Showing posts with label American debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American debt. Show all posts
Friday, November 28, 2014
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Senator Blunt clearly very wrong about Americans, our opinions and even his own party
Most Americans oppose the Senate Democrats' proposal to raise the debt limit without implementing real spending reforms. I agree. The federal debt stands at almost $17 trillion today. Washington needs to get serious about reining in out-of-control spending.
Well, yeah, except a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this week showed completely, totally and utterly the opposite of the Senator's contention:
And let's keep in mind, the Wall Street Journal is solidly pro-business and Right Wing leaning owned, as it is, by Rupert Murdoch so it shouldn't be claimed this is some wacko, Left Wing media nonsense.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Americans blame the Republicans for the federal government shutdown and rightly so, and Americans want our government up and working, running again and we also patently don't want our nation to go in default on our debt we already owe.
Another thing. Lest Republicans should try to contend that they haven't supported these debt ceiling increases in the past:
Finally, where, exactly, is the debt right now anyway?
Dropping??
The debt is actually dropping?
Under this president?
Huh.
Imagine that.
Maybe we shouldn't have this shutdown and a possible default on our debt after all.
More here:
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
FixtheDebt.org
It's time to get serious. It's time to work together. It's time to all be and stay Americans.
And yes, it's time to fix the debt:
If you would, please go to this website and sign the petition to tell Congress to fix the debt, literally: http://www.fixthedebt.org/
Additionally, if you'd contact both your member of the House and your Senators and tell them to get busy on this, it could also help. You can do that here: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Congress--both the House of Representatives and the Senate--took an 8 week vacation, beginning last week, while, in the meantime, we face a "fiscal cliff" January 1st that they created. We need to have a budget so automatic cuts aren't put in place and our economy doesn't then go to heck in a handbasket.
This is no way to run a country.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Breaking as we slept: Bad news/good news
From the UK and their Daily Mail just last evening: U.S. debt now as big as entire economy America's national debt has reached a worrying milestone - it is now as big as the whole of its economy.
The amount owed by the federal government to its creditors, combined with IOUs to government retirement and other schemes, now stands at $15.23 trillion.
The government estimated the value of goods and services produced by the economy in a year at $15.17trillion as of September.
This is decidedly bad news for President Obama, his administration and his re-election campaign. It's not insurmountable and the election is months away but this is not good, for sure.
Then there's this, from the Gallup Poll people: U.S. Economic Confidence Rises to Seven-Month High
Americans' outlook for the economy is improving faster than their ratings of current conditions
Finally, we're going to heck in a debt handbasket but we're optimistic--how American is that?--just check out the Greek situation: Greek turmoil helps thieves steal a Picasso It seems that, with their debt problems, they had cut staff at the museum. Yikes.
Link to original article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084353/Size-U-S-debt-entire-economy--15-23-TRILLION.html;
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151958/economic-confidence-rises-seven-month-high.aspx; http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/thieves-steal-picasso-and-mondrian-paintings-in-athens/?ref=greece
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Sen. Claire comes through again
Hoorah for Senator McCaskill. She's going after "earmarks" in Congress again. This out today: Toomey, McCaskill to call for permanent earmark ban Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) will announce their proposal Wednesday morning at a Capitol news conference. The move comes one year after McCaskill and then-Sen.-elect Toomey penned a joint USA Today op-ed supporting a temporary moratorium on earmarks. For a definition: "an earmark is a legislative (especially congressional) provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees." The really bad thing about earmarks is that they are so "under the radar" and virtually unaccountable to the legislation process. With all the over-spending we have and debt, this makes far too much sense and is long overdue. Links: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/toomey-mccaskill-to-call-for-permanent-earmark-ban/2011/11/29/gIQAlZAu8N_blog.html;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)
Next up (again/still): Congress' debt deal
The next item on Congress' agenda is the fact that they still need to do a debt deal since their "super committee" was anything but. We're supposed to have cuts of at least $1.2 trillion in the next 10 years. It is also supposed to be in place to begin in 2013. As of yesterday, "Fitch Ratings gave the United States until 2013 to come up with a "credible plan" to tackle its ballooning budget deficit before it downgrades the country's coveted AAA rating." So this needs to happen and Congress better make it happen. No political party should use this by not letting a compromise take place, just so their candidates can more likely win. We've had inaction and logjams and an inability to compromise from these people far too long. Congress--we need you to do your job. Get to it. Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fitch-revises-u-rating-outlook-212857042.html
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
On those recent debt negotiations...
