Spokane7
55°
July 12, 2011 in Nation/World
Divisions still deep on debt reduction
Obama rules out stopgap, extends talks
WASHINGTON – As time runs perilously short for action, President Barack Obama challenged top lawmakers to return to the White House today with fresh ideas for a debt-reduction plan that could pass the House and Senate.
Obama and congressional leaders on Monday emerged still deeply divided over how to slash the nation’s debt, with reality sinking in that even a middle-ground proposal was not big enough to succeed and would not get through Congress anyway.
All sides are scrambling to reach a deal as part of a tradeoff in which Congress would agree to extend the nation’s debt limit by Aug. 2 to prevent a catastrophic government default on its bills.
Turning up the pressure, Obama declared that he would reject any stopgap extension of the nation’s borrowing limit, imploring lawmakers once again to reach one of the most sizable debt-reduction deals in years.
He refused to even entertain a backup plan if that doesn’t happen.
“We are going to get this done,” Obama insisted in a news conference.
“I’m willing to move in their direction to get something done,” Obama said, referring to the Republicans. “We have a system of government in which everybody’s going to have to give a little bit.”
In a 90-minute closed meeting, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor spelled out potential spending cuts that had been identified in talks led for weeks by Vice President Joe Biden. But Democratic lawmakers in the room made clear such a cutting-only approach without tax hikes on wealthier Americans would never pass the Democratic-led Senate or the House, where Democratic votes would be needed, too.
It did not appear, either, that such a plan would meet the House Republicans’ own standard of a debt-cutting package. They want cuts that would exceed the size of the increase in the debt limit, which could be about $2.4 trillion to get the country through 2012.
Republicans won’t support a package that raises any taxes.
As the stalemate continues, the pressure increases. A government default could trigger another enormous economic swoon.
Democratic officials familiar with the White House position in the private talks insist that leaders of the House and Senate will not let that happen, and that Republicans ultimately would vote to raise the debt limit even if a deficit-cutting package does not come together in time.
Yet Republicans say otherwise. House Speaker John Boehner insists the House can’t pass such a bill.
“I agree with the president that the national debt limit must be raised, and I’m glad that he made the case for it today,” Boehner told reporters. “But the American people will not accept – and the House cannot pass – a bill that raises taxes on job creators.”
Obama renewed his case for a package that would put a historic dent in the country’s deficits by blending tax hikes for the wealthy and big corporations opposed by Republicans and social service cuts that Democrats decry.
He implored both political parties to give ground and show the American people that Washington can actually work.
“If not now, when?” Obama said.
By all accounts, Obama’s third meeting with House and Senate leaders in under a week produced little movement.
Cantor did most of the talking for Republicans, aides said, outlining up to $2.3 trillion in spending cuts over the upcoming decade, with $1.3 trillion coming from squeezing the day-to-day budgets of Cabinet agencies including the Pentagon.
Cantor erred on the high end of the savings range in virtually every instance. The White House countered that the cuts really added up to more like $1.7 trillion, which would leave negotiators $700 billion short of the $2.4 trillion being sought and no bipartisan way to make up the gap.
Obama has offered to entertain raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 years if Republicans make compromises, including letting tax cuts for wealthy Americans expire at the end of 2012, according to a Democratic congressional aide.
Yet the path to an accord remained hard to see. Cantor told reporters earlier in the day: “We are not going to raise taxes. That’s all.”
Obama told reporters he would meet with the lawmakers every day until an agreement is reached. They have two weeks or less to do so in order to get any deal through Congress in time.
The president said he would refuse to accept stopgap legislation of a few months. “It’s not going to get easier; it’s going to get harder,” Obama said. “So we might as well do it now. Pull off the Band-Aid. Eat our peas.”
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
polistra on July 12 at 4:00 a.m.
There’s no division. Both “sides” agree perfectly that they want absolutely nothing to change. They want infinite spending and zero taxes and infinite prosperity and infinite ‘exceptionalism’.
I hope they continue to be infantile.
The consequence of a partial default is predicted to be higher interest rates and lower stock prices.
We’re in this screwed-up mess PRECISELY because the Federal Reserve has maintained zero interest rates and high stock prices, both of which detour all investment from productive uses, encourage all sorts of fraud and discourage saving.
High interest and low shares are the CURE to the problem. Let’s get it over with.
drywitt99 on July 12 at 4:20 a.m.
Cantor told reporters earlier in the day: “We are not going to raise taxes. That’s all.”
The 2011 version of Republican fiscal responsibility.
To repeat the obvious:
Americans are undertaxed.
60-70% of Americans favor an increase in taxes on the top 2% of earners.
And the Republican leadership won’t even consider it.
Why??
Because they themselves are in that top 2%….and they place their personal wealth over the national good?
Because such an increase would annoy their corporate masters?
Or beause they fear the wrath of the looney teabagger segment of their party?
Personal greed??
Or political fear??
Whatever it is….it is NOT fiscal responsibility!
greyhound2 on July 12 at 5:58 a.m.
The debt reduction is all smoke and mirrors. Clinton had the same problem and the government did shut down for a couple of months, no collapse or total chaos. During the bank bailouts, Bush and Paulson warned of total collapse if the banks didn’t get taxpayer money. so we can feel good that we avoided disaster and they got the money. The budget debate is a public relations ploy to make people feel good about higher taxes and disaster avoided. Smoke and mirrors.
DickAdams on July 12 at 6:03 a.m.
drywitt, are you saying the second wealthiest man in the world, Warren Buffett. is a republican? Are you saying that the 50% of Americans who pay absolutely no federal income taxes they (political pimps) should add another 30% so that 80% of Americans pay nothing? How about the senators where the democrats are the majority, yet most of them are multimillionaires? Or what about the democrats that have joined the republicans and both agree no new taxes? And one more thing, i. e. the tea-party members who are democrats? There is only one solution. Its the career politicians from both parties that forget who and where they are from and most are corrupt. I truly believe all most all newly elected officials at the outset mean well and for a while try to do what`s best for Americans.
misjustice on July 12 at 6:29 a.m.
polistra nailed it; do nothing about the budget deficit and the debt ceiling, let the US financial situation “self-correct”.
President Cheney wisely stated that “deficits don’t matter”.
Sure, it will be difficult for people with a lot of consumer debt because interest rates will go up. And it is likely that the stock market will decline. Unemployment will likely increase also.
