The "Grand" Budget isn't grand at all!
It looks like President Obama is still open to negotiations with Republican economic terrorists. Details of the president's budget, set to be released April 10th, show that he will offer significant spending cuts to so-called “entitlement programs”- like Social Security and Medicare – in hopes of attaining a “grand” budget bargain with Congressional Republicans.
The plan replaces the sequester with other spending cuts, and increases revenues by $580 billion. In a move that is sure to infuriate progressives and many Democrats, the president will propose lowering cost-of-living increases to Social Security benefits. This is insane. Instead of asking the wealthiest in our country to pay the same percentage of their income towards our social safety net, the President thinks that the elderly, disabled, and veterans should bear the burden of Republican austerity.
Our nation has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and economic terrorists shouldn't be the exception. We must stand together to preserve our social programs. Tell Congress and the President that we won't stand for balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Sign the petition at no-cuts.com.
Comments
A real test for any budget is how much it would reduce the wealth of the less affluent. And the proposed changes to Social Security are sure likely to make the income divide greater.
We already have a huge income and wealth disparity and I sure wish Obama would mention this over and over again.
I sure am opposed to any reductions in the earned benefits programs so many of us have paid into throughout our lives and also which help provide necessary support for so many of us.
Yours,
Caleb
"It's not the size that counts"...at least that's what my sheep Dolly tells me...bah...baaahhhh. Besides, every thing is "digital" ...or runs on batteries now.... what woman needs a real LongJohn, SlimJim, or a FatAlbert... or a man, a VenusFlyTrap, or BlackWidowWeb.... along with all of the excess emotional baggage...when all you have to do to shut "him" or "her" up is flick a switch to "off"? ;-} And they can't turn around and sue you for half or more of your hard earned wealth after the illusion (or delusion) dissipates. It happens to some people anyway...Dolly still thinks I'm an excellent lover..even with my microminiaturized tweeker..I might be able to slip my camel through the eye of a needle (I know, I'm bragging again)...and if she complains (in Sheepish)...mutton stew.
Palindromedary ~ Thanks for bringing 'Dolly', the Sheep. I heard a caller on the show today condemn same sex marriage with a similar argument you had. He said, "Why not just legalize incest, bestiality, and polygamy?" I disagreed with the host's answer. Please allow me to add my two cents. Tell me what you think.
Mutual consent between adults is all I believe the Government has a right to legislate. Anything else is rape and a threat to personal freedom of choice. Therefore, in the case of incest the Government has a right to protect the child; or,unconsenting family member. If both family members are of the age of consent, and agree, they should be allowed to enter into a legal contract. With Polygamy, consenting adults have the right to join in any arrangement they see fit by legal contract. In the case of bestiality, that depends on the consent of the animal. Basically, if the animal accepts, then it is fine; however, if the animal bites or needs any type of restraint, it is rape and a crime. As far as marriage is concerned, animals do not have the ability to enter into any legal contract.
Consequently, anyone foolish enough to enter into a legal contract of marriage should be entitled to all the legal benefits of the status offered to anyone else. It's high time for all of us to pull our heads out of the ground and stop fixating on the past. That is gone for ever. It is time we grow and evolve into a better future where more people can share in the dream of the responsible pursuit of happiness; regardless of the private opinions of the few.
You'll also find this interesting. Did you know that the same book used to swear oaths everywhere in society actually forbids the swearing of oaths. That right, my friend. The sacred Biblical institution of marriage and the oaths of marriage that couples take in church in the 'holy matrimony' ceremony is actually forbidden by Christ himself. In Matthew chapter 5 we read,
"33 ¶Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Yeah, thats something you can shove back in the face of Bible thumpers who irritate you. I guarantee they won't have a response. The irony can be overwhelming. Place you right hand here; but, whatever you do, don't open it and read it.
Have a good weekend, buddy!
Why do Americans love Presidents that cheat on their wives so much Like Clinton and JFK. It doesnt get any lower than using a position of power to seduce young women. Yet the same women scream bloody murder if they don't want to pay for birth control and abortions. I just don't get it. Anyone?
DAnneMark Your numbers don't add up! Don't knock me until you actually run the numbers please!
We are overspending by 1 trillion a year. We have to cut at least 500 billion out of spending. NASA spending 100 million is a drop in the bucket.
The military budget is about 700 billion a year. How much do you want to cut? I say maybe 50-100 billion, maybe.
Where is the rest of it going to come from? You tell me, but it isn't going to come out of campaign reform, that I know.
Anyone who thinks that social security, medicare, and medicaid can survive as they are now is smoking some really good stuff. Can you send me some of it?
'
Why do Americans love cheating womanizing Presidents. JFK and Clinton are talked about as Gods. They both used their positions of power to take advantage of young women. Yet if you don't want to pay for a abortion your are creating a "war on women" . I don't get it? Can someone help me out here.
