Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
You keep throwing out the arbitrary percentages (15-30 %) but we've just completed the fight on discretionary spending. It doesn't reduce the deficit that much. Across the board is not sensible because the big drivers of the deficit and debt are the entitlements and defense spending. The republicans have something like that called " cut ,cap, and balance" but that is just another supply-side idea that implies that you can cut your way to prosperity.
When you cut spending ,jobs go along with that. Any tax cutting we do will not take place until next year because we have a fragile economy.
How much revenue will the Fisher tax plan bring in?.... You can't answer that because it's never been run through the Congressional Budget Office.
We need jobs and find ways to fund education, infrastructure repair, and alternative energy...China is not going to sit still while we argue about ways to cut spending.
I believe we'll do some tax reform but it will be for after the election.
If I were President, I would slap Congress with my idea. 1) 15-30% cut across the board for eight years. 2) The Fisher Tax plan YES MIKE I know, I know, one of my three year old ideas. An Asset/Value Tax on goods and services ranging from 2% (Food ) to 25% (Luxury items). Those making over $300,000 would pay a Flat income tax.
WASHINGTON — The top Republican in the Senate proposed on Tuesday giving President Barack Obama sweeping new power to, in effect, unilaterally increase the nation's debt limit to avoid a first-ever default on U.S. obligations. The new mechanism would take the place of the current White House debt negotiations among congressional leaders and Obama. Those talks over spending cuts and tax increases have grown increasingly acrimonious.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., offered a new plan to allow the president to demand up to $2.4 trillion in new borrowing authority by the summer of next year in three separate submissions.
Those increases in the so-called debt limit would automatically take effect unless both the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic Senate enact legislation specifically disapproving it.
See what I mean,Writein, the republicans know that they will be blamed for a shutdown and keeping 80 million checks from going out, so they will try this smoke and mirrors, knowing full well that the tea party will reject it but it gets them through an election.
Political posturing is all it is.
I assume you want me to say that you would challenge them.
More than one way to skin the proverbial cat, young grasshopper.
Let's look at this stand off with the tax phobia GOP ..You use that against them.
1. Initially, the president called for a clean bill of raising the debt and the GOP insisted on a dollar for a dollar in tax cuts.2. The president appointed Joe Biden to negotiate a deal and he just about did that and the house majority leader. Eric Cantor fled when tax revenues were mention.3. The president called on the house speaker and to try to negotiate a deal, but he quickly found out John Boehner was not in command.... He couldn't keep his tea party in line.4. The president offered $4 trillion dollars in cuts over 10 years, and put the entitlements on the table. 5. The president said he's willing to take heat from his party and the house speaker and Senate minority leader will not budge on tax spending.
Summary, Democrats have to give everything and GOP nothing... That's not the way it works if the GOP only controls one house.....But the leaders of both houses and the president are on record saying that in we will not let the country default, and we will raise the debt limit.
What is it gonna be? Can 230 members of the GOP take back their pledge to Grover Norquist? Can the GOP tell the American people that they are willing to cut Social Security and Medicare but not corn ethanol tax credits?
I think President Obama is sitting the "catbird seat."
Let’s sub President Obama for” President Writein” for a monment and have Congess control by Republicans. What do you think I would have done?
Not necessarily, what if you had a republican house and senate majority? They could easily get the 2/3 votes to override a presidential veto even with a line item veto.
Anyway, the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court by a margin of 6-3. In 1998, Clinton v City of New York ,the Supreme Court said that legislation passed by both houses should be presented in its entirety to the president of United States.
The president will have a news conference given his view on a path forward of raising the debt limit. I don't know why our leaders don't vote up or down on a CLEAN BILL because it's obvious ideology means more than financial security.
I have been gone for weeks. I just got tired of this site. Plus talking about things do nothing.
Here is my counterpoint to yours. A President with a line item veto would be a check and balance to a Congress that is gerrymandered and doesnt have term limits.
Here is a way I would accept your proposals.
You didn't mention ..JOBS,that's what the number one problem is. We do something about jobs and the rest of the problems go away...It takes the microphone away from the scaremongers. Jobs bring in revenues to reduce the debt and deficit...
