Obama Announces Deal To Raise Debt Limit, Cut Spending

[flying]

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words or in this case trillions

Yes it will take many years to pay the debt from George W Bush's foreign incursions. Perhaps this isn't the time for Obama to be making the changes. Perhaps they should have been done earlier.

There are many to blame but again the system as a whole is beautifully broken.

As to where to lay blame if you must there is a time line on that chart too.

As you can see the rise was consistent till it hit the hockey stick.

The question will be to abandon a sinking ship in the hopes of a new start or wait till total collapse is assured & no escape possible.

They are in fact abandoning ship even now with the debasement of their fiat currency but it in no way offers an alternative to the end game ahead.

Edited August 9, 2011 by flying

[venturalaw]

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words or in this case trillions

Yes it will take many years to pay the debt from George W Bush's foreign incursions.

Referring to the rather illustrative chart, perhaps you missed how the debt significantly accelerated AFTER BO took over?

Edited August 9, 2011 by venturalaw

[snarky66]

I would really like to revisit Fareed Zachariah.

This guy works for The Administration, The White House, President Obama. One in the same thing. He is an adviser to mister Obama on "Islamic Affairs"

Now in one of the worst cases of journalistic abuse & White House revolving door policies we get this hack shill backbencher weighing in on politics & the debt debate.

First you are not a journo. A journo would have recused himself on the grounds of conflict of interest. It's as if Chris Matthews is on the staff of the White House as a speech writer.

So please spare us the opinions of Fareed Zachariah. Cheerleader for the historic president.

[Steely Dan]

Nope. The downgrade came because of no real efforts to reduce spending. The debt just continues to pile up with no end in sight.

I take it you don't believe the reasons S & P gave the downgrade? Would you only believe them of they said what you wanted to hear. He did say earlier that that successive governments has not tried to reduce debt. I can do no more than to repeat what he said were the reasons for the downgrade. If you do not wish to accept their reasons then that is a matter for you.

Which major bank went bust in 2008 whilst still having a 'AAA' rating? The ratings are highly politicized and being used by some very evil men hiding behind the curtain to serve their own ends. The scapegoating of the Tea Party is as transparent as the vilification of those peacefully warning about Islamic extremists who got blamed for the Norway shootings. The left wing is as mendacious as it is morally bankrupt.

[flying]

President Bush is retired. This mess belongs' to obama.

This is the one thing that always makes me wonder about this system.

In this instance before the election it was YES WE CAN...YES WE CAN

Then after a year...."well you know this mess is bigger than we thought & of course it is the last guys fault".

Then the unbridled spending in all the wrong directions including unfunded wars.

Then nearing 3 years in......

Now the expected that even a blind man could see approaching is upon us & it is of course teh fault of the freshmen.....Of course!

Those who were just recently sent in by the people in the hopes of some sanity being restored.

Not those who drove the car into the ditch but those that were elected to help push it out of the ditch.

It is all their fault nobody else period...full stop

Of course........all makes perfect sense.....To Fools living in bizarro world

Edited August 9, 2011 by flying

[chuckd]

It seems like the politically oriented on TV get along just the same as the politicians in the US Congress. Like watching two mountain rams butting heads, not getting anywhere, but definitely generating a lot of headaches. When we can put all our rutting representatives in a row boat heading over Niagara Falls maybe they would learn to work together to save their own skins. The sad thing is they apparently don't give a hoot about the skins of their constituency.

So many arguments here confuse debt with new spending and both sides revel in blaming the presidents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

The fact of the matter is Congress controls the purse strings and could shut down any presidential expenditure in a very short time. Blame the presidents for poor leadership but blame congress for lack of budgetary control and our current debt.

End of rant . . .

This is a very good rant and is worthy of an in-depth look at the composition of the last few Congresses.