HalFonts - I was going to let your explanation of Chained CPI go unchallenged, but I simply can't. If the adjustment to social security is modified to reflect the supply/demand curve, such that when the price of gas goes up, people switch from mid grade to regular or drive less, and if the price of food goes up (as it will), people switch from hamburger to turkey burger, then cat food, where does that leave seniors who may be operating next to their threshold of pain already? What do they do when their out of pocket costs of their medication and medical treatment goes up? Gut it out? This chained CPI thing is the most draconian piece of crap I've ever heard of, I think you know the name Robert Reich. Here's a short video that gives his take on the chained CPI as it relates to Obama's upcoming proposal. There's also a petition there to sign, should you have a change of heart: http://civic.moveon.org/signon/reichvideo.html
Sorry I said the same thing twice I didn't know there was two pages
MauiMan2: Interesting that we're overspending by $1T per year, which is a little less than our combined "defense" spending if you factor in the wars, Homeland Security, NSA, AND CIA black ops. This country already outspends the combined military spending of the next fifteen countries combined. This spending comes out of general revenues (your income tax dollars).
Social security on the other hand is separately funded by a dedicated FICA tax paid by employees and matched by employers. The money paid into the Social Security account is earmarked for Social Security benefits only (though administrations since Reagan have dipped into the cookie jar). Social Security has not added a dime to the deficit. I'm flat amazed that you don't seem to know this.
Medicare is at least partially funded by its recipients. It needs fixing, but that overrun is fixable through health care reform and getting predatory medical insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies out of the equation. The best way to do this would be to establish a national health care system, as is in place with most of the rest of the developed world.
So you think people who have worked a lifetime, have contributed to a minimal retirement fund (costing the government nothing) and contributed a substantial portion of their health care costs through deposits to Medicare during their working years and premiums and co-pays during their retirement years should be required to chip in to balance the budget?
You think this country Is justified in spending nearly $200 Billion a year on arbitrary wars, maintaining 600+ military installations worldwide and 13 carrier battle groups, again costing a trillion dollars PER YEAR, not per decade, and can't come up with a fix for our budget woes by trimming the fat from defense spending alone?
And if not the bloated military, how about getting the corporations, now making record profits, to start paying some income taxes instead of stashing their goodies off shore? Ditto for those making over $250K.
You want grandma to pick up the tab over the next ten years? What flipping planet are you from, anyway?
Outback:
Yes I do realize that SS is in balance right now, but what about 10-20 years from now? It is already a TERRIBLE deal for those retiring now and in the future, all of us would have been much better off if we had put our money into T Bills and not SS. I'm talking all of us are getting about half of what we should be getting. That's what happens when the government gets into something they can't do well, retirement planning.
And Medicare and Medicaid are in MUCH WORSE shape than SS. Again the government getting intpo something they should not be in, health care. And Obamacare is already a disaster, and it has not even started yet!
The wars you mention are over. Do you really think you can cut 500 billion a year out of national defense without serious ramifications? I think you are dreaming.
And remember what happened in England when they recently raised taxes on the rich from 40% to 50%. The rich voted with their feet and left the country in droves. The country actually lost tax revenues and had to back off on the increase to stop the bleeding. So your "tax the rich" montra isn't going to solve the problem, you might get another 50 billion or so out of the rich, and that's it. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the 1 trillion dollar a year shortfall.
You need a huge dose of reality if you think "tax the rich" and "cut the military" is more than a drop in bucket in what needs to happen. Run the numbers if you dare, but you appear to be someone who does not want to be confused by any facts. That's why you are a progressive democrat.
Kend ~ Let me help you out. I never said I 'loved' Clinton. His infidelity has been proved and confessed. I do love JFK. His infidelity is part of one of the biggest and most reprehensible media propaganda scam that has ever been allowed to occur unchallenged. Frankly, I ask you to prove JFK's infidelity. The man was a highly motivated scholar, family man, and completely committed to his job. He had a severe back injury from the war and was constantly fighting chronic pain with medication. I find it highly unlikely that he was inclined to, or able to, cheat on his wife.
Don't you find it odd that accusations fly over this scandal after the man is dead and unable to challenge them. Don't you also find it odd that Marylin Monroe was mysteriously found dead shortly before rumors began to flood the media about their alleged fling. She too is unable to answer this charge. Personally I find it revolting that anyone speaks evil of the dead; however, in this case the whole story smells satanically reprehensible. JFK was never questioned about the matter under oath and never given the chance to say, "I did not have sex with that woman." In this country, you are presumed innocent until proved guilty. Since he is dead, he will never have a chance to defend himself on these allegations. Therefore, he is innocent!
Please don't mention this spurious gossip again about a man I have the highest respect for.
Well said DAnne I will not. So what's this great love for Clinton that Dems have. he dishonored a nation with his infidelity and no one seems to care.
Mauiman2 ~ God, I hope your name does not imply there is a Mauiman1. Two of you is too damn much.
Outback ~ Thanks for stepping in for me. I've been working all day and just got home. You took the words right out of my mouth, except...
Medicare for all. This will solve your medicare crisis permanently. This problem is manufactured and the result of a jealous medical insurance industry. The fact that Medicare has been solvent for over a quarter of a century is more than proof enough that your concerns are ridiculous.
