Debt Crisis - Really?

[Black Aeronaut]

Personally, I'd call it a crisis of manufacture by the Republican party in an effort to discredit Obama.  How quickly we forget the eight years that Bush Jr. was President and the mess he made out of the economy during that time.
So, let's see if I got this right.  Congress stops a routine increase of the debt ceiling, saying that some changes have to be made before that happens.  Right, that's a good thing.  We like changes for the better in our economy.  But the problem seems to be that the Republicans are not in support of getting rid of tax credits for the wealthiest of Americans and corporations.  Instead, they want to cut spending on everything until it fits their wildest dreams.  Not to say that Obama won't propose historically drastic cuts himself, but Boehner wants to take it even further only without upping the ante on the upper class.
So, do I have that right?
BTW: I would LOVE to know how the hell getting rid of tax credits for the wealthy hurts small business.  Last I heard, a lot of small business loans are government subsidized, and Obama does not want to touch that.

[Thesilentjackofalltrade]

What I would love to know is wither or not either plan will lower our national debt over time or not.

So far, I am with Obama on this one, mostly because Boehner acted ignorant saying that Obama caused the debt problem.

What pisses me off is that Boehner is pretty much going to get his way due to the fact he is willing to hurt America to get his way, this BS game of chicken is going to hurt EVERYONE if either side doesn't back down, and he knows it, he will just hold steady, and since he is more radical then Obama, the nation will pay once the senate gives in.
The only way I can see the US to get around this is by using a interesting thing in the 14th amendment, I don't know it by heart, so I just looked it up and quoted it, and put it in Bold/Italics.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or
rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor
any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations
and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The problem with this though, is that the President can't do it, the congress has to. So, the question is now, which plan will hurt the American people more? John Boehner's plan? Or Harry Reid's plan?
The plan that hurts us less should be the one picked, and if it is not, then the people who put it in simply do not have the national interest at heart, instead they have the the national business with a mix of crack and a bottle of the strongest alcohol you can think of.
_____________
Veni, vidi, vici. [I came, I saw, I conquered
Quote from Julius Caesar

[Morganite]

I have yet to be convinced that the wealthy don't pay more than their fair share as it is.

Or that increasing any taxes on anybody is a good idea in a weak economy.

-Morgan.

[Foxboy]

Americans pay the LEAST taxes per capita of any first-world country. I remember back when Obama signed off on extending the Bush tax cuts as part of some deal to try to get his health care thing passed and I went:

"Oh... kay? Um, how were we gonna PAY for that health care package, Barry? I'm not gonna complain about having extra in my take-home, but, like, didn't you guys muck around with the interest while you held on to it for me between taking it out of my check and giving it back at tax return times?"

Sorry, the tax thing makes me think of a darker side to the Tea Party's appropriation of some of our revolutionary slogans:

"No Taxation without Representation!" leading to... "You don't pay taxes (because we cut them all), so we don't gotta represent you."
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[Thesilentjackofalltrade]

Fox boy leads an interesting point, and it also makes me wonder.

Are the people arguing about this giving their vote based off of their own opinions, or did they EVER ask their own people what they wanted to have done for them, since they are representatives.

Bah. I already know the answer to that. It should be Illegal for them to vote against what their state majority wants.

I personally think that higher taxes are needed for everyone, not just the rich, but if they also put taxes a little higher or the lower class and even sightly higher for the middle class along with the increased taxes on the rich that is in Ried's plan, then things would get better, faster.
_____________
Veni, vidi, vici. [I came, I saw, I conquered
Quote from Julius Caesar

[robkelk]

Americans pay the LEAST taxes per capita of any first-world country.

Which helps explain why the US per-capita debt load is approximately three times as large as the per-capita Canada debt load.

If the US national debt was called in right now and the load was spread out evenly, every single one of you would have to find $46,000 to pay. (If the Canadian national debt was called in right now and the load was spread out evenly, each of us would have to find $16,000 to pay.)