______________________________________________________

2001-2003 = 107th Congress = Senate/Split 50-50 = House/Republican

2003-2005 = 108th Congress = Senate/Republican = House/Republican

2005-2007 = 109th Congress = Senate/Republican = House/Republican

2007-2009 = 110th Congress = Senate/Democratic = House/Democratic

2009-2011 = 111th Congress = Senate/Democratic = House/Democratic (Super majority)

2011-2012 = 112th Congress = Senate/Democratic = House/Republican

______________________________________________________

Now we can look at spending and total debt during the same period of time

2001 = Spending $1.863 Trillion = Debt $5.770 Trillion

2002 = Spending $2.011 Trillion = Debt $6.198 Trillion

2003 = Spending $2.160 Trillion = Debt $6.760 Trillion

2004 = Spending $2.293 Trillion = Debt $7.354 Trillion

2005 = Spending $2.472 Trillion = Debt $7.905 Trillion

2006 = Spending $2.655 Trillion = Debt $8.451 Trillion

2007 = Spending $2.729 Trillion = Debt $8.951 Trillion

2008 = Spending $2.983 Trillion = Debt $9.986 Trillion

2009 = Spending $3.518 Trillion = Debt $11.876 Trillion

2010 = Spending $3.456 Trillion = Debt $13.529 Trillion

2011 = Spending $3.819 Trillion = Debt $15.476 Trillion (CBO Estimate)

2016 = Spending $4.468 Trillion = Debt $20.825 Trillion (CBO Estimate)

______________________________________________________

In summary:

1. The Bush Presidency (2001-2008) added $4.216 Trillion to the national debt in an 8 year period.

2. The Obama Presidency (2009-2011) has added $5.49 Trillion to the national debt in a 3 year period.

3. The Tea Party Movement was formed in early 2009 and has NOT ONE elected Representative or Senator now or at anytime in the past.

Draw your own conclusion as to who might be at fault but blaming the Tea Party Movement for the reckless spending and the debt increase is childish, immature and, quite frankly, rather ignorant.

Edit in: It is estimated by the CBO that the Obama Presidency spending for the year 2016 will be $4.468 Trillion and the Public debt will be $20.825 Trillion...an increase of another $5.349 Trillion.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spend.php?span=usgs302&year=2012&view=1&expand=&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy12&local=s&state=US&pie=#usgs302

Edited August 9, 2011 by chuckd

[snarky66]

Thanks flying for that graphic analogy. Obama likes to say "The Republicans drove the car into the ditch & now they want the keys back"

Well Obama called the tow truck got the car back on the road & drove it off a 400 foot cliff. Nice work mister president.

[Wallaby]

Wallaby. You seem to be saying. Obama is incompetent. He is in way over his head. And a lot of us on here would agree with you on that. But then you decide to distract from that by invoking the former President.

Only someone very feeble minded would fall for that type of sleight of hand tactics. Misdirection.

No misdirection intended.

I actually think Obama is much better for the world than W. Of course he may not be so good for the US but I believe most western countries breathed a sigh of relief when W' reign was over. Though we are still afraid that Palin may get a look in.

It would seem your Dems are like our Labor party, spend spend spend. In good times all is dandy but if there are financial concerns then the house falls apart, quickly.

As another poster mentioned earlier, if the US gets out of Iraq and Afghanistan then that would ease a hell of a lot of the financial worry. Now is not the time for Obama to make huge changes to any internal system, that should be done in better times.

If times were good then I think the changes he is trying to implement regarding the healthcare system would be of great benefit, but not at the moment.

[hammered]

It seems like the politically oriented on TV get along just the same as the politicians in the US Congress. Like watching two mountain rams butting heads, not getting anywhere, but definitely generating a lot of headaches. When we can put all our rutting representatives in a row boat heading over Niagara Falls maybe they would learn to work together to save their own skins. The sad thing is they apparently don't give a hoot about the skins of their constituency.

So many arguments here confuse debt with new spending and both sides revel in blaming the presidents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

The fact of the matter is Congress controls the purse strings and could shut down any presidential expenditure in a very short time. Blame the presidents for poor leadership but blame congress for lack of budgetary control and our current debt.

End of rant . . .

This is a very good rant and is worthy of an in-depth look at the composition of the last few Congresses.

______________________________________________________

2001-2003 = 107th Congress = Senate/Split 50-50 = House/Republican

2003-2005 = 108th Congress = Senate/Republican = House/Republican

2005-2007 = 109th Congress = Senate/Republican = House/Republican

2007-2009 = 110th Congress = Senate/Democratic = House/Democratic

2009-2011 = 111th Congress = Senate/Democratic = House/Democratic (Super majority)