Funding Social Security? Retired Americans, veterans, the handicapped, and the unemployed is the highest priority of our society next to education. Cutting our Military budget by a pittance is a joke. I am 100% for a 100% cut in our military. We have no enemies in our hemisphere of the planet; and, no justifiable need for a military. Our "National Interest." BS!!! Give me a break! This is one of the greatest Corporate rip-offs of all time. "National Interests" equates Corporate interest. We have no business using our national military to 'secure' foreign sovereign territories for our Corporations to run amuck. These companies aren't even paying their fair share of taxes to cover the bill. SOME DON'T PAY ANYTHING!!! Close down the entire military complex, bring our troops home, close every foreign military base in the world and allow Corporations to protect their own "National Interest" the old fashion way--by hiring their own mercenaries. Let them pay for their own dirty work. If we can't afford essential life sustaining programs domestically, we can't afford the military.
Raise taxes on the wealthy, the banks, and Corporations. Enforce laws to make sure they pay their fair share. Kend seems to think that Corporations that do business in the Cayman Islands aren't guilty of wrongdoing. Kend seems to think that wealthy Americans that put their fortunes in foreign banks are not guilty of any wrongdoing. Well the last time I looked, TAX EVASION WAS A FELONY!! I say end the free ride and close the loopholes, and hold these entities and individuals accountable to the same consequences of their actions that you or I would be held accountable for. This miscarriage of justice is particularly responsible for our economic woes. There is no way we should ever tolerate the hoarding of money to lead to the cut back in essential services for the needy. Such an action would be the highest form of misjustice and evil.
Finally go ahead and raise SS payroll FICA tax. I'd much rather put my money into that fund than speculate with any T-bills or bonds. The Government is the best broker because they are answerable to We the People and We the People will hold them accountable. I have no problem paying more into SS because the money I bring home gets fed immediately into bills. I don't have anything left to invest or save. Besides, a few years ago we all found out how great an investment is pension funds and 401K's. BS! Keep that nonsense out of the discourse. Give me a higher SS rate, thank you very much. Tax me at the source and spare me the "National Debt Blues."
Outback. Thanks for the reply. Though all the other discussions have been interesting.
Certainly I know and respect Robt Reich, however in that video he is simply making the current case that the "purpose" of using "Chained-CPI" is to reduce Social Security benefits. Or, as you say: "is a draconian piece of crap ... to modify the adjustment to Social Security ... to reflect the supply/demand curve..."
I'm not arguing one way or the other. My Point is simply that seeking factual data (rather than political bullshit), I went to the source: the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), where "The BLS publishes thousands of CPI indexes each month, including the headline All Items CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and the CPI-U for All Items Less Food and Energy." Note: BLS also publish the Producer Price Indices (PPI).
The Consumer Price-Indices are simply historical measures of inflation, ie: what a dollar can buy. Relative Costs of standard "baskets of goods and services" in various markets (urban, rural, regional, cities, etc), at various times (monthly, 1913 to current). CPI tables are available to anyone to use for any historical or current inflation comparisons or local cost of living price adjustments.
Statistical refinements have occurred through the years, as markets change or methodology is refined -- generally towards a more accurate index. Whether they adjusts more-up, or more-down is irrelevant, if the objective is "more-accurate." CPI's measure what IS; not what might or should be. Basing "Consumer Price Indices" on what people should or wish to buy is speculation, not science.
The "Chained CPI" (C-CPI-U) was an evolutionary statistical adjustment to CPI-U Index -- proposed and refined over decades first becoming available in 2002, (well before the 2007 market bubble and crash, or the recent budget stalemate). It is in line with international statistical standards of practice.
The various Consumer Price Indices are available to anyone interested in adjusting costs of anything for inflation (past, present or future, etc.) (I have applied CPI factors to my own salary or assets over my working career -- with shocking results). Other than being referenced by Social Security's Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), the CPI-U has nothing to do with Social Security -- it's just a statistical index of the dollar's historical relative purchasing power.
If the Chained-CPI (C-CPI-U) is more accurate and lower than the less-accurate CPI-U, then we can live in wishful fantasy, or Social Security can simply adjust it's own COLA formula's use of BLS's more accurate C-CPU-U ==> problem fixed, in a more rational manner. Similarly If Social Security needs "fine-tuning" due to demographic changes, it can be adjusted, without being destroyed by sell-out politicians.
My interest is simply that rather than basing current budget discussions on objective data (historical statistical data) we once again have another political circus where all opinions are equal, one pundit or scoundrel's opinion as good as another, and anyone's "facts" can be fabricated as need be.
Worse, I'm finding as much "BS" coming from the Left as from the Right -- which ain't no way to run a country.
References: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiqa.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume2_number11/cpi_2_11.htm
__
Palindromedary ~ cont # 54 I hope I have not offended you in anyway with this citation from the Bible. My intent is only to show to all the incredible hypocrisy of organized religion. The same institutions that condemn same sex marriage are the same institutions that profess control over the sanctity of marriage--a sanctity that is based on the requirement of mutual oath taking. (ie "Do you _____ solemnly swear to ...")
Don't you find the arrogant gall of organized religions to disobey their Messiah incredible? Don't you find it equally incredible that they try to dictate their self-righteousness to us all? I do!
Kend ~ As far as I can tell, Clinton balanced the budget. Times weren't so bad under his Administration. He had a reasonably OK foreign policy and kept us out of wars and well respected in the international community. Fine accomplishments in and of themselves but nothing particularly noteworthy. (These are the basics tasks any leader is expected to do.)
On the downside, his trade policies were a National disaster. However, if you look at his Administration as a whole, I'd give him a C- to a B- grade. Nothing fancy.
