Tâx thé Rich. Problem Solved.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Tax the Rich. Problem Solved
by Carl Gibson

What if there was a group of terrorists holding your family hostage with a gun pointed at themselves, demanding the account number to your pension fund? Would you negotiate with the terrorists by allowing them access to your savings, or would you let them shoot themselves and keep your retirement money intact?

Congressional Republicans are threatening to default on the debt unless President Obama caves to their demands to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending. Regardless of the market-crashing consequences of a debt default, actually doing so would be unconstitutional. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment clearly states that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions...shall not be questioned." Republicans are violating the constitution by threatening a debt default. End of discussion.
...
A truly principled leader would refuse to negotiate with terrorists, and allow them to turn the gun on themselves. Our President needs to stand firmly behind these common-sense proposals, and remove from the table any cuts to the programs we've spent our lives funding from our own paychecks. No exceptions.

www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/08-0


...which is more important, the principle or the price tag?

[Deleted]

Anyone who refers to the opposing political party as terrorists is not worth the bandwidth that this post took up.

[floridayankee]

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions...shall not be questioned." Republicans are violating the constitution by threatening a debt default. End of discussion.

Since we have plenty of revenue coming in to cover the debt, raising the debt ceiling is not required to make our current debt payments. There is no violation unless our government decides to continue their wasteful spending rather than service our debt.

Anyone who refers to the opposing political party as terrorists is not worth the bandwidth that this post took up.

Agreed. Is it beer-30 yet?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 8, 2011 8:34:16 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Anyone who refers to the opposing political party as terrorists is not worth the bandwidth that this post took up.

...I think it's analogous... was it over-stretching?

[Deleted]

Jul 8, 2011 8:31:32 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Tax the Rich. Problem Solved
by Carl Gibson

What if there was a group of terrorists holding your family hostage with a gun pointed at themselves, demanding the account number to your pension fund? Would you negotiate with the terrorists by allowing them access to your savings, or would you let them shoot themselves and keep your retirement money intact?

Congressional Republicans are threatening to default on the debt unless President Obama caves to their demands to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending. Regardless of the market-crashing consequences of a debt default, actually doing so would be unconstitutional. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment clearly states that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions...shall not be questioned." Republicans are violating the constitution by threatening a debt default. End of discussion.
...
A truly principled leader would refuse to negotiate with terrorists, and allow them to turn the gun on themselves. Our President needs to stand firmly behind these common-sense proposals, and remove from the table any cuts to the programs we've spent our lives funding from our own paychecks. No exceptions.

www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/08-0


...which is more important, the principle or the price tag?

The Federal government will not default by a certain date as being reported by the media. Money can be pulled from other programs to cover the debt. This could go on for years, if not indefinitely.

[floridayankee]

From the article:

Four simple solutions would close that $4 trillion budget gap in the next decade, without even touching Social Security or Medicare.

By passing laws like Sen. Carl Levin's Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, we could generate over $100 billion in new revenue from closing loopholes that allow corporations to shift profits to overseas bank accounts. Through modest taxation of speculative Wall Street trading, we could bring in another $150 billion per year. With higher income tax brackets for households earning over $1 million annually, as Rep. Jan Schakowsky has proposed, we would gain another $100 billion. And progressively taxing estates worth $5 million or more would mean an extra $45 billion in tax revenue.

Assuming this guy is right, that is $395 billion in additional revenue. Hell, I'll even float the guy another $5 billion to make it an even $400 billion.

Now comes the good part. We just closed a $4 trillion dollar budget gap over the next decade....yeaaaa! Good for us, right? What they do not consider is future spending. Considering that we're adding an estimated $1.5 trillion to the deficit this year, and I'm making a wild-assed (and like likely low) guess of an additional trillion each year over the next 9 years. Now, we closed a $4 trillion budget gap with an additional taxes but turned around and added another $10.5 trillion to the deficit. Whoopdie-f'ing-doo. All this proposal manages to do is add $4 trillion less to the deficit than we would have without the hike.

Unless, or course, the author actually thinks the government...our government that has not had an actual surplus in over 50 years...will suddenly balance the budget for the next decade and use these additional taxes to reduce our deficit, in which case, I want whatever the hell he's drinking because it's obviously some good shit.