2011-2012 = 112th Congress = Senate/Democratic = House/Republican

______________________________________________________

Now we can look at spending and total debt during the same period of time

2001 = Spending $1.863 Trillion = Debt $5.770 Trillion

2002 = Spending $2.011 Trillion = Debt $6.198 Trillion

2003 = Spending $2.160 Trillion = Debt $6.760 Trillion

2004 = Spending $2.293 Trillion = Debt $7.354 Trillion

2005 = Spending $2.472 Trillion = Debt $7.905 Trillion

2006 = Spending $2.655 Trillion = Debt $8.451 Trillion

2007 = Spending $2.729 Trillion = Debt $8.951 Trillion

2008 = Spending $2.983 Trillion = Debt $9.986 Trillion

2009 = Spending $3.518 Trillion = Debt $11.876 Trillion

2010 = Spending $3.456 Trillion = Debt $13.529 Trillion

2011 = Spending $3.819 Trillion = Debt $15.476 Trillion (CBO Estimate)

2016 = Spending $4.468 Trillion = Debt $20.825 Trillion (CBO Estimate)

______________________________________________________

In summary:

1. The Bush Presidency (2001-2008) added $4.216 Trillion to the national debt in an 8 year period.

2. The Obama Presidency (2009-2011) has added $5.49 Trillion to the national debt in a 3 year period.

3. The Tea Party Movement was formed in early 2009 and has NOT ONE elected Representative or Senator now or at anytime in the past.

Draw your own conclusion as to who might be at fault but blaming the Tea Party Movement for the reckless spending and the debt increase is childish, immature and, quite frankly, rather ignorant.

Edit in: It is estimated by the CBO that the Obama Presidency spending for the year 2016 will be $4.468 Trillion and the Public debt will be $20.825 Trillion...an increase of another $5.349 Trillion.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spend.php?span=usgs302&year=2012&view=1&expand=&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy12&local=s&state=US&pie=#usgs302

Blaming the tea party dudes though for removing a major governmental option in the revenue side of things though may well be fair and also may well be one reason why the rating went down. It isnt believed that growth or cuts can resolve things on their own (quite a realistic assessment) and tax increases arent an option. In the meantime loiony Ben prints money while keeping interest rates at virtually zero. Reality is nobody at all has a realistic plan as they are all too absolutist in their philosophical economic fantasy lands and those embedded in reality know it although are a tad late and a tad too little in acknowledging it in the ratings companies case

[soundman]

I have removed some conversations for bickering. Pls. try to discuss/debate in a civil manner.

[chuckd]

It seems like the politically oriented on TV get along just the same as the politicians in the US Congress. Like watching two mountain rams butting heads, not getting anywhere, but definitely generating a lot of headaches. When we can put all our rutting representatives in a row boat heading over Niagara Falls maybe they would learn to work together to save their own skins. The sad thing is they apparently don't give a hoot about the skins of their constituency.

So many arguments here confuse debt with new spending and both sides revel in blaming the presidents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

The fact of the matter is Congress controls the purse strings and could shut down any presidential expenditure in a very short time. Blame the presidents for poor leadership but blame congress for lack of budgetary control and our current debt.

End of rant . . .

This is a very good rant and is worthy of an in-depth look at the composition of the last few Congresses.

______________________________________________________

2001-2003 = 107th Congress = Senate/Split 50-50 = House/Republican

2003-2005 = 108th Congress = Senate/Republican = House/Republican

2005-2007 = 109th Congress = Senate/Republican = House/Republican

2007-2009 = 110th Congress = Senate/Democratic = House/Democratic

2009-2011 = 111th Congress = Senate/Democratic = House/Democratic (Super majority)

2011-2012 = 112th Congress = Senate/Democratic = House/Republican

______________________________________________________

Now we can look at spending and total debt during the same period of time

2001 = Spending $1.863 Trillion = Debt $5.770 Trillion

2002 = Spending $2.011 Trillion = Debt $6.198 Trillion

2003 = Spending $2.160 Trillion = Debt $6.760 Trillion

2004 = Spending $2.293 Trillion = Debt $7.354 Trillion

2005 = Spending $2.472 Trillion = Debt $7.905 Trillion

2006 = Spending $2.655 Trillion = Debt $8.451 Trillion

2007 = Spending $2.729 Trillion = Debt $8.951 Trillion

2008 = Spending $2.983 Trillion = Debt $9.986 Trillion

2009 = Spending $3.518 Trillion = Debt $11.876 Trillion

2010 = Spending $3.456 Trillion = Debt $13.529 Trillion

2011 = Spending $3.819 Trillion = Debt $15.476 Trillion (CBO Estimate)

2016 = Spending $4.468 Trillion = Debt $20.825 Trillion (CBO Estimate)

______________________________________________________

In summary:

1. The Bush Presidency (2001-2008) added $4.216 Trillion to the national debt in an 8 year period.

2. The Obama Presidency (2009-2011) has added $5.49 Trillion to the national debt in a 3 year period.

3. The Tea Party Movement was formed in early 2009 and has NOT ONE elected Representative or Senator now or at anytime in the past.

