I'm not sure a "lesson" that involves tanking the world economy is one worth teaching.
The Chamber of Commerce will never, ever, let it happen. Nor will Wall Street.
Yeah, they really don't have the power here. If news fed anti-government crazies really are in control in large enough numbers, no amount of pressure in the world will stop them.
That is probably not the case at the moment, at least I hope it isn't.
Um, when the entire "populist" movement is funded by big business they have the power.
Geithner reiterated warnings that such a vote would force the government to halt benefits payments to seniors and veterans and would risk the government defaulting on its interest.
Hit this. Then hit it again. And again. Keep going to that well until everyone is sick of hearing it, because it needs to be said.
I wonder if they could get enough people to vote to expel him.
DeMint? Not a chance. Being a crazy ass isn't enough for the Senate to kick you out. Even McCarthy was only censured.
Business and banking interests no doubt know who they can lobby to effect a change to compromise within the party.
Fun project:
- Track donations from financial institutions, made between March 15, 2011 and June 15, 2011, to elected representatives who threaten to oppose raising the ceiling.
- Compare these rates against the same period in years past, and years to come.
- Data permitting, post your findings on the most ambitious protection racket ever conducted.
Geithner reiterated warnings that such a vote would force the government to halt benefits payments to seniors and veterans and would risk the government defaulting on its interest.
Hit this. Then hit it again. And again. Keep going to that well until everyone is sick of hearing it, because it needs to be said.
I wonder if they could get enough people to vote to expel him.
DeMint? Not a chance. Being a crazy ass isn't enough for the Senate to kick you out. Even McCarthy was only censured.
This is a bit more dire than a crazy senator rooting out Communists.
Business and banking interests no doubt know who they can lobby to effect a change to compromise within the party.
Fun project:
- Track donations from financial institutions, made between March 15, 2011 and June 15, 2011, to elected representatives who threaten to oppose raising the ceiling.
- Compare these rates against the same period in years past, and years to come.
- Data permitting, post your findings on the most ambitious protection racket ever conducted.
course the GOP blocked legislation that would've made PACs have to reveal their donors
I was reading this and thinking "okay, this is pretty vanilla republican behavior, I don't see what's..."
and then I realized my eyes had kept subconsciously skipping the word "amendment".
then I had a good chuckle, because apparently my crazy filter is up to spec.
I can't see how anyone could object to this, California has already shown how useful having budget requirements built into a constitution is.
@ArbitraryDescriptor: Sorry for stating that wrong. I was trying to concede the point that "the chamber of commerce and wall street" could use it's influence to pass the raising of the debt ceiling by influencing the republicans, not actually making that claim.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I will leave the class warfare discussion with: I strongly disagree with the analysis some of you are putting forth regarding the motivations of the wealthy.
But this tangent has little to do with congress, so I'll let it lie.
Many of them seem to think the rich are literally satan
no, teh rich are just people with money who would like more money and have the means to press for it.
They don't jack off to 3rd world countries, and people don't grow horns the moment they start earning triple figures.
They do not empathize with the poor as much as they should, and they do not realize how much their wealth and their attempts to gain more of it affects those who earn less. Those are genuine issues.
There is no rich man illuminati, sitting in chairs sneering at the sheeple, thinking of new ways to destroy them to maintain "control".
What, exactly, do you think PAC's and 527's are, if not organizations in which wealthy "donors" pool resources and collude to achieve political goals?
I was reading this and thinking "okay, this is pretty vanilla republican behavior, I don't see what's..."
and then I realized my eyes had kept subconsciously skipping the word "amendment".
then I had a good chuckle, because apparently my crazy filter is up to spec.
I can't see how anyone could object to this, California has already shown how useful having budget requirements built into a constitution is.
This is, scarily though, the line I've been hearing from most of the GOP faithful I talk to for like months now. They want to play brinkmanship with the debt ceiling to get some sort of constitutional debt-ceiling/balanced-budget thing through.
So is that S&P rating change becasue they think we might not raise the debt limit?
It's because the deficit is large, and there is a risk that the Republicans and Democrats in the current Congress won't agree on how to fix it, pushing out an agreement until the 2014 budget after the next election.
So is that S&P rating change becasue they think we might not raise the debt limit?
It's because the deficit is large, and there is a risk that the Republicans and Democrats in the current Congress won't agree on how to fix it, pushing out an agreement until the 2014 budget after the next election.
