Tell Me I'm Not Seeing This

[Guest]

My goodness! We've gone through decades where the U.S. was the world power, the big brother, the society to be admired, the system of government that seemed to work better than all others.

All that seems to have changed in just a short time...only about twenty years.

Now the rest of the world looks and wonders how we could be doing such self-inflicted damage to ourselves. What needs to be done is clear. Almost no one disagrees. The only difference is what should be done now, immediately.

The current argument seems to be one based on the desire for political power, for re-election, the appeal to a political and ideological base constituency. Our political leaders are acting as though all that is more important than doing the right thing for the country...taking an important first step towards fiscal improvement.

If one can believe the news reports, what's been offered or demanded by both sides is an agreement that spending be cut by about $3 trillion over ten years. The liberals have even offered up substantial cuts to beloved entitlement programs. In exchange they've asked for a re-work of the tax code to eliminate egregious tax benefits that are unneeded and increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Even the wealthy seem to agree that they should pay more. There's even agreement that individual tax rates be reduced, something important to the conservatives.

Overall the deficit reductions would total $4 trillion...$3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue increases. That amount would be a substantial whack at our deficits, not nearly enough but substantial start. That amount would satisfy the financial markets and keep our currency and our reputation as a place to safely invest strong.

But in an argument that seems to be solely over ideology, those elected to do the right thing for the country are acting like petulant children. They may do something, but what's being discussed won't be enough and will be done for political reasons. It will put off a meaningful decision to sometime in the future. It will be obvious to the rest of the world and to those on whom we rely as financial partners and lenders that our government was incapable of making the obviously needed decision. It will be obvious that more time and more negotiation will be unlikely to achieve a different result.

What has happened to our country? Some have said that our elected representatives are only reflecting the fractiousness of the population. Is that right? Have we gone that far? Is our country, our society, our national values deteriorated that quickly? Have we totally forgotten what we will leave for our children and grandchildren? Is having "our candidates" elected so important to us that all we can do is spew invectives at those who don't totally embrace our point-of-view? Is being re-elected so important to those who supposedly represent us that they're willing to basically throw the country under the oncoming train for personal power and benefit?

Some one tell me I'm not seeing what seems to be happening to us.

[Guest]

I think this article explains a lot of it, and outlines specific, common-sense ways to undo some of the damage:

"Ours is a system focused not on collective problem-solving but on a struggle for power between two private organizations. Party activists control access to the ballot through closed party primaries and conventions; partisan leaders design congressional districts. Once elected to Congress, our representatives are divided into warring camps. Partisans decide what bills to take up, what witnesses to hear, what amendments to allow.

Many Americans assume that’s just how democracy works, that this is how it’s always been, that it’s the system the Founders created. But what we have today is a far cry from what the Founders intended. George Washington and James Madison both warned of the dangers posed by political parties.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/07/how-to-turn-republicans-and-democrats-into-americans/8521/

[Guest]

"Tell Me I'm Not Seeing This"

Unfortunately you, and we, are seeing it, VK. I realize the above quote is rhetorical as you proceeded to put into words the thoughts and concerns of many of us. You are so right when you stated "in an argument that seems to be solely over ideology, those elected to do the right thing for the country are acting like petulant children".

[Guest]

My goodness! We've gone through decades where the U.S. was the world power, the big brother, the society to be admired, the system of government that seemed to work better than all others.

All that seems to have changed in just a short time...only about twenty years.

Now the rest of the world looks and wonders how we could be doing such self-inflicted damage to ourselves. What needs to be done is clear. Almost no one disagrees. The only difference is what should be done now, immediately.

The current argument seems to be one based on the desire for political power, for re-election, the appeal to a political and ideological base constituency. Our political leaders are acting as though all that is more important than doing the right thing for the country...taking an important first step towards fiscal improvement.

If one can believe the news reports, what's been offered or demanded by both sides is an agreement that spending be cut by about $3 trillion over ten years. The liberals have even offered up substantial cuts to beloved entitlement programs. In exchange they've asked for a re-work of the tax code to eliminate egregious tax benefits that are unneeded and increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Even the wealthy seem to agree that they should pay more. There's even agreement that individual tax rates be reduced, something important to the conservatives.

