Will Republicans vote to increase the debt ceiling?

[a777pilot]

Bwahhaaahaa! You've got to be kidding I guess thats why we tripled the national debt under GWB's last term. Just because the stock market and housing were booming doesn't mean we had a strong or sustainable economy.


Calling for drastic cuts at this time by republicans is hillarious, for eight years they cheered as GWB slashed taxes and spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave driving the debt from 1trillon to 3trillion tanking the economy and single handedly causing the great depression part duex and raising the debt ceiling 9 times and never once made the slightest attempt to cut spending.

And if the dumbass GOP wants to play chicken with our economy bring it the fuck on. Default on all our obligations see if we give a damn, the 1%er's who have your nuts in their pockets have much more to lose. Let see how they like it when their stock portfolio's sink like a rock and the cost of financing triples. And we still won't vote for your shit in 2012

Just one post....and there are so many things that are so wrong. Amazing!

 

[ProfJohn]

That's $200Billion over 10 years, 10% of what GOP is asking him to cut. Cut ethanol subsidies, require hedge fund managers to pay income taxes, let Bush tax cuts expire, and before you know you are talking about real money.

You must have hedge fund on your brain or something.

Taxing them is not as easy as you think since most of the gains are in the form of stocks which are worthless till sell them.

Now let's say we went after the top 400 earners who in 2007 made $137 billion in income.
If we passed a law that made anyone making more than say $100 million had to pay 25% of their income in taxes that would net us about $34 billion for that year, right now they paid $22 billion so the difference would be a grand total of $12 billion...

Hell, we could double their income tax rate and it would only get us $22 billion more per year.

So if we double their tax and end oil subsidies we can save $40 billion per year. Which brings our 2012 deficit down from $1,101 billion to $1,061 billion. Got any ideas on finding the other $1 trillion in cuts and taxes?

 

[nobodyknows]

Obama wants to end the oil subsidies.

But that only amounts to $20 billion a year. So it is a small start at best.

What we really need is to tackle entitlements, but that won't happen pre-2013. Too close to an election.

How about a 90% tax on excessive retirement packages for CEO's of publicly traded companies?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13486

 

[ProfJohn]

How about a 90% tax on excessive retirement packages for CEO's of publicly traded companies?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13486

Sure, once we agree to what the term 'excessive' means.

Yes $398 million is a crazy amount of money, but the company made $36,000 million that year so long term take is 1% of one years profits. And in the year after he left they made even more.

Furthermore, Forbes shows his 2005 income as being $25 million, a TON of money for sure. And his 5 comp being $123 million, again a TON of money.

But then again, Justin Bieber made $53 million last year. Oprah made $290 million last year alone!

In short... these numbers sound really big when taken out of context, but once put into context and compared to earnings of other big time CEOs or entertainers they aren't so bad.

 

[Craig234]

Obama wants to end the oil subsidies.

But that only amounts to $20 billion a year. So it is a small start at best.

What we really need is to tackle entitlements, but that won't happen pre-2013. Too close to an election.

That's all Democrats asked for in revenue increases. And yes, after the talks reportedly had gone well on spending cuts, then it turned to this loophole and Cantor walked out.

Seems the Republicans mostly signed the 'Norquest pledge' and so Cantor punted to Boehner saying 'let him deal with the loophole'.

 

[Craig234]

I'll just counter that with Craig's response for another thread.

Can't counter the facts, so you post a lie.

Typical.

 

[Craig234]

something

You can't watch the clip, I can't read your post. You post a bunch of crap misrepresenting it from the bit I glanced at indicating you did not watch it.

And then saw a lie and blind attack on Maddow.

Not worth reading. Try watching the clip then commenting if you want it read.

 

[Craig234]

They will vote to increase it. But hey... this is good political ammunition in the meantime. I do not believe they are not going to try to completely gut medicare and SS. The voters would riot.... everyone in congress knows this.

No one's saying they'd 'completely' gut them. They'll 'end them as we know them' - for example the Ryan plan is to replace $24K per person in a public, relatively efficient healthcare system by eliminatnig all of that and providing $15K for people to go buy private insurance in a less efficient system spending 30% on overhead and no guarantee what it'll cover.

Similarly for social security they'd replace it with some plan with huge fees for Wall Street.

As for your prediction, sounds like you haven't watched the video.

 

[Craig234]

This Craig ^

I believe the Repubs pulled out of the talks because they have calculated (based on Obama giving in on the tax cut extensions) that he is WEAK, and will ultimately cave and give in to MOST of their demands.

Obama may surprise us but I don't think so. In addition to cutting spending I personally believe we also need to raise taxes, particularly targeting the top 0.1%, and those on this forum know I prefer the capital gains tax route (raising to 25-28%) and eliminating carried interest as 2 good first steps.

But I don't think Obama has it in him to fight for what he believes, because I'm not sure he really believes in anything. He is also not really the confrontational type either which makes him a weak president and ill suited for this job.

Oh, I agreed with that part when he said it. We have the White House basically saying it will do so.