You folks are a lot farther down the road to where Greece is than we are... and, because your economy is so big, you're going to drag us down with you when you default. Yes, I said "when", not "if", because you show no signs of cleaning up your act. On the contrary, you're doing the exact opposite of cleaning up your act every time you raise your debt ceiling. That ceiling has to be decreased - drastically. And that means massive program cuts and tax increases.

We did it - it didn't kill us. We're doing it again because of your economic downturn. You can do it too.

Edit: As for the 14th amendment to the US Constitution disallowing questioning of the debt - China and your other creditors are not bound by the US Constitution. They can question your debt, or foreclose on it, all they want.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Jinx999]

Oh - so there's more political brinkmanship and mutual blameslinging going on.
Wake me up if something interesting happens.

[Black Aeronaut]

Morganni - it isn't a question of whether or not the wealthy actually pay more taxes or not. It's a question of capability to pay.

Look, I don't know about you and where you live, but it's pretty hard to get by in most places with Uncle Sam asking a twenty percent cut on top of whatever the State and Local governments take. Don't say it. I already know: "Twenty percent? That's nothing! We pay twice that in Country X." That's all fine and good, but pray tell what the hell is the average cost of living where you live? According to this site, it sounds pretty damn peachy in Canada compared to how things are in America.

Some places are more expensive to live in. Others cost less. Seriously, if you do want to argue the point with me you're going to have to provide hard figures.

Besides, it's not like you can wring any money from people that don't make much in the first place - really, the tax burden is mostly on the Middle Class. And may I remind you guys that it's the Middle Class that's been dropping like flies. So say that in some fantasy world that we were able to perpetuate these shenanigans? The Middle Class would eventually become virtually non-existent and the Upper Class would be stuck with the bill because the Lower Class sure as hell can't pay it.

It's the Upper Class that has benefited the most from this morass and it is high time they paid the piper.

[Valles]

Jinx: I'm sure you'll notice the horrific crunching noise of the United States Economy going into freefall if the Republicans don't put the Tea Party out of our collective misery in time.

And that's if the Democrats blink and the Federal Government goes onto literal starvation rations. If they don't, it will be quite a bit worse.

Really, the best thing the Republican Party can do to ensure its own future success is to give up this fight, because there are enough capable operators on the 'Center' to ensure that they will catch their justly deserved blame for any consequences.
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."

[Jinx999]

I'd take it more seriously if I thought they were really going to go through with it, instead of engaging in political theatre in order to fire up the base. (And possibly try and wring out more concessions - but that'd be secondary)

[Black Aeronaut]

Nope, it's about as serious as it gets now. There I times I wish we could just throw out the entire legislative branch and elect a new one.

[ordnance11]

In California, they call it recall..whether that's a good thnig or not is another subject in it's entrirety.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Fidoohki]

{{Nope, it's about as serious as it gets now. There I times I wish we could just throw out the entire legislative branch and elect a new one.

I think we'd just get new idiots...

[Werehawk]

I'd say that our current political class is one of the best arguments in favor of term limits. Say a maximum of two consecutive terms for senators and three for congressmen. With no run period for the same seat equivalent two two terms. As well as eliminating gerrymandering. And I can think of some really long term office holders in both parties who need to be shown the door firmly and permanently. Add in that any political figures who retire from elected office should be subject to a 50% tax or higher if they take up any work that involves lobbying or has any relation with governemnt contracts. Also we need to break the current stranglehold of both parties on representation the system as it stands is broken.

And regardless of the debt limit standoff the U.S. does need to address both the deficit and the national debt. Both of which the sooner we deal with the problems the better. And quite frankly I've been underwhelmed by both parties behavior on the issue past and current. Their attitude for quite a long time has been let's kick the ball down the road for our sucessors to deal with. We've reached a point at which continuing to do so is no longer possible or wise.