Draw your own conclusion as to who might be at fault but blaming the Tea Party Movement for the reckless spending and the debt increase is childish, immature and, quite frankly, rather ignorant.

Edit in: It is estimated by the CBO that the Obama Presidency spending for the year 2016 will be $4.468 Trillion and the Public debt will be $20.825 Trillion...an increase of another $5.349 Trillion.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spend.php?span=usgs302&year=2012&view=1&expand=&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy12&local=s&state=US&pie=#usgs302

Blaming the tea party dudes though for removing a major governmental option in the revenue side of things though may well be fair and also may well be one reason why the rating went down. It isnt believed that growth or cuts can resolve things on their own (quite a realistic assessment) and tax increases arent an option. In the meantime loiony Ben prints money while keeping interest rates at virtually zero. Reality is nobody at all has a realistic plan as they are all too absolutist in their philosophical economic fantasy lands and those embedded in reality know it although are a tad late and a tad too little in acknowledging it in the ratings companies case

All the Republicans did was prevent the Obama administration from increasing taxes during a recession and economic downturn.

But, you see, the estimated budget figures for fiscal year 2016 are by the CBO, which is always a best case scenario.

The best case scenario in this situation considers the Bush era tax cuts will expire in 2012 and not be renewed, thereby adding back in the revenue from the attendant increase in taxes with that expiration.

...and the Obama Presidency still adds some $5.349 Trillion to the debt, even adding in the tax increase.

Obama in his speech yesterday said he was going to submit his 'plan' very soon. Hopefully this one will be in writing since the CBO has already said they cannot predict from a speech.

Obama did present his budget request for 2012 to the Senate. The vote was 97-0 against accepting it.

By the way, we are nearing 900 days without a budget from the Democrats in the Senate.

[Ulysses G.]

Of course he may not be so good for the US

Correct. Obama is not good for the US, but that is who he is supposed to be leading.

[flying]

Blaming the tea party dudes though for removing a major governmental option in the revenue side of things though may well be fair and also may well be one reason why the rating went down. It isnt believed that growth or cuts can resolve things on their own (quite a realistic assessment) and tax increases arent an option. In the meantime loiony Ben prints money while keeping interest rates at virtually zero. Reality is nobody at all has a realistic plan as they are all too absolutist in their philosophical economic fantasy lands and those embedded in reality know it although are a tad late and a tad too little in acknowledging it in the ratings companies case

Actually I do not think it is unrealistic to disallow increasing revenues while agreeing to increase debt that in no way helps to increase revenues.

After all you cannot suck blood from a stone.

The ratings were going to go down as it was told from day one if there were not enough cuts to the overspending. They just thumbed their noses at them thinking none would dare to downgrade the US AAA ratings.

They were wrong yet Barack is still in denial during his speech today.

Claiming America always was & always will be AAA

Unfortunately he is not in charge of ratings....Or perhaps fortunately?

As for BS Bernanke....I think many folks still operate under the misguided thought that the FED in FED Reserve means they are the Federal government.

They are not & have had a much bigger role in creating problems than fixing them.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of any foreign coins.

But that has not been the case since 1913

The FED's creation occurred at a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910

Edited August 9, 2011 by flying

[koheesti]

Here's why it will go down in history as the TEA PARTY DOWNGRADE --

http://www.slate.com/id/2301119/

Beyond the math, S&P flunks our political system:

[W]e have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration … to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon. … The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

And what radical right wing extremist group did that exactly?

Speaking of radical, why do the Dems think that balancing the budget is "radical"?

http://thehill.com/b...endment-radical-

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Tuesday the balanced-budget amendment being considered in the House is "radical."

"Today the House will consider legislation that would force the nation to default on our financial obligations for the first time in history unless Congress adopts a radical, new constitutional amendment," Reid said from the Senate floor.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), however, retorted in his own floor speech that he does not believe the proposed constitutional amendment should provoke controversy. "The American people sent us here to make tough choices," McConnell said. "Agreeing to balance the budget shouldn't be one of them. This should be an easy one."