“Witnessing the Republicans and the Democrats bicker over the U.S. debt is analogous to watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic.” --line in a recent editorial of the Idaho Statesmen.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Republican leader's hypocrisy with debt ceiling negotiations
Has the gross hypocrisy of the Republican leaders in Congress right now occurred to anyone else out here besides me? That they are the "political party of big business" but putting a gun to the nation's head, financially, by saying, figuratively, "If you don't give us EXACTLY what we want--as soon as we decide what that is--we'll shoot you in the head, America, by making you go into credit default" is obvious, irresponsible and nearly insane. These are the same people who raised heck, months ago, saying that business across America didn't know how to invest in the country's future because this president didn't settle our tax issues--which was patent nonsense--but now they do this and hold us all hostage? Adding to this insanity is that this has already hurt the nation's credit standing--thanks very much, guys--but if they do this and make us go into credit default, they'll also drag down the world's economies, nation by nation and collectively. Idiots. Idiots and hypocrites. This is no way to run a government. This is no way to run a nation.
Monday, July 25, 2011
On the continuing debt ceiling negotiations
"What is the Democrat's next offer? Kansas goes back to being a slave state? I don't know what they"--the Republicans--"want." --Bill Maher, "Real Time with Bill Maher", HBO, Link: http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher/index.html
Monday, July 18, 2011
Quote of the day--on our national debt
"The current debt under discussion is Republican debt, authorized by Congress and signed into law by former President George W. Bush. The debt in question covers bills that have come due from two unfunded wars, from unfunded tax cuts and tax loopholes that have benefited the wealthy and ravaged the middle-class, from gross mismanagement of the nation’s economy under Republican supply-side b*llsh*t." --Fay Esther
Sunday, July 17, 2011
The Republican leaders on these debt-ceiling negotiations
Old but applicable now with the negotiations in Washington:Cutting tax subsidies for oil companies makes sense. Taking away tax cuts for the wealthy makes sense. Doing away with tax deductions to take manufacturing offshore makes sense. I can't believe we're having this argument.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Quote of the day--on rich v everyone else
"You can’t fight something with nothing. But as long as Democrats refuse to talk about the almost unprecedented buildup of income, wealth, and power at the top – and the refusal of the super-rich to pay their fair share of the nation’s bills – Republicans will convince people it’s all about government and unions."
--Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, author, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, etc.
Link to original post: http://robertreich.org/post/3476451774
--Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, author, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, etc.
Link to original post: http://robertreich.org/post/3476451774
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Five myths about Ronald Reagan (guest post from The Washington Post)
I didn't write it but wish I had:
1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.
It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore.
2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.
Certainly, Reagan's boldest move as president was his 1981 tax cut, a sweeping measure that slashed the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans from 70 percent to 50 percent. The legislation also included smaller cuts in lower tax brackets, as well as big breaks for corporations and the oil industry. But the following year, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history.
Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.
And the middle- and lower-classes have been getting additionally screwed ever since, no less so than when George W. Bush and the Republicans gave huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in the country, as though they needed it, while adding trillions to the national debt.
3. Reagan was a hawk.
Long before he was elected president, Reagan predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse because of communism's inherent corruption and inefficiency. His forecast proved accurate, but it is not clear that his military buildup moved the process forward. Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. Indeed, a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan.
4. Reagan shrank the federal government.
Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This rhetorical flourish didn't stop the 40th president from increasing the federal government's size by every possible measure during his eight years in office.
Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. Many experts believe that Reagan's massive deficits not only worsened the recession of the early 1990s but doomed his successor, George H.W. Bush, to a one-term presidency by forcing him to abandon his "no new taxes" pledge.
5. Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.