To again paraphrase President Cheney, “SO”?
drywitt99 on July 12 at 6:38 a.m.
Dickie…..interesting syntax????
Having a hard time following you…..but here goes…
No….don’t remember calling Buffett a Republican????
No….I don’t remember saying aything about increasing the number of Americans who “pay no taxes.”
Yes….I will acknowlledge that most Senators are millionaires.
Yes….I will acknowledge that there are Democratic politicians who oppose any tax increases.
And yes…..there are probably Decocrats who have become teabaggers.
But…..
Teabaggers have taken over the Republican party.
Rational thought still prevails in the Democratic party.
Any Democratic politician who opposes a tax increase is WRONG.
And IF some of the Democratic millionaires in Congress vote to increase taxes on the wealthiest 2%….that is……vote to increase THEIR taxes for the good of the nation…..well….I would find that refeshingly honorable and highly patriotic!!
Public good over private interests.
There was a time when Democrats AND Republicans thought that way.
Thanks to the teabaggers….not so much any more.
By the way… you DO know that the average Ameican pays less in taxes than at any time in 60 years??
And that also goes for the top 2%.
Americans are NOT overtaxeed!
And the richest Americans…..grossly under taxed.
And a majhority of Americans think that in times such as these….that is wrong.
misjustice on July 12 at 6:53 a.m.
Remember when Newt held the US hostage and shuttered government; that turned out okay. Well, not for the Newtster and his minions but for the Democratic Party.
I encourage the regressives and their teabagger party friends to keep refusing to compromise.
DickAdams on July 12 at 7:04 a.m.
drywitt, my reference to Buffett was sarcastic. Buffett was a huge supporter of Obama as a democrat. Buffett, along with many wealthy democratic (and republicans crooks) Americans, collected taxpayer stimulus money. Buffett is a huge GE stockholder and GE paid little if anything in Federal taxes and the democrats looked the other way. The democrats were beholding to Buffett because of the notoriety that helped increase the number of democrats into congress. I believe Americans were sick and tired of business as usual in DC thus the teabaggers. Somebody had to do something. I`m a independent and can`t stand career politicians in either party. To be redundant, term limits may be the solution. BTW, I don`t bite the hand that feeds us.
mikeln on July 12 at 7:44 a.m.
Bawlen boner said it “the american people will not accept new taxes on the job creators”. Since these people have created no jobs, tax the hell out of them. I’m tired of people who have enough money to live a thousand lifetimes, in a mansion with servants, crying about supporting the nation and the people who made it possible, they are creeps if you ask me. I have no problem paying taxes, even if they do not benifit me directly, it is the price one has to pay for the things one needs. Some of the wealthy in this country seem to think it is allright for them to pay little or no taxes simply because they are wealthy and well connected, they need to get over it and help the country that made them the money, not sink it.
hawken on July 12 at 7:57 a.m.
Raising taxes kills jobs. We have had chronic, U6 “real” unemployment since Obama was elected, now at 16.2%.
Priority #1: Jobs, jobs, jobs. That’s the Republican position.
Priority #2: Raise the debt ceiling,,,, ONLY if liberals agree to a dollar for dollar cut in spending for every dollar we raise the debt ceiling. The spending cuts must be a matter of law which would require a super majority to change by future Congresses.
The Republican House needs to pass such a plan and send it to the Senate. Let them reject it and stall the raising of the debt ceiling. If the Senate passes the House plan, let Obama veto it.
The fact is that the world will not come to an end if we fail to raise the debt ceiling.
Current revenues will cover 60% of our government spending (we borrow 40 cents on every dollar we spend). We have plenty of revenue to pay our interest expense, our military, Social Security and Medicare.
“Default” is nonsense and only a liberal scare tactic.
After that, priorities will have to be made as to who gets paid. Which is exactly what we need.
The Democrat Priority: Minimal cuts in spending, higher taxes (job killer), more borrowing and spending.
If liberals will not make significant cuts in spending without raising taxes, let the so-called, August 2, deadline come and go without raising the debt ceiling.
Of course, we really don’t know if the August 2 deadline is real, or only Obama and Geithner screaming “wolf at the door!” Again.
dataxman on July 12 at 8:01 a.m.
mikein - pay little or no taxes? Seriously? The top 1% of wage earners pay 38% of the income taxes. The bottom 47% pay nothing - and some make money off the tax code. You could tax 100% of all income over $250,000 and you would not balance the budget.
The only way we are going to balance the budget is for everyone to have skin in the game (as Obama likes to say) and get more people back on the tax roll. I will support the elimination of the Bush (actually Obama) tax cuts if they all go - not just on the millionaires and billionaires.
Ninch on July 12 at 8:26 a.m.
Tax reform is the answer to spread the tax burden. The current tax code for individuals and businesses has special advantages for a selected few (aka winners and losers), and eliminating those advantages combined with lowering overall tax rates would be fair and equitable as well as result in significant increased revenues.
The Obama/Dem proposal for eliminating selective “loopholes” still ends up with winners and losers, while the increase in revenues would be minimal. Taxing the so-called “rich” even more has been misrepresented by Obama and his followers as millionaires and billionaires, but their definition of rich has been directly stated as beginning at $200,000 (individuals) and $250,000 (married couples). Again these tax increases would be minimal in amount of revenue. Tax reform (and simplification) is the only solution. Obama promised this and has taken NO ACTION toward it. Instead he wants to punish those on some kind of convoluted liberal list (aka winners and losers based on politics).
misjustice on July 12 at 9:45 a.m.
McChinless has AGAIN made the position of the regressives crystal clear:
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell slammed Obama today on the senate floor, “As long as this President is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable.”
Well, I guess that’s it, then. No “real” solution until AFTER 2016!
The_Seer on July 12 at 10:14 a.m.
The “divisions” about this aren’t “deep” and a last minute deal allowing face saving for both sides will happen at zero hour so they can return to their constituencies for a month in August. They’ll explain their punt as a victory (both sides) and say unfinished business that remains (which will be loads) can be decided by “the American people” in the 2012 elections.
I have to blame Obama and mainly Rahm Emanuel for pursuing health care before employment. They should have used their political capital to make the stimulus at least twice what it was and not in the form of tax cuts, but for “shovel ready” projects. States and localities could have put the extra funds in trusts used only as a means to save jobs. Instead, Wall Street got rewarded for fraud and the GOP divided the nation with lies and bluster over an issue concerning a basic human right.
And here we are.