To answer your question, In my opinion, the whole appeal--or great love of this man--is a matter of contrast. Compared to the Administrations preceding and following him he shined like a Superstar. (A very mediocre superstar.)
By the way, thanks for agreeing about JFK. I appreciate that!
Kend ~ By the way, concerning JFK, listen to this speech on secret societies,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces
If you haven't heard it before, listen carefully and you will hear a very brave man pound in the nails on his own coffin. He clearly states, "It's dissenters are silenced, not praised." You will not hear any President before or since render a speech like this.
DAnneMarc
TIMES WEREN'T BAD!?!?
Are you kidding DanneMarc!?!?
Clinton danced the Corporate two step just like the rest of them; with the exception of Thomas Jefferson, (The last "true" and greatest leader this country ever elected).
True, during the Clinton Adminnastration, the budget was in the black, the housing bubble hadn't burst yet, and 9/11 was just a twinkle in the eyes of the Military Industrial Complex, but Clinton did nothing to pull back the reins on Wall St. Clinton worked for the same people that put Regain in office...Wall St Captains, aka Rothchild, Rockefeller, Morgan etc.!
In my book any elected official that tap dances, and/or continues to two step to corrupt and fraudulant policies, that undermines the Constitution, robs and oppresses the working middle class, and disregards the elderly and the poor...As well as commits hostle military sanctions on innocent people, illegally invades and occupies a soverning nation, works to overthrow demacraticly elected leaders, and starts unnecessary wars, gets an F in my book.
As for infiedelity...I don't care where the president sticks his pecker. As long as the other party is a "consenting adult"...That's between the President and the First Lady. And in no way does that mean I "personally" condone such behaviour, but it is the VERY LEAST of my concerns when it comes to who runs this country.
Also DanneMarc...An "ok" Foreign Policy is not a reasonable one. That kind of attitude - one of dimminishing expectations for higher standards of peaceful diplomatic diplomacy - is why we are in such dire straights internationally. More people, (inside and outside the U.S.), view the U.S. Government as tyrant bullies...And they are not off base!
If we ever want true and fruitful peace we MUST produce and elect peaceful leaders...Not corporate puppets.
D Anne Mark:
Your ignornace of reality is overwhelming! You think we can eliminate 100% of our military and still survive! You have got to be kidding!!!!!! You won't even get a small minority of the posters here to agree to that.
And you comment about t bills also shows your complete ignorance of economics. Stating that T Bills are speculative!!!!! If T Bills are speculative then we are all in big trouble because they are backed by the US Government. If they go out of business, we all go down with the ship.
No wonder you are a progressive Democrat, you don't have a clue about anything!!!!!! If they put the likes of you in charge, T Bills would be a huge speculation!
Stay of this board and do a little studying on a few topics before you come back here with your totally ignorant comments.
MauiMan2 - I won't presume to speak for DAnneMarc; he can hold his own with anyone on this blog, but I understand his point, which is, we could get by with one hell of a lot less military. All it would take is to change the paradigm that people like yourself seem to be locked into that we have to maintain ten to twenty times the military strength of any other nation on the planet in order "project" ourselves. That is, project our corporate interests.
What if we turned the DOO (Dept. of Offense) into the DOD (Dept. of Defense)? What if we cut our current trillion dollar annual outlay in half? What would that mean? It would probably mean we had to stop screwing with people all over the planet. Fewer bombs, drones, fighter aircraft, carriers, boots on the ground. Does that mean we wouldn't still have an exceedingly strong "defensive" posture? Absolutely not. If we cut the number of people in uniform in half, and based most of them stateside we would a) still have the strongest standing army in the world by far, b) avoid creating the huge number of disabled veterans that need to be taken care of for life, c) keep all that capital our troops spend all over the world right here at home and d) still have an obscene number of nukes, guaranteeing that not even China in it's wildest wet dream would think about invading us.
Now, if you can take off your war bonnet for 30 seconds, consider what could be done with $500 Billion Dollars per year to fix up the infrastructure, shore up education and the social programs you bemoan, and with the very significant loose change (like maybe half of it) back out of our deficit tut suite. But no, I think that's quite beyond your grasp, Mauiman2, because like most rabid right wingers, you start from the premise that there is no valid course but to ram our "way of life" down the rest of the world's throat. Have you ever stopped for a second to ponder why this country is so widely despised by the rest of the world? And more to the point of this thread, have you ever given a millisecond's thought to the real root cause of our economic problems? It's our military overreach, dummy!
By the way, next time you're "cranking your numbers", please try to take into account that most of the so called savings in various programs are usually expressed in terms of "over a decade" to make the numbers seem large. When we talk about our military outlay, it's always expressed in annual terms. They don't DARE talk about the cost per decade, because they don't want people looking at apples and apples. Now think real hard: what's a trillion bucks a year add up to over a decade?
And finally, I hate to tell you this, but calling people on this blog "progressive Democrat" comes across a lot like shouting "poopie pants!". There are quite a few of them likely hanging out here, tho I'm not one. Try to come up with something a little more scathing, and then end with "neener neener neener! It'll be a lot more effective. Just a thought.
