News Obama's Speech: Dysfunctional Three Ring Circus

[OmCheeto]

Boehner and Obama could have cut a $4 trillion debt reduction deal. The problem lies with the new tea partiers in Congress. Of course Obama said that. If you want to read the short version of Obama's speech, just read my posts over the last week in the 14th amendment thread.

Boehner can't control his wild pack. So now, because of the tea party, instead of real progress, we will probably get a meaningless kick of the can at best.

I just listened to the speech. It was great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O08VHT6TsRM

It almost looked as if Barry was listening to some of us for the last few years.

Poop! can't find the link to that foolish kid's thread...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just sent off emails to my Congressman and Senators stating that as an Independent voter, I support my President and his offer in the strongest terms, and denounce the no-compromise ideology of the tea party and others on the right who torpedoed our chance for real progress on debt reduction.

I also condemned Democrats who refuse to compromise, in the strongest terms, with a personal touch: ~ I have always voted for you, but I expect you to make compromises and serve the nation, not the party... [or else implied].

 

[Proton Soup]

I just listened to the speech. It was great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O08VHT6TsRM

It almost looked as if Barry was listening to some of us for the last few years.

Poop! can't find the link to that foolish kid's thread...

i haven't listened to it yet. i think i will tomorrow.

but will it make any difference when i do? Obama always gives great oral, but then fails to follow through. i just don't have faith in the man anymore. government is not more open, it's less open. personal liberties continue to take hits with zero moaning from the left since he's not a republican. we didn't get less war, we got more.

so this is a heads up. what difference will a great speech make? do you really think what the man says has anything to do with what he does? i'll need some convincing.

 

[mege]

i haven't listened to it yet. i think i will tomorrow.

but will it make any difference when i do? Obama always gives great oral, but then fails to follow through. i just don't have faith in the man anymore. government is not more open, it's less open. personal liberties continue to take hits with zero moaning from the left since he's not a republican. we didn't get less war, we got more.

so this is a heads up. what difference will a great speech make? do you really think what the man says has anything to do with what he does? i'll need some convincing.

This.

Remember that this is the President whom renewed the tax cuts from 2003, but then now - for political reasons - wants congress to renig on part of them? This is entirely underhanded and gaming the system. Why wasn't the President and the leftist congress worried about how to pay for the increased spending when they were in control? What's different now that makes it OK to tax anyone more (let alone just the high earners)? You can take the boy out of Chicago...

It's also interesting that he's had 5(?) press conferences in 2 weeks regarding the debt-celing issues, but has given less in the previous several months - even with people asking about our country's position in Libya. Pure political gamesmanship - and I don't like it. President Obama is campaigning for 2012 early, that's for sure.

This game of hot potatoe with our country's financials needs to stop, but unfortunately I feel that any plan the President had supported just keeps the music playing.

 

[drankin]

This.

Remember that this is the President whom renewed the tax cuts from 2003, but then now - for political reasons - wants congress to renig on part of them? This is entirely underhanded and gaming the system. Why wasn't the President and the leftist congress worried about how to pay for the increased spending when they were in control? What's different now that makes it OK to tax anyone more (let alone just the high earners)? You can take the boy out of Chicago...

It's also interesting that he's had 5(?) press conferences in 2 weeks regarding the debt-celing issues, but has given less in the previous several months - even with people asking about our country's position in Libya. Pure political gamesmanship - and I don't like it. President Obama is campaigning for 2012 early, that's for sure.

This game of hot potatoe with our country's financials needs to stop, but unfortunately I feel that any plan the President had supported just keeps the music playing.

Sums it for me. It's like everyone is in some dreamland thinking we can live on borrowed money indefinitely. It may take another term for history to to have a perfect example of how to bankrupt a government.

 

[WhoWee]

I found a transcript - with a few comments added (in green) by the poster.
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/07/obama-speech-transcript-7-25-11/

I noted this speech differed greatly from the one then-Senator Obama made when President Bush wanted to raise the limit.

The one component that bothers me about this speech is the description of the effect on interest rates - blaming the Republicans for a downgrading of the US - when the fact is he has presided over Quantitative Easing - the printing of money AND coupled with downward pressure on interest rates.

WHEN (not if) interest rates increase - President Obama appears ready to blame the Republicans. Please label IMO.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Potentially dangerous question but what is the rational behind tax breaks for the rich in the US? I can't figure it out at all

 

[WhoWee]

Potentially dangerous question but what is the rational behind tax breaks for the rich in the US? I can't figure it out at all

That's a valid question. Please consider this - people who don't pay any federal income taxes (nearly 50% of "taxpayers") don't need tax breaks - although they may qualify for a redistribution of tax revenues collected from others.

As for the 50% who do pay federal income taxes - they are the only ones who really need special consideration of deductions - things like depreciation schedules. When President Obama talks about the corporate jet owners enjoying tax breaks - he's talking about the number of years the cost of the asset is accounted for - basically 5 years or 7 years - it's a very minor detail.

 

[Willowz]

Republicans new tactic.

Blame it on Obama!