I don’t hear one person who is running for president in 2012 telling us what we need to hear: You are gonna pay more (all of us) and get less. Deal with it. As well, we’ll ease your burden somewhat by ending wars and establishing a tax on financial transactions that goes into an account to be used the next time capitalism self-implodes.That way the rest of us don’t have a wasted decade watching the largest investment in our portfolios decline because of un-prosecuted crimes.
cdspokesreader on July 12 at 10:17 a.m.
I heard an interesting comment last night that the Republicans don’t really want to solve this budget crisis. For political reasons, since they think it will be easier to win the 2012 election against Obama if the economy is bad. What happened to the idea that elected officials were supposed to be there to serve the people that elected them? If this is what the American people really want, then I am terribly saddened by the state of our union.
misjustice on July 12 at 10:26 a.m.
cdspokes, McChinless made his priority as party leader, following the mid-term elections, very clear:
“MCCONNELL: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NATIONAL JOURNAL: What’s the job?
MCCONNELL: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/25/126242/mcconnell-obama-one-term/
Not Jobs, not the economy, not education, not the environment; NO, the # 1 priority is taking down President Barack Hussein Obama. And he reiterated his priority on the floor of the Senate today. “As long as this President is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable.”
liberal_in_right_wing_land on July 12 at 10:40 a.m.
Hey Hawken, where is all these jobs that the republicans are creating? Since they came into power in the house - WHICH WRITE ALL BILLS THEN PASSES THEM ONTO THE SENATE - they have written ZERO jobs bills. However, they have written bills to end planned parenthood, end NPR, make english the official language of the country, help keep don’t ask, don’t tell as law. How are these job creating bills?
The republicans #1 priority is NOT creating jobs, their #1 priority, as McConnell and his minions have said MANY times, is to make sure Obama does not get re-elected. Since 2008 we have have our government refusing to do anything to help this country because they want President Blacky McBlackston to fail.
Stop lying on here saying the republicans #1 priority was to create jobs when its very clear to everyone besides you that isn’t what they are doing.
Blondscence on July 12 at 10:43 a.m.
MJ those things follow when Obama cannot hurt the economy any longer. Sad to say but Obama’s made more of a problem while he’s been trying to use this crisis to his advantage. USA is not now nor will it ever be operating along the lines he wants. People, banks, business are resisting.
I’m not sure but McConnell is likely right. Nothing gets fixed with this Obama character in office. He won’t LET it be fixed. McConnell just threw down a mighty gauntlet. Obama will now spend his time defending himself and get nothing done. A few days ago, one of the posters said that Obama really doesn’t want the budget to be known or the deficit to be fixed without a form of socialism being installed. I wonder….
SpokaneLiberal on July 12 at 10:44 a.m.
I hate this lie about 40-50% of people paying no taxes. That is a lie.
They pay no federal income tax. These people pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than the wealthy because of payroll, medicare, and sales taxes they are subject to, as well as fewer deductions they are eligible for.
Very VERY few people pay no federal taxes. It is a LIE that 47% pay no federal taxes. They may not pay federal income tax, but they pay a higher effective tax rate than the wealthiest 1%.
gmorton on July 12 at 10:59 a.m.
drywitt99 wrote,
“60-70% of Americans favor an increase in taxes on the top 2% of earners.”
Well, sure. “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.” Majorities always favor taxes – on someone else. Especially if those taxes are buying free lunches for that majority.
“And the Republican leadership won’t even consider it. Why??”
Because they (some of them, anyway) understand that the federal free lunch cornucopia is what has created the present problem. The share of the nation’s wealth consumed by government has increased relentlessly since the 1930s, from about 7% to 44% today. That growth will continue indefinitely, unless it is stopped, and reversed, today. That means you do not give gummint another penny of the wealth its citizens have produced. Like an alcoholic, it must be dried out, “cold turkey.”
SpokaneLiberal on July 12 at 11:02 a.m.
How about comprehensive tax reform.
Top tax rate 33% (see tax cuts for everyone), then 25, then 15, then 10, then 5
Eliminate all deductions and tax credits except the EITC and the Child Tax Credit.
Businesses are subject to one of the lowest effective tax rates in the world, but lets just simplify. If you make under a million dollars your tax rate is 10%. If you make over a million dollars your rate is 20%. No credits or deductions. And make illegal the shell games that allow profits to be off shored.
Then reform social security and we now have a budget surplus. Done
gmorton on July 12 at 11:10 a.m.
mikeln wrote,
“I’m tired of people who have enough money to live a thousand lifetimes, in a mansion with servants, crying about supporting the nation and the people who made it possible . . .”
Oooh, serious mistake, equating “the nation” with the free lunchers who consume about 50% of the federal budget, and who made nothing possible, except perhaps national bankruptcy.
SpokaneLiberal on July 12 at 11:10 a.m.
But even with a tax rate cut and a surplus resulting Republicans “can’t” support my plan because it proposes eliminating a tax loophole.
In fact they say eliminating any tax code spending (aka loopholes) is raising taxes….
There is no real reason why when we are talking cutting off food to poor families to save money why we can’t even discuss eliminating the tax credit that spends more money -giving it to people who buy jet fuel.
Diana on July 12 at 11:11 a.m.
Small-business job creators don’t hire based on expectations of taxes, they hire based on expectations of demand - and who needs to supply that demand? Middle class and below.
Sorry, but the wealthy are not going to frequent your corner tavern or mechanic’s garage.
MisJ is correct, as usual. The only practical solution for teabaggers is to refuse to raise the debt ceiling and default on all our loans. Once the dollar is worthless and credit shocks tear through the entire world economy, maybe the baggers will shut up.
Doubt it, but maybe.
Mr_Incredible on July 12 at 11:12 a.m.
GMorton?
“The share of the nation’s wealth consumed by government has increased relentlessly since the 1930s, from about 7% to 44% today.”
Wealth has two economic definitions:
(1) all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
(2) anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.
Wealth in the United States is generally measured as overall Net Worth of all households.
US Federal Spending was $3.4 Trillion in 2010. Total US wealth was estimated at $55 Trillion in 2010.
The correct present day ration is therefore 6%, 1% point lower than in the 1930’s.
Please misinform someplace else.
gmorton on July 12 at 11:17 a.m.
The_Seer wrote,
“Instead, Wall Street got rewarded for fraud and the GOP divided the nation with lies and bluster over an issue concerning a basic human right.”
