and you say this as if the pledge wasn't set in place because of the other sides unwillingness to compromise on their nonsense about how taxing the living heck out of the rich will magically fix everything.
Lol don't try that defence. Republicans haven't voted for tax rises since the 90's and this pledge was just a written re-confirmation of that. Your argument doesn't hold water. Also the Dems are proposing returning to Clinton era tax levels, that is not "taxing the living hell" out of the rich. To put things in perspective, my dad is taxed more as a % than the US rich are and he earns £50k. He has not had the living hell taxed out of him so that's pure bollocks. Americans have no concept of what heavy taxation actually is nor can they comprehend that the rich won't suddenly stop using their money when taxed more.
secondly he's not exactly getting rid of it... he wants to get rid of congresses roll in raising of the debt ceiling. effectively "once again" bypassing congress in matters of federal interest...
they should just bump our credit rating down a couple notches regardless of what happens anyway. this country doesn't deserves to keep the AAA rating it has now... it's not like we'll ever repay china and whoever else the heck we own money to anyways.
And what does that mean, honestly? What was the threshold number before "trillions of dollars in debt" was a serious problem?
he wants to get rid of congresses roll in raising of the debt ceiling.
And no wonder; with a hostile minority party who wants to hold the federal budget hostage in order to have their way, it's only reasonable to try and work around them. I certainly don't like it myself for the same reasons, but I don't like the idea of defaulting on our debt even more.
they should just bump our credit rating down a couple notches regardless of what happens anyway.
The credit rating is absolute bullshit, full stop. We only lost our AAA rating last year or so, I believe, not because of our deficit or anything, but because of the same fucking around going on now. It's pretty much arbitrary.
nobody wants to admit that socialism has failed...to many people eating for free...to many women dropping babies they dont' want to work to feed. California is paying welfare to half the population of Mexico...Big Brother dooling out trillions to a healthcare system that is so overpriced and bloated its stupid. Democrats refuse to stop the handouts cause they need them to buy votes...no body is stupid enough to vote for them based on their policies.
Silly, didn't you know that to offer more spending and 100% tax increases means you are compromising when you retract that to slight spending cuts and 80% tax increase. See.....we compromised....why don't they accept it?
The tea party happies aren't talking about tax hikes either. The only tax hikes the Dems are asking is from the richest 1-2%. They want to give everybody else tax cuts. I don't see how that isn't compromising...
Did you know that if the wealthiest 1% of Americans was taxed at a rate of 100%, it would only cover the deficit for about 30 days? It's not a solution to the problem we're facing. That is why Republicans are so opposed to tax cuts. It isn't because they just love rich people (eight of the ten wealthiest counties in America voted for Obama), it's because it would not help the deficit in any way, and it would actually hurt the economy tremendously. They wealthy in this country also happen to be the job creators and the employers. If they have less money, then they can't afford to hire as many people or pay their employees as much.
This has been proven to be false time and time again. Just because they have more money, doesn't mean they'll use it on more jobs or paying their employees. In fact, they certainly won't pay their employees more as that would not be maximizing profits.
I know the answer - more governmental spending. You see, the problem is, governmental spending is inefficient. Business owners depend their well-being on how is their business doing, so they are really careful and thoughtful on spending. Some clerk in a federal agency gets his wage anyway, so he doesn't care so much on what he is spending money - it's not his money, so he doesn't suffer when his ideas fail.
On the other hand, no business (according to capitalism) would invest in any program which would not give them a net gain in returns. This means very little would be invested in welfare programs, the environment, sciences which have no immediate benefit, or businesses competing against big corporations. We'd see hospitals refusing to administer emergency care to uninsured individuals, a depreciation of public schools (the industrial sector thrives on a large body of uneducated, low-value workers), and population of elderly and disabled Americans suffer in poverty, as that is money which could be invested elsewhere.
The 'ideal' employer pays their employees as little as they'll accept in order to pad their own salary -- how would this change if the country's infrastructure were run the same way?
But lower taxes on them is not a solution as it does not spur job growth or creation. As a result, it is legitimate to tax them more for public expenses as that money is not of benefit when in the hands of the wealthy alone.
By history. Taxes on the wealthy are certainly not as high as they once were, yet we have not seen a surge in jobs.
You need to understand that corporations are out to do one thing and one thing only: make money. Just because they have more cash on hand, does not mean they'll invest it in jobs. They'll do what they believe enhances their profits the most and that often is not jobs or better pay.
In addition, most of these wealthy CEOs are so very wealthy that they could readily create jobs or expand if they really wanted to without these tax cuts.
:sigh: Sorry, I let myself get off topic. Maybe they wouldn't create more jobs, maybe they would. But that does not matter. The money belongs to them, and just because your heart is bleeding for all the poor unfortunate souls who don't have nearly as much as these evil CEOs (I count myself in this group of "unfortunates," but I don't whine about rich people all day), the money is still theirs.
You yourself do not have the authority to take the money from them and give it to someone else, and since government is nothing but an extension of the power of the people, the government has no right to do this either.