That's why we have Bernie Sanders giving a speech telling Obama not to negotiate.

And I agree with Sanders. I might give them some tiny face-saving item in the interests of the country but that's it.

The best thing politically for Democrats might be to not negotiate, then if Republicans vote it down again, for Obama to say he'll pay the bills without Congress, if he's allowed.

This a constitutional question, where it seems to contradict itself saying all spending has to originate in Congress but also saying that there's no option not to pay the bills.

I think Obama would come out of that even better than Clinton did from the overreach shutting down the government - and business might be furious with Republicans.

No one's more frustrated with what you say about Obama than his base.

It doesn't sound like you watched the video either, as the guess in the clip makes the same point.

By the way, Sanders is collecting signatures, if you want to help his point to Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/shared-sacrifice-sign-ber_b_885076.html

Dear Mr. President,

This is a pivotal moment in the history of our country. Decisions are being made about the national budget that will impact the lives of virtually every American for decades to come. As we address the issue of deficit reduction we must not ignore the painful economic reality of today -- which is that the wealthiest people in our country and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing. In fact, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth.

Everyone understands that over the long-term we have got to reduce the deficit -- a deficit that was caused mainly by Wall Street greed, tax breaks for the rich, two wars, and a prescription drug program written by the drug and insurance companies. It is absolutely imperative, however, that as we go forward with deficit reduction we completely reject the Republican approach that demands savage cuts in desperately-needed programs for working families, the elderly, the sick, our children and the poor, while not asking the wealthiest among us to contribute one penny.

Mr. President, please listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe that deficit reduction must be about shared sacrifice. The wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations in this country must pay their fair share. At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction package must come from revenue raised by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit large, profitable corporations and Wall Street financial institutions. A sensible deficit reduction package must also include significant cuts to unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon spending.

Please do not yield to outrageous Republican demands that would greatly increase suffering for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Now is the time to stand with the tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to survive economically, not with the millionaires and billionaires who have never had it so good.

Respectfully,

 

[Craig234]

So what you are saying is that the Democrats destroyed the economy so that Obama could win election?

Don't lie about what I said. Ya, that's why Democrats all voted against raising the debt ceiling under Bush. Oh, wait, they didn't. You lie again.

Makes sense. When Democrats took over congress in 2006 we had a nice strong economy.

Nice correlation. Now, can you prove causation?

More lies.

 

[senseamp]

You must have hedge fund on your brain or something.

Taxing them is not as easy as you think since most of the gains are in the form of stocks which are worthless till sell them.

Now let's say we went after the top 400 earners who in 2007 made $137 billion in income.
If we passed a law that made anyone making more than say $100 million had to pay 25% of their income in taxes that would net us about $34 billion for that year, right now they paid $22 billion so the difference would be a grand total of $12 billion...

Hell, we could double their income tax rate and it would only get us $22 billion more per year.

So if we double their tax and end oil subsidies we can save $40 billion per year. Which brings our 2012 deficit down from $1,101 billion to $1,061 billion. Got any ideas on finding the other $1 trillion in cuts and taxes?

They should be taxed on the value of stocks at the time they are given those stocks. This is nothing new. People who get RSUs already have to pay taxes on them this way. It's only hedge fund managers who are exempt. But the point is if the Republicans want to make not requiring hedge fund managers to pay same taxes as everyone else pays a sticking point of not raising the debt ceiling, then they should be held accountable for any and all consequences of such action.

 

[Gintaras]

Not sure if people actually know what the debt ceiling is. Has nothing to do with spending cuts.

Tom - Retard #1....

A lethal mutation

 

[ProfJohn]

They should be taxed on the value of stocks at the time they are given those stocks. This is nothing new. People who get RSUs already have to pay taxes on them this way. It's only hedge fund managers who are exempt. But the point is if the Republicans want to make not requiring hedge fund managers to pay same taxes as everyone else pays a sticking point of not raising the debt ceiling, then they should be held accountable for any and all consequences of such action.

Here is the thing though.

Most of their 'income' isn't coming from getting new stocks. It is coming from increasing the value of stocks they already have.

Bill Gates owns 591 million shares of MS. The price of the stock goes up $2 and he has 'earned' a billion dollars.

I get your point. We should make it harder for the super wealthy to avoid paying a decent amount of their earnings in taxes (say 30%) but it is not as easy as you claim.

And perhaps you missed it, but as I pointed out if we DOUBLED the tax rate paid by the 400 highest earner it would still only raise $22 billion a year which is a drop in the bucket.

 

[senseamp]

Here is the thing though.

Most of their 'income' isn't coming from getting new stocks. It is coming from increasing the value of stocks they already have.

Bill Gates owns 591 million shares of MS. The price of the stock goes up $2 and he has 'earned' a billion dollars.

I get your point. We should make it harder for the super wealthy to avoid paying a decent amount of their earnings in taxes (say 30%) but it is not as easy as you claim.