Oh? What “human right” would that be?
Surely you are not referring to health care, given that is a service which may be provided to you by others. Neither you nor any other human has a “right” that others serve you, or hand over to you the products of their talents and labors. That is called “slavery,” and it was abolished in the US in 1865.
Mr_Incredible on July 12 at 11:19 a.m.
Gmorton strikes again
“Oooh, serious mistake, equating “the nation” with the free lunchers who consume about 50% of the federal budget, and who made nothing possible, except perhaps national bankruptcy.”
Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid combine for 43% of the federal budget. Last I checked, those payouts are generally not free lunches as most people, including myself, have been paying Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes our entire lives.
I think most people don’t consider things they’ve been paying for out of every paycheck to be Free.
gmorton on July 12 at 11:26 a.m.
SpokaneLiberal wrote,
“These people pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than the wealthy . . .”
That is not the relevant criterion. The relevant criterion is, What does each pay in proportion to the value of the services he receives from government?
You have obviously bought into the “ability to pay” principle as the criterion for “fair” taxation. That principle, a derivative of Marxism, is invalid. The correct principle is, “Pay in proportion to the benefits received.”
The latter is, BTW, the principle which applies everywhere else in the economy. When you visit a bakery, you do not pay according to your income; you pay according to how many donuts you carry out of the shop.
gmorton on July 12 at 11:37 a.m.
SpokaneLiberal wrote,
“In fact they say eliminating any tax code spending (aka loopholes) is raising taxes….”
Yes, it is, unless corresponding rate reductions are adopted simultaneously. Many Repubs favor comprehensive tax reform, as long as it does not counter the #1 priority, which is reducing the size of government.
So do some Dems – but for them reform has a different purpose, namely, *increasing* the size of government (so they can deliver more free lunches to their various constituencies).
greenlibertarian on July 12 at 11:46 a.m.
Cantor’s a traitor. He’s not only refusing to to negotiate in good faith over the debt limit, HE’S BETTING WITH HIS OWN MONEY that the US will default.
Despicable. Pathetic SOB.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/eric_cantor_conflict_of_interest
liberal_in_right_wing_land on July 12 at 11:51 a.m.
gmorton, stop posting what you believe to be facts as the actual truth. Try attaching some citations and references to back up what you are saying, otherwise it just looks like you are making things up to fit what you want to say.
gmorton on July 12 at 11:59 a.m.
There is no real reason why when we are talking cutting off food to poor families to save money why we can’t even discuss eliminating the tax credit that spends more money -giving it to people who buy jet fuel.
Don’t be silly. The “tax break” is accelerated depreciation for corporate-owned jets. If repealed it would produce about ~$300 million/year. Food stamps will cost taxpayers $90 *billion* this year.
gmorton on July 12 at 12:02 p.m.
liberal_in_right_wing_land wrote,
“gmorton, stop posting what you believe to be facts as the actual truth. Try attaching some citations and references to back up what you are saying … ”
I usually do, unless those facts are readily available or “common knowledge.”
What facts would you like cites for? I’ll be happy to oblige.
gmorton on July 12 at 12:08 p.m.
Mr_Incredible wrote,
“Wealth in the United States is generally measured as overall Net Worth of all households.”
No, it isn’t, on an annual basis. It is measured by annual GDP, which includes the value of services as well as of fixed assets.
Nice try though.
dataxman on July 12 at 12:36 p.m.
greenlibertarian - I salon has a the same grasp of economic principles as a cold bucket of spit. If Cantor has been in TBT since last year, he has lost money - and would continue to do so even if we happen to default. Europe is imploding so there is no other place to put your money. Treasuries are still considered a safe haven - and will continue to be. The bet Cantor (and myself off and on over the last couple of years) is making relates to inflation kicking in (which when it does will cause TBT to increase in value much, much more than a default).
Nice attempt at mock outrage though.
gmorton on July 12 at 12:40 p.m.
Mr_Incredible wrote,
“Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid combine for 43% of the federal budget. Last I checked, those payouts are generally not free lunches as most people, including myself, have been paying Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes our entire lives.”
Sorry, but there is no “Medicaid tax.” That is paid for entirely from general revenues (and state revenues), and consumes about 8% of the federal budget. There is a dedicated tax for Medicare, but it covers only about 60% of its costs. General revenues pay the remaining 40%. Those two programs alone consume 13% of the federal budget. Unemployment, TANF, and other “entitlements” consume another 16%; housing subsidies, education subsidies, *et al* another 5-6%.
http://www.dawsondaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/US_Budget_4-7-2011.jpg
So I’ll reduce the “free luncher” fraction to 35%. OK?
gmorton on July 12 at 12:44 p.m.
oops, forgot the quote marks around the first para of the 11:59 post, quoting SpokaneLiberal.
gmorton on July 12 at 12:55 p.m.
Diana wrote,
“The only practical solution for teabaggers is to refuse to raise the debt ceiling and default on all our loans.”
No, Diana. There will be no default on US debt, whether the ceiling is raised or not. The US will have ample revenue to pay bondholders, and also SS, veterans’ benefits, and all other contractual obligations. It will not have enough to pay for all the free lunches, however.
greenlibertarian on July 12 at 1:34 p.m.
The share of the nation’s wealth consumed by government has increased relentlessly since the 1930s, from about 7% to 44%.
:
No, it isn’t, on an annual basis. It is measured by annual GDP, which includes the value of services as well as of fixed assets.
-gmorton
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter3.shtml
gmorton, you might try *not* overstating numbers so easily obtained in a vain attempt to promote your argument.
dataxman on July 12 at 1:36 p.m.
The incompetency of our media is truly amazing. Obama claims he can’t guarantee welfare payments to social security receipients will be sent out on August 3rd.
A good follow up question would have been if he will guarantee payments to bond holders and would the US prioritize debt payments. Tax Cheat Geitner already said no they wouldn’t, essentially saying they will pay for a tea pot museum in Virgina - or the Chinese government interest payment - instead of a soldier in Iraq. Nice
SpokaneLiberal on July 12 at 1:43 p.m.
But according to Republicans even discussing accelerated depreciation on corporate jets is off the table. Why?
Why does anything have to be off the table?
They won’t even allow comprehensive tax reform because the elimination of any loophole. Even on that is not used by anyone is unacceptable, even if there was a rate reduction.
Why can tax code spending be completely off the table but no other spending?