[Deleted]

Money HAS been pulled from other places for months now. It cannot go on for years... It can barely go on for months yet...

And I wouldn't have called them terrorists. However, given the current atmosphere where it seems like the Dems are ready and willingly giving up anything and everything... and the other side isn't willing to budge at all, even in the most superficial manner... I certainly do feel a bit like i'm hostage to the opposition...

[Driftr]

Jul 8, 2011 8:44:30 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions...shall not be questioned." Republicans are violating the constitution by threatening a debt default. End of discussion.

Since we have plenty of revenue coming in to cover the debt, raising the debt ceiling is not required to make our current debt payments. There is no violation unless our government decides to continue their wasteful spending rather than service our debt.

Agreed. If Timmah! decides to skip an interest payment when he has plenty of tax revenue coming in to pay it, I'll chip in to pay for the rope we hang him with.

[Deleted]

There are certain programs for which the government is BOUND to pay. It isn't just that they can say they will arbitrarily not pay them. To choose not to pay them has consequences, and there are just as many legal issues in not doing so, as in not paying on debt....

[Driftr]

The funny thing is, I didn't remember the part about 'payment of pensions' in the 4th of 14th. Is the fact that Timmah has stopped funding some Federal pensions in order to prevent an earlier shut down a concern? I think we can quibble over funding a pension versus actually making the payments enough that he gets out of that one on a technicality.

[handyman2]

Obama is playing the Repubs and the public on the raising the debt ceiling. As the president he has constitutional authority to raise the limit to make sure the bills are paid. A lot of posturing on both sides. Not to worry if an agreement is not reached he will raise the limit by executive authority.

[Deleted]

Yeah... he's playing the repubs by giving them everything they ask for....

[Driftr]

Jul 8, 2011 9:28:10 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Obama is playing the Repubs and the public on the raising the debt ceiling. As the president he has constitutional authority to raise the limit to make sure the bills are paid. A lot of posturing on both sides. Not to worry if an agreement is not reached he will raise the limit by executive authority.

He only has that authority if the debt cannot be repaid with the taxes we're currently taking in. Since we have plenty of revenue to pay that liability, he does not have the authority to issue more debt. That power is reserved for Congress under Article I section 8 clause 2.

[floridayankee]

Jul 8, 2011 9:18:38 GMT -5 oped said:

There are certain programs for which the government is BOUND to pay. It isn't just that they can say they will arbitrarily not pay them. To choose not to pay them has consequences, and there are just as many legal issues in not doing so, as in not paying on debt....

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can't stop the entitlements. Can't cut the waste. Can't help but spend $1.5 trillion a year more than we take in. Let's just keep on with business as usual and let some idiots in the future deal with it. As long as "I get mine".

Think about it....On the old MSN Money board, what kind of ration of shit would a poster have received if they came in there whining they couldn't pay their current debts because they couldn't borrow more money.

As the president he has constitutional authority to raise the limit to make sure the bills are paid.

No, he doesn't.

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.

Limiting the amount of debt through a debt ceiling in no way questions the validity of that debt. At most, this means paying all debts and pensions when they come due takes priority over all other spending.

[Deleted]

The deficit is expected to drop to around 800 billion in 2012... around 700 billion in 2014... and so forth dropping until at least 2020, where we do have to adjust some entitlements if we want it to continue...

Tarp and Stimulus over, the deficit is not expected to remain at 1.5 Trillion...

[Deleted]

And how many businesses ROUTINELY borrow more and more money to cover their short term? ...

Heck... i spent the last of the savings 3 months ago and am almost out of credit... I have a stack of bills to be paid, on which i'm not even paying the interest this month... but it will be worth it in the long run...

[Driftr]

Jul 8, 2011 9:57:39 GMT -5 oped said:

And how many businesses ROUTINELY borrow more and more money to cover their short term? ...

Heck... i spent the last of the savings 3 months ago and am almost out of credit... I have a stack of bills to be paid, on which i'm not even paying the interest this month... but it will be worth it in the long run...

And what % of those companies eventually go out of business?

[Deleted]

If the democrats were trying to curb spending right now they would be hero's to the democrat voters (& Republicans would be the bad old spenders trying to BK our country). They aren't. The Republicans are trying to curb spending the "normal" way that the minority party has always tried to fight the majority party. Nothing new here except the left has to shift their aim & reasoning to make the right the bad guys. That's the norm too.