MAUIMAN2...There is nothing wrong with "funding & maintaining" a strong military to protect our boarders...Its a sound idea, but the real problem arises when we spend more on unnecessary wars than on fixing the problems we have here within our own boarders. Also, and this is a BIG ISSUE, our current Foreign Policy is too quick to enact military sanctions upon other sovernig nations...This needs to be reformed to a much less hostle policy.
I don't know you from Adam, but I am willing to guess you havn't spent much time "traveling" or living outside the U.S. And I don't mean to touristy Americanized neon sign vacation meccas. Most Americans haven't a clue when it comes to culture outside the U.S. Their ideas of "the rest of the world" is based on sound bites fed to them by the mainstream corporate media or silly little shows like Anthony Bordains "No Reservattions" (fun show, but in no way complete). And for the few that take their two weeks per year to France or Italy or Ireland, Mexico etc, etc...Most of them don't go off the beaten path...They take the $50 tour bus ride and snap a few pics and consider themselves world travelers.
I myself have traveled extensively and lived abroad. I have family that live in Germany, Australia, and Finland for the past 5 decades. All three of these countries are doing far better socially and economically than the U.S. No I am not saying these countries are void of the economic catastrophy that is taking place, but all three countries place more value on investing in the wellbeing of their people, rather than trying to divide and conquer the world.
If We the People want to fix our domestic problems, both economic and social, then we MUST cut Military and Deffense spending in half, Reform our Foreign Policy to a much more diplomatic one, close U.S. Military bases outside the U.S., and put all that money into rebuilding the American Infrastructure, (Industry, Education, Health Care).
No other Soverning nation has military bases outside their own boarders and they are doing just fine, if not better than the U.S. Hmmm, how interesting. Indeed!
MMmmNACHOS ~ Please reread my post. You'll find that our opinions of President Clinton are not that far apart. Perhaps I should have graded him a D- to C-. I may have been to generous there; but, like I said, his administration is mired in the contrast of some of the worst ones in history. I don't really condemn a man for his infidelities. However, I can see how Kend considers such behavior in high office indicative of poor character. We are all human, but we do have a sense of responsibility and self control. I really can't respond beyond that because I really don't want to be goaded into defending that man... I just ate!
DAnne I never said putting money in a Caymen bank was ok for companies to do. I said it was legal. Romney ran on changing loop holes like that. I guess it was more important that Americans get free birth control.
I guess Candians hold our policitions to a higher standard in both there private and personal life. I did like Clinton as a President because he really didn't do anything. Just talked a lot. As a business owner it helps me budget better. With a policy changer like Obama I like many others are just sitting on the fence waiting for some stability before we invest again.
As far as medicare for all. Not even Socialist Canada has a national single payer system. That would scare the hell out of me.
As far as Social Security again even Socialist Canada knows they had to raise the age from 65 to 67. I am the first age effected. Costs are going up and people are living longer. They gave me ten years to adjust So I am fine with it.
Where is Ken Ware. I am down in Scottsdale, AZ enjoying the weather so you can't bug me about me freezing in the North For a change.
Mauiman2 ~ What can I add to Outback and MMmmNACHOS other than Kudos gentlemen! KUDOS!
Mauiman2 ~ It is you who are ignorant and out of touch. T Bills and US Bonds are great retirement investments--IF YOU HAVE THE CASH LYING AROUND TO BUY THEM! Of course, if you do have that type of lucrative cash you probably also have mutual funds and dividend checks and no real need for Social Security or Medicare. I'd like to see you live on a typical Social Security fixed income and try to survive within those means. Till then you are the person who is ignorant and have no business posting on this blog.
The truth is that you are an insensitive, selfish and greedy person who is not capable of prioritizing the needs of the many against the wants of the few.
So I'm ignorant about the need to have a sprawling military all over the world? The world will come to an end if we cut it by more than half? Where was this military on 911? Where were they when JFK was assassinated? What about MLK or RFK? Where were they when thousands of tons of cocaine and heroin were smuggled into our country and distributed on our streets? Where were they when our own Government declared a war on drugs which was actually a war on our citizens and created it's own army to persecute our citizenry and create the largest prison population in the history of the world? Do you realize it costs 4 times more to house a prisoner than the average full time worker earns? Do you really endorse showering prisoners with benefits like free health care and denying law abiding citizens food stamps? I say end the war on drugs, disband the DEA, the DHS, the CIA, and the FBI, release all these non-violent offenders, return all forfeited property, cut all foreign military spending and close all foreign bases, re-station our troops domestically so their paychecks can be recirculated in the economy and they can work in short distance to their family's. This military has only been any good at generating enemy's around the world. They have done little to protect us from the enemy's from within. Your suggestion that we need them to survive is ridiculous and TRULY IGNORANT!
Medicare for all would also solve many of our national financial problems by distributing the expense of caring for the sick evenly to everyone. It would also allow collective bargaining on the part of the Government to keep health care and medicine costs down.
As far as the fear of taxing the rich into leaving the country all I have to say is this. Adios! Au revoir! Abschied! La revedere! Tot ziens! Da bye! Syranara! Arrivederci! Farvel! Magandang bye! Maith beannacht! Good Riddance!
DAnneMarc says: "As far as the fear of taxing the rich into leaving the country all I have to say is this. Adios! Au revoir! Abschied! La revedere! Tot ziens! Da bye! Syranara! Arrivederci! Farvel! Magandang bye! Maith beannacht! Good Riddance!"