 

[Willowz]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html"

“In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as usual,” the Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid debate over the U.S. debt. “I’ve got news for Washington - those days are over.”
Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all voted for major drivers of the nation’s debt during the past decade: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the auto industry.

[...]

“Blaming Bush for the structural deficits we’ve known would come since the early 1990s is beyond irresponsible.”

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's a valid question. Please consider this - people who don't pay any federal income taxes (nearly 50% of "taxpayers") don't need tax breaks - although they may qualify for a redistribution of tax revenues collected from others.

Why don't 50% of taxpayers pay federal income tax?

As for the 50% who do pay federal income taxes - they are the only ones who really need special consideration of deductions - things like depreciation schedules. When President Obama talks about the corporate jet owners enjoying tax breaks - he's talking about the number of years the cost of the asset is accounted for - basically 5 years or 7 years - it's a very minor detail.

Complicated subject so what taxes is Obama proposing that Republicans are objecting to?

 

[russ_watters]

Potentially dangerous question but what is the rational behind tax breaks for the rich in the US? I can't figure it out at all

What tax breaks for the rich are you referring to? You're aware that everyone gets tax breaks, right? And as a percentage of an individual's taxes paid, most go to the poor and middle, not the rich.(if you were referring to deductions)

Why don't 50% of taxpayers pay federal income tax?

Tax breaks and direct payments from the government (welfare, food stamps, etc).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What tax breaks for the rich are you referring to?

I probably worded that completely wrong. I don't know a lot about the issue but constantly hear that richer Americans and corporations often end up paying less tax than those poorer than themselves.

 

[drankin]

I probably worded that completely wrong. I don't know a lot about the issue but constantly hear that richer Americans and corporations often end up paying less tax than those poorer than themselves.

Take the media hype with a grain of salt. Less wealthy pay less taxes. As you descend the income ladder the money starts going the other way into the pockets of those who don't work.

 

[Fredrik]

Potentially dangerous question but what is the rational behind tax breaks for the rich in the US? I can't figure it out at all

They believe that it will create jobs, and in general make America a better place to live in, except of course for losers who deserve to suffer anyway, just because they're losers.

The republicans have even stopped using words like "rich" in their speeches. They are now calling rich people "job creators". Seriously.

 

[russ_watters]

I probably worded that completely wrong. I don't know a lot about the issue but constantly hear that richer Americans and corporations often end up paying less tax than those poorer than themselves.

I figured, based on the wording. The left has been pretty successful selling some lies about that. For example, you may have heard about Bush's, "tax cuts for the rich" and not even realized his tax cuts were for everyone and as a percentage of income or taxes paid, actually favored the poor.

 

[Vanadium 50]

II don't know a lot about the issue but constantly hear that richer Americans and corporations often end up paying less tax than those poorer than themselves.

It is certainly possible for a millionaire to have a bad year, and have no income - and therefore pay no income tax.

The federal income tax is very progressive, I posted the breakdown in the past. The top 1% in income pays more than the bottom 95%. One consequence of this is that any income tax cut will predominantly benefit "the rich", as the poorest half wasn't paying it to begin with. It;s already cut as far as it will go for them.

 

[daveb]

I probably worded that completely wrong. I don't know a lot about the issue but constantly hear that richer Americans and corporations often end up paying less tax than those poorer than themselves.

It's not that they necessarily pay less, it's that due to certain tax breaks that can be capitalized upon only be the wealthy, some pay at a lesser rate than those who make less. The real famous instance is when http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html" payed a tax rate of 17.7% on his taxable income as opposed to his secretary who was taxed about 30%. This is what people who want to tax the rich think of.

 

[russ_watters]

Note that that Buffets stat is based primarily on social security, which is capped for the rich and the poor get back more than the rich do percentagewise. It makes a feature that is progressive look regressive.

 

[drankin]

I just have to laugh at the political diversion. Rich people not paying enough taxes is not the problem. Sure gets us poorer folk all riled up though. Irks our sense of justice. But, that isn't the countries problem! We spend too damn much. Squeeze more tax money out of everyone isn't going to fix the problem.

 

[dlgoff]

Unfortunately.

You know what I do when I hear this crap? Head for the fridge for another beer.

I had a slight hangover this morning.

I think I'm going to block the Fox News channel as it's costing me plenty to finance my beer drinking. Don't they ever quite complaining /bashing? I want the news not their BS.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Cheers for clearing that up someone everyone

 

[Astronuc]

Start from the bottom and cut.
http://www.federalbudget.com/

It is not enough to reduce the deficit. The deficit must be eliminated, and the debt reduced.


This doesn't help either - http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

 

[BobG]

Potentially dangerous question but what is the rational behind tax breaks for the rich in the US? I can't figure it out at all

The rationale behind tax breaks is to encourage money to be invested into something that benefits the nation. For example, you want cleaner energy, so give tax breaks to those that invest in clean energy technology. Or you give tax breaks for sending yourself or your kids through college, since a college education should increase the quality of the nation's workforce.