Instead of trying to bar lobbyist (which we legally can't) we should elect those that believe in strong campaign finance laws but good luck with that...Congress can keep lobbyist out of committee meetings and make a law that forbids a lawmaker from lobbying for a bill where he sat on committee ,for say 5 years.
I think a strong argument can be made that a line item veto gives the executive too much power when we should strive for the separation of powers as part of a check and balance system.
write inYou have been posting those same proposals for 2 or 3 years now,so I doubt anything I write will convince you and I will probably see them for another 3 years..:-)
Lets start will the bottom 3 and work up since it deals with our constitution...It takes at least 6 years to amend the constitution because it takes 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate and then 3/4 of states have to ratify it..Lobbyist have a constitutional right because congress shall make no law to abridge the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances...You really think a GOP House will want Obama to have a line item veto?
We borrow .40 cents on every $1 we spend,do you really think congress will want to pay American's debt?They balk at extending unemployment compensation.
We are a major player in the global economy and you want us to replace it with protectionism,Really? We will lift the trade embargo with Cuba but it will be awhile.
I think we will have tax reform but it won't be until after the elections.
We will always have a central government and congress already audits the Fed but in order to retain the confidence of other countries not to divulge trade secrets,certain things must be kept private.
Writein..."I return only to VICAD to say this."
J, have you been gone?
I return only to VICAD to say this.
1) Use “Petro dollars” to curl and to pay down the National Debt. Uncap the oil reserves in Montana and the Dakotas.
2) Open trade with Cuba.
3) De-globalize the economy by ending NAFTA, CAFTA, and remove membership from the WTO.
4) Audit, Amend, or end the Federal Reserve.
5) Amend the Tax code and adopt some tax idea from the Paul C Fisher Tax System.
6) Place tariffs on unfavorable nations.
7) A bailout for every American on debt.
8) For ten years, prohibit Unions and Corporations contributions in Federal election campaigns.
9) For ten years. Prohibit lobbying in Congress.
10) A Constitutional Amendment for a Presidential Line Item Veto, and/or peacetime quadrennial Balance Budget
The democratic party is ready to pounce on the fact that the Texas Legislator gave the governor a big slush fund called Texas Enterprise Fund in 2003. Since then, it has awarded $412 million in subsidies to companies to create jobs.....Then in December 2010 the Texas comptroller found that $119 million of that money went to companies that didn’t deliver . The governor’s office only took back only $21 million from those companies and but instead chose to scale back their commitment. GOP Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, , said that those taxpayer-funded contracts sent money overseas to create jobs and that was “disturbing” and “unacceptable.”
Run Rick Perry run..... No I mean literally "run."
Texas and Perry both look good with $100 a barrel oil and a low cost (sometimes legal) labor supply.
Texas leads the nation in minimum wage workers, folks without health insurance, and the total number of state workers.
Business friendly environment no doubt.
You are right the proof is in the pudding, but you have to read the ingredients and not just look at the box.
Texas did balance its budget, but they used $12 billion of Washington's stimulus money to do it and we still have the 8th worst poverty rate in the country, last in education, and near last and health care... That catches up in the long run.... We did have a $25 billion budget deficit didn't we?
Governor Rick Perry is going around bragging about all the jobs but once he puts his hat in the ring for president. Those low-paying jobs will be made part of the story.
I haven't looked in a while but the last time I looked California ranked seventh in attracting new businesses and Texas ranked 17th.... We might have had one of those overnight Texas miracles.....Natural resources go a long way.
You know that little building that is named NASA and those military bases we have, they are supported with taxpayer funds.
The Civil War has been over for a long time, and now we are United 50 states we don't have to be pitted against one another because each state contributes in its own unique way... I'm proud of Texas and our state has a lot to be proud of, but we don't have to get our soap boxes and brag because, if we're really that good; people will notice on their own. I like to say we have in good in Texas but there is always room for improvement because we are only as good as our weakest link.
This comment was removed by the user.
I hear ya Mike, when you have time look at the charts on this link
What other employers average salary has increase from $66,708 to $78,586 between the years 2006 to 2010?
On the same site, I guess because of the military, the education level of of the greatest percentage of employees is high school graduates.
