Obama Pushes U.S. Debt Deal, Spurns Republican Plan

[Bigb23]

As the result of give aways and two, almost trillion dollar wars each, we have come to this:

Apple now has more cash than the U.S. government

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovat...ss_igoogle_cnn

It was not that long ago that Game Stop was more valuable than General Motors on Wall Street.

I know that we've been calling Congress self serving clowns for over a hundred years - but, WHEN will THEY get it?

As we wither and die as a nation, I can only add a few faces to our demise.

[mjs]

Why now? Because its at critical mass. If obama gets the ceiling he is unwilling to back down from, we will have the third highest GDP to debt ratio by the end of next year. If we borrow at that rate for the next ten years, our debt to GDP ratio well exceed that of Greece. Because the rate at which are increasing what we borrow is sky rocketing. If you think Keynes was wrong, what's wrong with now?

Why not before? Because after the Republican led House got the Republican Senate to reduce the deficits in the Clinton years, just 35 Senate Democrats including Harry Reid managed to kill the balanced budget amendment. Because the freshmen class with the backbone to balance the budget didn't get to vote in the elections that took place before they were sworn in. Because we had to wait for those irresponsible individuals to face reelection before we could vote them out.

Now that I answered your questions, please answer if my proposed compromise would be acceptable to you. Please also realize that the Feds will do over ten trillion in cuts if we never see another agreement to raise the debt ceiling. $4 trillion is the compromise offer.

[Bigb23]

Now that I answered your questions, please answer if my proposed compromise would be acceptable to you. Please also realize that the Feds will do over ten trillion in cuts if we never see another agreement to raise the debt ceiling. $4 trillion is the compromise offer.

Other than you're pre-prepared response, YOU seem to have the debate in hand. Please forward you're response to the United States Congress.

[ghettopalmetto]

Why now? Because its at critical mass. If obama gets the ceiling he is unwilling to back down from, we will have the third highest GDP to debt ratio by the end of next year. If we borrow at that rate for the next ten years, our debt to GDP ratio well exceed that of Greece. Because the rate at which are increasing what we borrow is sky rocketing. If you think Keynes was wrong, what's wrong with now?

Critical mass? Based on what definition? Faux outrage from several dozen freshman legislators? We had debt at 120% of GDP following World War II, and the government wasn't held hostage then. So again, why now???

You know, it's interesting to look at our Neighbours to the North, who have far higher rates of taxation, provide much more in the way of social services, and have an even stricter regulatory environment, yet somehow haven't fallen into the fiscal quagmire that we have. Yet our "fiscal conservatives" find such a government politically unpalatable. Would you care to explain why that is?

Why not before? Because after the Republican led House got the Republican Senate to reduce the deficits in the Clinton years, just 35 Senate Democrats including Harry Reid managed to kill the balanced budget amendment. Because the freshmen class with the backbone to balance the budget didn't get to vote in the elections that took place before they were sworn in. Because we had to wait for those irresponsible individuals to face reelection before we could vote them out.

Balanced Budget Amendment is a stupid idea. It will never, NEVER pass Congress. Why is it stupid? Well, let's see what happens during the next recession when revenue falls to 14% of GDP and expenditures rise to 24% of GDP. A balanced budget amendment would require 40% of the federal budget to be cut instantaneously--which 40% would YOU cut?

Now that I answered your questions, please answer if my proposed compromise would be acceptable to you. Please also realize that the Feds will do over ten trillion in cuts if we never see another agreement to raise the debt ceiling. $4 trillion is the compromise offer.

You haven't really answered anything, nor have you proposed any sort of compromise. A real compromise involves both an increase in the debt ceiling as well as additional revenues [[see above) in addition to cuts. Bear in mind, even Obama's proposed "grand bargain" is still far to the right of what most Americans desire.

Short-term spending to stabilze the economy isn't the issue. Fiscal idiot Tea Partiers holding the federal government hostage IS the issue.