Reagan's contributions to the culture wars of the 1980s were largely rhetorical and symbolic. Although he published a book in 1983 about his staunch opposition to abortion (overlooking the fact that he had legalized abortion in California as governor in the late 1960s), he never sought a constitutional ban on abortion. In fact, Reagan began the odd practice of speaking to anti-abortion rallies by phone instead of in person - a custom continued by subsequent Republican presidents. He also advocated prayer in public schools in speeches, but never in legislation.
Will Bunch is the author of "Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy." He is a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News and a senior fellow with Media Matters for America.So you know, there is far more to the article than what is shown here. I only put up a bit for brevity.
So much for the mightily-revered Ronald Reagan and his presidency, eh?
Happy 100th birthday, Ron, wherever you are.
Link to original post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104.html?sid=ST2011020403674
1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.
It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore.
2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.
Certainly, Reagan's boldest move as president was his 1981 tax cut, a sweeping measure that slashed the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans from 70 percent to 50 percent. The legislation also included smaller cuts in lower tax brackets, as well as big breaks for corporations and the oil industry. But the following year, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history.
Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.
And the middle- and lower-classes have been getting additionally screwed ever since, no less so than when George W. Bush and the Republicans gave huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in the country, as though they needed it, while adding trillions to the national debt.
3. Reagan was a hawk.
Long before he was elected president, Reagan predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse because of communism's inherent corruption and inefficiency. His forecast proved accurate, but it is not clear that his military buildup moved the process forward. Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. Indeed, a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan.
4. Reagan shrank the federal government.
Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This rhetorical flourish didn't stop the 40th president from increasing the federal government's size by every possible measure during his eight years in office.
Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. Many experts believe that Reagan's massive deficits not only worsened the recession of the early 1990s but doomed his successor, George H.W. Bush, to a one-term presidency by forcing him to abandon his "no new taxes" pledge.
5. Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.
Reagan's contributions to the culture wars of the 1980s were largely rhetorical and symbolic. Although he published a book in 1983 about his staunch opposition to abortion (overlooking the fact that he had legalized abortion in California as governor in the late 1960s), he never sought a constitutional ban on abortion. In fact, Reagan began the odd practice of speaking to anti-abortion rallies by phone instead of in person - a custom continued by subsequent Republican presidents. He also advocated prayer in public schools in speeches, but never in legislation.
Will Bunch is the author of "Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy." He is a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News and a senior fellow with Media Matters for America.So you know, there is far more to the article than what is shown here. I only put up a bit for brevity.
So much for the mightily-revered Ronald Reagan and his presidency, eh?
Happy 100th birthday, Ron, wherever you are.
Link to original post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104.html?sid=ST2011020403674
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Huh. Democracy breaking out in the Middle East. Imagine that
First it was Yemen.
Then it was Syria.
Next up was Egypt, of course, against Hosni Mubarak.
Now it's Jordan, whose King Jordan just let go his cabinet.
Democracy seemingly breaking out in all these places in the Middle East and it wasn't because the US attacked them, blew them up and tried to "give them" Democracy.
More than 4,300 American soldiers gave their lives so we could spread Democracy in Iraq. We've committed the nation to, it's been estimated, 3 trillion dollars and now a huge debt burden.
But maybe, just maybe--and this is entirely possible--Democracy would have broken out in Iraq without the debacle the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz/Condoleeza Rice group selectively took us into.
Iraq has had an undercurrent of protests during and after Saddam Hussein's reign. With the current examples of citizens rebelling against their governments, it is entirely possible to the point of likely that the Iraqis could and would have brought down their own government.
Sure, it's second-guessing and arm chair quarterbacking but it is an entirely possible scenario.
It is yet further proof I believe, if even in retrospect, that we just shouldn't have attacked Iraq, all those years ago. (And for clarification, I protested the Iraq War before it took place.)
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Shutting down government, Republican redux
Republicans seem to be lining up to threaten to not raise the debt ceiling for the government, which would shut down--again--that same government.
This is no way to work together for the betterment of the country, for sure.
They did this once before, back in 1995-96, the Republicans and it blew up in their faces. They were then blamed for the government not working, and rightfully so. They did it, the people didn't like it so they should get the blame for it.
Now they seem to be headed the same way again.
