Raise The Debt Limit Already!

[Adam]

Sounding a bit too much like a cookie cutter politician. Especially when he starts talking about "getting along" with democrats. How can you get along with a party that is so far left and so radical? Getting along infers compromising. How can you let the likes of Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, Obama and the rest of them have even the slightest influence on our country? The inmates running the asylum have to be crushed. Simple as that. Reading this it really seems like Mit is not the guy.

Cookie cutter is what gets you elected in this country

[IDBillzFan]

Getting along infers compromising

Actually, he would imply it and you would infer it. But otherwise I agree, to an extent, with what you're saying. The Pelosi and Reids of the world have absolutely no interest in working with the right. None. On the other hand, the current POTUS ran his entire campaign on a post-partisan promise, and he can barely roll out of bed in the morning without pissing all over the GOP. His press conference today was awesome: The GOP wants children to starve so their private-jet buddies can get tax breaks.

 

That's reaching across the aisle, man.

[3rdnlng]

Actually, he would imply it and you would infer it. But otherwise I agree, to an extent, with what you're saying. The Pelosi and Reids of the world have absolutely no interest in working with the right. None. On the other hand, the current POTUS ran his entire campaign on a post-partisan promise, and he can barely roll out of bed in the morning without pissing all over the GOP. His press conference today was awesome: The GOP wants children to starve so their private-jet buddies can get tax breaks.

 

That's reaching across the aisle, man.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/flashback-ap-stimulus-includes-tax-break-promote-private-jet-sale

 

Obama should make up his mind.

[IDBillzFan]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/flashback-ap-stimulus-includes-tax-break-promote-private-jet-sale

 

Obama should make up his mind.

You have to hand it to him; he promised transparency, and he truly makes it very easy to see right through him.

 

On the other hand, I'm starting to think that $5-a-ticket raffle to have dinner him is seriously overpriced. (But wait, there's more! Get your ticket now and we'll put Joe Biden at the table for no additional cost! So you get the Barry, you get the Michelle AND you get the Biden, plus free shipping and handling, for the low cost of only $5 a ticket! Order now. Operators are ready to take your call!)

[DC Tom]

Actually, he would imply it and you would infer it. But otherwise I agree, to an extent, with what you're saying. The Pelosi and Reids of the world have absolutely no interest in working with the right. None. On the other hand, the current POTUS ran his entire campaign on a post-partisan promise, and he can barely roll out of bed in the morning without pissing all over the GOP. His press conference today was awesome: The GOP wants children to starve so their private-jet buddies can get tax breaks.

 

That's reaching across the aisle, man.

 

Did you hear the same press conference I did?

 

Because what I heard was a lot more non-partisan than the "liberal bias, my ass" media is making it out to be.

[Adam]

Actually, he would imply it and you would infer it. But otherwise I agree, to an extent, with what you're saying. The Pelosi and Reids of the world have absolutely no interest in working with the right. None. On the other hand, the current POTUS ran his entire campaign on a post-partisan promise, and he can barely roll out of bed in the morning without pissing all over the GOP. His press conference today was awesome: The GOP wants children to starve so their private-jet buddies can get tax breaks.

 

That's reaching across the aisle, man.

Are you sure about that?

[IDBillzFan]

Did you hear the same press conference I did?

 

Because what I heard was a lot more non-partisan than the "liberal bias, my ass" media is making it out to be.

I was in and out because of phone calls, so I did not listen to it in its entirety. I will find it and watch it in it's entirety tonight and if I overstated my thought, I'll admit it. What I referred to is what stuck with me; something about GOP choosing between kids not getting tuition, food not getting inspected, medical advancements coming to a standstill, dog and cats getting along with each other...or fat cat corporate jets tax breaks. It was essentially a twist on no cops, no fireman, no teachers because fat cats need their tax breaks. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

[1billsfan]

I was in and out because of phone calls, so I did not listen to it in its entirety. I will find it and watch it in it's entirety tonight and if I overstated my thought, I'll admit it. What I referred to is what stuck with me; something about GOP choosing between kids not getting tuition, food not getting inspected, medical advancements coming to a standstill, dog and cats getting along with each other...or fat cat corporate jets tax breaks. It was essentially a twist on no cops, no fireman, no teachers because fat cats need their tax breaks. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 

Don't bother, you got it right. I will post the transcript tomorrow, but tonight on Special Report Charles Krauthammer shot down in flames Obama's ridiculous assertions for the necessity of getting rid of tax breaks to bring down the deficit. Something about adding them up for every year since John the Baptist and still not adding up to one month of Obama debt. Probably got that wrong but it's along those lines.