And perhaps you missed it, but as I pointed out if we DOUBLED the tax rate paid by the 400 highest earner it would still only raise $22 billion a year which is a drop in the bucket.

Are you an ignoramus or an obfuscator?
Hedge fund managers pay is not capital gains on their own risk capital. It's a management fee that is taken off capital gains of others. I guess you are fine with an engineer getting paid for his expertise paying ordinary income tax, but with hedge fund manager getting paid for his expertise only paying a capital gains rate, without actually having to put any of his own capital at risk. Not only are you fine with that, you are so fine with it that you are willing to have the US government default to perpetuate this.

 

[Doppel]

Of course they will. It's ludicrous bordering on naive bordering on contemptible that people actually think the Republicans and Democrats differ significantly on budgets.

Caveat: If they don't now it's only because some accounting magic pushes time out; but I have no doubt at all that the US will not default on debt because some republicans are pretending they care about deficits all of a sudden.

 

[senseamp]

Obama should just tell Republicans to pound sand, they already passed the budget with the debt already baked in, whether they raise the ceiling or not.

 

[loganone]

Don't lie about what I said. Ya, that's why Democrats all voted against raising the debt ceiling under Bush. Oh, wait, they didn't. You lie again.

Uh, yeah they did. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/54/

 

[nick1985]

Uh, yeah they did. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/54/

Now that's some severe ownage.

 

[bfdd]

I think it's easy ProfJohn. Flat tax across the board. All taxes are at the same rate, no one can avoid them. We can then adjust business tax flat % against private(personal) flat % and get a lower personal % with businesses making up a small difference. I bet you our flat rate would be 20% or lower, while businesses would be around 20-25%.

 

[senseamp]

I think it's easy ProfJohn. Flat tax across the board. All taxes are at the same rate, no one can avoid them. We can then adjust business tax flat % against private(personal) flat % and get a lower personal % with businesses making up a small difference. I bet you our flat rate would be 20% or lower, while businesses would be around 20-25%.

PJ is not going to like that. He likes hedge fund managers paying capital gains rate on their income, while working people pay ordinary income tax.

 

[Craig234]

Uh, yeah they did. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/54/

First, let's be clear: what I said that Democrats did not vote against raising the debt ceiling under Bush was wrong. I regret the error.

Quickly reviewing the history, of the several votes under Bush to increase it, it's a mix - sometimes Democrats voted to do so, which I incorrectly assumed was each time.

To be fair to Democrats, Repubublicans have NEVER given more than 2 votes under Obama.

On the occasions Democrats opposed raising the ceiling under Bush, it seems to me that they were wrong. That it was playing politics in a mistake.

They can say all they like that they might have been making some 'protest vote' and knew it would pass, and while that might be ok sometimes, I don't see why it is here.

I haven't looked back at their speeches as to what reasons they gave, but I doubt there are any justifying it.

The issues are the same each time this comes up - parties who want to gain some popularity by pandering to voters wrongly versus voting to pay the debts as we should.

Part of the blame is share by voters of both parties who reward this behavior, but it's not an excuse on this IMO. Politicians should tell voters why it should be raised.

Obama has said he 'regrets' his vote in 2006 and that he 'only cast it because he knew it was going to pass', but I don't think those justify the vote. Sound more like spin.

What Obama said when he voted no:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

He was right in his comments - and they do not justify his vote IMO. Or in his opinion, now.

I'm not aware of either party filibustering the increase yet, though I didn't quickly find confirmation; but Republicans have recklessly threatened to filibuster it this time.

So, this changes what I said to 'sometimes, the Democrats under Bush did not vote against raising the debt ceiling, but sometimes did, and both parties were wrong to do so'.

 

[bfdd]

PJ is not going to like that. He likes hedge fund managers paying capital gains rate on their income, while working people pay ordinary income tax.

yeah, but I've seen you say you want even more ridiculous taxes on them than I do. I just want everyone to pay the same fucking rate. that's fair to me. if i want to trade hedge funds, i'll take the same rate i pay when i pay for income tax, easy, simple. also helps us cut back on the bureaucratic spending, trim back the IRS, etc. Our tax code is what's killing us and the only solution anyone has had over the years is to keep piling more on top of it, instead of reworking the taxing system. I blame the IRS and our greedy(rich) politicians.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Here is the thing though.


And perhaps you missed it, but as I pointed out if we DOUBLED the tax rate paid by the 400 highest earner it would still only raise $22 billion a year which is a drop in the bucket.

400 highest earners? What,s that like one one millionth of a percent Make it the top 100,000 and we might make a dent


Your standard "WAT, us rich people ain't got nothin" BS claim is funny,

 

[JSt0rm]

400 highest earners? What,s that like one one millionth of a percent Make it the top 100,000 and we might make a dent


Your standard "WAT, us rich people ain't got nothin" BS claim is funny,

I doubt projo is rich.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

How about a 90% tax on excessive retirement packages for CEO's of publicly traded companies?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13486

Excessive executive compensation should be fixed by improving corporate governance. Taxes are not the solution to or cause of every problem.