[koheesti]

Nope. The downgrade came because of no real efforts to reduce spending. The debt just continues to pile up with no end in sight.

I take it you don't believe the reasons S & P gave the downgrade? Would you only believe them of they said what you wanted to hear. He did say earlier that that successive governments has not tried to reduce debt. I can do no more than to repeat what he said were the reasons for the downgrade. If you do not wish to accept their reasons then that is a matter for you.

I read the link and don't see where they gave the reasons you stated.

I did find this though:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_print.html

Lowering the nation's rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said "political brinkmanship" in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government's ability to manage its finances "less stable, less effective and less predictable." It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings "fell short" of what was necessary to tame the nation's debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future.

Edited August 9, 2011 by koheesti

[Jingthing]

Speaking of radical, why do the Dems think that balancing the budget is "radical"?

Because it cripples the country in an emergency situation. Another example of why tea package people are nihilists. Edited August 9, 2011 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Wallaby. You seem to be saying. Obama is incompetent. He is in way over his head. And a lot of us on here would agree with you on that. But then you decide to distract from that by invoking the former President.

Only someone very feeble minded would fall for that type of sleight of hand tactics. Misdirection.

No misdirection intended.

I actually think Obama is much better for the world than W. Of course he may not be so good for the US...

This is a BIG problem. Leaders in ANY country should put their own country's national interest FIRST before the interests of other countries. Any leader who doesn't should be tossed out of office ASAP.

[snarky66]

TARP was actually not a bad program:

I just had this one itsy bitsy problem with it. Remember Henry Paulsen spent days crafting the rescue package bail-out? Then right after the House & Senate voted to approve it Paulsen made a statement to the effect "remember how we told you we were gonna spend the money"? well we s canned that plan & now we are gonna wing it in secret.

bait switch

[maccaroni man]

Speaking of radical, why do the Dems think that balancing the budget is "radical"?

Because it cripples the country in an emergency situation. Another example of why tea package people are nihilists.

sorry but in all honesty the govt agencies such as the EPA is crippiling the country. look no further then the san juaquine valley in california. There was a time when it was one of the best producing farm land in the country, now there are areas that wont support dirt. why, the govt. EPA protecting some small fish. The oil reserves in storage for emrgancies being tapped by the govt. why? because the EPA will not allow American business to create jobs and open American tundra up to exploration. Lets get real, if you earn enough money to be taxed the govt is not your friend. If you like to live off govt hand outs it is your big brother. Why do some people believe that the way the govt manages tax payer money should be different then the way any responsible person manages their money. I have been broke numerious times but i have yet to be poor. "Poor" is a state of mind. What I fear is this victim mentality that is so widley promoted by the left will drag the country down to a point of where no one wants to be responsible for their own success or failure.

[Scott]

Multiple posts have been deleted and warnings issued.

If you can't stick to the topic, then please refrain from posting.

[Exsexyman]

Speaking of radical, why do the Dems think that balancing the budget is "radical"?

Because it cripples the country in an emergency situation. Another example of why tea package people are nihilists.

Sadly, i think you are banging your head against a brick wall as regards the Tea Party supporters JT.

Apparantly an IMF report in 2010 estimated that more than 14 trillion dollars are stashed away in tax havens. Time for our elected leaders to grow a pair of gonads and close a few loopholes, and put a stop to these greedy, selfish 'Lady's front bottoms' who are holding the rest of us to ransom.

[koheesti]

Speaking of radical, why do the Dems think that balancing the budget is "radical"?

Because it cripples the country in an emergency situation. Another example of why tea package people are nihilists.

Sadly, i think you are banging your head against a brick wall as regards the Tea Party supporters JT.

Apparantly an IMF report in 2010 estimated that more than 14 trillion dollars are stashed away in tax havens. Time for our elected leaders to grow a pair of gonads and close a few loopholes, and put a stop to these greedy, selfish 'Lady's front bottoms' who are holding the rest of us to ransom.

I can't speak for anyone else here but I never considered myself a Tea Party supporter and I don't follow too closely what they are up to. To me, it just seems like common sense that when we have a debt the size that we have, then we MUST stop spending and having a balanced budget does not seem "radical". Personally, I'm much closer to the bottom 50% in the USA than I am the top 25%. But I still do things many can't because I have my spending under control. It isn't only about how much money you have, how much you spend is at least as important. And if revenues are down - FOR WHATEVER REASON - then spending MUST be cut. Generating revenue takes time, spending cuts can be immediate. If that means I am a Tea Party supporter, then so be it.