I'll also flatly state that I'd far rather see attempts to cut the size and the spending of federal government than attempts to raise taxes. For one very simple reason that bein that I have little if any trust that our political figures have any capacity for spending money wisely. So far if anything their spending habits make a drunken sailor on a bar crawl after a long voyage look like a paragon of fiscal restrain and wisdom. Quite frankly I'd rather see a serius attempt at cutting back the size and spending of the federal government rather than raising taxes as well as a cold hard look at exactly what should the extent of the governemnt's reach should be.
--Werehawk--
My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading."

[Fidoohki]

I was watching the news when John Kerry was being interviewed. He said something that made me think.. which given it

is John Kerry saying it should be considered a miracle... Anyway, he said:

"these tea party people act like they are the only ones that are trying to reduce the deficit and goverment spending." or

something like that. And to be honest with watching Bush run up the tab then Obama Running it up faster (save the debate

of justification for another thread)) they probably do feel that way..

What gets me is the kaniption fit Libs are throwing because these tea party people dare to actually keep their campaign promises

on cutting the deficit and size of government This is going to make 2012 an interesting election year...

[Black Aeronaut]

*Shakes head in disapointment* What really boggles my mind about the Tea Party is that they seem to think that the only way to reduce the amount of government we have now is to completely cut the social programs we have now. And in some cases that would be as useful as throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Really, there is quite a bit of money to be cut from the DoD. And not Ayieke's hair-brained ideas of reducing the total armed forces by two-thirds. I'm talking about reducing the number of high-ranking officers. We need to find a way to stop senseless price gouging (this little circuit card cost four-thousand dollars and has all the processing power of a pocket calculator). Really, I know these companies employ a lot of people, but I'm not talking about putting them out of business. I'm talking about putting them on an even footing with their civilian counterparts... oh wait, they have no civilian counterparts, do they?

We can also cut back on the retirement pensions of retired politicians and reduce their secret service coverage. (Really, if they play no active roll in politics then what kind of target are they? Even if terrorists do gun down a retired senator and all it'll do is just piss people off and increase our resolve to rid ourselves of them.) And for god sakes, can we please streamline Homeland Security?

That's something else that pisses me off. What in the BLUE FUCK does copyright infringement have to do with national security, and why the hell does Homeland Security need to get involved with it? That is something for the FBI. Homeland Security needs to focus on what they were created for - hunting for terrorists in our own back yard.

And if you want to cut back on Medicare and Medicade so badly, then start at the root of the problem - the medical system itself.

[Jinx999]

It's easy for any one person to identify budget cuts. The problem is that all the spending is both:
a) someone thinks it's a good idea.
b) Has a vested interest because they benefit.
Therefore every area of spending has two groups (who may not overlap that much) willing to defend it hard. And they're going to identify possible cuts in what you consider vital necessities. The problem is the politics.

[Foxboy]

Doesn't help that politics has been stratifying so badly recently, either.

I know there's at least one book out there called "The Great Sorting" (or something like) it that talks about folks that are like-minded politically moving to where others of similar philosophy live. And in our system, that can be... less than useful.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[robkelk]

It's easy for any one person to identify budget cuts. The problem is that all the spending is both:
a) someone thinks it's a good idea.
b) Has a vested interest because they benefit.
Therefore every area of spending has two groups (who may not overlap that much) willing to defend it hard. And they're going to identify possible cuts in what you consider vital necessities. The problem is the politics.

There's a simple test for that:

Will you die if it isn't provided?

No? Then it isn't a vital necessity, is it?

(Note that I don't ask "Will you die immediately if it isn't provided?" - this allows an honest "yes" answer for such things as a police force, an ambulance service, a food bank, and a Coast Guard. And churches can cover the food banks.)

Honestly, the budget cuts have to be made and the tax rates have to increase - that's the only way to get out of the hole you're in (short of selling off government property or declaring bankruptcy).
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Shay Guy]

I am fully in favor of a course of action that leads to the national debt becoming, say, less than half the GDP. (Hell, under Carter it was south of 40%.) Question is what that would entail and what would happen with it, as well as what priorities are more important and/or urgent than others. And honestly, the deficit is a problem, but not the biggest one we've got, especially because of how low bond interest rates are right now.