Several freshmen Republicans have already come out against raising the debt ceiling:
A handful of incoming Republican lawmakers — including Sen.-elect Mike Lee (R-UT) and Reps.-elect Jeff Denhem (R-CA) and Tim Scott (R-SC) — have said that they will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, even though the U.S. government will reach its borrowing limit early next year. “I’m going to vote against raising the national debt ceiling. We simply can’t continue to mortgage the future or our unborn children and grandchildren,” Lee said.
Plenty of Republican freshman besides these three also ran on opposition to a debt ceiling increase, and according to Rep.-elect Bill Johnson (R-OH), many of them have agreed to stick to their guns when the vote comes:
Rep.-elect Bill Johnson of Ohio said those who ran on such messages didn’t intend to reverse themselves now. “Most of us agreed that to increase the limit would be a betrayal of what we told voters we would do,” he said.
Then they were followed by Rep.-elect Alan Nunnelee (R-MS), Rep.-elect Tim Walberg (R-MI), Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Sen.-elect Mike Lee (R-UT), Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and finally, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX).
And while there are some similarities between this "showdown" and the last one, in the mid-1990's, this time shutting down the government by not raising the debt ceiling could be far more negative and financially devastating to both the country and the world markets:
As the Center for American Progress’ David Min pointed out, failure to raise the debt ceiling could be disastrous:
The financial markets are on edge today, with U.S. Treasury bonds being the safe haven for most investment capital. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would recklessly disrupt the sale and purchase of new Treasury bonds, and could potentially cause a run on outstanding Treasurys as well, as investors sought other investments. This could have catastrophic consequences for our economy as well as the economic stability of the rest of the world.
Such a move will also increase long-term deficits and debt, while cutting off Social Security and Medicare benefits for millions of seniors. But if Johnson is to be believed, many incoming Republican freshman will put that second to their Tea Party ideology.
For once, I'm hoping these empty, shallow clowns don't go through with their hair-brained, ignorant idea.
Seeing them fall is terrific.
I don't want them taking us all with them.
Links: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/22/freshmen-betrayal/
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/16/gohmert-shutdown/
This is no way to work together for the betterment of the country, for sure.
They did this once before, back in 1995-96, the Republicans and it blew up in their faces. They were then blamed for the government not working, and rightfully so. They did it, the people didn't like it so they should get the blame for it.
Now they seem to be headed the same way again.
Several freshmen Republicans have already come out against raising the debt ceiling:
A handful of incoming Republican lawmakers — including Sen.-elect Mike Lee (R-UT) and Reps.-elect Jeff Denhem (R-CA) and Tim Scott (R-SC) — have said that they will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, even though the U.S. government will reach its borrowing limit early next year. “I’m going to vote against raising the national debt ceiling. We simply can’t continue to mortgage the future or our unborn children and grandchildren,” Lee said.
Plenty of Republican freshman besides these three also ran on opposition to a debt ceiling increase, and according to Rep.-elect Bill Johnson (R-OH), many of them have agreed to stick to their guns when the vote comes:
Rep.-elect Bill Johnson of Ohio said those who ran on such messages didn’t intend to reverse themselves now. “Most of us agreed that to increase the limit would be a betrayal of what we told voters we would do,” he said.
Then they were followed by Rep.-elect Alan Nunnelee (R-MS), Rep.-elect Tim Walberg (R-MI), Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Sen.-elect Mike Lee (R-UT), Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and finally, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX).
And while there are some similarities between this "showdown" and the last one, in the mid-1990's, this time shutting down the government by not raising the debt ceiling could be far more negative and financially devastating to both the country and the world markets:
As the Center for American Progress’ David Min pointed out, failure to raise the debt ceiling could be disastrous:
The financial markets are on edge today, with U.S. Treasury bonds being the safe haven for most investment capital. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would recklessly disrupt the sale and purchase of new Treasury bonds, and could potentially cause a run on outstanding Treasurys as well, as investors sought other investments. This could have catastrophic consequences for our economy as well as the economic stability of the rest of the world.
Such a move will also increase long-term deficits and debt, while cutting off Social Security and Medicare benefits for millions of seniors. But if Johnson is to be believed, many incoming Republican freshman will put that second to their Tea Party ideology.
