Every year we dig ourselves deeper in debt, it becomes more difficult to avoid default in the future. In other words, yes, we're not immediately on the verge of defaulting, but we are past the point where the debt grows faster than our economy.
Every year we ignore the debt, our entire society loses more wealth. If we address the debt now, sure we might increase unemployment by 2%, but if we wait 3 more years, it might take an increase of 4% in unemployment to fix the mess. There is absolutely no advantage to waiting. The only reason the Democrats want to wait is because they don't want to admit that their ideology has doomed us, so they'll continue to deny it all well beyond the point of economic collapse.
You're distorting the position of the left, I think. They would like to fix our current budgetary problems by a combination of taxation and spending cuts, rather than the Tea Party's bizarre solution of gutting social services and instituting a more regressive tax regime.
A while? It's been a couple of weeks. Just how fast do you think the economy moves, anyway?
As far as low taxes helping, we've had a historically low tax burden ever since the Bush years. If it was supposed to generate jobs, where are they? You people never acknowledge that you ALREADY had the lowest taxes since the end of WWII, and that they weren't helping.
But when did we last have budget surpluses? Gee, let me think...
amorphously defined 'rich' It's not amorphously defined. It's defined as $250,000 a year and up.
And tell me how the 'bizarre' solution of both tax and spending cuts would not work. It's not bizarre. We've advocated for a balanced solution consisting of new revenues and spending cuts. It's the Teapublicans who've advocated no tax hikes and harmful spending cuts.
"It's not amorphously defined. It's defined as $250,000 a year and up."
I mak about 30,000$ a year and my income taxes have gone from ~3% to ~6% in the past couple weeks. So it must be a pretty loose definition more like "250,000$ plus or minus 220,000$" seems kind of amorphous to me....
I didnt lay blame anywhere. as far as im concerned its everyone in our governments fault. i dont care to pay more taxes, as much as i need the money, if it would actually help the situation. unfortunately its just a spiteful attack that will do very little besides hurt working class families such as mine.
Oh, someone can pull in $250,000, but that is not total profit. That is simply income. Which makes up less 5% and less of businesses. In the real world, small businesses don't make $250,000 a year. In your faux-reality Republican bubble, hedge funds are small. Get real.
After expenses, wages, maintenance, inventory and the witheringly high taxes, there's not much left to life off of. $250,000 is the profit, not the expenses genius. Expenses aren't taxed from yearly income. Profit is. Once again, are you fucking blind, or does reality just elude you?
Your side is under the impression that anyone in that income bracket swim in money like Scrooge McDuck. And your side is under the impression that being poor means being lazy. That being said, if you take home a $250,000 a year profit, you're swimming in money. Maybe you're not as luxurious as Warren Buffett, but you're swimming in a much bigger pool than your average teacher, construction worker, restaurant owner, and police officer. i.e. you're swimming in a much bigger pool than 95% of Americans.
But it seems much flies over your head, doesn't it? Like reality flying over yours.
Tell me then, o ignorant and sycophantic one This is the second time you've used the word sycophantic. The first time was also incorrect. I'm not being sycophantic, and you need to look up that word.
WHAT FUCKING PLANET ARE YOU FROM?! Earth - where tax cuts for the rich don't grow jobs, and the defense budget is way too fucking large.
advocate a flat tax across the board and spending cuts that effect *everything* so as to distribute the weight of the impact. Actually, it just increases income disparity. Since you're not from this plain of reality, maybe you don't know. The US has a huge problem with income distribution.
what exactly are the *harmful* spending cuts you speak of? Sure. Food stamps seems to be a big one with you guys. In addition to that, Medicare and Social Security, which is hugely ironic because the biggest supporters of the Teapublican morons are people who depend on Social Security and are the unhealthiest mother fuckers around. You know what's a harmless spending cut? Defense. It doesn't keep us safer. The USSR isn't stocking up nukes to come to war with us. Germany isn't going to begin another war in Europe. I think it's pretty safe to say we don't need as much spending as we have in there.
More cuts to spending won't grow the economy or pay off the debt, but there's a lot more that can be done with taxes. As I said before, even 39% is a ridiculous rate for multi-millionaires and billionaires -- they should all have a top tax rate of at least 70 if not 90%. So, they'd get taxed less at 10 million, say 39%, but on every million over 100 they get taxed at 65 or 70%. It used to be like that...now, the more money you make, the more you kepp. It's disgusting.
A two percent payroll tax increase is nothing to laugh at when you're barely above water to begin with. Mind you, I don't have to pay it, myself...but I'm not dumb enough to laugh it off in the face of those who do, either.
(I may be wrong but...) I dont think MGonzales has to pay it either, and if he does, probably is not faced with chosing whether or not to pay rent or go to the grocery store or buy gas to get to work this week.
Why don't we do what Iceland did, and hold those who caused the crash (bankers who gambled and lost) accountable for their losses?
I think the shittiest form of "socialism" in the USA right now is corporate socialism--they fail, and then get billions for failing! In a truly free market, we would just let those banks go under instead of making the tax payers pay up for their personal business mistakes. The banks don't have to takes real risks, because even if they lose, the government will foot the billion dollar bill.
'Why don't we do what Iceland did, and hold those who caused the crash (bankers who gambled and lost) accountable for their losses?"
Because if you hold the rich people accountable for their actions and the problems their mistakes caused you, you're just a poor person who doesn't want to take responsibility for your own actions and mistakes.
At least, that's what I always get told. Somehow even though I put in the hard work and got laid off due to the knock-on effects of the financial crisis, and the Republicans constantly blocking every attempt to get job growth back up to the level it needs to be to employ everyone, that's magically me not taking responsibility for my own mistakes according to everyone.
(I made one mistake in my life related to my work... and before the financial crisis hit I had already fixed/dealt with it.)
The whole point of brinksmanship is you need 2 or more parties playing it... You can't have just one side playing brinksmanship because the other side would just accept their demands rather than waiting till the last second...