News Should Obama invoke the 14th Amendment and bypass Congress?

[MarcoD]

That's not necessarily true either. There are counter examples, especially Russia. Sovereign debt is not the same as individual credit ratings.

Yes I agree, just not in the manner or to the degree you originally posted.

Russia had bad management but they had one thing working for them: They are an oil producing state with a large trade surplus. If they take a hit because of mismanagement, a lot of stuff recovers soon because everybody knows that money will be pouring in no matter what.

I responded to what would happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised. I think a default in that scenario is more than likely. People, and I, still believe that the US will not default _but_ _only_ _because_ they have no other option than to raise the ceiling and move towards more austerity. But, it doesn't mean that it can't happen.

As I said before, stating that a failure to raise the debt ceiling will not result in default is equivalent to saying that Greece wouldn't default on its debt since they also could just choose not to pay the wages.

The republican/democrat debate is comparable to a married couple which borrowed too much and can't agree on how to make ends meet. But the banks are still inclined to borrow more money, and the couple is married so they'll need to -and probably will- work it out no matter what.

 

[Newai]

Boehner wants to solve the problem in Congress at this point - I imagine Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi agree?

I was just trying to answer your question.

 

[Proton Soup]

Not exactly. You could exchange them for an amount of gold that did not double in value yearly.

was it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note

there is no need to make exceptions. no United States notes should be exchangeable for gold, make it all fiat money.

the next time they issue a round of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing" ", they should not spend it into the banks, but into the national budget. pay off some of the debt and devalue everyone's currency at the same time without giving any preferential treatment to wall street.

 

[OmCheeto]

I was curious about that claim, too. ...

Me three. Here's what I found:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...rquists-pledge-is-a-colossal-failure/242340/"
Jul 22 2011
In 1986, Grover Norquist and his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, created the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," which he describes as "a simple, written commitment by a candidate or elected official that he or she will oppose, and vote against, tax increases."

and some more:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/07/grover-norquist-tax-pledge.html"
July 24, 2011
...
The pledge not to raise taxes, penned by Norquist in 1986, has ensnared more than two hundred and fifty members of the current House and Senate.

...

There you go. They signed a pledge. Kind of like the "pledge of allegiance" we used to say every morning in grade school, only a bit different. Hmmm... I think I'd call this one; "The pledge of **** you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance" was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided against it - knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

I learn something new every day.

 

[WhoWee]

Me three. Here's what I found:

and some more:

There you go. They signed a pledge. Kind of like the "pledge of allegiance" we used to say every morning in grade school, only a bit different. Hmmm... I think I'd call this one; "The pledge of **** you."

I learn something new every day.

Quite the smoking gun - what did they do - sit in a treehouse and make a blood oath?

 

[hbjon]

Using that logic: Given that the SS, Medicare, and Medicaid programs are mathematically bound to collapse if allowed to continue in their present form, then the easy way to tell who wants to hurt the elderly etc is to find out who wants these programs to continue just the way they are now.

There is one program that needs to continue as is. And that is
Social Security. Workers have sacrificed part of their
pay for most of their entire working lives. That piece
of pie was invested in their own retirement. And the agreement
was that at age 65, they would be able to receive that money back
in monthly installments to support themselves with and live
a dignified life. When you have worked manual labor, that is
physically demanding. And the body simply wears down in most cases.
When one reaches their sixties, they deserve to retire and do
crossword puzzles. Since inflation is an increase in the amount of
money it takes to buy the same groceries from one year to the next,
there needs to be a cost of living increase as well. This is Social
Security. Medicare and Medicaide are different programs that are
separate from SS. There is a lot of abuse and corruption involving
these two programs. Americans are tough, they don't need to suck on
the tax-payers nipple for pain relief. They can either take the pain,
or buy the pills with their own money immho. hbjon

 

[WhoWee]

There is one program that needs to continue as is. And that is
Social Security. Workers have sacrificed part of their
pay for most of their entire working lives. That piece
of pie was invested in their own retirement. And the agreement
was that at age 65, they would be able to receive that money back
in monthly installments to support themselves with and live
a dignified life. When you have worked manual labor, that is
physically demanding. And the body simply wears down in most cases.
When one reaches their sixties, they deserve to retire and do
crossword puzzles. Since inflation is an increase in the amount of
money it takes to buy the same groceries from one year to the next,
there needs to be a cost of living increase as well. This is Social
Security. Medicare and Medicaide are different programs that are
separate from SS. There is a lot of abuse and corruption involving
these two programs. Americans are tough, they don't need to suck on
the tax-payers nipple for pain relief. They can either take the pain,
or buy the pills with their own money immho. hbjon

We've been over this in other threads - Social Security has been expanded by the politicians to include more people under the age of 65 AND the politicians have used the Social Security funds to pay for other programs - left an IOU.