And why can’t we discuss my plan above - or right, even though it eliminates the deficit, lowers tax rates, it eliminates a loophole so “OFF THE TABLE.”
dataxman on July 12 at 1:54 p.m.
spokaneliberal - if we are putting Obama’s policies on the table (as is the accelerated depreciation of corporate jets) let’s put Obama care on there as well.
As for your ‘plan’ - drive out to Felts Field and look at the number of workers at the FBO’s out there. The accelerated depreciation (which, in reality will not bring in any more money, just move the amount of tax over a couple of more years) was an effort to spur jet sales, as it puts people to work. From the person building the plane to the person at Felt’s that services it. Last time the democrat party tried to demonize a industry was Clinton and the yachts. Took a couple years to realize they almost killed that industry and quickly took the tax off…
greenlibertarian on July 12 at 2:08 p.m.
If you think a corporation is NOT going to buy a corp. jet, or is going to reduce operating time to fly their best executives around and their top customers over a paltry increase in their depreciation costs, you’re nuts.
Besides, I thought you guys said businesses don’t pay taxes, they pass along their tax expenses to their customers, right?
dataxman on July 12 at 2:21 p.m.
If the accelerated depreciation on jets does nothing for the economy, why did Obama put it in his stimulus plan?
SpokaneLiberal on July 12 at 2:38 p.m.
He probably put it into the plan because he was trying to accommodate Republicans.
But that isn’t the point. Every tax loophole and every piece of spending creates jobs. It does this by effecting demand or altering the cost benefit ratio. I don’t see any reason why jets should get special treatment not given to me (or everyone else)when I buy a bed. It still employs people to make the bed right?
Which is why I am offering a nice fair relatively flat no loophole proposal. I am not here to defend Obama. I bet you will find that parts of Obamacare are on the table. Why can’t parts of tax code spending be on the table?
Instead I simply suggested
GE shouldn’t be able to pass all of its losses to the US and all of its profits to Luxembourg.Simple. Effective. Cuts spending written into the tax code while cutting everyone’s rates and making taxes easier and reduces the debt. I am also willing to cut spending by 1-3 trillion. But every proposal that does anything like this is “out of the question” because it removes a loophole - even if no one uses the loophole. THAT IS INSANE.
dataxman on July 12 at 3:15 p.m.
First, GE does not assign profits to one area and losses to another. Second, the US cannot tax a company on foreign profits. If it tries, you will see a mass exodus of companies. Third, why not get rid of the EITC and the Child Tax Credit? EITC is to reimburse a low income workers social security tax bill, which is foolish as they will, one day, be on social security. As for the child tax credit - why should taxpayers subsidize kids? I would agree to keeping them if we make them non-refundable. That is, once your tax bill is zero, that’s it.
You do realize that by eliminating all deductions, you will increase the effective rate for those in the lower classes by a much greater percentage than those in the upper bracket, as upper earners have had their deductions limited since the 1990’s and the AMT also kicks up their effective rate.
I am all for it the flat tax/no deductions plan. I have said for years we need to get some of the 47% of wage earners that pay no income tax out of the wagon and have them start pulling their own weight. That is the only way we balance the budget.
nslopeofw on July 12 at 3:20 p.m.
drywitt-
Do you think it would be OK if some people who dont have something that you have were 60% in favor of you giving your money to them? What i’m trying to say, is that the people that want to tax people who make good money, are the ones who dont make good money. Who cares what the jealous punks think.
It would be nice if the pundits would categorize rich. People making $250,000 to $300,000 are not rich. They may be well off, but not rich. How about $350,000? When does common sense say rich? $750,000? $1,000,000? I would start rich as making a cool million a year.
SpokaneLiberal-
Anyone making $30K a year or less is getting a refund at the end of the year close to what they paid in. So, yeah, @ $30K you might pay $100-$300 (0.3% to 1% anything less than $20 gets it all back) @ $300K, you are going to pay between 30%-35%, and get very little if any back. ($90K and up).
Then, jump to $500K+, and all the loopholes, etc., kick in, so the percentage drops back down. That is why there needs to be some kind of category for rich. Why should those making between $200K and $500K get slammed with the highest percent paid in taxes?
The only real, fair, and just system is a flat rate tax. Plus, with a flat rate tax, and law that requires said tax be taken out each paycheck, you eliminate the need for the IRS.
Traveler on July 12 at 3:27 p.m.
I know this is off the topic, but gmorton got me to thinking about another Republican sacred cow: the “right” to make money off anything — even my broken arm.
As far as I’m concerned, Obama’s biggest failure as president was when he bailed on single-payer health insurance (one of several instances where he bent over forward for the Grand Obstructionist Party). I certainly understand why doctors should be paid for their services, but why should there be massive profits for the middleman? My half of my bi-weekly health insurance bill (my employer pays the other half) is greater than my federal taxes, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and disability deductions combined, and the guy who sits next to me pays twice as much because he has children.
Health insurers cherry-pick the best (i.e., most profitable) patients and kick the rest off their rolls (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699) onto Medicare, where they’re derided by Republicans as “free lunchers.” The Health Care Reform Act (not Obamacare, as you tea-baggers keep saying; he “led from behind” on that one too) prevents that.
And I don’t understand why you call the HCRA socialism anyway — forcing people to pay for their own insurance is really more like fascism. But it’s actually a form of personal responsibility (like the auto insurance my state government requires me to have), which is a Republican mantra. And it’s really just a huge giveaway to health insurers: Millions more people will be buying their products, many of them young people who probably won’t use it for years.
And think how much lower the cost to American employers would be if they didn’t have to subsidize health insurance for their workers? I know the Republican way of achieving that is to do away with the collective bargaining that brought it about in the first place, but frankly, I don’t trust your “free market” solutions to keep insurance costs down.
I also wish Republicans had pushed harder for tort reform — rather than wailing about how “death panels” are better run by the private sector (although they didn’t phrase it that way — to cut the cost of malpractice insurance (there’s that word again) for doctors. But offering solutions isn’t nearly as easy as throwing stones.
greenlibertarian on July 12 at 3:55 p.m.
As I noted yesterday, a person would likely be grossing at least $350k before their AGI hits $250k and the top marginal rate. And of course, many of them get their corporations to structure their compensation towards capital gains, taxed at a mere 15%
$350K may not be big salary in places like Manhattan, San Francisco, DC suburbs, Northern Virgina and the loftier areas of so. cal., or even in a high cost place like Anchorage and Honolulu, but most everywhere else, it’s a very high salary.