First priority: making the economy work right. That means putting several million unemployed Americans back to work. Giving the economy a real jump-start on that level isn't going to be easy, and it looks like it may require more government spending in the short term. Another problem we've got: crumbling infrastructure. We need that in good working order, and there's a lot of deferred maintenance that's coming back to bite us. It's a sound investment. Example: Spend City and Austeria both have a bridge that needs repairs, and they can't fund them with taxes for some reason. Spend City borrows the money and makes the repairs; Austeria does nothing. Fast-forward several years and Austeria's bridge collapses, leading to lots of injuries and property damage and a few deaths. Since they need that bridge, they have to rebuild it now, meaning they still have to borrow money, only a lot more than Spend City had to years ago. So even with the accumulated interest they've paid since then factored in and all the mayhem in Austeria not factored in, Spend City is still less in the hole than Austeria is now. Then there's climate change and all the catastrophes that could cause if we don't cut way back on fossil fuels.

This is not to say that everything the government is currently spending money on is something it should be spending money on, but from my standpoint it looks like "stuff that they need to be doing and aren't" exceeds "stuff they shouldn't be doing and are" by a fair margin, with the probable exception of the military. Now the question is how to fund it. Retire the Bush tax cuts, which didn't do us much good? That covers a good chunk of the deficit there. A few more tax hikes and/or new taxes would be good, too, though we'd need to be careful to put them in places where they won't cause too much trouble. (Human and economic trouble, not political trouble.) Close loopholes, do some audits. If my experience with this is anything to go on, it shouldn't be too hard. It probably won't balance the budget, but it'll get it to the point that we won't have to sell too many bonds a year to make up the shortfall. And remember, if we manage to jump-start the economy for real, that'll boost revenues big-time. Much of our current deficit is due to unemployment sapping revenues.

You can take a machete to the government's budget if you like. But you have to keep in mind the consequences of doing so.

---

Pronounced "shy guy."

[robkelk]

Something to consider: With the assistance of a very good accountant, I managed to get my federal income tax rate down to 23% of my income for 2011. Does anybody in the US pay 23% of their income - or more - in federal income tax?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Shay Guy]

Dunno. But we could stand to. The top marginal bracket used to be like 70%.

Another thing I forgot to mention: the debt ceiling itself. It's kind of silly, because back in April, Congress agreed on a budget that involved spending about $3.8 trillion and taking in about $2.2 trillion in revenue. In other words, they already agreed they'd borrow the trillion and a half needed to make up the difference. Now they're arguing over whether or not to give themselves permission to do what they already agreed and promised to do.

---

Pronounced "shy guy."

[Rod.H]

Interesting thing that page I played with it and by: cuttting foreign aid in half, Eliminate earmarks, Cut pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent, Cancel or delay some weapons programs, Enact medical malpractice reform, Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes, The Lincoln-Kyl proposal, Return rates to Clinton-era levels, Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax, Millionaire's tax on income above $1 million, Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher, Reduce mortgage deduction and others for high-income households, National sales tax, "Carbon" tax, & last a Bank Tax. I in theory cleared the 2015 shortfall with $537 billion, yet I was short $127 billion for 2030.

[Foxboy]

I think it includes the fact that we're going to have a HELL of a rush on Social Security and Medicare as the Boomers reach retirement age.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[Shay Guy]

I've found a bunch of solutions. Here's one that doesn't even resort to the national sales tax or the Medicare growth cap. (I really don't know enough about our health care system to know what that would do. And I favor a single-payer system anyway.) In retrospect, it's funny that I usually opt for malpractice reform, since it offers the least savings in the whole puzzle.

And why is "Allow expiration [of the Bush tax cuts] for income below $250,000 a year" apparently mutually exclusive with closing loopholes? o_O

---

Pronounced "shy guy."