 

[SixNein]

We've been over this in other threads - Social Security has been expanded by the politicians to include more people under the age of 65 AND the politicians have used the Social Security funds to pay for other programs - left an IOU.

You mean surplus funds.

 

[OmCheeto]

Quite the smoking gun - what did they do - sit in a treehouse and make a blood oath?

I don't know.
And I don't know about the gun, but someone has been smoking something.

July 22, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president"
I mean, the debt ceiling, that’s a formality. Historically, this has not even been an issue. It’s an unpleasant vote but it’s been a routine vote that Congress does periodically. It was raised 18 times when Ronald Reagan was President. Ronald Reagan said default is not an option, that it would be hugely damaging to the prestige of the United States and we shouldn’t even consider it. So that’s the easy part. We should have done that six months ago.

Oh now that's not fair. This will only be Obama's http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist07z3.xls" .

Ha! It's no wonder I skipped following politics for nearly 30 years:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/debt-ceiling-limits-through-the-ages/"

Although the routine increase in the debt ceiling was essential to meet Government obligations already incurred, the vote is traditionally delayed to the 11th hour, with the minority party accusing the party in power of spendthrift ways.”

That quote may surprise you. It comes from the NY Times, Sept. 30, 1981, defending President Reagan and blaming the Democrats in Congress for playing games with the debt ceiling.

The only thing that changes are the faces.

 

[WhoWee]

You mean surplus funds.

Sure - it's the surplus that is raided each year - if I recall correctly, the Social Security Trust Fund SHOULD have close to $3Trillion in it's coffers right now.

Instead of confidence and solvency in the system - we have Presidential speeches like this on the topic:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/07/debt-crisis-punctures-social-security-trust-fund-myth
""I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd," President Obama warned CBS Evening News viewers about Social Security Tuesday night. "There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.""

 

[SixNein]

There is one program that needs to continue as is. And that is
Social Security. Workers have sacrificed part of their
pay for most of their entire working lives. That piece
of pie was invested in their own retirement. And the agreement
was that at age 65, they would be able to receive that money back
in monthly installments to support themselves with and live
a dignified life. When you have worked manual labor, that is
physically demanding. And the body simply wears down in most cases.
When one reaches their sixties, they deserve to retire and do
crossword puzzles. Since inflation is an increase in the amount of
money it takes to buy the same groceries from one year to the next,
there needs to be a cost of living increase as well. This is Social
Security. Medicare and Medicaide are different programs that are
separate from SS. There is a lot of abuse and corruption involving
these two programs. Americans are tough, they don't need to suck on
the tax-payers nipple for pain relief. They can either take the pain,
or buy the pills with their own money immho. hbjon

The entire debate is tainted with ideology. Social security is a sound program that is projected to take in more than pay out till 2037. Even if the projections hold up 26 years from now at the predicted break even point, there are many minor changes that can correct the issue. People who bring up social security are doing so because of their ideology, or they think they can profit from a privatization of it.

As far as debt goes, I have yet to see anyone be entirely honest about it. All I see is politicians gearing up for a new election cycle, and voters repeating tiresome talking points that they heard on radio or tv. Montesquieu once said that republics die in luxury.

 

[WhoWee]

The entire debate is tainted with ideology. Social security is a sound program that is projected to take in more than pay out till 2037. Even if the projections hold up 26 years from now at the predicted break even point, there are many minor changes that can correct the issue. People who bring up social security are doing so because of their ideology, or they think they can profit from a privatization of it.

As far as debt goes, I have yet to see anyone be entirely honest about it. All I see is politicians gearing up for a new election cycle, and voters repeating tiresome talking points that they heard on radio or tv. Montesquieu once said that republics die in luxury.

Given the politicians raid the surplus funds and still need to borrow additional outside funds to meet their bloated spending requirements - about 42% of the cash flow is from debt - there is a problem that needs to be solved. Social Security is not secure.