As for your second point about $14 trillion stashed in tax havens - that's one reason why I'm against raising taxes on the most wealthy in society. If for no other reason, the rich have the resources to move their money around so they can avoid the taxes so in the end it doesn't help, it hurts. I would prefer they feel that it was more profitable for them to keep that $14 trillion in the US. It's like gun control laws - all they will do in America is take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens leaving the criminals the only ones with them.

Edited August 9, 2011 by koheesti

[Ulysses G.]

I am not a big fan of the Tea Party, but can not countenance all the ridiculous lies that are told about them. Also, they do get credit for making the government finally deal with too much spending.

[Exsexyman]

Speaking of radical, why do the Dems think that balancing the budget is "radical"?

Because it cripples the country in an emergency situation. Another example of why tea package people are nihilists.

Sadly, i think you are banging your head against a brick wall as regards the Tea Party supporters JT.

Apparantly an IMF report in 2010 estimated that more than 14 trillion dollars are stashed away in tax havens. Time for our elected leaders to grow a pair of gonads and close a few loopholes, and put a stop to these greedy, selfish 'Lady's front bottoms' who are holding the rest of us to ransom.

I can't speak for anyone else here but I never considered myself a Tea Party supporter and I don't follow too closely what they are up to. To me, it just seems like common sense that when we have a debt the size that we have, then we MUST stop spending and having a balanced budget does not seem "radical". Personally, I'm much closer to the bottom 50% in the USA than I am the top 25%. But I still do things many can't because I have my spending under control. It isn't only about how much money you have, how much you spend is at least as important. And if revenues are down - FOR WHATEVER REASON - then spending MUST be cut. Generating revenue takes time, spending cuts can be immediate. If that means I am a Tea Party supporter, then so be it.

As for your second point about $14 trillion stashed in tax havens - that's one reason why I'm against raising taxes on the most wealthy in society. If for no other reason, the rich have the resources to move their money around so they can avoid the taxes so in the end it doesn't help, it hurts. I would prefer they feel that it was more profitable for them to keep that $14 trillion in the US. It's like gun control laws - all they will do in America is take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens leaving the criminals the only ones with them.

I couldnt agree more with your first paragraph, basic economic common sense As regards your points about money in tax havens, i think you make my point about holding the rest of us to ransom for me. So we shouldnt suggest that the extremely wealthy should pay fair amounts of tax otherwise they will put it in these havens, which contributes to the bancruptcy of the country? I understand that there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. But the line is becoming ever more blurred and i have no doubt that a sizeable chunk of the 14 trillion is through tax evasion. The laws make things far too easy for the truly rich and powerful to avoid and evade. As i said, its time for governments to do what is best for everybody and close down these loopholes, and take them on.

[koheesti]

Sadly, i think you are banging your head against a brick wall as regards the Tea Party supporters JT.

Apparantly an IMF report in 2010 estimated that more than 14 trillion dollars are stashed away in tax havens. Time for our elected leaders to grow a pair of gonads and close a few loopholes, and put a stop to these greedy, selfish 'Lady's front bottoms' who are holding the rest of us to ransom.

I can't speak for anyone else here but I never considered myself a Tea Party supporter and I don't follow too closely what they are up to. To me, it just seems like common sense that when we have a debt the size that we have, then we MUST stop spending and having a balanced budget does not seem "radical". Personally, I'm much closer to the bottom 50% in the USA than I am the top 25%. But I still do things many can't because I have my spending under control. It isn't only about how much money you have, how much you spend is at least as important. And if revenues are down - FOR WHATEVER REASON - then spending MUST be cut. Generating revenue takes time, spending cuts can be immediate. If that means I am a Tea Party supporter, then so be it.

As for your second point about $14 trillion stashed in tax havens - that's one reason why I'm against raising taxes on the most wealthy in society. If for no other reason, the rich have the resources to move their money around so they can avoid the taxes so in the end it doesn't help, it hurts. I would prefer they feel that it was more profitable for them to keep that $14 trillion in the US. It's like gun control laws - all they will do in America is take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens leaving the criminals the only ones with them.