Well said! Let the fat cats at the top of the multinational companies, the banksters, the Wall Street criminals take their ill gotten gains and retire to their off shore villas. They can take their f***ing politicians with them, and 5/9 ths of the Supreme Court. We'll never see that wealth appear in this country again anyway. Perhaps with those greedy bastards gone the decent hard working people of this country can get a fresh start. Hell, maybe it'll evolve into an Anarchy! ;-)
You do know outback that if they left so would 70 % of your tax base.
I seriously doubt that, Kend. The more their income, the more tax dodges they seem to have. And if you listen to the Republicans, if you raise taxes on the wealthy it won't generate that much revenue (they are by definition only 1% of the population). I think the rest of us could do quite nicely without the tax revenue they provide. And if not, at least it would be a relief to be rid of them.
To Outback, Nachos and D AnneMark:
I never said we could not make cuts to the military, but I do think it is totally irresponsible to suggest that we could completely eliminate it. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that we could cut it 20%, which is 140 billion a year. That still leaves us a deficit of 860 billion a year to close. If you want to quibble with that number fine, but it can't be a whole lot more than that.
And for those who you who say good ridance to the rich, Kend's point is right on the money. Who do you think will pay for all of your wonderful give away programs after 70% of your tax base leaves the country? Learn the lesson that England learned and France is about to learn!
DAnneMark, you missed my point on Social Security. All of us retireing now or anytime in the future would be mch better off if the government had just forced us to buy T Bills with the money they forced us to put into Social Security instead of taking it for Social Security. We would be getting double compared to what we will get out of the FDR legalized Ponzi scheme called Social Security. Wouldn't we all be much better off if everyone on social security was getting twice as much money as they are getting now? That could have happened if the program had been set up properly in the first place, but FDR was buying votes in the 1940's and screwing everybody 60 years plus later. He know I could not vote against him, so he simply did not care about anyone born after 1930 or so.
Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare are wonderful programs except for the fact that the costs have spiraled out of control and the taxpayers of this country (read MIDDLE CLASS TAXPAYERS) are not willing to fund them. SInce the MIDDLE CLASS is not willing to pay for them, they have to get cut back. I know that reality makes you hopping mad, but that is reality, whether you like it or not! You can't "tax the rich" to save these programs, the money simply is not there.
Your only other solution is a massive MIDDLE CLASS tax increase. Do you want to suggest that?
OK Mauiman2, I'll bite. First off, You totally missed the point about reducing the size of the military. Why would you reduce it only by 20%? Does this assume you want to keep beating that dead horse of U.S. Imperialism? The Idea of cutting back 50% or more is predicated on our withdrawing our global footprint and setting up shop here at home at half the cost.
Second, you're underestimating what we spend on our war machine. We're not just talking about the Pentagon budget here. We're talking about all the ancillary expenditures like two wars (or more; way more if we decide to get into a pissing match with Iran or North Korea), all of the CIA, NSA and other support programs for our overseas adventures. Don't forget the cost of taking care of a vet with no legs for life, neglecting to mention his inconvenience. If you add it all up it exceeds your trillion dollar deficit. Good, cut that outlay in half and get the rest from tax reform, not just from the wealthy but from the lower income brackets as well, and especially from the huge Corporate multinationals like GE (who paid no taxes last year as I recall) and big oil. Never in the history of this country have we gone to war without raising taxes to pay for it. We launched Iraq and Afghanistan on a credit card, taxes are at an all time low, and there's there's your deficit in a nutshell. Now who do you suppose has profited most from these wars? Don't you think it's fair to tax them more at this point?
Third, both you and Kend are wrong about the 1% accounting for 70% of the revenue base. As of 2009, the percentage of federal revenue paid by the upper 1% in income taxes was 36.7% according to the IRS. You can look it up. But that doesn't begin to tell the story. If you take into account the percentage of income paid into federal, state and local taxes by income bracket, it looks very different. Here's a chart for you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/state-local... . A lot of infrastructure is paid for by state funds in particular, and a lot of services paid for by state and local taxes. Notice how the wealthy fare in comparison to the middle class and poor by percentage of income. Look a little different? Here's a link to the article I pulled the chart from. It makes for some pretty good reading if you care to look at the other side of the coin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the...
And finally, there's a concept that you guys may not get, or be willing to entertain. I'm going to try, briefly. I have two different friends that are "richer than God". They are always whining about how the poor pay no taxes and and the middle class don't pay enough and the upper tax brackets have to shoulder the bulk of the load *sob*.... I try to explain to them that the great unwashed have paid for and continue to support the infrastructure in their daily work that makes it possible for their companies to operate, netting them, individually, that tidy little salry (plus bonuses, plus stock options, plus luxury company car and gas allowance). They therefore have a moral obligation to pay more generously back into the system that supports them. Take a look at that chart again. Note the percentage of income paid in state taxes by the minimum wage box boy working in one of these guy's shop. That's state highway tax revenue paying for the roads that these guys use for shipping their product every day. I think Elizabeth Warren put it better last year, but you get my drift.
Sorry to be so long winded here, but this country has a real disconnect between the "haves" and the "have nots" that needs to be fixed before we will be a whole nation again. And the rich can't keep on profiting off the working class at the current level before the house of cards collapses (think 1929).