 

[OmCheeto]

Sure - it's the surplus that is raided each year - if I recall correctly, the Social Security Trust Fund SHOULD have close to $3Trillion in it's coffers right now.

Instead of confidence and solvency in the system - we have Presidential speeches like this on the topic:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/07/debt-crisis-punctures-social-security-trust-fund-myth

Interesting article.

The reality is that the Social Security Trust Fund is, and always has been, an accounting fiction. For almost all of Social Security's history, the amount of money the program received from payroll taxes has exceeded the amount of money it paid out in benefits. The excess revenues, by law, are "invested" in special-issue, nonmarketable Treasury bonds. These bonds are marked on the government's balance sheet as "assets" of the Social Security program, but they are also counted as debts owed by the U.S. government. In fact, $2.6 trillion of our $14.3 trillion debt consists of bonds owed to the Social Security Trust Fund.

I did not know that. Almost makes it sound like payroll taxes should be included in the "Federal taxes", since all that money we paid in, isn't really there? hmmm... I must be turning into a tea-partier. I do not understand that at all, but it makes me mad.

 

[WhoWee]

Interesting article.

I did not know that. Almost makes it sound like payroll taxes should be included in the "Federal taxes", since all that money we paid in, isn't really there? hmmm... I must be turning into a tea-partier. I do not understand that at all, but it makes me mad.

Cheer up - a meeting with the Presiden, Vice President, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just ended (saw a news report). I expect Harry Reid will now get something done with the Republican leadership in Congress.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think most people here see it, Ivan. There's an obvious symmetry here that you're simply unwilling to accept and as a result, you need to paint the right as being ideologically driven while the left is driven by pragmatism. It just plain isn't true and it is very easy to see. Both sides are clearly adhering to their fallback ideology: the left wants to tax the rich and the right wants to cut spending, each based on an opposite premise for how government should work and if either side gives in, the "crisis" ends. Claiming that your ideology isn't an ideology is just laughable. And it's not like you can't find this issue framed properly in the mainstream media: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/23/zickar.silent.majority/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Obama offered something like a $4 trillion debt reduction plan, with a spending cut-to-revenue increase ratio of 3:1. It was reported that he even agreed to go 4:1, which is one reason the left is so angry with him. But the House Republicans refused it. They even refused the bipartisan plan from the gang of 6 in the Senate.

This is not about the obvious need for draconian cuts in entitlements and spending. Your suggestion as such is completely media driven. This is about the right refusing to put one dime of this on the back of billionaires. These are extraordinarily bad times where the rich are richer than they've ever been, they profited the most over the last fifteen years, they enjoy the lowest tax rates in since Truman, and they are unwilling to contribute a dime to their country. No matter how much Obama offered to cut, the right refused to take one more dime from the rich, and purely out of princple. This cannot be justified in any moral or rational sense. We are faced with a fundamental choice and one worth fighting for. Knowing that the poor and middle class will be asked to sacrifice a lot if we are to achieve a balanced budget, are the rich going to contribute to the solution, or do they get a completely free ride on the backs of the working class? Obama is right to draw the line. In the words of even many conservative pundits, he made an extraodinarily generous offer. It was crazy to refuse it! But the right would drive us over a cliff based on the delusions of people like Bachmann who thinks we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills, and the demand that the rich shall contribute nothing to the solution.

What you said has nothing to do with the facts.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama offered something like a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan, with a spending cut-to-revenue increase ratio of 3:1. It was reported that he even agreed to go 4:1, which is one reason the left is so angry with him. But the House Republicans refused it. They even refused the bipartisan plan from the gang of 6 in the Senate.

This is not about the obvious need for draconian cuts in entitlements and spending. Your suggestion as such is completely media driven. This is about the right refusing to put one dime of this on the back of billionaires. These are extraordinarily bad times where the rich are richer than they've ever been, they profited the most over the last fifteen years, they enjoy the lowest tax rates in since Truman, and they are unwilling to contribute a dime to their country. No matter how much Obama offered to cut, the right refused to take one more dime from the rich, and purely out of princple. This cannot be justified in any moral or rational sense. We are faced with a fundamental choice and one worth fighting for. Knowing that the poor and middle class will be asked to sacrifice a lot, are the rich going to contribute to the solution, or do they get a completely free ride on the backs of the working class. Obama is right to draw the line. In the words of even many conservative pundits, he made an extraodinarily generous offer. But the right would drive us over a cliff based on the delusions of people like Bachmann who thinks thinks we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills, and the demand that the rich shall contribute nothing to the solution.