For once, I'm hoping these empty, shallow clowns don't go through with their hair-brained, ignorant idea.
Seeing them fall is terrific.
I don't want them taking us all with them.
Links: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/22/freshmen-betrayal/
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/16/gohmert-shutdown/
Friday, August 13, 2010
Really? Extending tax cuts for the wealthy with our debt?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Deductible Me | ||||
| ||||
Monday, June 7, 2010
Have we no fiscal will power at all?
Word out today says the national debt rose this month, for the first time ever, to over $13 trillion dollars.
Say it again: thirteen trillion dollars.
Yowza.
That's a lotta salami.
One analyst describes us as likely going into a "super debt cycle", where we continually owe more and more, due to interest rates and compounding debt.
Dan Fuss, who manages the Loomis Sayles Bond Fund, which beat 94 percent of competitors the past year, said last week that he sold all of his Treasury bonds because of prospects interest rates will rise as the U.S. borrows unprecedented amounts. Obama is borrowing record amounts to fund spending programs to help the economy recover from its longest recession since the 1930s.
“The incremental borrower of funds in the U.S. capital markets is rapidly becoming the U.S. Treasury,” Boston-based Fuss said. “Do you really want to buy the debt of the biggest issuer?”
Most of us have heard this before and it's surely getting a lot of coverage.
And we can agree that one day we have to take care of this, sure, absolutely. Further, we can agree that now would be a particularly bad time to attack the problem, what with the Great Recession we're plodding though.
But it seems there are at least three good--and easy and smart--things we could do about this, if only we get smart.
First, would it be so tough to, right now, do away with "earmarks" Congress creates? I wouldn't think so.
These are rather arbitrary costs we give ourselves, through these legislators.
Let's get rid of these things and the sooner the better.
And it could happen, we could get rid of them, if we make enough noise.
The second easy and intelligent thing I would think we could and should do would be to take away any and all tax breaks--whatever exists--for firms to take manufacturing offshore.
If that ever made sense, it surely doesn't now.
This would have two positive effects, too: First, it would raise income for the country, possibly. Sure, people and corporations would scream that it's a tax increase but so what? Why should we reward firms for producing elsewhere?
The other good effect is that it could, possibly, bring some manufacturing back home, here to the States, of course.
And what would be bad about that? More jobs, back here in our country. Who could be against that?
Finally, the third thing we could and should do for our country is put in place, as I've written before, a minimum 10% (or some figure) tax for any and all companies and corporations to pay, regardless of deductions.
This way, no matter what a corporation deducts, they would pay at least a small amount for access to this country's markets, infrastructure and all that entails.
No person or company should be able to operate in this country as a business and not pay any taxes. That makes no sense at all.
These 3 options seem simple, intelligent and beneficial for the country.
So my question is, do we not have the will, as a people and a country, to do even the most simple, obvious and, again, helpful things in order to start down a better and more intelligent path to fiscal responsibility?
I hope we do. I hope the answer is, yes, we do have that will.
Link to original post:
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-04/u-s-s-13-trillion-debt-poised-to-overtake-weigh-down-gdp-chart-of-day.html
Say it again: thirteen trillion dollars.
Yowza.
That's a lotta salami.
One analyst describes us as likely going into a "super debt cycle", where we continually owe more and more, due to interest rates and compounding debt.
Dan Fuss, who manages the Loomis Sayles Bond Fund, which beat 94 percent of competitors the past year, said last week that he sold all of his Treasury bonds because of prospects interest rates will rise as the U.S. borrows unprecedented amounts. Obama is borrowing record amounts to fund spending programs to help the economy recover from its longest recession since the 1930s.
“The incremental borrower of funds in the U.S. capital markets is rapidly becoming the U.S. Treasury,” Boston-based Fuss said. “Do you really want to buy the debt of the biggest issuer?”
Most of us have heard this before and it's surely getting a lot of coverage.
And we can agree that one day we have to take care of this, sure, absolutely. Further, we can agree that now would be a particularly bad time to attack the problem, what with the Great Recession we're plodding though.
