"If elected I will let the "Bush" Tax cuts all lapse and then pass the balanced budget amendment. With an additional requirement that we pay down the National debt to 30% of the avg of the last 5 yrs GDP within 10 yrs. Wiki Nat'l Debt
If that means we have to stop socialized medicine, keep our troops home, reduce social security payments, cut the public employee rolls, cut welfare payments, stop corporate welfare, stop the Mars rovers, etc, then let's do it. Let's live within our revenues !!!! Alleluia!!!!
If the tax rates were good enough for the Bush I and Clinton era, they should be good enough for the Democrats and Republicans. The Rich and Poor both sacrifice until we get this problem fixed."
I wonder if they would get many votes? Thoughts?
G2A America Want Taxes and Cuts
By the way, here is a funny aside. A wealthy acquaintance of mine looked me in the eye and said with all earnestness: "we all need to sacrifice until we get this National Debt under control"... I then looked at him and asked "how will you sacrifice, by paying higher taxes?" He responded, " I am already sacrificing by paying a huge tax bill".
It seems the Rich and Poor have something in common, each thinks "they" should sacrifice more and "they" are the problem !!!
G2A The Magic of THEY
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I don't see the rich sacrificing much. Mitt Romney doesn't worry about how his health care gets paid for. Nor do I see how in any viable equal sacrifice scenario he would.
Should policy be driven by what will always amount to accounting fictions?
--Hiram
Hiram,
I think you are confusing "sacrifice" with "fairness". And I don't think anyone ever promised that life was "fair".
In fact, remember that the poorest American is wealthy and well cared for compared to many of the unfortunates across the world.
Should the gains and wealth of the successful be forcefully taken to address all the unfairness in the world?
Here are some words from Obama'a speech that I found confusing.
"As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, rights that no
man or government can take away. We insist on personal responsibility, and we celebrate individual initiative. We're not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk- takers, the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system, the greatest engine of growth and prosperity the world has ever known."
Now does he want to reward the successful like Romney or ensure that "no one" is left behind.
By the way, from your comment on the last post. We in America tax PROFIT, therefore interest paid to run a legal business will always be deductible. Not sure why you think it is a loophole?
Us citizens being able to deduct Home Mortgage interest seems like more of a loophole than Businesses deducting their true expenses.
I think I am equating sacrifice with sacrifice. What's being proposed will make a real difference in the quality of life for many, and not most of us. It won't affect the quality of Mitt Romney's life at all. That's an objective reality for both us and Mitt Romney and there really is no way to get around it.
Do you define success in terms of assets or monetary assets? Is Perez Hilton, who inherit her vast fortune, more successful than a a good second grade teacher? Is Mitt Romney who made his fortune through financial manipulation more successful than an a good emergency room nurse? If we reward success, shouldn't we reward those who really make a positive difference in people's lives?
==Hiram
Let me be very clear here. I make no pretense at all of asking that the sacrifices be fairly or equally shared between the rich and the poor. We know, it's a given really, that the poor and the middle class are going to be hit really hard by what's being asked of us, and that the rich won't even sense the difference. That may be unfair, but it's an unfairness that I don't think can or will be remedied.
==Hiram
I don't disagree that the wealthy should give more to help the "less fortunate" become the "more fortunate". And I do agree regarding your quality of life and severity of consequence thoughts.
I am just not sure that the fortunate "OWE" it to them. That is a very loaded concept with tons of religious and value laden connotations.
My biggest frustration with your comments is that you seem to believe all private equity is the property of the gov't. Which seems oh so wrong.
Remember your comment: "As I noted earlier, insolvency is an inability to pay debts. We live in the richest country in the world. We buy ourselves car elevators and iPads. We lower our taxes, and increase spending. Each of these things absolutely contradicts the notion that as a nation, we are unable to pay our debts. Rather, we just don't like our debts, we wish they were lower, or that we didn't have to pay them."
The reality is that many of these Commitments / Entitlements are simple set by law. Therefore like workplace benefits, they can be improved or undone by new management. Change is part of the modern world.
So I don't appear too cold, remember this oldie but goodie.