The highest income counties in the country have a median HOUSEHOLD income in the low $100K to $115K, so yeah, a $350K salary is HUGE.
dataxman on July 12 at 4:02 p.m.
56 - the constant comparisson to auto insurance is really getting old. I do not have to buy auto insurance for my 2 year old. There are people in cities that do not have a license that go their entire life without owning a car - and therefore had no need for auto insurance. If you do not drive, you do not need auto insurance. Outside of dying, why steps does a person need to take to not have to by obamacare?
Honestly, as I was driving across the state last night, I started thinking about Obama care and what good might come if the Supremes rule it constitutional. We might finally be able to legislate personal responsibility (which, as you mentioned, all Obamacare really does). I would like to see the government start issuing permits to have children. You would also have to purchase an insurance policy to cover any costs to society in the event you do have a child and cannot afford to care for it. The policy would be required until you went through irreversible sterilization. This would be a great way of reducing the number of children born into poverty. It would be constitutional, as having a child clearly is an event related to interstate commerce (health care, clothing, food, school, etc).
So while I am against Obamacare, it may be a necessary evil to get to the hammer the government needs to rein in the problem of kids being born to people that cannot afford them…
Traveler on July 12 at 4:57 p.m.
taxman
I think your argument is specious. The whole premise of Insurance is to spread the cost of something among as many potential users as possible. And the most profitable customers are the ones who never use it. As expensive as health insurance is now, how much more would it cost if people didn’t insure themselves until the day before they finally go to the doctor about that lump they’ve been feeling? Pay a $400 premium on Monday and get $20,000 in treatment on Tuesday: Good deal for the insurance user, terrible deal for the provider, who won’t be in business long.
You’re right that city dwellers don’t need car insurance, but so what? I don’t own an airplane — and never will — so I’ll never need airplane insurance. I’m not sick now, but I might be one day, and personal responsibility dictates that I should bear the cost of my need — or, through the magic of health insurance, spread the cost among as many people who may get sick as possible.
(On a personal note, I pay more than $5,000 a year for my health insurance, and have only used it once in more than a decade (of the total $4,000 emergency room bill, my insurer, through creative deductibles, only paid about $1,500), but that doesn’t mean I don’t want or shouldn’t have it, only that it costs way too much. And I can pretty much guarantee that my insurer won’t pass along the extra money it makes from the huge influx of new customers that the HCRA will give them.)
dataxman on July 12 at 5:04 p.m.
The situation you mentioned occured in WA under Senn(?) and it cuased insurance companies to flee.
Obamacare does not mandate you buy insurance - it offers an out that is less than the cost of the insurance. SO - pay a bit of a fine and when you get sick, buy a policy (no pre-existing condition or wait period) then get the $20,000 in treatment. This is why Obamacare will fail. Until we either (a) mandate coverage and (b) allow doctors/hospitals to deny treatment to those without coverage, we are simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Traveler on July 12 at 5:47 p.m.
“The situation you mentioned occured in WA under Senn(?) and it cuased insurance companies to flee.”
I don’t know what you’re referring to, and my insurance company hasn’t fled — far from it.
I’m sure you think your consistent use of “Obamacare” denigrates both the president and the reform act, but it’s really just a shibboleth that IDs your mindset — you’re a tea-bagger (I know that’s a pejorative misnomer, but so is “Obamacare,” and if you can be ignorant/snarky, why can’t I?)
And as for gaming the system, yes people will certainly do that, but I don’t think it’s the fatal flaw in the HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT (does it help you remember the name if I shout?). Right now, people don’t even bother with the minimum insurance payment, they just go the emergency room and stick the rest of us with the bill (hospitals write off millions each year in uncollected charges). At least with the HCRA fines we’ll get something from the biggest of the slackers.
As for the only two choices you think that leaves us, I certainly hope you’re endorsing (a), because (b) seems pretty inhumane for a bleeding accident victim — and probably a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, especially the “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks” and “I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure” (notice there’s no mention of “depending on their medical insurance coverage”) bits.
nslopeofw on July 12 at 6:18 p.m.
Dataxman-
O-Care does require you to have it, and if you dont, you get fines. Look at all the businesses and such that are getting exemptions from O so they dont get fined.Businesses have to offer it, and individuals have to have it. The only ones that dont have to get it are the ones who can afford it, and then it will be given to them by our tax dollars.
gmorton on July 12 at 6:29 p.m.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“gmorton, you might try *not* overstating numbers so easily obtained in a vain attempt to promote your argument.”
Er, green, the figures I gave, both the 7% and 44%, were for government at *all* levels, as I’ve made clear several times. The feds’ share this year will be about 25% of GDP, up from <5% prior to the 1930s.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
gmorton on July 12 at 6:39 p.m.
SpokaneLiberal wrote,
“But according to Republicans even discussing accelerated depreciation on corporate jets is off the table. Why?”
It is not off the table as long (as I mentioned above) the “reforms” are not camouflage for tax increases. The overriding concern is to make sure the gummint does not end up with one more penny of taxpayers’ money.
Many Repubs would readily support ending special tax credits, deductions, and other loopholes, as long as the gummint does not end up with more money to blow.
gmorton on July 12 at 6:43 p.m.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“Besides, I thought you guys said businesses don’t pay taxes, they pass along their tax expenses to their customers, right?”
Yes, they do. And as a result their products become less competitive and demand for them falls.
gmorton on July 12 at 6:46 p.m.
SpokaneLiberal wrote,
“I don’t see any reason why jets should get special treatment not given to me (or everyone else)when I buy a bed. It still employs people to make the bed right?”
I don’t think any person here would disagree with you on that point. The tax code should be reformed (actually it should be scrapped entirely and replaced with a much different tax). But “reform” must not be a pretext for increasing the gummint’s total tax take.
gmorton on July 12 at 6:59 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
“I know this is off the topic, but gmorton got me to thinking about another Republican sacred cow: the “right” to make money off anything — even my broken arm.”
Well, I think that “sacred cow” is worshipped well beyond the GOP. It is, indeed, protected by the Constitution, which forbids the gummint from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
But you have mischaracterized the “cow”: No one has a right to make money off of your broken arm. They only have a right to make money off their own talents, skills, knowledge, or the products thereof. So if you desire the services of another person, whether it is to grow corn for you to eat, or build you a house, or repair your car, or fix your broken arm, then you must expect to pay them for their efforts.