What you said has nothing to do with the facts.

If the bottom 50% of earners had paid more than 20% of all federal income taxes last year and the top 10% of income earners didn't pay the bulk of federal income taxes - you might have a point.

 

[SixNein]

Given the politicians raid the surplus funds and still need to borrow additional outside funds to meet their bloated spending requirements - about 42% of the cash flow is from debt - there is a problem that needs to be solved. Social Security is not secure.

The line of argumentation your using is the price reason why the United States is in a great deal of economical trouble. Problems cannot be discussed or solved because of rigid ideologies. There are a great many factors affecting the government's negative finances, and none of them stem from social security.

One thing I find interesting in American politics is the weight given to party. People will agree with a liberal if he's a republican but disagree if he's a democrat. And the same is true for conservatives. I came across an article today on Obama that was shockingly accurate:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx

But one would never hear either a liberal or conservative admit it.

I think the United States is dangerously close to becoming completely ungovernable. The fact that we are so close to default deadline is proof. The fact that a deadline of this sort is needed to try to get something half assed done is proof.

 

[WhoWee]

The line of argumentation your using is the price reason why the United States is in a great deal of economical trouble. Problems cannot be discussed or solved because of rigid ideologies. There are a great many factors affecting the government's negative finances, and none of them stem from social security.

As OmCheeto pointed out - the problem with Social Security is mismanagement of the surplus funds. At a very near time in the future - there won't be a surplus and funds will need to be borrowed to pay benefits - while the number of beneficiaries increases.

 

[SixNein]

If the bottom 50% of earners had paid more than 20% of all federal income taxes last year and the top 10% of income earners didn't pay the bulk of federal income taxes - you might have a point.

I think the fact that GE had negative taxes proves the point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The entire debate is tainted with ideology.

Entitlements must be cut in the long term but that is not the issue today. The issue today goes back to Bachmann and her claim that we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills and not raise the debt ceiling.

If we don't raise the debt ceiling, a lot of people won't get money they are due. Geithner and Obama will have to pick and choose who that may be but there are no good choices. Shall it be the elderly and their SS checks, the military, medicare payments...? We know we can't afford to default on our debt payments.

Given that Bachmann is one of the leading candidates for the Republicans, this absurd notion of defaulting on payments due is now mainstream thinking on the right.

What do you call people who simply choose to not pay their bills?

 

[OmCheeto]

Cheer up - a meeting with the Presiden, Vice President, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just ended (saw a news report). I expect Harry Reid will now get something done with the Republican leadership in Congress.

Ah! Hahahahahaha!

Told jah!

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/173159-reid-pelosi-to-meet-obama-gop-source-says-no-boehner-deal"
07/24/11
...
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) excoriated the White House for playing politics with the debt limit, according to call participants.
...

It comes from the NY Times, Sept. 30, 1981, defending President Reagan and blaming the Democrats in Congress for playing games with the debt ceiling.

Now if we could just get them to play nice.

 

[SixNein]

As OmCheeto pointed out - the problem with Social Security is mismanagement of the surplus funds. At a very near time in the future - there won't be a surplus and funds will need to be borrowed to pay benefits - while the number of beneficiaries increases.

If the government manages its debt levels, it will be able to repay those funds with interest.

 

[WhoWee]

I think the fact that GE had negative taxes proves the point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

You do realize that GE CEO is one of President Obama's closest allies? You do realize that even though GE has cut thousands of US jobs - their CEO is heading President Obama's jobs commission? You do realize that President Obama has brought GE executives along on business creation trips to India and elsewhere? Last, do you realize that GE owns NBC - and NBC has not been very critical of President Obama - have they?

 

[WhoWee]

If the government manages its debt levels, it will be able to repay those funds with interest.

The Government borrows over 40% of it's cash flow - with no end in sight.

 

[turbo]

Now if we could just get them to play nice.

Apparently the "liberal media" can accuse Obama of "playing politics" when he offers the GOP concessions in spending. And the right-wing nuts can keep slamming him when he offers those concesssions and they turn them down. We have a really twisted media-circus operating today.

 

[OmCheeto]

If the bottom 50% of earners had paid more than 20% of all federal income taxes last year and the top 10% of income earners didn't pay the bulk of federal income taxes - you might have a point.