Overall the deficit reductions would total $4 trillion...$3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue increases. That amount would be a substantial whack at our deficits, not nearly enough but substantial start. That amount would satisfy the financial markets and keep our currency and our reputation as a place to safely invest strong.

But in an argument that seems to be solely over ideology, those elected to do the right thing for the country are acting like petulant children. They may do something, but what's being discussed won't be enough and will be done for political reasons. It will put off a meaningful decision to sometime in the future. It will be obvious to the rest of the world and to those on whom we rely as financial partners and lenders that our government was incapable of making the obviously needed decision. It will be obvious that more time and more negotiation will be unlikely to achieve a different result.

What has happened to our country? Some have said that our elected representatives are only reflecting the fractiousness of the population. Is that right? Have we gone that far? Is our country, our society, our national values deteriorated that quickly? Have we totally forgotten what we will leave for our children and grandchildren? Is having "our candidates" elected so important to us that all we can do is spew invectives at those who don't totally embrace our point-of-view? Is being re-elected so important to those who supposedly represent us that they're willing to basically throw the country under the oncoming train for personal power and benefit?

Some one tell me I'm not seeing what seems to be happening to us.

4 trillion over 10 years will be a substantial whack at the problem?
NO WAY.. after 10 years the debt would have INCREASED 11 TRILLION DOLLARS!!

We need to BALANCE THIS BUDGET in 5 years.. that means..300 billion the first year.. then an additional 300 billion EACH YEAR..

This country will be bankrupt in 10 years.. forget the 10 year plans.. they mean NOTHING. Those cuts NEVER COME.

[Guest]

4 trillion over 10 years will be a substantial whack at the problem?
NO WAY.. after 10 years the debt would have INCREASED 11 TRILLION DOLLARS!!

We need to BALANCE THIS BUDGET in 5 years.. that means..300 billion the first year.. then an additional 300 billion EACH YEAR..

This country will be bankrupt in 10 years.. forget the 10 year plans.. they mean NOTHING. Those cuts NEVER COME.You have to read my posts more closely JimJoe. I said...

"...That amount would be a substantial whack at our deficits, not nearly enough but substantial start...."


Notwithstanding our desire to achieve fiscal responsibility more quickly, the key issue to be addressed right now is to give evidence to the rest of the world and particularly those sovereign nations and banks that buy our bonds and notes, that the U.S. is a safe place to invest. Without their continued investment, our spending will be cut even faster than your "five year plan", changing our way of life and that of our children and grandchildren forever.

To that end I went on to say (in case you missed it)...

"...That amount ($4 trillion) would satisfy the financial markets and keep our currency and our reputation as a place to safely invest strong..."

By the way, JimJoe, your plan to balance the budget and begin to repay our $14 trillion plus national debt wouldn't even be dented by your $300 billion a year plan. If you re-do the arithmetic you'll see that your plan would only reduce our deficit spending by about $4.5 trillion in five years. Considering the projections of how fast our deficits are expected to grow during your five year period, your program would only cut the annual deficit in 2016 by a little more than 20%. By that time our national debt would be over $20 trillion even with your "aggressive" cost cutting.

Do the arithmetic--I've said that many times before--our problem is a lot more dire than most people realize. We will be totally dependent on lenders to keep lending to us while we try to get our fiscal irresponsibility straightened out. Our politicians better begin to realize that. So should people who cite quick little formulas for fixing the problem.

[Guest]

Unless the cuts, whatever they are claiming them to total, are tied specifically and irrevocably to any increase in the debt ceiling, and to any increase in non-productive revenue enhancement (read: new taxes), with non-discretionary implementation triggers, I will never believe these cuts will ever happen in their now un-guaranteed implementation proposal.

Right now the President's proposal is all smoke and mirrors.

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday

[Guest]

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

[Guest]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/151754/plutocracy%3A_if_corporations_and_the_rich_paid_19 60s-level_taxes%2C_the_debt_would_vanish/

[Guest]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/151754/plutocracy%3A_if_corporations_and_the_rich_paid_19 60s-level_taxes%2C_the_debt_would_vanish/

Alternet is an Extreme progressive left wing publication. One must not take them serious.