And just as those providers have no duty to serve you for nothing, neither do your neighbors have any duty to pay the bills you have incurred. They have rights to their liberty and property as well, whether you break your arm or not.
gmorton on July 12 at 7:17 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
“And I don’t understand why you call the HCRA socialism anyway — forcing people to pay for their own insurance is really more like fascism.”
You’ve answered that yourself:
“Health insurers cherry-pick the best (i.e., most profitable) patients and kick the rest off their rolls onto Medicare, where they’re derided by Republicans as “free lunchers.” The Health Care Reform Act … prevents that.”
When you buy insurance you are pooling risks with others *who present a comparable degree of risk*. E.g., you pay more to insure a $1 million house against fire than a $200K house; you pay more for auto insurance if you have a poor driving record; a doctor pays more for malpractice insurance if he has a history of claims, or is practicing in a specialty that is unusually risky.
But with health insurance the lefties wish to force you to subsidize insurance for persons who present much higher risks than you do. I.e., they want you to underwrite free lunches for those high-risk clients.
In a truly free market insurers would be happy to insure patients with pre-existing or chronic conditions – provided they paid premiums sufficient to cover those claims, or agree to exclude those conditions or complications thereof from their coverage, in exchange for lower premiums.
But of course, many people have come to believe they have a “right” to health care, and so they demand that the pols deliver it to them.
Health insurers, like all other businesses, are in business to make money, not deliver free lunches because pols have promised them to constituents or adopted that as a “social goal.” If you don’t like their prices, do without the coverage and pay your medical bills yourself.
gmorton on July 12 at 7:24 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
“Right now, people don’t even bother with the minimum insurance payment, they just go the emergency room and stick the rest of us with the bill (hospitals write off millions each year in uncollected charges).”
Yes indeed. Due to EMTALA and state laws requiring hospitals to deliver charity care, they are forced to treat them.
Just as with the housing debacle, your government at work!
Traveler on July 12 at 7:27 p.m.
Last comment before I shut off the PC for the night:
(me) “And I don’t understand why you call the HCRA socialism anyway — forcing people to pay for their own insurance is really more like fascism.”
(you) “You’ve answered that yourself:”
Well, I wanted you to answer it. Why do righties call it socialism when it’s really fascism?
And, the lefties don’t want us to subsidize only the higher-risk ones; they want everybody to buy coverage. It’s the healthy ones who’ll make sure the insurance industry stays profitable, after all.
gmorton on July 12 at 7:30 p.m.
I said above,
“But you have mischaracterized the “cow”: No one has a right to make money off of your broken arm. They only have a right to make money off their own talents, skills, knowledge, or the products thereof.”
IOW, while no one has a “right to make money off your broken arm,” they have every right to make money by *treating* your broken arm, just as they have a right to make money from any other service they provide to you.
gmorton on July 12 at 7:41 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
“And, the lefties don’t want us to subsidize only the higher-risk ones; they want everybody to buy coverage. It’s the healthy ones who’ll make sure the insurance industry stays profitable, after all.”
They want everybody to buy coverage because most people are healthy, and their forced premiums will subsidize the unhealthy.
Most people do not need comprehensive health insurance. They need only “major medical” with a $10,000 deductible. In a truly free market not dominated by 3rd party payers, for healthy persons with no pre-existing conditions it would be quite cheap.
misjustice on July 12 at 7:42 p.m.
This just in:
“…Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said a bipartisan budget-cutting deal is probably out of reach, making it unlikely that Republicans would approve an increase in the government’s debt limit by Aug. 2. To prevent default, he proposed that Congress in effect empower Mr. Obama to raise the government’s borrowing limit without its prior approval of offsetting cuts in spending.”
continues…
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/us/politics/13fiscal.html?_r=1&hp
Senator McChinless is hoping that the House won’t vote to approve his “deal”; and if by some miracle they do that the electorate will blame ONLY the President for the increase in the debt ceiling…
Not sure that if Congress hands the President the power to raise the ceiling without it’s approval that the electorate will hold the Congress blameless in this mess…
I guess that time will tell.
gmorton on July 12 at 8:01 p.m.
misjustice wrote,
“Not sure that if Congress hands the President the power to raise the ceiling without it’s approval that the electorate will hold the Congress blameless in this mess…”
That is an interesting move. The proposal will give Obama authority to raise the limit *and* propose offsetting cuts. If he raises the ceiling and proposes no cuts, or the Congress does not approve the cuts, the onus will fall squarely on Obama and the Dems. It will also be interesting to see how the bond market and the rating services react to an executive-only debt increase not accompanied by cuts.
gmorton on July 12 at 8:06 p.m.
What the Repubs in the House should also do, however, is pass a bill raising the ceiling, direct an equivalent amount in cuts, send it to the Senate and let them refuse to pass it or Obama refuse to sign it. That would show who has acted to raise the debt ceiling and prevent default and who has not.
dataxman on July 12 at 8:08 p.m.
56 - I guess I say Obamacare for the same reason people say Bush Tax Cuts instead of ‘Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001’ it is short and to the point. Not sure why you decided to get nasty, but that seems to be a common problem with liberals, especially MSDNC viewers - and hosts.
As for my reference to Senn, Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn (D) (1993-2001) pushed through a rule that after 90 days of waiting a plan could not exclude a pre-existing condition. I had Group Health at the time, and they testified at the committee meeting trying to fix the problems it caused. They said a woman came in 6 months pregnant, paid 3 months premiums (about $1500) and her delivery cost $10,000. She then canceled her policy.
As for my A/B option, I favour option A, but unless their is one really big hammer (not some piddly little fine) it will not work. And those of us with insurance will continue to subsidize those that don’t pay their own way (those without insurance, Medicare/Medicade users, illegals, etc)
dataxman on July 12 at 8:16 p.m.
I don’t thin Congress can hand the power to borrow to the President…
Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
misjustice on July 12 at 8:16 p.m.
@ gmorton re: 8:06 p post, I know that is (probably) what the Rs in the House should do (political stra-tea-geree) but the freshmen won’t go along with that because the Teabag Party is holding their tender feet to the fire.
It’s also unlikely that McChinless’ proposal will be approved by the House either, it’s all talk for now…
SpokaneLiberal on July 12 at 9:00 p.m.