Legion,I can believe that. Just count the people that work for Homeland Security and 18 intelligence agencies ...I know we have too people hired by our government as private contractors. ...Anyway I hope they figure all this out because I won't be around forever giving my unwanted advice.:-)
Have a good one
Ok, yeah B2, I got signed out and the site didn't tell me when I was trying to post, anyway...
I agree Mike. The point I was trying to make is that the increase or lack of wages over the years is relative, but with a much larger population, a lot aging, as we all do, the cost to provide services has naturally increased.
What I find strange is that the Census Bureau reports a little over 2M federal employees, the US office of personnel management lists 4.43M employees, both in 2009. True that the Census Bureau doesn't count Postal employees, but that is a heck of a difference between two federal agency s. 1987 had the most by the way.
Something wrong with this site? I've been trying to post a response for 30 minutes.
The point is that if people don't make a living wage, then they cannot buy anything and will not , and cannot, support this economy. Working men and women are not the ones that set the prices, so they are not the ones that have to change if the economy is going to get any better.Those at the top make all the decisions, so the ball is in their court.
The problem is we have is we want entitlements but we don't want to pay for them...That's why I said the pay roll taxes should have increasing by .5% or something affordable all along...Now we act surprised because they are in trouble.
Legion357Taxes are a necessary evil but we should have raised the Medicare & FICA rates all along....local & states are a different game....Fed taxes as % of GDP are lower than they have been in 60 years.
It's all relative isn't it B2 ?
$5 a day and milk was 10¢ a gallon, hamburger was 5¢ a pound... and on and on.
If ever wage and price of goods was cut 50%, there would no difference, just lower numbers on the family and business p/l sheet right? Wrong, because the government, local, state and federal is far more than 50% larger than it was when everything cost 50% of what it is now.
Found this and it is true. It's a shame today's major companies do not understand the concept.
"Ford was, among other things, a famously domineering employer, but he was also an economic pioneer. He not only perfected the techniques of mass production of automobiles, but he also foresaw that his efforts would not amount to great profits if average Americans could not afford to buy all those cars. He saw that putting higher wages in his workers’ pockets was good for his, and his company’s, financial well-being, and good for the national economy, too.
So Ford shocked the world in 1914 when he unilaterally introduced a minimum wage for his employees, more than doubling the average wage in the auto industry from $2.34 per day to $5. As Ford put it, raising wages "has the same effect as throwing a stone in a still pond," creating an "ever-widening circle of buying" that increases everyone’s prosperity.
It was a simple formula that the United States has followed many times since: Adequate wages create happier consumers, who, in turn, contribute to a healthier economy. Thus was born the American middle class."
born2BmeThere's a lot to do what you're saying because I remember reading a book about the Great Depression of 1929 and shortly after that ,when Henry Ford came up with a way his employees could buy a car on the installment plan. So, if you don't pay your employees enough money to purchase major items, you have to come up with the way to do that and make it profitable by charging interest.
Hey we were on the same train thought or read the same book.
Socialism, probably, but America will never be strong again without it. Henry Ford had the right idea. He paid his workers far above the going rate so his employees earned enough to buy his products, and he got the best, most dedicated, employees that way. He didn't go broke doing it, he prospered beyond his wildest dreams.
I agree with your concept; I really do but ideology won't let that happen here 'cause it will be considered socialism... Germany does what you're suggesting and there are successful at it. Germany did not lay off its workers, they kept the unions but they made quality products that demanded a price where they could afford to do that. They did not have to bargain with the union over health care because they have single -payer universal Health Care.
Our country loves cheap products from Wal-Mart... We have made Wal-Mart a major multinational corporation,yet they don't pay their employees accordingly.
I'm pretty sure you remember the 70s(careful don't age yourself..) when we had strong unions and income equality and companies followed suit because of the threat of the union. What's happened since then? You know because you've mentioned it several times. And that's not so anymore, executive pay rose 23% in this down economy. If companies were to scale back on CEO pay and more evenly distribute profits among their employees, that would be called " wealth redistribution" heading for socialism.
Well, I guess I cannot say there is no demand for it. People want stuff they cannot pay for, so they just charge it, not caring how or when they can pay for it. But, most people have had that little habit bite them in the backside and cannot do it anymore.People what things that they don't have the money to pay for, so there is no demand, in that sense.