Mauiman2 ~ Using your own figures--which I checked out and seem to be almost correct--you claim we spend $1 trillion dollars in the red. You say we need to cut at least $500 Billion from the budget. That's about half if I'm correct?
You say the military accounts for $700 Billion. Here is where you are wrong. This figure is from pre 2011 annual budgets. The 2012 projected military spending is from $1.030–$1.415 trillion! 1
The overall DOD (Department of Defense) base operations + "Overseas Contingency Operations" is $707.5 Billion, however the interest alone accrued from all the previous wars that were never accounted for in the budget is a whooping $109.1–$431.5 Billion. $200-$400 Billion are consumed by other Military earmarks. The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) alone sucks up $47 Billion.1
Quite obviously, even to a moron, this country cannot afford this military. The DHS and DOD are the first and most foremost branches that need to be trimmed from this budget tree. That's a total of $750 Billion. That won't cover the $1 Trillion annual budget, but it will take care of the interest payments on the loans and give us $250 Billion left over to put down on the loan itself. Most importantly of all, it eliminates the cause of all our financial deficit woes--the blood thirsty/money hungry DOD. Meanwhile it allows us enough funds to still have a standing domestic defense military, and to care for the needs of our veterans. All this without touching any social safety net programs.
Also, this doesn't even include my plans to reduce the budget further by repealing the war on drugs, free trade, and Obamacare; and then making Medicare available to everyone.
It also is independent of my plan to drastically increase revenue by reinstating import tariffs on foreign goods, legalizing and subsidizing hemp production 2, and increasing payroll taxes on everybody; especially the wealthiest citizens and corporations. However, once we do all that, good bye economic woes.
You far underestimate what this country would be like if someone like me ran it. It would be a prosperous utopia for everyone--including greedy, self-centered, capitalists like yourself.
By the way, thanks for asking me to do some research. The numbers sure makes my argument a lot more compelling.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Let me quote the great Ross Perot "YOU people voted for Obama, so what r u complaining about"? This is ur guy and he is just doing what he does best, he is bending over and grabbing his ankles. This is Obamas favorite negotiating tactic. He gets what he wants every time. I really do not understand the surprise.
Obama will leave office with over $100,000,000 in the bank ( plus his campaign money)
Mauiman2 ~ One other thing: Thats DAnneMarc; not, D AnneMark.
Outback ~ Thanks for that tax info. That explains a lot in plain English that my accountant explained in Legalese--a version of Ancient Greek I believe. I'm not schooled on languages of antiquity--yet. LOL
Now I understand much better! Thank you!
Of course, it doesn't make me very happy. But I am less confused!
DAnnemarc, you have a Lebanese accountant....? Get one that speaks better English my friend. It'll greatly simplify your life ;-)
CUT ""ALL"" Congressmen/women and Senator's along with the White House Staff pay to $35,000.00 a year, that is what alot of Americans are living on and they are doing fine. If they don't like their new pay scale, go find another job, just like the American People have too. I'm a Union Iron Worker, I have to leave my home state and travel the road to where the work is, until work picks up in my city. If I don't have enough money to pay for a motel, I sleep in my car, until pay day, then I get a motel room, shower, and get a good nights sleep. Those Congressmen/women and Senators can do the same (as I have too) for their living if they LOVE that job (like I do). Maybe they will get the feel of what it is really like to work for a living, instead of living the good life of $180,000.00 a year job, have a Capital room to sleep in (instead of their car/truck), shower everyday in the White House Gym, eat at the finest restaurants, wear the finest clothes/shoes, and collect a WELFARE CHECK (Tax Payers Taxes) from Hard Working American People for setting around voting NO!!! or HELL NO!!!
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. Do you really think the other 9% are going to stick around and carry 70%. Its not just there money. Here in Canada our taxes where so high and wages so low (government health care) Doctors left the country in plane loads to the US. Be careful it could happen to you to. 4 of 10 Canadians don't have a family doctor.
Outback ~ LOL No! That's LEGAL - ESE. A made up word for the phony language of "Tax Professionals." Sorry for the miss understanding! This is fun!!! LOL
Capish ;-) No misunderstanding. My last post was blocked for some reason as "inappropriate". Sure hope I haven't irritated someone here. Anyway, it's been fun, I agree. Let's see what the Thomster has in store for us tomorrow. He sure did stir up a hornet's nest with that last one:-) G'night.
Huge Flight of Rich after French Tax Hikes? Nope!
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/03/-huge-flight-of...
Trust me it doesn't happen over night but it happens. I lived through it. Doesn't all the factories moving to China teach you anything.
Wouldn't it be just dandy if all of these scumbag wealthy people, the ones that don't pay their fare share of taxes, leave the country. The people would then be able to take back the military and then the "people's army" can invade all those little offshore tax havens and confiscate what was stolen from the people. Let's face it...there is a lot of bullsh!t hype and propaganda put out by the wealthy in trying to scare not-so-wealthy people into being totally submissive. As the article I just posted showed..the so-called "mass exodus" from France by wealthy people didn't really happen...the two wealthy people that left and went to Britain did so for reasons unrelated to the 75% taxation of those making over a million Euros. And some the other not-as-wealthy uppity-snit-wannabees who relocated to Britain are making a royal pain-in-the-@$$ of themselves to other Brits who are not happy with their new neighbors. Why would anyone, even upwardly-wealthy people, want to live estranged from their home country... in a country where the natives are not not happy the new immigrants are there? Even wealthy people know that there is no place like home...no matter what you have to sacrifice to stay there. Besides, there are quite a number of very wealthy people who don't mind a bit paying higher taxes...it's just the greedy and selfish few who are spreading the propaganda and scare stories.