I disagree. The government does have a right to take some of their money. They don't need that much money; it's entirely wasteful and causes degeneration to society when they hoard wealth like that. The wellbeing of the entire country/community is more important than a few greedy CEOs possessing a few million dollars more when they're already billionaires. That money needs to go to more important things, and the wealthy person does not lose any of their status because they remain ultra rich.
I don't mean the national debt, I mean the deficit, or the yearly gap between spending and revenue which is what is driving the debt up so quickly. A 100% tax on the wealthiest 1% would cover that gap for (I think it was) about 30 days, but wouldn't help pay down the debt at all.
I don't quite recall what I was reading which suggested that, and I regret that I don't have any strong resources to use at the moment, but a cursory glance at Wikipedia suggests that wealth disparity was at its lowest in the modern US roughly from the end of World War II to around the 1980s [link], which roughly correlates with a significant decline in income tax rate [link] (though a curious rise in (effective) corporate tax rate [link]).
Except that only the nominal tax rate changed; the effective tax rate has remained largely unchanged over the last century or so. (Compared to the nominal tax rate, in particular.)
Additionally, we should expect wealth disparity to rise as population and overall wealth both rise. It's actually a statistical necessity. (The more people there are, the greater the number of people capable of managing large financial empires, who displace less capable people who could manage small or medium-sized empires; and wealth has a statistical tendency of being distributed randomly, resulting in a... I forget the name of the statistical distribution, it's the same one used for city sizes, but it results in skewed distributions.)
But it's still their money, no matter what they do with it. Just because they don't do anything with it that you deem to be "useful" doesn't suddenly make it your money.
The PBS thing was blown way out of proportion. Romney was using PBS as an example of a business that didn't need any federal spending but got some anyway, which is called cronyism, just FYI. Truly conservative Republicans want to get rid of all forms of cronyism and restore a free market system. However, minor public spending projects like PBS are most certainly not what the Republicans are focusing on. The major drivers of our debt are entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, which should be reevaluated for efficiency and must be cut to some extent it we want to get back to a balanced budget.
"Truly conservative Republicans want to get rid of all forms of cronyism and restore a free market system. "
at least from an idealistic perspective. The only difference is you'd turn a blind eye to cronyism in corporate America, but since thats private orgs, its not your problem. At least in theory. The only one so far I've seen with any real consistency on this is Ron Paul.(least amount of pork of any congressman too)
But the democrats want to get rid of corruption too. At least from an idealistic perspective.
"However, minor public spending projects like PBS are most certainly not what the Republicans are focusing on"
Mitt Romney was focusing on it during the presidential debate, and between PBS and NPR are frequent targets of conservative talk radio rhetoric.
But it's still their money, no matter what they do with it.
But at what point must we consider "what they do with it" to be against the well-being of the country? We're not talking about a borderline case here either; if the wealthy are driving the economy into the ground by hoarding their wealth or only circulating it at the top, and are still demanding concessions like they're hurting, at what point must we recognize the harm they cause to the country to outweigh their right to 'liberty'?
The PBS thing was blown way out of proportion.
The PBS thing was an example, a representation of every small program Republicans demand be cut because it fails to serve them. They demand cuts to science, education, and the arts as if these things are worthless, while in reality their meager budgets are - as you say - not the major drivers of our debt.
The major drivers of our debt are entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security
And Defense spending. Defense spending always seems to be ignored by fiscal 'conservatives,' despite our military being overfunded, extremely bloated, and largely a joke. We have just spent the last decade at war with two countries in the Middle East, and have returned with little to show for it, but do you think that has had no negative impact on our deficit?
Besides, if we only look to medicare and social security for cuts, we will be harming a lot of people whose lives depend on these services. I can tell you first-hand people living on financial assistance aren't in the lap of luxury, and cutting those programs down significantly won't go without major impact on their ability to survive. We cannot expect to fix the budget and come out of it a world leader if we focus on nothing but budget cuts to programs made to support the weakest of our citizens, which is why we must consider other options, such as raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting down programs such as military spending.
PS: Cronyism is only wrong to a Republican when it isn't his cronies. None of them seem to think it's cronyism to subsidize the oil industry, or to protect the low taxes on the 'job creators' while pushing the tax burden on the lower and middle classes. To say nothing about the industries which profit from war...
1) It doesn't matter what they're doing with it. It belongs to them, and no amount of righteous indigence on the part of bleeding-heart liberals will change that fact.
2) Federal funding of the arts and sciences is actually unconstitutional. An enumerated power of the Congress is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," in other words, by protecting their intellectual property, not by providing funding for them.
3) Yes, I agree that there is most likely some areas where the military could be run more efficiently and some areas where the defense budget can be cut. But as I said so scientifically to someone else, defense is approximately eighteen gazillion times more necessary than entitlement programs.
Entitlement programs were created to "support the weakest of our citizens." But, as anything that the federal government does outside of Constitutional consent, they have become exceedingly corrupted. In my opinion, any grant of money should be enough to provide only for the bare necessities of life--food and house payments. That way, people would not be content to sit on their butts and take welfare checks. I know people on welfare also, and almost all of them have plenty of money to pay for TV, cars, and even entertainment and dining out. Why work if they can make a comfortable living off of the government?
