - but the idea is that debt is slowly paid down to an acceptable level and then maintained around that level, through peaks and valleys.

The hard part, of course, seems to have been the "limit spending" part. Canada was running surpluses for many years before the Great Recession, and our Prime Minister has been running large deficits for the past two years; his current election platform (we go to the polls in a few weeks) is to continue to limit spending for several years until we have eliminated our deficit, upon which spending will slowly increase in line with our projected surpluses.

Does this make any sense at all?

[BadKosh]

If they want to raise taxes, start with those at the bottom. It will wake them up as to being a contributor to the system. They may decide that cutting the spending might just leave them with more money. It would make them a little more aware of their part in being a citizen.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The Greater Plan for government spending, as I've understood it here in Canada, is to limit spending in the Good Times, and run a surplus and decrease your debt. When the Bad Times hit, you increase spending and thus run a defict in order to keep the economy stimulated, whatever that means. On the whole, some level of debt load is maintained - I don't know if any country in history has ever been debt-free; Canada certainly hasn't, anyway - but the idea is that debt is slowly paid down to an acceptable level and then maintained around that level, through peaks and valleys.

This is the classic idea of Keynesianism.

Problem is, almost NO government ever built a true "rainy day fund" that was truly money put aside for later.
(Norway is the only country I know of right now that is doing just that.)

So, they blow the money from the few times they have a surplus, and go into huge debt when there is bad economic times.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"We would not be a great country without those commitments." That's an exclusive term - if not for entitlements we would not be a great country. And if you think that makes sense you're just as hopelessly lost as Obama. Those "commitments" don't make this nation great. They're killing the country, fiscally and morally. The Entitlement mindset, the notion that government is supposed to provide the masses with all kinds of benefits instead of them securing their own benefits, that's killing the country. That notion, far from being the only thing making us great, is sabotaging us and will be the death of the United States as we know it if Obama and his Socialist cohorts get what they want.

no its corp america thats killing the country. Fake toxic foods replacing real whole foods making people sicker costing the medical system more and more. Lack of education on spending, responsibility and work ethics. The entitlements are not the problem. Its what is making people lazy, dumber and sicker that is. One thing i noticed between the 80s and now, with the increase in costs such as medical is the correlation of people getting fatter and sicker with diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure. If every one took care of themselves the programs wouldn't be bursting.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

If they want to raise taxes, start with those at the bottom. It will wake them up as to being a contributor to the system. They may decide that cutting the spending might just leave them with more money. It would make them a little more aware of their part in being a citizen.

Yep, raising taxes on those $23,000 income earners is really going to cover some budget holes, no doubt.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm still not so sure it's obvious BS as your statement implies, because I have real trouble accepting this analogy that government spending is akin to household/personal spending. (This is how I read your statement - sorry if it wasn't what you were trying to say.) The overal structure is the same in terms of "are you in the black/red", but the government is presumably spending for other people, i.e. its citizens. I feel that adds a whole new element to the equation. In fact, if you were actually spending for me, wouldn't it make sense not to give much money when the economy is roaring and I'm rolling in money, and to start doleing out funds when there are cutbacks and I don't have much to keep me going?

The Greater Plan for government spending, as I've understood it here in Canada, is to limit spending in the Good Times, and run a surplus and decrease your debt. When the Bad Times hit, you increase spending and thus run a defict in order to keep the economy stimulated, whatever that means. On the whole, some level of debt load is maintained - I don't know if any country in history has ever been debt-free; Canada certainly hasn't, anyway - but the idea is that debt is slowly paid down to an acceptable level and then maintained around that level, through peaks and valleys.

The hard part, of course, seems to have been the "limit spending" part. Canada was running surpluses for many years before the Great Recession, and our Prime Minister has been running large deficits for the past two years; his current election platform (we go to the polls in a few weeks) is to continue to limit spending for several years until we have eliminated our deficit, upon which spending will slowly increase in line with our projected surpluses.

Does this make any sense at all?

The US was debt free for a time from In 1835 and 1836. It was also a time with no central bank. The central bank system is what creates debt because a central bank can only function as a debt creating institution. Our entire economic system is based on a fractal reserve system for monetary creation and for every dollar created there is assigned debt. As long as we use a central bank system the debt can never be paid back because of interest debt exceeds the actual amount of money. To pay off all debt you have to borrow more with interest to pay off the debt thus creating more debt. Its a messed up system and self serving only to the banks.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yep, raising taxes on those $23,000 income earners is really going to cover some budget holes, no doubt.

Not only that, but poor people will finally know the sting of not having money... right?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The US was debt free for a time from In 1835 and 1836. It was also a time with no central bank. The central bank system is what creates debt because a central bank can only function as a debt creating institution. Our entire economic system is based on a fractal reserve system for monetary creation and for every dollar created there is assigned debt. As long as we use a central bank system the debt can never be paid back because of interest debt exceeds the actual amount of money. To pay off all debt you have to borrow more with interest to pay off the debt thus creating more debt. Its a messed up system and self serving only to the banks.

No. To pay off the debt yearly budget surpluses would be used to buy back government securities (treasury bonds) from the market.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yep, raising taxes on those $23,000 income earners is really going to cover some budget holes, no doubt.

C'mon - that's what all smart businesses do when seeking additional revenue -- go to where the money isn't...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Our entire economic system is based on a fractal reserve system for monetary creation ... the debt can never be paid back because of interest debt exceeds the actual amount of money.

No, the debt can never be paid back because the debt is the same size and shape no matter how much you zoom in, that's why we have fractal reserve banking in the first place

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"We would not be a great country without those commitments." That's an exclusive term - if not for entitlements we would not be a great country. And if you think that makes sense you're just as hopelessly lost as Obama. Those "commitments" don't make this nation great. They're killing the country, fiscally and morally. The Entitlement mindset, the notion that government is supposed to provide the masses with all kinds of benefits instead of them securing their own benefits, that's killing the country. That notion, far from being the only thing making us great, is sabotaging us and will be the death of the United States as we know it if Obama and his Socialist cohorts get what they want.

I'm glad that there are few politicians that appeal to your tastes.

What makes the country so great is our entitlement programs. Not so much their details or execution as much as their existence, as it reflects our values. Our values include the idea that everybody should have their fair shot at success, and that a freak illness should not deny them of that by making them face bankruptcy, or that we at least try to help pay for the costs of retirement and old age.

Our entitlements are absolutely unsustainable and broken as they stand today, I recognize that, but their existence is not the problem, it's their implementation. If they didn't exist, what would make America so great in comparison to other countries?

[Athens]

God its painful reading what Americans think makes America so great. What makes America special and great was freedom. Freedom of choice, religion and economics. You had the the most free society until the last couple decades and it appears that important concept of freedom has been lost as every one seems to be debating the entitlement programs as what makes America great. A lot of other countries have much better entitlement and social network programs then the US. Canada has better entitlement programs and Canada looks like Crap compared to some European nations when it comes to entitlement programs. So no entitlements are not what makes America great. So please continue to debate how America is great because of entitlements. This is fun to read.

[turtle777]

^ Spot on.

-t