G2A God Works in Mysterious Ways
I deny your premise. The simple solution is to just go back to the Bush budget, tax rates and all. Unemployment was at 5% and the deficit was on track to be negligible in a few years. Obama's election saw a spending increase that ran the deficit up over a $Trillion/yr and there it has stayed. Nothing wrong with the Bush budget, so just cut out whatever Obama was throwing money at and we're good.
J. Ewing
John- you seem to have no concern re the impacts of drastic spending cuts and tax increases in a fragile economy. One only needs to look to Europe to see the likely effects.
Austerity in Europe: what does it mean for ordinary people?
My biggest frustration with your comments is that you seem to believe all private equity is the property of the gov't.
Actually, nothing is property of the government. The debt of the United States is owed by the people of the United States, not it's government. Should the government fail, the people of the United States would still owe the debt.
--Hiram
The reality is that many of these Commitments / Entitlements are simple set by law.
Possibly, but they created rights. The obligations were incurred under the law, but once incurred, they exist independently of the law. That's what the constitution provides.
--Hiram
We have been apparently living above our means like a family that has too many credit cards. It hurts to change behaviors and live within our means, especially if you believe you deserve the high life, however it is the right thing to do.
The sooner we take our medicine the less it will hurt. The longer we wait the worse it gets. Europe waited far to long... (especially Greece)
Hiram,
I disagree.
Hiram, with respect to entitlements conferring "rights," you're wrong. The SCOTUS has ruled that there is no right to a Social Security benefit, and that the benefits paid may be reduced or eliminated any time, at Congress' whim. That's another reason to privatize it, so that you would at least have some ownership of your retirement savings. Under SS, you have nothing-- no claim whatsoever. It's the same with all the other "entitlements." They're only called that because the spending runs on automatic pilot. If you qualify for the benefit you can get it. That's why it's so easy to game the system, because all you have to do is figure a way to qualify.
J. Ewing
John,
You likely feel very secure in your job and ability to provide the good life for your family and don't worry about jobs for your kids, but for millions of people paying for housing, food, transportation etc is a much bigger concern than reducing the deficit now or in the near future. Have you no empathy? Is it that hard to imagine yourself as unemployed?
Laurie,
You forget, I have more awareness than most. While suffering my anxiety problems, I had no idea if I would still be employable. Thank God for good meds.
I truly do empathize with these folks, however I don't think big government is the answer.
Especially if the Public Employee unions keep their power. No entity can be efficient and effective without the ability to reward the gifted per market and fire the dead wood.
Also, we can not fulfill this statement by Obama. "We leave no one behind." Especially when it was proceeded by this statement. "We insist on personal responsibility, and we celebrate individual initiative. We're not entitled to success."
I wish he would make up his mind. The first would be outrageously expensive and lead to increased dependency. Since it is almost impossible to bring people along if they do not want to go. (ie dependent folks resistant to independence) The second means to me that some will be left behind to live very hard lives, in hopes that it may motivate them to take personal responsibility and show individual initiative.
I have friends who are dealing with people who have different dependency issues. The sad reality is that there is nothing they can do to improve the situation until the dependent individual wants to acknowledge the problem and take responsibility for changing.
This is with the "caregiver" being intimately involved with the "dependent". Think how impossible it is if the "caregiver" is just another public employee who has no sway over the "dependent" and little engagement.
What the supreme court hasn't ruled is that America can default on its debts.
Americans have entered into a contract. As with all contracts, each is dependent on the other side keeping its part of the bargain.
--Hiram
If J's interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling is correct, Social Security and Medicare are apparently not debts. They are just another Government program or law that can changed as our society and it's beliefs change.
Our duly elected representatives created and refined them over the years. So I am absolutely certain they can refine them further or undo them if that is what the majority of citizens deem rational.
We in the USA have a long history of changing our positions over time. (ie Native Americans, Slavery, Prohibition, Women's Rights, Safety Nets, etc, etc, etc)
If the scale has tipped too far to the Left, it may have to shift Right to keep the ship from capsizing. I am anxiously awaiting the elections to learn if folks think the scale needs rebalancing one way or the other.
