Obama already raised more than GOP

[Foxrac]

No, Obama himself said the checks might not go out. Republicans never did say that. There would be enough money to cover Social Security and debt payments. It's up to the administration to prioritize where money goes.

Republicans don't care about it at all and they want to score their political score, anyway.

It is good to hear if Obama puts alert on SS that related to debt crisis. Having a default is very bad and debt ceiling must be increase without any questions.

 

[Foxrac]

So you're for doing nothing to entitlements even if it means they go insolvent?

Sure, there is more options to deal with spending and taxes so have to look so hard.

 

[darkdog]

Sure, there is more options to deal with spending and taxes so have to look so hard.

Sure? So you love entitlements but you're fine letting them collapse? Also, could you explain exactly what you mean by dealing with spending and taxes?

 

[Foxrac]

Sure? So you love entitlements but you're fine letting them collapse? Also, could you explain exactly what you mean by dealing with spending and taxes?

In bold, that's not true and entitlements aren't itself to cause a problem but imbalance on between spending and taxes are.

I'm big supporter of SS, Medicare and any of welfare plans so you should know about me due to liberal climate.

Not interested anymore, I had discussed with you before about idea of spending and taxes so you are not amazed at all. Only you have to look at them so hard and there are plenty of options so only fiscal experts know that.

 

[darkdog]

In bold, that's not true and entitlements aren't itself to cause a problem but imbalance on between spending and taxes are.

Entitlements are set to explode with baby boomers retiring and living longer than previous generations. In order to cover that with tax revenues, it will require raising taxes significantly on not just the rich, but everyone across the board. Basically, it will require greater transfers of wealth from the young to the old. Seeing that older people are generally wealthier than younger people, it basically amounts to a transfer of wealth from poorer to richer. Why is that the liberal cause nowadays?

I'm big supporter of SS, Medicare and any of welfare plans so you should know about me due to liberal climate.

I understand that. I just think you haven't considered the magnitude of the entitlement crisis. I've already paid tens of thousands of dollars into the system and I'm expecting a negative rate of return if I even get anything back at all.

Not interested anymore, I had discussed with you before about idea of spending and taxes so you are not amazed at all. Only you have to look at them so hard and there are plenty of options so only fiscal experts know that.

What do you mean that I'm not amazed? And what do you mean I have to look at them hard? Have I not shown that I understand the options we have?

 

[Foxrac]

Entitlements are set to explode with baby boomers retiring and living longer than previous generations. In order to cover that with tax revenues, it will require raising taxes significantly on not just the rich, but everyone across the board. Basically, it will require greater transfers of wealth from the young to the old. Seeing that older people are generally wealthier than younger people, it basically amounts to a transfer of wealth from poorer to richer. Why is that the liberal cause nowadays?


I understand that. I just think you haven't considered the magnitude of the entitlement crisis. I've already paid tens of thousands of dollars into the system and I'm expecting a negative rate of return if I even get anything back at all.


What do you mean that I'm not amazed? And what do you mean I have to look at them hard? Have I not shown that I understand the options we have?

My view is more broader than Obama has requested and I'm fine with tax increases on every income and large companies, raise the retirement age, increase FICA taxes, find way to make more contribution to this system, fix the high cost of healthcare, etc. There is deadlocked in political system that you don't get anything what you want.

That's part of life for liberal and if you don't like it so feel free to vote right wingers so I don't care about what are you voting. America is free country and you are free to pick any person that you like, however that's not guaranteed and that what democracy looks like that.

Both of you and I had discussed about issues with fiscal so you didn't get it so I'm not going to explain again. You can look at my post history if you want to know.

 

[Smithtr]

again relection obmama 0_o

 

[Beowulf]

What do you mean that I'm not amazed? And what do you mean I have to look at them hard? Have I not shown that I understand the options we have?

How about having the Federal Reserve eat the debt to them?

 

[netrox]

really, are people really having selective memory? Eight years of tax cuts under Bush and yet no job creation - it destroyed jobs. During Clinton era, tax rates were increased yet we gained millions of jobs.