[Patrick]

You know, it's interesting to look at our Neighbours to the North, who have
far higher rates of taxation, provide much more in the way of social services,
and have an even stricter regulatory environment, yet somehow haven't fallen
into the fiscal quagmire that we have. Yet our "fiscal conservatives" find such
a government politically unpalatable. Would you care to explain why that
is?

They try not to start decade-long wars

[mjs]

Post 111 does not meet your definition of a compromise? Right now, the Dems have no authority to borrow another dollar or increase taxes another dollar. That means the $10.4 trillion Dems wanted to spend in the next ten years that we don't have, can not be spent.

Giving you back the Bush tax cuts Dems also voted for and now cry about daily is not enough? Giving into failed Keynsian magic by holding off on the majority of the spending cuts until GDP rises is not enough? Accepting one to one cuts to revenue when the President claims he'll go three to one isn't enough? Giving into every single claimed excuse Dems have used for voting no to every single bill put before them to settle this is not enough? Is that you Harry?

[mjs]

Patrick, we wouldn't start decade long wars either if there was a balanced budget amendment that required our wars to be funded by revenue increases rather than borrowing. If something comes up that Americans don't want to pay for, then they simply will not be allowed to have it. I bet that if the 1995 balanced budget amendment had passed, Americans would have supported temporary payroll tax increases to extend unemployment benefits. Without it, we cut income taxes so we could get the extension before the President requested payroll tax cuts.

[ghettopalmetto]

Post 111 does not meet your definition of a compromise? Right now, the Dems have no authority to borrow another dollar or increase taxes another dollar.

I think you mean "federal government" and not "Dems".

Giving you back the Bush tax cuts Dems also voted for and now cry about daily is not enough?

In easy-to-understand pictures:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ef=NetworkNews

[oladub]

GP, Nice graphs. All the more reason to support Ron Paul 2012 and maybe Jim DeMint. Also reasons to not support President Obama and Republican neocons. President Obama voted to extend Bush's tax cuts on the rich, keep us in Bush's wars, issued an executive order to bomb Libya and Yemen, expanded actions in Pakistan, and pushed through the unsuccessful Porkulus bill which gave our more tax breaks and failed to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% as promoted. With the combination of new Obama trade agreements and having to spend on Obamacare here, companies are investing their profits overseas. Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and GE Medical have all made announcements in the last week to transfer jobs and/or expand production in China. Could it be that the new Obamacare tax on medical equipment has made foreign fields seem greener? No new jobs = no growing revenue to balance the budget.

Whether President Obama is purposely employing the Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm our economy and force major economic changes or he is just a merry Keynesian spending away, I can't tell. The problem remains that most Republicans aren't much better.

[mjs]

I also applaud your charts. Barney Frank puts Iraq and Afghanistan war spending at $125 billion a year and believes its the first thing we should cut. I agree full heartedly with the Democrat congressman. That would decrease next years borrowing by over 10%. If Congress won't implement the cut, why won't the President do it like he had promised when he ran? Our founding fathers intentionally designed the United States Constitution so the President needs Congressional authority to spend money, but he always has the option to spend less than what they authorize. Mr President, END OUR WARS!

[mjs]

The Bush tax cuts that Obama signed into law seven months ago will expire at the end of next year. Hopefully the bill to renew them again will not get the same 70 some percent support it got from Senate Democrats just seven months ago.

Theres my answer for removing the two biggest slices. Now that we've talked of how to save by undoing Republican supported items, what Democrat supported items are being offered in the spirit of compromise?

[Papasito]

Yeah those fatcat millionaires and billionaires with evil corporations like GE and Dell and Timberline and Yahoo and PG&A and Hewlitt-Packard need to pay MORE in taxes.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...n-america.html

[ghettopalmetto]

The Bush tax cuts that Obama signed into law seven months ago will expire at the end of next year. Hopefully the bill to renew them again will not get the same 70 some percent support it got from Senate Democrats just seven months ago.

Fat chance. The Republican Party is going to call the expiration a "tax increase".