And if the richest 400 Americans didn't have an accumulated wealth equivalent to the poorest 155 million Americans, then you might have a point also.

 

[WhoWee]

Apparently the "liberal media" can accuse Obama of "playing politics" when he offers the GOP concessions in spending. And the right-wing nuts can keep slamming him when he offers those concesssions and they turn them down. We have a really twisted media-circus operating today.

When the President insistes he won't sign legislation that doesn't extend the debt ceiling past his attempt to be re-elected in 2012 - how can that not be labeled "playing politics"?

 

[SixNein]

Entitlements must be cut in the long term but that is not the issue today. The issue today goes back to Bachmann and her claim that we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills and not raise the debt ceiling.

If we don't raise the debt ceiling, a lot of people won't get money they are due. Geithner and Obama will have to pick and choose who that may be but there are no good choices. Shall it be the elderly and their SS checks, the military, medicare payments...? We know we can't afford to default on our debt payments.

Given that Bachmann is one of the leading candidates for the Republicans, this absurd notion of defaulting on payments due is now mainstream thinking on the right.

What do you call people who simply choose to not pay their bills?

Yes, the debt ceiling needs to be raised, and it needs to be raised very soon; however, the discussion of spending cuts and tax increases will also have to be done soon. But there is a deeper problem than revenue and spending cuts. We have some serious legislation problems in areas like the patent systems that are in dire need of being addressed.

But I don't know if its even possible to fix America's problems given todays political environment.

 

[WhoWee]

And if the richest 400 Americans didn't have an accumulated wealth equivalent to the poorest 155 million Americans, then you might have a point also.

What is the value of the entitlement programs these 155 million people will receive?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Thanks for clearing that up Russ. Now as I understand it, when the Democrats propose spending cuts, that's not a compromise. But when the Republicans say they won't raise taxes on the rich, that is a compromise because what they really want to do is lower taxes on the rich. As a result, I have decided to do a little compromising myself. I am going to say that you are wrong. That's up from saying that it is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

 

[Hurkyl]

[the rich] enjoy the lowest tax rates in since Truman,

Ignoring the rest of the junk in your post, I'm going to ask what you mean by this and source it. This claim seems outright delusional claim when compared with a cursory glance at historical data -- i.e. the highest bracket of marginal income tax rate was at its maximum in 1944-1945 (94%), and the minimum occurred in 1988-1990 (28%), and has been in the 35%-40% range ever since.

(source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html)

 

[SixNein]

You do realize that GE CEO is one of President Obama's closest allies? You do realize that even though GE has cut thousands of US jobs - their CEO is heading President Obama's jobs commission? You do realize that President Obama has brought GE executives along on business creation trips to India and elsewhere? Last, do you realize that GE owns NBC - and NBC has not been very critical of President Obama - have they?

Do you believe all of this started with the election of Obama? In addition, do you believe GE is the only one doing this?

Just a side note, NBC was bought by comcast in Jan.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you believe all of this started with the election of Obama? In addition, do you believe GE is the only one doing this?

Just a side note, NBC was bought by comcast in Jan.

Shall I post the long list of how Senator Obama was going to change the way things are done in Washington?

 

[OmCheeto]

Apparently the "liberal media" can accuse Obama of "playing politics" when he offers the GOP concessions in spending. And the right-wing nuts can keep slamming him when he offers those concesssions and they turn them down.

Bernie Sanders said he wants Obama replaced in 2012.
Obama himself said that the Democratic leadership is not happy with him for offering so many concessions.

And to their credit, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the Democratic leadership, they sure did not like the plan that we are proposing to Boehner, but they were at least willing to engage in a conversation because they understood how important it is for us to actually solve this problem.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president"

We have a really twisted media-circus operating today.

I canceled my cable back in January 2010. I have never regretted it. But I am grateful for everyone here at the forum for reminding me that nothing has changed.

And guess what foolish thing I've been doing with all that spare change.

I've been investing in the stock market.

hmmm... What's going to happen to all that money if the debt ceiling isn't raised? I've heard rumours that I might lose my shirt! hmmm... Actually, I'll probably dig up that can of silver bullion I buried in the garden, cash them in, and buy more stock.

---------------------------------
(yes, my rototiller is still broke ;)

 

[Hurkyl]

You guys are getting sidetracked, I think.