I couldnt agree more with your first paragraph, basic economic common sense As regards your points about money in tax havens, i think you make my point about holding the rest of us to ransom for me. So we shouldnt suggest that the extremely wealthy should pay fair amounts of tax otherwise they will put it in these havens, which contributes to the bancruptcy of the country? I understand that there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. But the line is becoming ever more blurred and i have no doubt that a sizeable chunk of the 14 trillion is through tax evasion. The laws make things far too easy for the truly rich and powerful to avoid and evade. As i said, its time for governments to do what is best for everybody and close down these loopholes, and take them on.

In Russia back in the 1990's they had high taxes (in some cases over 100%) and high tax evasion. As they lowered the tax rates, receipts increased because more people were willing to pay taxes. It's human nature. http://www.ifo.de/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/1193252.PDF

According to the IRS, the top 1% of Individual tax returns in 2008 accounted for 21% of the income. What percentage should they pay in order for it to be considered their "fair share"? In any case, 100% of the top 1% income accounted for about $1.8 trillion. Even if we could take all of it we'd still be about $13 billion short.

As for tax havens, these super wealthy will legally avoid what they can - that's human nature for the most part. I met this one former American from Russia. I couldn't understand WHY he would change his citizenship to some tiny Caribbean island. A mutual friend explained that it saved him millions in taxes. Hmmm, I guess I could understand that. Cities in the USA with high taxes like New York City have seen their wealthy moving residence to other states with lower taxes in droves. That doesn't make them bad people, it makes them smart. We need policies/laws that instead of chasing the wealth out of the country, gives them reason to keep it in the country.

Edited August 9, 2011 by koheesti

[Ulysses G.]

[According to the IRS, the top 1% of Individual tax returns in 2008 accounted for 21% of the income. What percentage should they pay in order for it to be considered their "fair share"? In any case, 100% of the top 1% income accounted for about $1.8 trillion. Even if we could take all of it we'd still be about $13 billion short.

Hear, hear. I am not even close to wealthy, but they ARE already paying their "fair share" and screwing them out of more is not much help anyway.

I am all for cutting out tax loopholes though, but that might cause a problem with some of Obama's biggest finacial supporters.

[maccaroni man]

they like to talk about the super rich but the line is at 250k dollars and trust me that is the gross income of many small business owners before they pay their employees, reinvest in stock, pay local city and state taxes, cover untility cost and rent, and now obama care is an other burden they must cover. in the usa it does not take millions to be in the top 1% income earners.

[koheesti]

they like to talk about the super rich but the line is at 250k dollars and trust me that is the gross income of many small business owners before they pay their employees, reinvest in stock, pay local city and state taxes, cover untility cost and rent, and now obama care is an other burden they must cover. in the usa it does not take millions to be in the top 1% income earners.

In case anyone is interested to see for themselves.

2008 - Money Income of Families - Number and Distribution

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0695.pdf

Tons of stats on income here for those who want to browse it themselves instead of letting some biased journalist do it for them:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html

[BuckarooBanzai]

From the OP:

--- No tax increase, although overhauling the tax code would be part of future deficit-reduction efforts. Any automatic cuts would start on January 1, 2013, the same day the Bush tax cuts are due to end. While that suggested the Bush tax cuts could be negotiable, a senior administration official said Obama "is not going to sign something that extends the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy."

The following graph shows annual tax receipts by percentage of total.

In a couple of words it says

Corporations pay about 45%

Individuals pay about 45%

Misc income about 10%

But it also says something more which is extremely disturbing. The way the revenue is currently set up Corporations (Businesses) pays relatively little in income tax with the majority of its tax burden coming from payroll tax.

This drives businesses towards maximizing profits while minimizing employment. It is clearly counter productive when it comes to the nations recovery and an increase in employment. It seems to me the government had it set up much better in 1944 with the corporate tax burdens reversed. Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot? Is there a justifiable reason for this distribution?

Far as I am concerned one more reason for a major tax overhaul with flat rates on income and perhaps corporate incentives for employment instead of corporate incentives against employment as is now the case.

They have been talking about "overhauling the tax code" for decades with no efforts towards getting it done. Once again, all political parties can be held accountable for this neglect.

[bonobo]

I heard the following analogy of the lack of logic in blaming the Tea Party for America's current financial problems:

"Blaming the Tea Party is the same as blaming the person who dialed 911 to report a fire."

They may have dialed 911, but then they stood in the street and blocked the fire trucks from arriving on the scene saying those firetrucks were only good enough to contain the blaze, not put it out. In the end, the firetrucks were allowed in, but much more damage was done in the meantime.