I realize that we cannot compete with foreign labor rules and wages. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Companies that produce their products overseas to, ahhhh screw, American workers, shouldn't be able to bring their products back into America without some kind of consequences.This Country cannot support itself on low wage, service jobs. No amount of tax breaks for major companies is going to fix that.Where does most of our money go now? Food, housing, fuel, health care, automobiles, taxes. How much is left to support our economy? In my case, not much. I don't even own a cell phone.How do the republicans suppose they are going to fix that by giving more to those at the top when there isn't any money at the bottom to support companies hiring people? There is no demand for their products. They are not going to start a business when they know there is no demand for it.
Never mind,it came up again as a new feature called Hotspots(beta)...Neat..:-)
I hyper-linked the jobs report, Grover Norquist, and David Brooks in my initial blog but it seems like I must've activated something that made links to Joe Biden, Eric Cantor, and Pat Buchanan appear. .... I've tried to correct it several times by editing my blog to no avail. Is this a new feature I'm not aware of?
I get your point and I hope you're right but I can't get a good read on the tea party folks, who are keeping the speaker from making a deal.... There are about 88 freshman tea party republicans who don't have enough sense to know they are playing with fire... About three months ago, I said if speaker Boehner was running the show, we would have raised the debt limit a long time ago.
I did mention that the republicans changed their vote on TARP when the stock market took a dive....
Mike-You surprise me a little...if the money boys really believed that the debt ceiling was not going to be raised would the market would still be over 12,000? This is a straight up dog and pony show for the electorate. Let the market fall below 10,000 and I'll believe the adults are no longer at the switch.
You stated "Get the decent-paying jobs back home, and the entitlement spending takes care of itself."......... I don't know if you mean bringing the jobs home from an China ,India, Mexico etc but if you do, I don't know how we can compete with $4.00 a day, no benefits, and hardly any environmental regulations. We could cut the corporate rates to zero and it would still be more profitable for companies to send their jobs overseas. This pleases the shareholders and consumers.... I can see where higher wages would keep the entitlements afloat for while until we come up with some serious reform without cutting benefits.
Several have said we could make several changes to Medicare such as paying a set amount for procedures and letting the hospitals and doctors figure out how to disperse the proceeds. e.g. A $10,000 payment for a heart attack ,so then the hospital and doctor will find the most economical way to handle hospital care and release. The doctor might not require as many follow ups.... We might not get that $25 hospital cup anymore..:-)
arlewill, the conservatives have been touting that line, since we were little boys and on the other side the Democrats have been saying they are for the little man. Those are talking points that we know are not true because we have plenty of proof of that. Government grows no matter who's in power and democrats will take a Wall Street lobbyist money just as fast as a Republican..... Liberals, libertarians, and conservatives will all elbow their way in order to feed off the government trough...:-)
Did you, minus out $1.2 trillion and two ongoing wars and a prescription-drug bill that was not paid for, the previous administration left Obama before you came to 35% increase? Are you suggesting that we should not have spent the money?..... If businesses and consumers are not spending, who will buy the goods to fix a demand problem?
The country is not healed the cause we have a demand problem. Drastic cuts in a fragile economy will not help that...IMO I don't think anyone is suggesting that we spend our way out of this problem because all the solutions include more spending cuts than revenues by 3 to 1 margin.
My point was that we should pass the debt ceiling without negotiations, and then the parties can have their partisan fights without affecting workers 401 K's, and grandma's social Security Security and Medicare.
I think we're at a point where compromise is a dirty word.... Remember the old days when Bob Dole and Speaker Tip O'Neill would go toe to toe in the end they would shake hands and agree to a deal.
Likewise, arlewil, you cannot draw very much usable blood out of a dead body.We all would like a smaller government, but it should start at the top down, not the other way around.Job creation is the issue. Get the decent-paying jobs back home, and the entitlement spending takes care of itself.
MikeYour are right on ideology, but it is on both sides of the spectrum. The conservatives want less government, spending and taxes and the other side wants more spending, bigger government and more taxes. The national debt has increased 35 percent since Jan 2009 with more spending and bigger government and it has not healed the economy. I don't believe the U.S. can spend it's way out of debt. We have tried it and it don't work.