 

He obviously fooled a few people here into thinking that this was a non-partisan speech. It's amazing that people are still so swayed by him. He's either acting like a immature adolescent refusing to face the cold hard realities the adults in the room are telling him or he's merely a mouthpiece repeating the garbage that his far left advisories actual believe and he's too stupid to know any better. He must have said "corporate jet" about twenty times. This guy has no clue what he's doing. What do you expect from a loser who voted "present" 128 times in the state senate.

[Magox]

I didnt find the press conference to be that partisan. Sure he threw in his usual class warfare style arguments to sell to the American public his points, but not anymore than usual, as a matter of fact I would say ever since the Nov 2010 elections he has become much less partisan than he use to be.

 

In regards to eliminating the oil subsidies, Can anyone give me a GOOD answer in to why we shouldnt eliminate the oil subsidies? And before anyone answers, remember, I know more about this than you do. So again, can anyone give me a GOOD answer in to why we shouldnt?

 

Its a losing proposition, if the GOP were smart, they would get rid of these subsidies and whatever the hell these corporate jet taxes thingy is. Its not that much to give up at all. If they were to go through with the elimination of these subsidies, then what could the liberals say? Do it! Get rid of these loopholes!!

 

 

Oh, and I remember when compromise use to be a good word. Now the hard right is so brain washed by the likes of Hannity, Rush and crew that they cant get it through thick !@#$ing skulls, that compromise is necessary sometimes. Idiots

Edited June 30, 2011 by Magox

[Adam]

I didnt find the press conference to be that partisan. Sure he threw in his usual class warfare style arguments to sell to the American public his points, but not anymore than usual, as a matter of fact I would say ever since the Nov 2010 elections he has become much less partisan than he use to be.

 

In regards to eliminating the oil subsidies, Can anyone give me a GOOD answer in to why we shouldnt eliminate the oil subsidies? And before anyone answers, remember, I know more about this than you do. So again, can anyone give me a GOOD answer in to why we shouldnt?

 

Its a losing proposition, if the GOP were smart, they would get rid of these subsidies and whatever the hell these corporate jet taxes thingy is. Its not that much to give up at all. If they were to go through with the elimination of these subsidies, then what could the liberals say? Do it! Get rid of these loopholes!!

 

 

Oh, and I remember when compromise use to be a good word. Now the hard right is so brain washed by the likes of Hannity, Rush and crew that they cant get it through thick !@#$ing skulls, that compromise is necessary sometimes. Idiots

Nice post. I would also eliminate the Bush era tax cuts and push Social Security back about 10 years (with a an exemption to that for terminal illness) for anyone who isn't already 60. Later, I might push it back more, based on average life expectancy, as it never was intended to be for more than the final two years of life.

[Magox]

Nice post. I would also eliminate the Bush era tax cuts and push Social Security back about 10 years (with a an exemption to that for terminal illness) for anyone who isn't already 60. Later, I might push it back more, based on average life expectancy, as it never was intended to be for more than the final two years of life.

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts for everyone should be the #1 goal coupled with reforming Medicare and S.S for the next US president. This President doesnt have what it takes to reform Medicare and S.S. ANd if we were to elect some far right dingbat, they wouldnt have what it takes to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.

 

We need a rational, less partisan President to solve our growing debt problems.

[IDBillzFan]

I didnt find the press conference to be that partisan. Sure he threw in his usual class warfare style arguments to sell to the American public his points, but not anymore than usual, as a matter of fact I would say ever since the Nov 2010 elections he has become much less partisan than he use to be.

 

In regards to eliminating the oil subsidies, Can anyone give me a GOOD answer in to why we shouldnt eliminate the oil subsidies? And before anyone answers, remember, I know more about this than you do. So again, can anyone give me a GOOD answer in to why we shouldnt?

 

Its a losing proposition, if the GOP were smart, they would get rid of these subsidies and whatever the hell these corporate jet taxes thingy is. Its not that much to give up at all. If they were to go through with the elimination of these subsidies, then what could the liberals say? Do it! Get rid of these loopholes!!

 

 

Oh, and I remember when compromise use to be a good word. Now the hard right is so brain washed by the likes of Hannity, Rush and crew that they cant get it through thick !@#$ing skulls, that compromise is necessary sometimes. Idiots

All of this is well and good except for one thing: the goal of the current negotiation is to get the debt limit raised, NOT to lower the debt and deficit. Period. The GOP has one simple, easily understood request in exchange for raising the debt limit: if we're going to raise the debt limit, we want cuts equal to the amount of the debt limit hike. Sounds like a decent compromise to me.

 

But no. The Dems came back and said "Okay, if you want to cut spending, then we want tax hikes."

 

One thing at at time. Let's address the debt limit issue first, and THEN the discussion can be about reducing the debt and deficit.

 

So while you point out the brain-washed hard right, you should point out the brain-washed hard left, who have stalled the debate by taking the discussion off track.

 

Regardless, as they say, we need to stop yapping about the storms at sea and get the ship in.