[mjs]

Republicans can call it blueberry watermelon bubble gum if they want. If Senate Democrats vote no, it reverts to Clinton era rates.

Mr. President, END OUR WARS!

[firstandten]

The oddest thing about how well people think President Clinton balanced the congressional budget is that the years of that Congressional budget being balanced happened when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

Not totally true. During his first term he balanced the budget by giving a middle class tax cut and he raised taxes on the wealthest 1.2 % of americans. He was able to pass that without a single Repub vote. This set the tone for his administration being able to balance the budget

After the midterm elections the Repubs then controlled Congress and basically made his job a whole lot tougher.

[Danny]

NEW YORK [[CNNMoney) -- Well, that was ugly.


And there's plenty in it for everyone to hate.



On Monday, Congress will start voting on a last-minute debt ceiling deal that would keep the country out of default and reduce deficits by an estimated $2.5 trillion over a decade.
Whether the deal might also avert a first-ever credit downgrade for the United States is not clear, since ratings agency Standard & Poor's indicated it was looking for a credible, bipartisan plan that had at least $4 trillion of debt reduction.
As described by the parties Sunday night, the plan includes no tax or entitlement reform measures up front, although theoretically it leaves the door open to both.
The Senate is set to vote first, then the House. They don't have much time. The debt ceiling must be raised by Tuesday.
A debt ceiling increase of between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion: The framework will raise the debt ceiling immediately by $400 billion, then by another $500 billion after September.
After deep cuts are enacted by the end of the year, it will be increased by another $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion.
All told, the increases should cover the Treasury's borrowing needs until 2013.
Read the legislation - Full text

About $2.4 trillion in spending cuts: The framework would immediately cap domestic and defense spending, resulting in cuts of $917 billion over 10 years, according to House Speaker John Boehner. Democrats have described the magnitude of initial cuts as nearly $1 trillion.
The framework then calls for more deficit reduction -- between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion worth -- to be determined by the end of this year and imposed over 10 years. [[Video: Shocker! A real Senate debate)
Bipartisan debt-reduction committee: That second round of deficit reduction would be proposed by a special bipartisan joint committee of Congress. The committee has until Thanksgiving to come up with its proposals and those proposals would be guaranteed by an up-or-down vote without amendment by Dec. 23.
If the committee proposes and the Congress approves between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion in cuts, the debt ceiling will be increased dollar for dollar.
If the committee deadlocks or comes up with less than $1.2 trillion in cuts, or if Congress votes down the committee's proposals, the debt ceiling will be raised by $1.2 trillion.
While it appears the committee will be free to consider entitlement and tax reform -- and dare we say it, tax hikes -- practically speaking it's more likely members would hit an impasse over these measures just as they have, oh, every other day this year.

0:00 / 4:09 Obama maps out debt deal
Across-the-board cuts as trigger: If the committee deadlocks or fails to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in debt reduction, the sword of Damocles will fall on most forms of spending in the federal budget.
Specifically, as much as $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts would kick in -- evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending. [[Video: U.S. is 'debt man walking')
Dumbest Moments: Debt ceiling edition

Exempt from this round of cuts, however, would be programs that aid low-income Americans, according to Democrats' fact sheets. These include Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits and pensions, food stamps and Supplemental Security Income.
While Medicare would not be exempt, the framework would restrict cuts to no more than 2% of the program's cost. And the cuts that occur would not affect Medicare benefits nor would they increase seniors' costs, according to the White House fact sheet.
Required vote on balanced budget amendment: In theory, the across-the-board cuts could be avoided if instead both chambers of Congress pass a Balanced Budget amendment to the Constitution and send it to the states for ratification before the end of the year.
But for a host of reasons, political and substantive, that's very unlikely to happen.

First Published: August 1, 2011: 9:22 AM ET

Come on senators and the house VOTE YES, YES, YES, to raise the debt ceiling. NOW!