SixNein: one example -- especially a cherry-picked example -- rarely proves anything. Also, it is patently absurd to think you can refute a fact about the behavior of the whole by claiming some small aspect of the whole behaves in a contrary fashion. You're line of reasoning is very much like claiming the life expectancy in the U.S. isn't 78 years old, because you know someone who died at age 60.

WhoWee: I don't think arguing a conspiracy theory involving Obama is very relevant to the thread, or appropriate for the forum.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for clearing that up Russ. Now as I understand it, when the Democrats propose spending cuts, that's not a compromise...

You need to reread my post, because I said nothing of the sort.

 

[OmCheeto]

What is the value of the entitlement programs these 155 million people will receive?

I don't know. But since we might default on the debt, and the Social Security program appears to be just a bunch of IOU's at the moment, my guess is zero.

Hey! Problem solved!

Now I understand politics.

Thank god I never planned on living to be 65.

 

[SixNein]

Shall I post the long list of how Senator Obama was going to change the way things are done in Washington?

What point are you trying to make? You seem incapable of discussing America's problems; instead, you seem fixated on one person. Even if Obama loses next election and Mitt Romney wins, I doubt there will be much difference in policy. Perhaps you want someone else? I don't know.

At any rate, these problems are still going to be present no matter who is president.

 

[SixNein]

You guys are getting sidetracked, I think.

SixNein: one example -- especially a cherry-picked example -- rarely proves anything. Also, it is patently absurd to think you can refute a fact about the behavior of the whole by claiming some small aspect of the whole behaves in a contrary fashion. You're line of reasoning is very much like claiming the life expectancy in the U.S. isn't 78 years old, because you know someone who died at age 60.

WhoWee: I don't think arguing a conspiracy theory involving Obama is very relevant to the thread, or appropriate for the forum.

Closing tax loop holes is exactly what the debt limit debate has been about.

 

[WhoWee]

You guys are getting sidetracked, I think.

SixNein: one example -- especially a cherry-picked example -- rarely proves anything. Also, it is patently absurd to think you can refute a fact about the behavior of the whole by claiming some small aspect of the whole behaves in a contrary fashion. You're line of reasoning is very much like claiming the life expectancy in the U.S. isn't 78 years old, because you know someone who died at age 60.

WhoWee: I don't think arguing a conspiracy theory involving Obama is very relevant to the thread, or appropriate for the forum.

Hardly a conspiracy theory - the President Obama and GE connection is quite well known - even criticised by the Left.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20048952-503544.html
"Former Sen. Russ Feingold and progressive group MoveOn today called on General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt to resign from the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in the wake of a report that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits - including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations - GE did not owe taxes in 2010.


They also expressed anger over the fact that the company has cut its U.S. workforce by roughly one fifth since 2002.


"How can someone like Immelt be given the responsibility of heading a jobs creation task force when his company has been creating more jobs overseas while reducing its American workforce?" Feingold asked in an email to supporters, as The Hill reports. "And under Immelt's direction, GE spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lawyers and lobbyists to evade taxes." "

As for NBC not being critical - we'll label that IMO.

As for the trip to India - http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/1...-ge-make-clean-tech-export-case-to-19304.html

"Obama and GE Make Clean Tech Export Case to India as Currency Issues Boil
"

 

[OmCheeto]

WhoWee: I don't think arguing a conspiracy theory involving Obama is very relevant to the thread, or appropriate for the forum.

I didn't see it as a conspiracy. Though some might see it that way.

I was surprised about the Immelt thing when I first heard about it, and had to think about it for a couple of minutes, then, BING!

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

enemies, being defined in this case, as those who take advantage of the system for their own gains.

Though as I said before, I was heavily invested in GE, but divested when I read their "screw you" message in their annual report. Thanks GE, but no, screw you.

 

[Newai]

I was surprised about the Immelt thing when I first heard about it, and had to think about it for a couple of minutes, then, BING!

That would be Stanley Bing, right?

 

[OmCheeto]

At any rate, these problems are still going to be present no matter who is president.

Why the hell do you think they put Palin on the ticket last election? Because they wanted to be in charge during this mess?









Sorry. I'm not laughing at you. Your statement is correct.

 

[OmCheeto]

That would be Stanley Bing, right?

?

Actually, I'm so illiterate in almost every area of everything, I had to look up who "Harry Reid" was about an hour ago.

Bing. hmmm... "Executricks: Or How to Retire While You're Still Working". I think my boss read that book.