Edited June 30, 2011 by LABillzFan

[Adam]

All of this is well and good except for one thing: the goal of the current negotiation is to get the debt limit raised, NOT to lower the debt and deficit. Period. The GOP has one simple, easily understood request in exchange for raising the debt limit: if we're going to raise the debt limit, we want cuts equal to the amount of the debt limit hike. Sounds like a decent compromise to me.

 

But no. The Dems came back and said "Okay, if you want to cut spending, then we want tax hikes."

 

One thing at at time. Let's address the debt limit issue first, and THEN the discussion can be about reducing the debt and deficit.

 

So while you point out the brain-washed hard right, you should point out the brain-washed hard left, who have stalled the debate by taking the discussion off track.

 

Regardless, as they say, we need to stop yapping about the storms at sea and get the ship in.

The cuts shouldn't be just equal and tax hikes should be on the table. Both sides need to take the debt seriously and stop posturing.

 

I will never be brainwashed- I prefer to have a dirty mind.

[Magox]

All of this is well and good except for one thing: the goal of the current negotiation is to get the debt limit raised, NOT to lower the debt and deficit. Period. The GOP has one simple, easily understood request in exchange for raising the debt limit: if we're going to raise the debt limit, we want cuts equal to the amount of the debt limit hike. Sounds like a decent compromise to me.

 

But no. The Dems came back and said "Okay, if you want to cut spending, then we want tax hikes."

 

One thing at at time. Let's address the debt limit issue first, and THEN the discussion can be about reducing the debt and deficit.

 

So while you point out the brain-washed hard right, you should point out the brain-washed hard left, who have stalled the debate by taking the discussion off track.

 

Regardless, as they say, we need to stop yapping about the storms at sea and get the ship in.

 

Let me try to put this in another way. The elimination of these oil subsidies and this private jet thingy are so miniscule in tangible terms relative to our debt problems, they absolutely make virtually no difference whatsoever. Notice how I said in tangible terms, meaning real actual value in reducing the debt.

 

Yet, the argument to the American public is much more powerful than what it really is. Fact: More than 60% of the US public has a negative view of the oil companies. Why wouldnt you eliminate these oil subsidies, and eliminate this strawman attack from the left at the same time?

 

Its not like its gonna cost the US economy jobs. There is so much global interest in oil, eliminating these subsidies would virtually have no effect on the US job sector, or for that matter prices.

 

Again, if you close these loopholes, then what could the libs say? You just now took away their strawman, and now you can claim compromise and push for even more cuts.

 

 

This is what I am trying to say

[GG]

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts for everyone should be the #1 goal coupled with reforming Medicare and S.S for the next US president. This President doesnt have what it takes to reform Medicare and S.S. ANd if we were to elect some far right dingbat, they wouldnt have what it takes to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.

 

We need a rational, less partisan President to solve our growing debt problems.

 

I wonder then why you didn't link today's WSJ editorial about Bush tax cuts that show that during his admin when marginal rates were low, the fed tax intake was in line with historic averages. Thus, hard to draw a straight parallel between raising tax rates & raising tax revenue. I'll go even further in saying that the prospect of tax hikes down the road is holding people back from going out on a limb to grow the economy.

 

It's the economy stupid, and you're not going to get the economy moving by bashing the people who move that economy in the head.

[Magox]

I wonder then why you didn't link today's WSJ editorial about Bush tax cuts that show that during his admin when marginal rates were low, the fed tax intake was in line with historic averages. Thus, hard to draw a straight parallel between raising tax rates & raising tax revenue. I'll go even further in saying that the prospect of tax hikes down the road is holding people back from going out on a limb to grow the economy.

 

It's the economy stupid, and you're not going to get the economy moving by bashing the people who move that economy in the head.

One, because I didnt read the editorial that you are referring to.

 

But you cant possibly compare the state of the economy from the mid Bush era to today. The economy is so impaired, so structurally !@#$ed up that we wont be seeing anything near the sort of tax revenues or growth relative to todays GDP/inflation than what we had seen before.

 

I also happen to believe that we are much closer to a debt crisis than the Bush era, Im not making the argument that its Obamas fault, because it isnt, doesnt matter what president that would of stepped in, our National debt wouldnt be much lower with or without the trillion dollar stimulus. Like it or not, it did bump up the economy some, just not nearly as much as they had hoped for.

 

Even old Greenspan happens to believe that our biggest threat that we face in the future is a possible debt catastrophe, and we all know Greenspan is a low taxes kind of guy, and the fact that he is calling for everyones taxes to be raised speaks volumes. NOw, obviously I am not staking this position because he thinks its a good idea, I formed this opinion because I believe this is what needs to be done. You just cant cut your way out of this debt crisis. Added revenues has to be a part of the solution.

 

I understand what you are saying in regards to higher taxes causing more uncertainty. I believe that whole heartedly, but hey, no matter how you slice it or dice it, the US is in for some very slow to mild growth with risks of severe downturns over the next decade. At least!