[Papasito]

they cant raise taxes enough to pay for the current level of government spending

[firstandten]

they cant raise taxes enough to pay for the current level of government spending

Prove it. People have been showing you charts giving you data and you give. Us talking points

[ghettopalmetto]

they cant raise taxes enough to pay for the current level of government spending

Considering that revenues are only 14% of GDP right now, I'd say that leaves quite a bit of leeway to raise taxes, don't you?

Won't someone help the poor billionaires!

Sorry pal. Gotta get you off this unemployment insurance that's making you so lazy. We have better things on which to spend our money--like throwing cash at oil companies, subsidizing private jets, and making sure hedge fund managers enjoy a 15% tax rate for producing nothing of value to the economy.

[oladub]

papasito: they cant raise taxes enough to pay for the current level of government spending."

firstandten: "prove it"

There are about 140M individual taxpayers in the US
The estimated 2010 federal budget is $3.55T

$3.55T divided by 140M taxpayers equals $25,357; the amount the average taxpayer will have to pay for President Obama's 2010 budget. Papasito is wrong because our kids can pay for it. All together now,"Yes they can."

[ghettopalmetto]

There are about 140M individual taxpayers in the US
The estimated 2010 federal budget is $3.55T

$3.55T divided by 140M taxpayers equals $25,357; the amount the average taxpayer will have to pay for President Obama's 2010 budget. Papasito is wrong because our kids can pay for it. All together now,"Yes they can."

And the AVERAGE net worth of me, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs is several billion dollars. Way to be intentionally misleading and disingenuous, Oladub.

And do we no longer require corporations to pay taxes? Or are you more interested in scaring $35,000 income earners that they'll have to pay $25,000 in taxes?

[Papasito]

Sorry pal. Gotta get you off this unemployment insurance that's making you so lazy.

LOL
I'm working and have been. I was out of work in 2009 because of your party repealing the http://mortgageblues.us/news/398 Glass-Steagall Act and causing the housing market to collapse. So your finger pointing and accusation of me being on unemployment is unwarranted. I have worked since the age of 14 years old and have paid my fair share.

Besides, Unemployment Compensation was a liberal idea, wasn't it? Don't criticize people for falling into the very safety net your party of choice created.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...bama-democrats

Are you going to allow specific companies that are a Democratic voting block to get tax exemptions the same way they got Obamacare exemptions when the taxes go up?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...pted-obamacare

Or are you cool with another trillion dollar stimulus package being passed so the money can be handed out to Unions and companies that will vote for Obama like last time?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...onique-de-rugy

And for the record, Republicans are not perfect either. I know they have a hand in everything, and don't fix the problems either. Pointing at one party without acknowledging your own party is part of the problem is just plain hypocritical. That's why I know both parties suck. You should too.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama...cans-recession

Back on point:

Considering that revenues are only 14% of GDP right now, I'd say that leaves quite a bit of leeway to raise taxes, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

Ok so you have a hardon if "Billionaires" pay more taxes.
In order to make the budget shortfall, for 2010, for example, let's do the math.

The total deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.42 trillion, a $960 billion increase from the 2008 deficit.
The 2009 budget deficit would represent 12.3% of gross domestic product,[9] the largest share since World War II

Total revenue ................ $2.381 trillion [[estimated)
Total expenditures ......... $3.552 trillion [[estimated)
Deficit ............................. $1.171 trillion [[estimated)
Debt ............................... $14.078 trillion [[estimated)
Website .......................... US Government Printing Office

So, in 2010 we had a $1.171 trillion dollar deficit. The revenue was rougly 2/3 of the expenditures. So we would have to raise all taxes 33.3%. NO ONE can afford a 33.3% tax increase.

Furthermore, this makes the Govenment simply BREAK EVEN. This is not getting ahead on any of the debt.

It's fail all the way around.

No employer or company can afford 33.3% more in taxes. They will close up or move to a country where they won't have to pay.

And essentially, it would have to be higher than 33.3% if you're just increasing taxes on the rich, because the rich will have to pay what the rest of us are not in order to bridge the gap.