We need revenues from taxes and we need more taxes to pay off. We don't just ask for free lunch. We must work to make lunch.

 

[darkdog]

My view is more broader than Obama has requested and I'm fine with tax increases on every income and large companies, raise the retirement age, increase FICA taxes, find way to make more contribution to this system, fix the high cost of healthcare, etc. There is deadlocked in political system that you don't get anything what you want.

About 15% of my income already goes into FICA taxes, and that's just how much I pay in direct taxes. When Medicare and Medicaid don't pay enough to cover doctors' costs, they have to make it up elsewhere, so they charge more to other patients' insurance companies. That's an indirect tax. You're advocating that I pay even more, but I've still never gotten an answer- why is it the big liberal cause that young people such as ourselves should have more and more of our wealth transferred to wealthier old people?

That's part of life for liberal and if you don't like it so feel free to vote right wingers so I don't care about what are you voting. America is free country and you are free to pick any person that you like, however that's not guaranteed and that what democracy looks like that.

You're saying it like "you do your thing and you do mine", but your thing involves coercing me to pay more and more. I think it would at least be fair for those on your side of the aisle to answer the question I posed above.

Both of you and I had discussed about issues with fiscal so you didn't get it so I'm not going to explain again. You can look at my post history if you want to know.

I get your view. I totally understand your point and where you're coming from, but I disagree with it.

In case you're wondering what I would do, for Social Security, it's pretty easy- just raise the eligibility age and do means testing. After all, Social Security was originally intended as an insurance in case you happened to live longer than average. However, with improvements in the standard of living and health care, most people live well beyond the eligibility age. If we bump that age up for future beneficiaries (say starting 10 years out so people can plan for it), that should go a long way in solving the problem.

In an ideal world, rather than younger people paying older people, everyone would have their own account. For one thing, they would get a much better rate of return. It would also be structurally much more sound than what we have now.

 

[darkdog]

really, are people really having selective memory? Eight years of tax cuts under Bush and yet no job creation - it destroyed jobs. During Clinton era, tax rates were increased yet we gained millions of jobs.

Here are a few facts you left out. Republicans controlled the Congress during the Clinton years and kept spending under check. Clinton ended up going along with it. The rate of spending slowed significantly during that time. In my opinion, spending is much more important than tax rates. After all, when the government spends, they have to get the money from the private sector somehow, whether it's through taxation or borrowing money. The 90s also saw the growth of the internet which created huge growth.

As for the Bush years, the unemployment rate got as low as about 4.5%. Perhaps it would have gotten lower if it weren't for 9/11, various corporate scandals, and quickly increasing government spending. But it came to an end when the housing bubble, largely the result of government intervention and their cozy relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, burst.

We need revenues from taxes and we need more taxes to pay off. We don't just ask for free lunch. We must work to make lunch.

I'd rather see revenue increases come from growth rather than higher taxes.

 

[netrox]

Here are a few facts you left out. Republicans controlled the Congress during the Clinton years and kept spending under check. Clinton ended up going along with it. The rate of spending slowed significantly during that time. In my opinion, spending is much more important than tax rates. After all, when the government spends, they have to get the money from the private sector somehow, whether it's through taxation or borrowing money. The 90s also saw the growth of the internet which created huge growth.

Not true. While Republicans took over, tax increase was PART of the deal and it was passed. It was Bush that passed the tax cuts.

As for the Bush years, the unemployment rate got as low as about 4.5%. Perhaps it would have gotten lower if it weren't for 9/11, various corporate scandals, and quickly increasing government spending. But it came to an end when the housing bubble, largely the result of government intervention and their cozy relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, burst.

And I wonder why the government spending went up WHILE the revenues went down? In fact, 2/3 of all deficit we have is due to wars and Bush tax cuts. It becomes difficult.

I'd rather see revenue increases come from growth rather than higher taxes.

Non-sense. You cannot generate revenue in this times of economic recession; only way to do it is increase taxes - remember, the 40% tax rate is extremely significant compared to 30% for the middle class. It's what progressive tax is about. The top 10% has the wealth of the 90% and when you add more percent to tax rate for the top 5%, you see a HUGE revenue coming in. A lot of HUGE companies are making huge profits yet aren't hiring more people as we'd like to see.