 

 

There are no good options GG. There are only bad to worse ones.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Magox

[....lybob]

Nice post. I would also eliminate the Bush era tax cuts and push Social Security back about 10 years (with a an exemption to that for terminal illness) for anyone who isn't already 60. Later, I might push it back more, based on average life expectancy, as it never was intended to be for more than the final two years of life.

Social Security has absolutely zero to do with the present debt/deficit crisis- Social Security has a total surplus of 2.6Trillion dollars and 2011 is the first year with a estimated payroll tax to expenses deficit ($45billion) - this figure excludes the interest the Social Security surplus accrues $114.9Billion.

 

There has never been a Social Security problem, just a general revenue fund problem that is going to be exposed by Social Security payroll taxes that stop running at surplus- they never want to run at a deficit, like a bank that is happy to take you deposits but never wants you to withdraw- most so called SS reform is simply saying we stole from you and we would like to continue to steal from you- what it does is make previous and current SS payroll tax a 16% regressive income tax on income under $106,000.

Edited June 30, 2011 by ....lybob

[GG]

One, because I didnt read the editorial that you are referring to.

 

But you cant possibly compare the state of the economy from the mid Bush era to today. The economy is so impaired, so structurally !@#$ed up that we wont be seeing anything near the sort of tax revenues or growth relative to todays GDP/inflation than what we had seen before.

 

I also happen to believe that we are much closer to a debt crisis than the Bush era, Im not making the argument that its Obamas fault, because it isnt, doesnt matter what president that would of stepped in, our National debt wouldnt be much lower with or without the trillion dollar stimulus. Like it or not, it did bump up the economy some, just not nearly as much as they had hoped for.

 

Even old Greenspan happens to believe that our biggest threat that we face in the future is a possible debt catastrophe, and we all know Greenspan is a low taxes kind of guy, and the fact that he is calling for everyones taxes to be raised speaks volumes. NOw, obviously I am not staking this position because he thinks its a good idea, I formed this opinion because I believe this is what needs to be done. You just cant cut your way out of this debt crisis. Added revenues has to be a part of the solution.

 

I understand what you are saying in regards to higher taxes causing more uncertainty. I believe that whole heartedly, but hey, no matter how you slice it or dice it, the US is in for some very slow to mild growth with risks of severe downturns over the next decade. At least!

 

 

There are no good options GG. There are only bad to worse ones.

 

And the best way to raise revenues is to grow the economy. This anemic rebound from a horrific recession is unprecedented, and yes I lay the blame at the feet of the guy on Pennsylvania Avenue. Grow the economy by 5%, which is in line with recessionary bounces, and voila, your tax revenues grow. If you raise taxes on the productive class, they'll stop being more productive and will continue to milk the drying cow. Result - <2.5% GDP growth, 9% unemployment and diminishing tax revenues - welcome to Europe.

[Magox]

And the best way to raise revenues is to grow the economy. This anemic rebound from a horrific recession is unprecedented, and yes I lay the blame at the feet of the guy on Pennsylvania Avenue. Grow the economy by 5%, which is in line with recessionary bounces, and voila, your tax revenues grow. If you raise taxes on the productive class, they'll stop being more productive and will continue to milk the drying cow. Result - <2.5% GDP growth, 9% unemployment and diminishing tax revenues - welcome to Europe.

It is, but we wont be seeing anything close to a 5% GDP growth on a sustained basis no matter who is in there. 2.5% is the new normal. And Adam, the only way our future SS problem will be solved is if we end up raising the age of when recipients can begin to start collecting benefits. They dont have to raise the age of people are close to retiring now, but more like people below the age of 45 or 50.

[....lybob]

And the best way to raise revenues is to grow the economy. This anemic rebound from a horrific recession is unprecedented, and yes I lay the blame at the feet of the guy on Pennsylvania Avenue. Grow the economy by 5%, which is in line with recessionary bounces, and voila, your tax revenues grow. If you raise taxes on the productive class, they'll stop being more productive and will continue to milk the drying cow. Result - <2.5% GDP growth, 9% unemployment and diminishing tax revenues - welcome to Europe.

Conventional conservative logic- but we are at post ww2 lows in taxes for the wealthy, the top 1% has the greatest share of income 23% and wealth 40% since 1929, and businesses are sitting on record levels of cash. The reason no one is building and hiring is lack of demand,average American factories are barely operating at 75% of capacity- and with the policies in place and what looks to be the policies of the future increase consumption from America and Europe seems unlikely- so sans smart stimulus it looks like we are waiting for increased consumption from China and the rest of the developing world. One thing you are right about is this continued economic malaise is Obama's fault but for listening to Bernanke and Geithner about how money pumped into the Banks and finance was going to trickle down to the real economy.