You're right that Republicans are probably quite guilty of cronyism as well. It's a problem that naturally arises when we have a government that is far too powerful. (But to say that they're "pushing the tax burden on the lower and middle classes" is absolutely ridiculous. The wealthy pay a far larger share in taxes than they own in wealth. In other words, the percentage of the tax burden that they shoulder is far larger than the percentage of the nation's total wealth that they own.)
1) Yes, and their greed will be the death of us. How does it 'belonging to them' justify the rapidly-growing wealth disparity in the country?
Besides, possession or no, they still owe the government for its services to them, as do we all.
2) Also in the Constitution: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. Clearly our entire military is grossly unconstitutional, and we must disband it.
3) First of all, see point 2. Not to mention, if you don't think the military is exceedingly corrupt, not to mention horribly inefficient, it's obvious you have no actual interest in financial conservation.
I know people on welfare also, and almost all of them have plenty of money to pay for TV, cars, and even entertainment and dining out. Why work if they can make a comfortable living off of the government?
Define comfortable. Does the fact that people on assistance can afford some luxuries make up for the fact they have little to no access to health care? Does the fact that they can afford a car mean they can afford to send their children off to college? Does the fact that they can occasionally eat nicely negate the times they might have to go without food entirely? Poverty doesn't mean living in desolation, it means living without what most people take for granted. I've lived in poverty, my family surviving only on my father's disability and the occasional temp labor work, and yet we still had 'luxuries' like a car. Have you ever lived without a car? I'm actually pretty lucky, and live with close access to cheap food stores and (government-funded) public transportation, but even still not everything is within walking range; how could my father get to his doctor or the government offices if there aren't bus routes nearby?
It's a problem that naturally arises when we have a government that is far too powerful.
Any organization can suffer from cronyism, it's not limited to the government. Do you think the world would be a better place if corporations held power over the country, and their chairmen were more interested in giving money and gifts to their friends than they were ensuring the stability of the country?
The percentage of the tax burden that [the wealthy] shoulder is far larger than the percentage of the nation's total wealth that they own.
The tax burden is more than "who pays more;" the upper class has higher tax rates, but can easily pay a smaller share, feel the brunt less, and in regards to businesses pass it on to employees and consumers. Besides, what do you believe happens when the taxes for the upper income earners is cut at a greater rate than those below them?
Those, unfortunately, are the work of social conservatives. Proper conservatives, like the ones who are in power in Canada right now, would let RIM (Blackberry maker) sink, and they did.
Social conservatives believe in national pride. National pride means big military, cheap oil, anti-homosexuality, subsidization of industry, worshiping of the Bible, etc., etc. Please don't get them mixed up, the media and left-wingers intentionally do (for political advantage), and this leads to lots of people being misinformed. Don't be misinformed.
These entitlement programs you're talking about can easily be saved by merely lifting the tax cat (example, the 110,000 a year on Social Security. That, along with cuts to our defense spending [which soaks up more money than Medicare and Social Security], can ensure we're on the way to a balanced budget, with an increase in revenue, and without shafting people entering retirement).
Yes, defense spending "soaks up" more money than entitlement programs, but it is also, I dunno, approximately eighteen gazillion times more necessary (and constitutional) than entitlement programs.
We cannot get to a balanced budget with tax increases and defense cuts. As has been happening for the past four years, our economy would never improve, we would get more government dependents (and conveniently, bought and paid for Democrats), more people out of work, and all of this would lower tax revenue despite higher rates. It's a path to economic destruction if you ask me.
It isn't as necessary as you think. When 9-11 happened, we still had the largest defense spending in the world. It doesn't prevent us from being attacked because the nature of warfare, and the threats to our country has changed. As a result, no amount of military build-ups can prevent a terror attack. Yes, we can get to a balanced budget with tax increases and spending cuts. Will it take more? Yes. That's what Bill Clinton learned when he managed to balance the budget.
It's not always an increase in revenue. As an economics student, I have been learning that past a certain point, an increase in taxation actually decreases revenue because it hampers economic growth. Tax cuts would spur economic growth and could very likely increase the revenue taken in by the government.
Yes that is true but you haven't proven that you have reached the point where increasing tax rate will decrease revenue. Tax cuts for the wealthy won't spur growth, tax cuts for lower income people so they can start up new businesses are what spur growth.
95% of small businesses fall under 250k a year. The poor and middle class create jobs because they have the heaviest spending power, versus the wealthiest who, when given tax breaks, just invest in the Wall St. betting game. It's the middle class and the lower class that invests in the community. And, while taxing the top 1% at 100% can only run the government for 30 days, to say it has no effect on deficits is detached from reality. The government derives much of its revenue from tax. Cutting taxes does nothing to lower deficits. We need to raise taxes AND make cuts, but there's more areas than entitlements. Defense budget is a good start. Ending costly wars which soak up much of our budget helps too! Capital Gains taxes need to be taxed the same rate as earned income, and new brackets need to be made passed the 250,000 a year mark. The poor and middle class need tax cuts in the way of payroll and income. That will lower the deficit, and encourage growth.