[Deleted]

Its new to fight over a debt ceiling increase. Personally, i love when the Right sets a new norm.... its just that they never seem to want to live by them then...

[floridayankee]

Jul 8, 2011 9:53:34 GMT -5 oped said:

The deficit is expected to drop to around 800 billion in 2012... around 700 billion in 2014... and so forth dropping until at least 2020, where we do have to adjust some entitlements if we want it to continue...

According to who?

The president's 2012 budget projects that the deficits will total $7.21 trillion over the next decade with the imbalances never falling below $607 billion. Even then that would exceed the deficit record before Obama took office of $458.6 billion in 2008, President George W. Bush's last year in office.

Ok so using the Obama administration's 2012 budget numbers, they will add $7.21 trillion over the decade (I assume this does not include the projected $1.5t+- deficit for this year) This bonehead author's "tax plan" cuts $4t. We still add $3.21t to the deficit. How does this fix anything?

I also assume this only deals with on-budget items since Bush added more than a trillion dollars total to the deficit in the budget year ending 09/30/2008.

[Angel!]

Jul 8, 2011 9:51:35 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Think about it....On the old MSN Money board, what kind of ration of shit would a poster have received if they came in there whining they couldn't pay their current debts because they couldn't borrow more money.

And how would they have been treated if they had a massive shortfall in their budget & decided the best way to fix the problem was to decrease spending slightly & also decrease their income?

[Deleted]

I don't see how what you posted was inconsistent with what i said? ... It specifically states that the imbalance will fall to $607 billion....

[Deleted]

Yes Angel... they most certainly would be told to increase their income... karma

[cme1201]

Jul 8, 2011 10:31:02 GMT -5 oped said:

I don't see how what you posted was inconsistent with what i said? ... It specifically states that the imbalance will fall to $607 billion....

Actually it says that imbalances will never fall below $607billion, which means we will be spending at least $607billion more than we take in every year.

[floridayankee]

Jul 8, 2011 10:31:02 GMT -5 oped said:

I don't see how what you posted was inconsistent with what i said? ... It specifically states that the imbalance will fall to $607 billion....

Sorry, I thought it was pretty well known that the budget Obama submitted to congress included a $1.65 trillion deficit for FY2012. You said it drops to around $800 billion in 2012.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021400906.html

[Deleted]

Actually the article you posted said 1.6 for THIS year... it said 1.1 for 2012, then falling annually to about 600 Billion in 2018...

Let me see if i can find where i was reading...

[Deleted]

Yes, what i was reading looks old, and i see sources that say he increased 2012 projections by a third... i'll concede you that... but still don't think we we will be adding a trillion + a year for the next decade...

[cme1201]

In 2012, the deficit under the President's budget would decline to $1.2 trillion, or 7.4 percent of GDP, CBO estimates. That shortfall is $83 billion greater than the deficit that CBO projects for 2012 in its current baseline. Deficits in succeeding years under the President's proposals would be smaller than the deficit in 2012, although they would still add significantly to federal debt. The deficit would shrink to 4.1 percent of GDP by 2015 but widen in later years, reaching 4.9 percent of GDP in 2021. In all, deficits would total $9.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021 under the President's budget (or 4.8 percent of total GDP projected for that period)—$2.7 trillion more than the cumulative deficit in CBO's baseline. Federal debt held by the public would double under the President's budget, growing from $10.4 trillion (69 percent of GDP) at the end of 2011 to $20.8 trillion (87 percent of GDP) at the end of 2021

These are the most recent CBO estimate of the presidents budget found here www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12103

So from 2012 to 2021 we are looking at a 9.5 Trillion debt increase while at the same time Doubling the amount of Public debt held.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> So from 2012 to 2021 we are looking at a 9.5 Trillion debt increase while at the same time Doubling the amount of Public debt held. <<<

...we want this, yes?

[Deleted]

Its new to fight over a debt ceiling increase. Personally, i love when the Right sets a new norm.... its just that they never seem to want to live by them then...

Maybe your right. President Obama's method is SO much better. Don't do a budget & spend spend spend. Yes, that has worked out so well hasn't it?