All the factories moving to China tells me that the greedy have been able to get away with screwing their fellow citizens just like any immoral criminal would. And until there is a mass uprising, boycotts, etc. these people will continue to control our government and continue to destroy the lives of the majority of the people in this country. The wealthy own the major news media and they generate propaganda for the purpose of keeping the people confused and too scared to strike back at those who propagandize them.
Moving the factories to China did not cause the wealthy people to have to move there as well. They still run things from their home country. I'd love to see the greedy wealthy people move to China. They might find life a little more difficult over there. It certainly wouldn't be as easy as they have it here in the US..or Canada. I know, I've been there several times. And when wealthy people start flashing their money around in China...their life expectancy is not very high.
Palindromedary ~ Like I said before, "As far as the fear of taxing the rich into leaving the country all I have to say is this. Adios! Au revoir! Abschied! La revedere! Tot ziens! Da bye! Syranara! Arrivederci! Farvel! Magandang bye! Maith beannacht! Good Riddance!"
I believe in Chinese that would be, "再見"
Laugh Out Loud! I believe that would be, "大聲笑出來"
Please correct me if I'm wrong!
DAnneMarc
Outback ~ A very Good Night to you too my friend!
DAnneMarc:
I think it is fair to say two things
1.Neither you or I are in a position to say exactly how much can be cut from the military before we seriously effect national security. I throw out 20% and that may be high. You seem to want to get rid of it all. You are smoking something really good if you actually think that is possible to do that without having some SERIOUS ramifications. Do you want a 9/11 incident every week, every month, or never again? What is never again worth to this country? How much would once a year cost this country?
2. You want to give way too much power to elected officials whose number one goal in life is to get re elected. Your "give all power to the government" is a prescription for disaster and has failed miserably every time it has been tried in the real world.
And yes the yearly deficit is about 1 trillion. I say you have to cut AT LEAST half of that out of spnding SOMEWHERE. Sorry I cannot agree with you that you can squeze that kind of money out of the military. That is the one thing the government does that no one else can do.
Paindromedary, the article you post is flat out wrong. West end realators in London are hiring as many French speaking agents as they can get their hands on to sell high end properties in London to the the rich French leaving France. England's Prime Minister got in hot water with his neighbors in the south by saying England welcomes the rich French with open arms. You think he actually said that for two people? Come on! I have never seen an article so wrong in my life!
Your dreaming if you think this kind of thing has any chance of not happening. Look at the US, when a state (like NY) raises its state taxes, they ALWAYS get a mass exit of wealthy (read former high tax contributing) citizens to Florida to avoid taxes. And the expected revenue increase never happens (or is much lower than anticipated). EVERY TIME.
And yes it may not always happen overnight like it did in England in 2008, but it will happen.
What makes you think history will not repeat itself here?
Mauiman2 ~ You are so full of pure S(Grits) that I am through trying to communicate with you. I'm afraid, "What we have here, is a failure to communicate. You see!"
My financially opulent friend...
You're on your own!
DAnneMarc
Why doesn't anyone give a response to Thom's statement that we need to increase the deficit to reduce the debt?
You should say we need to increase the federal budget by 15% to decrease the debt. Of course, the increase in the deficit should be as efficient as possilble.
As Ravi Batra pointed out each time we reduce the deficit too much the stock market crashes.
This is how a national economy works. It is not how balancing my checkbook works.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
Outback wrote ~ "Besides, what would have been the worst that could happen if Obama lost? An acceleration of a process that may be inevitable? Not a bad outcome."
Apparently you are right again my friend! Indeed, Romney could have ushered in the impending Apocalypse with far greater dispatch than Obama. He wouldn't have even had to try to act remorseful. Why prolong this misery any longer than necessary?
I guess, in hindsight, I should have had serious misgivings about Barack Obama when he spoke about invading Afghanistan in his campaign. Talk about sending out red flags! Talk about selective listening! His Cabinet choices aside, my greatest disappointments during his first few days were not declaring a national emergency so he could expeditiously (without the aid of Congress) restore the Constitution by repealing the Patriot act and all other legislation passed by the Bush Administration that was so clearly unconstitutional. (Including the stupid Law passed that allowed him to take this very action.) He may never have promised this in his campaign; but, seriously folks, he is a Constitutional scholar who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and walked right into a state of affairs that made taking such action not only legally possible, but, morally imperative. No, I too am not terribly surprised with the man we have in office--terribly disappointed, yes, terribly surprised, no.
Yet asking ourselves "what if" at this point is all water under the bridge. Let us hope that this pathetic game of charades has stirred enough discontent in the population at large to create the motivation necessary for a viable third party in the next election. For that matter, why not a fourth, fifth, and sixth party and so on? The more variety of choice the better. Regardless, gentlemen, I for one have already decided to cast my vote to an alternative choice. To quote MMmmNACHOS ~ "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."