If J's interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling is correct, Social Security and Medicare are apparently not debts
But the bonds that funded them are. We can make changes in Social Security. But we can't default on government bonds under the constitution.
It didn't really occur to Ronald Reagan that Americans, or more specifically Republicans, would try to default on America's debt. I am sure he thought that was something an American, a citizen of the greatest and richest country in the world, would do. Times have changed and the Republicans have nominated a baby boomer who had no problem in defaulting on his own debt when he could get away with it,and who may very well think he can do the same thing when placed in charge of the government.
==Hiram
I haven't heard of anyone proposing that we default on paying the bonds. However if society chose to redirect the payroll taxes (ie chg system) or reduce them ala Obama, the bonds would be paid up pretty quickly. And whatever the new system is could takeover. I guess that is one advantage of pay as you go.
hiram, you are correct that the bonds that government holds represent a real debt against what government owes itself. Therefore, if the Congress chooses not to cash in those bonds but repudiate them, they will have offended the Congress that... wait a minute, does this sound like a REAL obligation, or just some fancy bookkeeping? The SSA has no more claim on the money Congress takes in than the lowliest Congressional staffer. Of course, Congress would catch heck for "robbing the Trust Fund" but they're already catching heck for that, and they really have no choice. Since the SS tax already takes in less than needed to pay current benefits (exacerbated by Obama's SS tax cut), in order to make good on the promises made by past Congresses and "redeem" the bonds necessary to cover the shortfall, they either must raise taxes, cut benefits, or increase the deficit. That's exactly the same set of choices they have had every year that this Ponzi scheme has been around, and will continue to have until the whole thing comes crashing down. Face it, Bernie Madoff was a piker.
J. Ewing
"I haven't heard of anyone proposing that we default on paying the bonds."
Happened last year when Republicans opposed the increase of the debt ceiling. That was an attempt to dishonor and default on bonds. I do think we could make the choice to pay down America's debt, but we are in fact going in the opposite direction. Mitt Romney wants to increase, not decrease, the defense budget while also lowering, not raising taxes. And he hasn't specified what cuts he wants to make, but his surrogates have mostly denied that he will make the only cuts that could matter. Yesterday, he gave his usual mixed signals, claiming on camera that he would support insuring preexisting conditions, but allowing his spokesmen to assert, that his support for preexisting condition coverage was limited only to those who did not in fact have preexisting conditions.
--Hiram
I really like the subject of this post, because (most of) the politicians will never say that these entitlements have to be radically reformed and that government must do a lot LESS than it is doing now-- especially a lot less spending. They don't get elected by promising people LESS of what they think they're getting or telling people "no." That's why you have to like Romney but even moreso Ryan, because they're willing to have an "adult" conversation about these realities. It's time people understood the immutable nature of the word "unsustainable."
J.
"Happened last year when Republicans opposed the increase of the debt ceiling. That was an attempt to dishonor and default on bonds." --hiram
hiram, you are listening to the "Obama lies" channel, again. The LAST thing that would have been cut from the budget if the debt ceiling were not raised would be payments owed on US bonds. When they said Social Security checks would be held up that was also a lie, because those are "entitlements" under federal law. Congress would have had to decide how to live within their means, but they would have had months to do so. Too bad, they've had years to do it and haven't.
This vote will continue to come up, and I will continue to urge my representatives to vote "NO" every time, because it is the quickest and perhaps easiest way to a balanced budget. Everybody knows that the first thing you do when you get in too much debt is to cut up your credit cards, and the second is to figure out how to live on what you actually take in-- what the priorities are. Paying your debts has to be top on your list, because food, clothing and shelter are discretionary costs that you CAN reduce.
J.
. The LAST thing that would have been cut from the budget if the debt ceiling were not raised would be payments owed on US bonds.
Defaulting on obligations is an act of bankruptcy, at least in the private sector. That's why just the threat of it resulted in a lower credit rating.
--Hiram
I think the credit rating adjustment had a lot more to do the ~15,000,000,000,000 we owe.
The ~$1,000,000,000,000 we are adding to it each year.
And the fact we have no plan to reverse the trend.
I can't see why Moody's would be concerned. (hahahaha)
Post a Comment