We MUST increase the debt ceiling and for a radical right wing to say otherwise is just wanting to see Obama fail at any cost.

 

[darkdog]

Not true. While Republicans took over, tax increase was PART of the deal and it was passed. It was Bush that passed the tax cuts.

What did I say that was untrue? I didn't deny that taxes went up. I argued that spending slowed down while the Republicans were in charge of Congress. On a trivial notes, the tax hikes occurred in 1993 before the Republicans took the Congress. In 1997, they even passed a tax relief bill. Still, the point remains- there were factors other than taxes (i.e. the advent of the internet and restraints on government spending) that caused the growth of the internet.

And I wonder why the government spending went up WHILE the revenues went down? In fact, 2/3 of all deficit we have is due to wars and Bush tax cuts. It becomes difficult.

Help me understand this. Democrats love to list off all the things Bush and the Republicans did to create large deficits. Yet the Republicans' largest deficit was just over $450 billion. Since Obama and the Democrats gained so much power in 2008, $1.5 trillion deficits have become the new norm. Why do you keep defending such a record by pointing out that the last guy was 1/3rd as bad? You can point out the wars, the tax cuts, etc., yet however bad you make it sound, the guy in power now is doing about 3 times worse. Why is that so hard to acknowledge?

By the way, revenues did go down through 2003 (no surprise given 9/11 and various corporate scandals), but increased after that until the financial crisis.

Non-sense. You cannot generate revenue in this times of economic recession; only way to do it is increase taxes - remember, the 40% tax rate is extremely significant compared to 30% for the middle class. It's what progressive tax is about. The top 10% has the wealth of the 90% and when you add more percent to tax rate for the top 5%, you see a HUGE revenue coming in. A lot of HUGE companies are making huge profits yet aren't hiring more people as we'd like to see.

You're right that it's hard to raise revenue in such stagnant times. But rather than focusing on taxing those with capital, shouldn't we focus on actually ending the stagnation? The economy would probably grow if the government would stop trying to meddle around with everything, cut out the regulatory uncertainty, stop demonizing those who have capital to create growth (aka the rich), and gain some credibility on the debt.

By the way, it's hard to milk more money out of the rich when they can easily put their money into places where taxes can't reach. As we saw from 2003 to 2007, the rich ended up paying a greater share of the tax bill because it made more sense for them to put their money in the private economy where it could be taxed, albeit at a lower rate.

We MUST increase the debt ceiling and for a radical right wing to say otherwise is just wanting to see Obama fail at any cost.

I agree the debt ceiling must be raised. The debt ceiling isn't the real problem. Anyway, good news- the House today passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling!
GOP pushes huge deficit-cutting bill through House - Yahoo! News
Now, I guess it's time to sit back and see if the Democrats in the Senate and the President will do the right thing for the country and pass the bill.

 

[netrox]

"Nearly 10 years ago today, on August 1, 2001, the Associated Press reported that the Treasury Department was tapping $51 billion of credit in order to pay for the budgetary cost of the first round of Bush tax cuts’ rebate checks. The AP reported at the time that Democratic Party opponents of the tax cuts worried that they’d return government budgets to “red ink“"

Nearly 10 Years Ago Today, The U.S. Began Borrowing Billions To Pay For The Bush Tax Cuts | ThinkProgress

And look at what happened to our debt now.

All your arguments are already said by Repukes 10 years ago. Same old tired arguments with no merit at all. They claim tax cuts will create surplus and will not take us into deep debt.

It only makes us have more debt. As long as we keep having taxes "cut", we'll never support ourselves.

 

[darkdog]

"Nearly 10 years ago today, on August 1, 2001, the Associated Press reported that the Treasury Department was tapping $51 billion of credit in order to pay for the budgetary cost of the first round of Bush tax cuts’ rebate checks. The AP reported at the time that Democratic Party opponents of the tax cuts worried that they’d return government budgets to “red ink“"

Nearly 10 Years Ago Today, The U.S. Began Borrowing Billions To Pay For The Bush Tax Cuts | ThinkProgress

And look at what happened to our debt now.