In practice, Congressmen sell tax breaks for votes. They vote in tax breaks that will help the industries in their local area, which raises employment, makes the area more prosperous, etc. So if you're a Congressman from a district that has coal mines, you try to convince the rest of the nation's Congressmen to give tax breaks to people that invest in coal powered plants.

So, regardless of the intended rationale, the tax breaks can often go off on tangents and serve no purpose other than to increase the chances of re-election of a few key Congressmen with enough seniority and power to wind up on key committees.

Or, tax breaks can go to people that can offer the most help in re-electing the Congressman, which would be people willing to donate large amounts of money to election campaigns, or at least to political action committees since there's limits to how much money a person can donate to a single candidate.

Or, as WhooWee mentioned, rich people are taxed so much that Joe Six Pack feels sorry for their misery and will only vote for Congressmen that will make a life a little more bearable for the nation's suffering rich. And when people earning 87% of the nation's income have to pay 97% of the nation's taxes, then they're definitely suffering.

That's at least a partly facetious answer. While I couldn't care less about people earning several hundred thousand dollars a year, you don't actually have to earn all that much before you're paying enough taxes per year that you could buy a new car with that amount of money. But I, like every other American, am not rich. Rich people make more than I do, lazy people make less than I do, while I'm just one of those poor, but honest folk that work hard for a living only to see the government take huge chunks of my hard earned money.

 

[WhoWee]

The rationale behind tax breaks is to encourage money to be invested into something that benefits the nation. For example, you want cleaner energy, so give tax breaks to those that invest in clean energy technology. Or you give tax breaks for sending yourself or your kids through college, since a college education should increase the quality of the nation's workforce.

In practice, Congressmen sell tax breaks for votes. They vote in tax breaks that will help the industries in their local area, which raises employment, makes the area more prosperous, etc. So if you're a Congressman from a district that has coal mines, you try to convince the rest of the nation's Congressmen to give tax breaks to people that invest in coal powered plants.

So, regardless of the intended rationale, the tax breaks can often go off on tangents and serve no purpose other than to increase the chances of re-election of a few key Congressmen with enough seniority and power to wind up on key committees.

Or, tax breaks can go to people that can offer the most help in re-electing the Congressman, which would be people willing to donate large amounts of money to election campaigns, or at least to political action committees since there's limits to how much money a person can donate to a single candidate.

Or, as WhooWee mentioned, rich people are taxed so much that Joe Six Pack feels sorry for their misery and will only vote for Congressmen that will make a life a little more bearable for the nation's suffering rich. And when people earning 87% of the nation's income have to pay 97% of the nation's taxes, then they're definitely suffering.

That's at least a partly facetious answer. While I couldn't care less about people earning several hundred thousand dollars a year, you don't actually have to earn all that much before you're paying enough taxes per year that you could buy a new car with that amount of money. But I, like every other American, am not rich. Rich people make more than I do, lazy people make less than I do, while I'm just one of those poor, but honest folk that work hard for a living only to see the government take huge chunks of my hard earned money.

nice.

The truth of the matter is that if you don't have any money to spend - you won't be able to take advantage of tax incentives for spending. To compensate for the "unfairness?" of this - politicians started tinking up things like EITC to redistribute tax revenues to people who don't pay federal income taxes.

I chuckle to myself every time I hear someone ignorant of business expenses and tax codes say something approximating - "they just write it off" - as if the company didn't have to actually pay the bill first and the great privilege is something more than not paying tax on their expense - that is the "write-off" is actually nothing more than the accounting for the expense for tax purposes. In order to "write-off" an expense - you need to pay for the item - being allowed to account for an expense is certainly not a windfall.

 

[mheslep]

Start from the bottom and cut.
http://www.federalbudget.com/

It is not enough to reduce the deficit. The deficit must be eliminated, and the debt reduced.This doesn't help either - http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

Ok, why not give it a go in your field. NRC budget for 2012 is ~$1B. How much would you cut it? For my part I'd begin by zeroing out NRC Chairman Jaczko's salary.

BTW, with regards to budget talks on the table so far, it has been mentioned in this thread that there would be such and such a cut to the debt. The cuts mentioned are actually to spending; none of them are anywhere close to being sufficient to reduce the debt.

 

[Char. Limit]

This won't change much budget-wise, but a nice symbolic gesture would be for every Congressman and Congresswoman (and the Prez) to forgo their salary this year.

Ah, who am I kidding? That would never happen.

 

[WhoWee]

This won't change much budget-wise, but a nice symbolic gesture would be for every Congressman and Congresswoman (and the Prez) to forgo their salary this year.

Ah, who am I kidding? That would never happen.

Welcome back - new laptop?

 

[Char. Limit]

Welcome back - new laptop?

Thanks! Actually, it's my iPod. Turns out my Internet still works on this thing after all... so I decided to throw myself into P&WA again.

 

[Evo]

What about celebrities? They're filthy rich, do nothing, unless you consider lip synching, reality tv, and standing before a camera doing something for the public good. Yet their tax accountants find them tax shelters & loopholes to protect their money.