But it seems there are at least three good--and easy and smart--things we could do about this, if only we get smart.
First, would it be so tough to, right now, do away with "earmarks" Congress creates? I wouldn't think so.
These are rather arbitrary costs we give ourselves, through these legislators.
Let's get rid of these things and the sooner the better.
And it could happen, we could get rid of them, if we make enough noise.
The second easy and intelligent thing I would think we could and should do would be to take away any and all tax breaks--whatever exists--for firms to take manufacturing offshore.
If that ever made sense, it surely doesn't now.
This would have two positive effects, too: First, it would raise income for the country, possibly. Sure, people and corporations would scream that it's a tax increase but so what? Why should we reward firms for producing elsewhere?
The other good effect is that it could, possibly, bring some manufacturing back home, here to the States, of course.
And what would be bad about that? More jobs, back here in our country. Who could be against that?
Finally, the third thing we could and should do for our country is put in place, as I've written before, a minimum 10% (or some figure) tax for any and all companies and corporations to pay, regardless of deductions.
This way, no matter what a corporation deducts, they would pay at least a small amount for access to this country's markets, infrastructure and all that entails.
No person or company should be able to operate in this country as a business and not pay any taxes. That makes no sense at all.
These 3 options seem simple, intelligent and beneficial for the country.
So my question is, do we not have the will, as a people and a country, to do even the most simple, obvious and, again, helpful things in order to start down a better and more intelligent path to fiscal responsibility?
I hope we do. I hope the answer is, yes, we do have that will.
Link to original post:
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-04/u-s-s-13-trillion-debt-poised-to-overtake-weigh-down-gdp-chart-of-day.html
Friday, May 15, 2009
We can't do this anymore
I just heard on NPR this morning how Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar want to give 7.5 billion dollars to Pakistan, to build them up for security in the area.
First, let me say, I respect Senator Kerry and have no reason not to respect Senator Lugar.
That said, I think it has to be pointed out that the time has long since come and gone when the United States can throw money at problems, at other countries or whatever, in an effort to improve the situations in the world.
We're broke, folks.
We are busted.
We don't have any money.
We're borrowing boodles just to function now. And that's just to cover our own inner workings.
We're in debt. Big time.
We have to stop operating on the now old notion that we have money--plenty of money--to fix things this way.
We can't do it. Not any longer.
We can't afford all the banks that are going broke right now. We can't afford our own problems, let alone fixing those of countries 'round the world.
It's over.
Let's recognize our reality and operate from there instead of fooling ourselves into thinking it's still 1962.
It ain't.
Link to original atory:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104154389
First, let me say, I respect Senator Kerry and have no reason not to respect Senator Lugar.
That said, I think it has to be pointed out that the time has long since come and gone when the United States can throw money at problems, at other countries or whatever, in an effort to improve the situations in the world.
We're broke, folks.
We are busted.
We don't have any money.
We're borrowing boodles just to function now. And that's just to cover our own inner workings.
We're in debt. Big time.
We have to stop operating on the now old notion that we have money--plenty of money--to fix things this way.
We can't do it. Not any longer.
We can't afford all the banks that are going broke right now. We can't afford our own problems, let alone fixing those of countries 'round the world.
It's over.
Let's recognize our reality and operate from there instead of fooling ourselves into thinking it's still 1962.
It ain't.
Link to original atory:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104154389
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Could we stop already?
There was an article out Tuesday that Congress is sending on a bill to expand the AmeriCorps Program.
Okay, I'm a liberal and I believe we need government to solve some solutions--like bank regulation, for a great, long overdue example--but could we STOP expanding government?
PLEASE?
Doesn't anyone in Washington know we have a debt?
A BIG debt?
A REALLY HUGE debt? And deficit?
We need government, for sure, to create and pave streets and have water distribution and sewage and good schools (no connection between those last 2, by the way) and all kinds of things but we don't need an endless expansion of government.
Let's stop. Let's at least slow down. Let's do what we do right and stop making this mess we call government bigger.
Link to original story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090331/ap_on_go_co/national_service
Okay, I'm a liberal and I believe we need government to solve some solutions--like bank regulation, for a great, long overdue example--but could we STOP expanding government?