[Guest]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/151754/plutocracy%3A_if_corporations_and_the_rich_paid_19 60s-level_taxes%2C_the_debt_would_vanish/

Feeding class envy and villifying everyone who is productive and solvent, by calling them "the rich" is part of the spreading malignancy in political talk in recent years.

Just who ARE "the rich"???

Pres. Obama said early on that people making $250,000 are "the rich" not paying enough income tax.......

.....but all the professionals we know such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, sales businessmen, and all the small business founders/owners we know.....all make about $250,000, and they claim their income on PERSONAL income tax filings. AND, these producing and solvent workers/entrepeneurs provide jobs for many other household breadwinners.

It's time to define who "the rich" really are. People in the $250k range certainly do not fit into this description of "the rich" from the article above stating "the rich" not paying enough is the problem:

"In 2008, the IRS revealed this past May, 400 Americans reported at least $110 million in income on their federal tax returns. These 400 averaged $270.5 million each, the second-highest U.S. top 400 average income on record.
In 1955, by contrast, America’s top 400 averaged — in 2008 dollars — a mere $13.3 million. In other words, the top 400 in 2008 reported incomes that, after taking inflation into account, amounted to more than 20 times the incomes of America’s top 400 a half-century ago."
http://www.alternet.org/economy/1517..._would_vanish/

[Guest]

We can say for certain that VK's "never vote for an incumbent" has great merit. why? Because 545 people voted in by a majority have the ability to formulate any such program necessary to set this economy straight and institute any such policy that protects this country from its enemies. However what far too many of these 545 lack is a moral imperative. Someting I have been talking about for over 15 years. Intelligent people with moral courage do good deeds. That is how we can avoid the Enron's of the world

Arthur Brooks wrote in the WSJ today regarding the Debt Ceiling debate. "Before they succumb to too much caution budget reformers need to remember three things. (1) This is not a fight between Republicans and Democrats; its a fight against a 50 year trend toward statism. (2) it is a moral fight and not an economic one (3) This is not a fight one can win in the 15 months from now to the presidential election. It will take hard work for at least a decade."

He goes on to say that "Americ'a Founders knew the importance of moral language, which is why they asserted our inalieanable right to the pursuit of happiness and not the possession of property rights." His underlining theme is explaining the difference between statist (welfare state advocates) vis a vis free enterprise advocates.

We need to draw from a pool of people who have shown that morality, ethics and honesty matter because if we don't then the Washington corrupt will continue to win and 545 people will trump 350,000,000

[Guest]

ILoveTV......the article talks about people making more than 1 million a year....$250,000 not mentioned....please read entire article not just the headline or maybe what you think the article is about before getting on your high horse By the way if our leadership keeps letting the rich get richer by tax breaks,loopholes and just plain lying there will be class warfare.You can't keep taking from the middle class and expect us to be happy.

[Guest]

ILoveTV......the article talks about people making more than 1 million a year....$250,000 not mentioned....please read entire article not just the headline or maybe what you think the article is about before getting on your high horse By the way if our leadership keeps letting the rich get richer by tax breaks,loopholes and just plain lying there will be class warfare.You can't keep taking from the middle class and expect us to be happy.

I do not understand this statement. Are you talking about wealth distribution?

[Guest]

I am not talking about wealth distribution. I am talking about each of us whether it be individuals or corporations paying our fair share. Please read my earlier post on what the rich pay now as compared to the 1960's. I won't even get into gov't subsidies for corporations making RECORD profits.

[Guest]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576467201581028880.html?m od=djemTEW_t#

[Guest]

...We need to draw from a pool of people who have shown that morality, ethics and honesty matter because if we don't then the Washington corrupt will continue to win and 545 people will trump 350,000,000.Y'know, when they first get to Washington most of the newbies sound pretty good. I saw a young freshman member of the Tea Party on Meet The Press last Sunday. He happens to be the youngest member of Congress, a 32-year old Army vet from Manteno, IL representing Chicago's southwest suburbs. He was a good-looking, logical, honest-sounding kid. I had a similar experience meeting our new freshman Congressman representing The Villages several weeks ago. Same impression. He looked good, said all the right things, seemed to have the country's best interests at heart, honestly discussed what he was seeing in Washington.