But gmorton there is another problem. Why can’t we set the taxes at something reasonable and easy and acknowledge that sometimes we must raise taxes and sometimes we must cut taxes. And not as a pretext to “bring in more revenue” but because sometimes we need to accelerate the economy with a tax cut and sometimes we need to slow it down with a tax rise.
I think the uncertainty on taxes and the huge accounting departments digging for exemptions undermines markets. Change the tax code. If it results in more revenue then we can pay down some debt. But the Republicans won’t even consider it. Categorically a nonstarter. They pretend to care about the debt but they don’t - they want to preserve the exemptions and deductions for their corporate masters, not create a sensible tax scheme, deal with the debt or get comprehensive reform. Because someone - anyone might pay a cent more in tax, even if it is revenue neutral.
Tax code spending is still spending.
gmorton on July 12 at 9:09 p.m.
dataxman wrote,
“I don’t thin Congress can hand the power to borrow to the President…”
There are a slew of precedents:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/03-delegation-of-legislative-power.html
gmorton on July 12 at 9:18 p.m.
SpokaneLiberal wrote,
“And not as a pretext to ‘bring in more revenue’ but because sometimes we need to accelerate the economy with a tax cut and sometimes we need to slow it down with a tax rise.”
Well, I can’t think of any circumstance in which anyone would wish to slow down the economy. And certainly not in the present; the economy is surely slow enough.
“But the Republicans won’t even consider it. Categorically a nonstarter. They pretend to care about the debt but they don’t - they want to preserve the exemptions and deductions for their corporate masters, not create a sensible tax scheme, deal with the debt or get comprehensive reform.”
They’d prefer (many of them) to be rid of the loopholes, but not if it would increase the total tax burden. And they do care about the debt – they recognize that it is itself a burden on the economy – but they care *more* about stopping the growth of government, as that is what has caused the debt in the first place.
greenlibertarian on July 12 at 9:41 p.m.
Er, green, the figures I gave, both the 7% and 44%, were for government at *all* levels, as I’ve made clear several times. The feds’ share this year will be about 25% of GDP, up from <5% prior to the 1930s.
Total state and local taxes and fees were about $1.3T in 2010, so you’re getting closer, but that’s still 34%, not 44%, of total GDP.
Comparisons to the 1920-30’s etc. are useless and you know it.
Federal tax collections as a percent of GDP are the lowest 50 years.
I haven’t looked at the data on state and local taxes in the past 50 years, but I’ll grant you they are higher now as a percentage of GDP than probably any other time in last 50 years., though that’s my WAG.
SpokaneLiberal on July 13 at 8:04 a.m.
If they cared about the size of government more than the debt then why wouldn’t they go for 2+ trillion in spending cuts the president has offered?
Right because they want to play politics. This isn’t about the debt or the size of government. Mitch McConnell let the cat out of the bag, this is about making sure this president isn’t re-elected even if it means wrecking the economy, defaulting on our obligations, and making this recession a 30 year depression.
They care about that most of all, more than the debt, more than the American people, more than the size of government.
nslopeofw on July 13 at 9:28 a.m.
He offered cuts, with tax increases. What part of “NO TAX INCREASES” dont liberals and O understand?
GOP offered 4 trillion in cuts. O and the dems didnt like that. He offers 2 trillion in differed cuts (they dont happen now, but in years to come) and a tax increase.
Its easy to see why they said no.
We dont need differed cuts, we need “NOW” cuts.
SpokaneLiberal on July 13 at 9:54 a.m.
The COP can’t possibly offer 4 trillion in now cuts, no one could. That exceeds the entire budget. Do some research before you post garbage.
He asked for some loopholes to be closed (like you can’t deduct your foreign taxes - why should we subsidize taxes paid to other countries?). He didn’t ask for wholesale tax increases - he asked for spending to subsidize things written into the tax code also be cut. Why should we spend money to subsidize semi trucks or planes or even mortgages on expensive houses?
Republicans asked for 2 trillion he offered 4 trillion in deficit reduction. I guess we see who wants to fix the deficit.
What part of getting serious about the debt don’t conservatives understand?
SpokaneLiberal on July 13 at 10:05 a.m.
And we do have a revenue problem. Revenue is at its lowest level since Clinton left office - in real actual unadjusted dollars. We weren’t at war in 3 countries when Clinton left office. We have shaved nearly 2/3 of a trillion dollars off of our revenue in the last 3 years. 2009 was the lowest tax revenue year in adjusted terms since before 1950.
gmorton on July 13 at 2:53 p.m.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“Total state and local taxes and fees were about $1.3T in 2010, so you’re getting closer, but that’s still 34%, not 44%, of total GDP.”
Don’t know where you got that figure, but it’s incorrect. That’s the total for *state* spending alone; local spending adds another $1.6 trillion.
Use the calculator Iink I gave you (or show that it is incorrect):
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
“Comparisons to the 1920-30’s etc. are useless and you know it.”
I’m afraid I don’t. Why are they useless?
gmorton on July 13 at 2:58 p.m.
SpokaneLiberal wrote,
“If they cared about the size of government more than the debt then why wouldn’t they go for 2+ trillion in spending cuts the president has offered?”
For two reasons:
1. The “cuts” (to the extent Obama identified them) were phony – they would occur only in the “out” years, after the 2012 election. There would be no cuts for the next 2 years.
2. They were contingent on Repubs agreeing to tax increases.
gmorton on July 13 at 3:00 p.m.
SpokaneLiberal wrote,
“The COP can’t possibly offer 4 trillion in now cuts, no one could. That exceeds the entire budget. Do some research before you post garbage.”
No one proposed that. The $4T cuts would occur over 10 years, beginning next year.
Traveler on July 13 at 3:07 p.m.
gmorton,
(you) 2. They were contingent on Repubs agreeing to tax increases.
As opposed, say, to Repubs agreeing to nothing, and making only demands.
gmorton on July 13 at 7:51 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
“As opposed, say, to Repubs agreeing to nothing, and making only demands.”
No, 56. They were prepared to agree to raise the debt ceiling. They were not prepared to raise the debt ceiling and at the same time give the statists more money to blow on more free lunches, which would require it to be raised again next year, and again the year after that, *ad infinitum*.
Recall SpokaneLiberal’s question:
“If they cared about the size of government more than the debt then why wouldn’t they go for 2+ trillion in spending cuts the president has offered?”
Stopping the growth of government outweighs the current problem of the debt, because the growth of government is what has created the debt in the first place. You have to pull the victim out of the fire before you can effectively treat his burns.