PLEASE?
Doesn't anyone in Washington know we have a debt?
A BIG debt?
A REALLY HUGE debt? And deficit?
We need government, for sure, to create and pave streets and have water distribution and sewage and good schools (no connection between those last 2, by the way) and all kinds of things but we don't need an endless expansion of government.
Let's stop. Let's at least slow down. Let's do what we do right and stop making this mess we call government bigger.
Link to original story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090331/ap_on_go_co/national_service
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Will we ever learn?
It seems the answer is "no".
The question is, will the American people ever learn that the answer to all questions and needs is not, in fact, to throw money at the problem.
Two examples come to mind recently.
One headline I saw this week points out the President Obama is requesting $634 billion over the next 10 years for a "health care overhaul".
What a mistake.
We don't need to throw even MORE money at our health care system. Doctors and hospitals and insurance companies have taken too much money from the system already.
Money INTO the system isn't the issue. Too much of our home incomes and national wealth is already spent on health care. (And defense, too, but that's another article).
What we need to do with our health care system is what the rest of the world has already successfully done--and that is, take the profit--the ugly, fat, oversized, bloated, killing profit--out of health care in the United States.
But it won't happen.
We don't have the will or the understanding to make this happen.
We’ll never get the health care system we need because the American answer to health care is to throw more money at it when what we really need to do is take the profit out of health care, the way the rest of the world has done. Everywhere but here in the US. We love profits. We love corporations. We’re greedy.
And stupid.
The other news note I saw this week was that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just got back from the Middle East and is asking for--did you see this?--900 million dollars to rebuild the Gaza Strip.
Are you effin' kidding me?
In the first place, continuing to support the madness that continues to go on in the Middle East just makes us ridiculous enablers. Shooting, killing and blowing each other up in the Middle East should stop, period. Everyone would agree to that. Throwing money at rebuilding that mess again and again just allows for it to go on.
Years ago, when we used to have money in the United States, this wouldn't have made sense, either. But now that we're either near-broke or financially bankrupt (and it's hard to argue we're not), it's beyond our capacity. We can't afford it any longer, clearly.
We're broke, folks.
We can't any longer afford to throw money--big, small or whatever--at our problems.
We can't be the drunken sailor with our money--and our future--any longer.
Link to stories described above:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_budget
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_us
The question is, will the American people ever learn that the answer to all questions and needs is not, in fact, to throw money at the problem.
Two examples come to mind recently.
One headline I saw this week points out the President Obama is requesting $634 billion over the next 10 years for a "health care overhaul".
What a mistake.
We don't need to throw even MORE money at our health care system. Doctors and hospitals and insurance companies have taken too much money from the system already.
Money INTO the system isn't the issue. Too much of our home incomes and national wealth is already spent on health care. (And defense, too, but that's another article).
What we need to do with our health care system is what the rest of the world has already successfully done--and that is, take the profit--the ugly, fat, oversized, bloated, killing profit--out of health care in the United States.
But it won't happen.
We don't have the will or the understanding to make this happen.
We’ll never get the health care system we need because the American answer to health care is to throw more money at it when what we really need to do is take the profit out of health care, the way the rest of the world has done. Everywhere but here in the US. We love profits. We love corporations. We’re greedy.
And stupid.
The other news note I saw this week was that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just got back from the Middle East and is asking for--did you see this?--900 million dollars to rebuild the Gaza Strip.
Are you effin' kidding me?
In the first place, continuing to support the madness that continues to go on in the Middle East just makes us ridiculous enablers. Shooting, killing and blowing each other up in the Middle East should stop, period. Everyone would agree to that. Throwing money at rebuilding that mess again and again just allows for it to go on.
Years ago, when we used to have money in the United States, this wouldn't have made sense, either. But now that we're either near-broke or financially bankrupt (and it's hard to argue we're not), it's beyond our capacity. We can't afford it any longer, clearly.
We're broke, folks.
We can't any longer afford to throw money--big, small or whatever--at our problems.
We can't be the drunken sailor with our money--and our future--any longer.
Link to stories described above:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_budget
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