But what happens to all that talent after they're in the Congress for awhile? It doesn't take long before all the words they spew mean nothing. Their words and their thoughts are carefully crafted to be non-commital and designed so that later they can go in any direction, vote any way, make any political decision, and not be in conflict with words they uttered before. They begin to come across as slimy, untrustworthy and self-dealing. They no longer speak independently, but rather spew forth what is obviously the words their party and political handlers told them to say.

Would you trust your kids to the care of people like Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Eric Cantor, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi...should I go on? These are the leaders of our government.

But my question is moot, really. We do trust these people...not only for the care of our kids, but for the care of the entire country!

That's scary.

[Guest]

I am not talking about wealth distribution. I am talking about each of us whether it be individuals or corporations paying our fair share. Please read my earlier post on what the rich pay now as compared to the 1960's. I won't even get into gov't subsidies for corporations making RECORD profits.

Repeated calls by cynical politicians have taken advantage of the ignorance of the public - particularly liberals. We hear the repeated call for higher corporation taxes, not realizing the the United States' tax system destroys the incentive to invest in the US. To start with the United States has one of the highest corporate income taxes at 38%. Other countries have far lower tax rates - China for example is 16%. This, unfortunately is only a part of the problem.

All countries tax the income a corporation makes from its operations within that country. The US taxes the earnings of Mercedes, BMW and Toyota on their earnings within the United States. Japan and Germany tax US corporations on the profit made by US corporations within their borders. The critical difference arises when these corporations bring their profits back to their home countries. The US taxes these repatriated profits at 38%. Other countries tax at a fraction of their normal tax rates, thereby encouraging repatriating profits and using them to grow the company in its home country or distribute them in dividends.

If you take an example of an American based company that has a new blockbuster product, one that will sell well worldwide and make a ton of money. The company has the choice of setting up the manufacturing operation in the US where profits will be taxed at 38% or in China where these profits will be taxes at 16%. If the company keeps the profits in China to pay for future product development, manufacturing and expansion, there are no additional taxes to be paid. Should this company make pretax profits of 1 billion in China, it would have $860,000,000 left in its coffers. If they made this much in the United State, there would be $620,000,000 remaining after taxes. If the profit were repatriated to the USA from China, the resultant available cash for future growth would be $520,000,000. 860 million or 520 million is the question. Company management has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. There is no choice.

The next time you hear someone complain about outsourcing, remember that the United States' tax code forces responsible company management to do just that. Raising corporate taxes will simply drive more jobs out of this country.

[Guest]

Is there a law that our govenment must operate on a balanced budget? If so, then they must balance it! Where, Oh where, is Ronald Reagan when we need him!

[Guest]

No law. 37 states (if memory serves) have it in their STATE constitutions that the STATE budget has to be balanced...

But Reagan was pilloried for presiding over a HUGE increase in the deficit. Granted he was working with a Democrat House (and a GOP Senate).

[Guest]

lateral arabesque at work again!!!!

How about the subject of the thread? How about a personal opinion....Not link point and counter point...and , dare I say it, address the subject as an affected citizen...not just the party auto defense mechanism.

You should all know by now that following or blustering the party line, either party, is a solution to NOTHING.

btk

[Guest]

ILoveTV......the article talks about people making more than 1 million a year....$250,000 not mentioned....please read entire article not just the headline or maybe what you think the article is about before getting on your high horse By the way if our leadership keeps letting the rich get richer by tax breaks,loopholes and just plain lying there will be class warfare.You can't keep taking from the middle class and expect us to be happy.

You purposely miss the point that taxpayers in the $250,000 income bracket are continually lumped together with "millionaires and billionaires" to vilify the $250k earners as "the rich" who "aren't paying enough already". Obama did it again last night!

"Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make."

I find that most people who hear/see $250k and millionaires and billionaires lumped together like this just assume that the $250k earner is not paying enough as the millionaire and billionaire presumably are not.

[Guest]

Is there a law that our govenment must operate on a balanced budget? If so, then they must balance it! Where, Oh where, is Ronald Reagan when we need him!

Politicians only had a balanced budget once since 1909 and then they used FICA as a revenue tax to phony up the budget figures.

[Guest]

So we apparently have people running our country that are highly educated but don't understand the importance of operating within a budget? Surely one of those classes at Harvard covered Profit&Loss, balance sheet, ANOVA, etc...wtf