[ghettopalmetto]

LOL
I'm working and have been. I was out of work in 2009 because of your party repealing the http://mortgageblues.us/news/398 Glass-Steagall Act and causing the housing market to collapse. So your finger pointing and accusation of me being on unemployment is unwarranted. I have worked since the age of 14 years old and have paid my fair share.

Besides, Unemployment Compensation was a liberal idea, wasn't it? Don't criticize people for falling into the very safety net your party of choice created.

I don't belong to a political party, nor do I have a "party of choice". I do not, however, vote for politicians who can't add and subtract.

Back on point:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

Ok so you have a hardon if "Billionaires" pay more taxes.
In order to make the budget shortfall, for 2010, for example, let's do the math.




So, in 2010 we had a $1.171 trillion dollar deficit. The revenue was rougly 2/3 of the expenditures. So we would have to raise taxes 33.3% NO ONE can afford a 33.3% tax increase.

Furthermore, this makes the Govenment simply BREAK EVEN. This is not getting ahead on any of the debt.

It's fail all the way around.

No employer or company can afford 33.3% more in taxes. They will close up or move to a country where they won't have to pay.

Congratulations, Papasito! You figured out why deficit spending is necessary in a recession--expenditures will ALWAYS far outpace revenues in a period of negative economic growth. Which is why a balanced budget amendment could perhaps be the second-worst idea in American history. Good job--you get a sticker today!

I take issue with your last point, however. Let's say there's a hedge-fund manager who makes a paltry gross income of $1,000,000 a year. Since that money is taxed at 15% [[capital gains), he pays $150,000 a year in federal taxes. Triple that to $450,000, and Mr. Underachiever still goes home with a cool $550,000. My my, times are tough. I think he'll just have to cut back on his foie gras intake, won't he?

And your last sentence wouldn't be so God damned hysterical IF there were a civilized country on the face of this earth that actually had lower rates of taxation. I mean, in what other country can you be wealthy, have the government kiss your ass, and have virtually zero fiscal responsibility for your country and the peons who make your money for you? If you know of this magical place, please let us know.

[mjs]

Look, you really need to get to a point where you learn to do your own research. You may believe it more if you look it up yourself. Go to wikipedia and type in tax rates around the world and remember that most other nations do not have state, local, and federal taxes. Since you're there, also look at the degrees and work history of all the top names in this debt debate as well as the degrees of the rest of the congressional democrats and republicans. Then as you ponder who can or can not add, remember that Poli Sci majors do not have to take any real math classes, but engineering and business majors do. Also, really, really, think of this. How can the richest in congress, born to the richest, who have never worked a non-government job their entire lives really understand the rest of us as well as they claim?

[oladub]

And the AVERAGE net worth of me, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs is several billion dollars. Way to be intentionally misleading and disingenuous, Oladub.

And do we no longer require corporations to pay taxes? Or are you more interested in scaring $35,000 income earners that they'll have to pay $25,000 in taxes?

I used the word "average". It is self explanatory. The fifty percent of Americans who pay no income taxes weren't considered either. That's a lot of zeros to average against Gates and Jobs leaving most taxpayers in between. I did consider corporate taxes but since they are passed along to consumers anyway.... Had President Obama not extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the federal government would have reduced the federal deficit 25-33%. If you want to break down every tax bracket after that, have at it.

If you had your way, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would have had to pay more taxes instead of being able to reinvest their profits and create tens of thousands of high tech jobs in the process. Maybe the federal government could have doled out that money to create some make work jobs or extend unemployment for people Gates and Jobs otherwise hired. Whoopie.

Anyway, if the rich had to pay their Clinton era level of taxes, and the rest was prorated in the way you choose, and this averaged $25,357 per average taxpayer, how do you think this would work out for the economy? Firstandten sort of suggested that kind of tax money could be raised which is what I was responding to so show us how the $25,357 per average taxpayer could be divvied up by tax bracket without hurting the economy.