All your arguments are already said by Repukes 10 years ago. Same old tired arguments with no merit at all. They claim tax cuts will create surplus and will not take us into deep debt.

It only makes us have more debt. As long as we keep having taxes "cut", we'll never support ourselves.

Remember, however bad you make Bush and Republicans look, Obama and the Democrats have performed at least 3 times worse on the deficit. I'm still befuddled why you come down so hard on those guys but defend the guys doing three times more damage.

By the way, I'm not advocating for a cut. Rather, I'm advocating against a hike. I would fill in the hole by cutting spending.

Also, my views on this are a little more nuanced than you're making them out to be. I'm not some "Repuke" or whatever immature dehumanizing term you want to use. Let me explain my actual views and then we can go from there.

Across the board tax hikes bring in more revenue. Across the board tax cuts bring in less than they would otherwise. Yes, revenue went up after the 2003 cuts, but they probably would have gone up even more if it weren't for the cuts. However, I also don't believe in static analysis where you assume that tax rates don't affect economic activity when calculating the revenue effects of tax hikes/cuts. Across the board cuts don't fully pay for themselves as some would argue, but they partially do.

Lastly, it's very difficult to bring in more revenue from the rich because if you raise their bracket, they have other options to avoid paying that tax. I would point out that in some cases, it is possible for tax cuts on the rich to pay for themselves. It's not because it creates so much more economic activity (though it does create some) but because the rich have less reason to put money into tax shelters. As an example, throughout the 20s, the government cut its top tax rate from 73% to 25%. Not only did the number of people reporting in the top bracket skyrocket, but so did their tax revenues and their share of taxes paid.

 

[abeemee]

Make it bigger Mr.P!

 

[netrox]

Q: How did the debt grow from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to its current $14.3 trillion?

A: The biggest contributors to the nearly $9 trillion increase over a decade were:
—2001 and 2003 tax cuts under President George W. Bush: $1.6 trillion.
—Additional interest costs: $1.4 trillion.
—Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $1.3 trillion.
—Economic stimulus package under Obama: $800 billion.
—2010 tax cuts, a compromise by Obama and Republicans that extended jobless benefits and cut payroll taxes: $400 billion.
—2003 creation of Medicare's prescription drug benefit: $300 billion.
—2008 financial industry bailout: $200 billion.
—Hundreds of billions less in revenue than expected since the Great Recession began in December 2007.
— Other spending increases in domestic, farm and defense programs, adding lesser amounts.

The Associated Press: Latest developments in debt ceiling standoff

 

[deafskeptic]

Q: How did the debt grow from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to its current $14.3 trillion?

A: The biggest contributors to the nearly $9 trillion increase over a decade were:
—2001 and 2003 tax cuts under President George W. Bush: $1.6 trillion.
—Additional interest costs: $1.4 trillion.
—Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $1.3 trillion.
—Economic stimulus package under Obama: $800 billion.
—2010 tax cuts, a compromise by Obama and Republicans that extended jobless benefits and cut payroll taxes: $400 billion.
—2003 creation of Medicare's prescription drug benefit: $300 billion.
—2008 financial industry bailout: $200 billion.
—Hundreds of billions less in revenue than expected since the Great Recession began in December 2007.
— Other spending increases in domestic, farm and defense programs, adding lesser amounts.

The Associated Press: Latest developments in debt ceiling standoff

Just thinking about this, the parts you bolded prolly add up around 3.5 trillion or even 4 trillion depending how how many billions less in revenue than we were expecting. Since exact numbers weren't given for the last thing you bolded, I had to guessestimate the hundreds of billions. My guess is that it's anywhere between 300 billion to 900 billion so debt would be around 3.5 to 4 trillion.

The parts that's in red were Obama's doing and he wasn't alone in adding to the debt adds up to 1.4 trillion.

If I add up the 400 billion deal with Obama that I marked red by the Repubs and Obama's deal then the Repubs incurred costs of over 4 trillion.

So much for Republican's much vaunted fiscal responsibility.

Correct me on my math if you like.