"Sun Tzu Was a Sissy: Conquer Your Enemies, Promote Your Friends, and Wage the Real Art of War ".
Wow! Two Sun Tzu references in less than an hour.

It's a sign!

 

[BobG]

If the bottom 50% of earners had paid more than 20% of all federal income taxes last year and the top 10% of income earners didn't pay the bulk of federal income taxes - you might have a point.

No kidding! The bottom 50% of earners only earned 13% of the nation's total adjusted gross income.

A flat tax sounds great when the top 50% are paying 97% of the federal income taxes, but surely you don't think a flat tax would mean the top 50% would only pay 50% of federal income taxes. With a flat tax, the top 50% would still pay 87% of federal income taxes.

The top 10% earn $3.8 trillion a year. The bottom 50% earn $1.05 trillion a year.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls

 

[WhoWee]

No kidding! The bottom 50% of earners only earned 13% of the nation's total adjusted gross income.

A flat tax sounds great when the top 50% are paying 97% of the federal income taxes, but surely you don't think a flat tax would mean the top 50% would only pay 50% of federal income taxes. With a flat tax, the top 50% would still pay 87% of federal income taxes.

The top 10% earn $3.8 trillion a year. The bottom 50% earn $1.05 trillion a year.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls

IMO - we need more tax payers - and immigration is not the answer - the bottom 50% needs to take a cut in re-distribution. In expectation of arguments about Social Security - why did the President cut the SS deduction - what did it accomplish?

 

[ParticleGrl]

IMO - we need more tax payers - and immigration is not the answer - the bottom 50% needs to take a cut in re-distribution. In expectation of arguments about Social Security - why did the President cut the SS deduction - what did it accomplish?

I define a tax payer as someone who looks at their paycheck and says "oh, its lower than I thought because of taxes." Including only federal income tax is silly- why don't we only look at state taxes? After all- lots of the services most people use are funded by state taxes.

As to the temporary reduction in payroll taxes, it was a one-time cut designed to stimulate consumer demand in a recession. Keep in mind-tax cuts are the right-wing favored forms of economic stimulus.

 

[BobG]

What point are you trying to make? You seem incapable of discussing America's problems; instead, you seem fixated on one person. Even if Obama loses next election and Mitt Romney wins, I doubt there will be much difference in policy. Perhaps you want someone else? I don't know.

Not Ronald Reagan. New Party of Reagan

 

[mheslep]

http://news.yahoo.com/phone-tag-wrong-numbers-collapse-debt-talks-060105421.html

Maybe not proposals exactly, but agreeing to cuts is work toward middle ground. And this is the time when Boehner walked out.

And in fairness:

That's an unsourced line from Politico. I've seen no quotes to reporters, no public statements, and certainly nothing written down from the President, nor from Democratic leadership in Congress.

 

[Lapidus]

Obama offered something like a $4 trillion debt reduction plan, with a spending cut-to-revenue increase ratio of 3:1. It was reported that he even agreed to go 4:1, which is one reason the left is so angry with him. But the House Republicans refused it. They even refused the bipartisan plan from the gang of 6 in the Senate.

This is not about the obvious need for draconian cuts in entitlements and spending. Your suggestion as such is completely media driven. This is about the right refusing to put one dime of this on the back of billionaires. These are extraordinarily bad times where the rich are richer than they've ever been, they profited the most over the last fifteen years, they enjoy the lowest tax rates in since Truman, and they are unwilling to contribute a dime to their country. No matter how much Obama offered to cut, the right refused to take one more dime from the rich, and purely out of princple. This cannot be justified in any moral or rational sense. We are faced with a fundamental choice and one worth fighting for. Knowing that the poor and middle class will be asked to sacrifice a lot if we are to achieve a balanced budget, are the rich going to contribute to the solution, or do they get a completely free ride on the backs of the working class? Obama is right to draw the line. In the words of even many conservative pundits, he made an extraodinarily generous offer. It was crazy to refuse it! But the right would drive us over a cliff based on the delusions of people like Bachmann who thinks we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills, and the demand that the rich shall contribute nothing to the solution.

I don't know what this long thread is about and all the discussing, but Ivan nailed with this posts.

It is just the mother of all no-brainers http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1

I'm from Europe, and as everbody else here, it is beyond my comprehension how anybody half-way educated or sensible can defend or even support the current Republican party and their irresponsible and insane behavior.