It's not only that they don't think we can agree on how to fix it -- they also think that on those occasions when we do agree on fiscal policy, we're still making matters worse.
In a conference call with reporters Monday, S&P’s global head of sovereign ratings, David Beers, said the agency took the action after warning for years of “what we considered to be the gradual deterioration of the U.S. fiscal profile.”
The deterioration was hastened, Beers said, by the $858 billion deal in December between the White House and congressional Republicans to cut the payroll tax for one year and to extend a variety of Bush-era tax cuts through 2012.
SammyF on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
A bad analogy is like a giant Twinkie filled with wood glue.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So is that S&P rating change becasue they think we might not raise the debt limit?
It's because the deficit is large, and there is a risk that the Republicans and Democrats in the current Congress won't agree on how to fix it, pushing out an agreement until the 2014 budget after the next election.
It's not only that they don't think we can agree on how to fix it -- they also think that on those occasions when we do agree on fiscal policy, we're still making matters worse.
In a conference call with reporters Monday, S&P’s global head of sovereign ratings, David Beers, said the agency took the action after warning for years of “what we considered to be the gradual deterioration of the U.S. fiscal profile.”
The deterioration was hastened, Beers said, by the $858 billion deal in December between the White House and congressional Republicans to cut the payroll tax for one year and to extend a variety of Bush-era tax cuts through 2012.
It's weird, cause the next paragraph is then:
S&P analysts said they had hoped Obama’s fiscal commission, which offered a plan in December to reduce borrowing by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade, would provide the needed momentum to rein in the debt. But Obama declined to embrace those recommendations and put out a budget plan in February than was “below our expectations,” said analyst John Chambers.
Bickering with Graham over the port survey thing probably hurt his chance at reelection, so if he's giving up on that, then he'd make a great fall guy for economic terrorism. And if the Senate cannot pass their own debt ceiling bill, and the House will only pass one with riders in it, then the GOP will have a much better handle on the story's narrative.
At that point, the story can become 'the Dems care more about (insert rider issues here) than keeping the economy from collapsing'. That the same could easily be said of the other side as well, will be brushed aside with, 'Look, this is the bill we have now. We could talk about ideal situations and such, but then we'd be talking about how we let ourselves get put into this situation to begin with. We just raised the debt ceiling last year, and now we're having to raise it this year as well. It's not unreasonable to add provisions to help insure we won't be raising it yet again next year. This is not economic terrorism, we're not attacking the economy**. We're attacking Big Government Overspending™. And abortion. Because the presence of an aborted fetus can cause dollar bills within a fifty mile radius to spontaneously erupt in hellfire*, which is obviously bad for the economy."
*This remark is not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate, uh, something, thus making it to pull a Jon Kyl.
**Might qualify as being the same as above.
I'm really tired of people talking about the deficit commission's "plans" or "recommendations". The group didn't issue jack shit officially, because they couldn't get enough votes on the slash-Social-Security-and-cut-taxes proposal, so stop pretending that outline should be treated as if it had their imprimatur.
So is that S&P rating change becasue they think we might not raise the debt limit?
It's because the deficit is large, and there is a risk that the Republicans and Democrats in the current Congress won't agree on how to fix it, pushing out an agreement until the 2014 budget after the next election.
It's not only that they don't think we can agree on how to fix it -- they also think that on those occasions when we do agree on fiscal policy, we're still making matters worse.
In a conference call with reporters Monday, S&P’s global head of sovereign ratings, David Beers, said the agency took the action after warning for years of “what we considered to be the gradual deterioration of the U.S. fiscal profile.”
The deterioration was hastened, Beers said, by the $858 billion deal in December between the White House and congressional Republicans to cut the payroll tax for one year and to extend a variety of Bush-era tax cuts through 2012.
It's weird, cause the next paragraph is then:
S&P analysts said they had hoped Obama’s fiscal commission, which offered a plan in December to reduce borrowing by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade, would provide the needed momentum to rein in the debt. But Obama declined to embrace those recommendations and put out a budget plan in February than was “below our expectations,” said analyst John Chambers.
I can't figure out WTF S&P is trying to say here.
We're rich/the servants of the rich and you did not kowtow enough to our interests. Fear us or we'll make the economy implode again. The ratings agencies: underrated villains in the financial meltdown.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So is that S&P rating change becasue they think we might not raise the debt limit?
It's because the deficit is large, and there is a risk that the Republicans and Democrats in the current Congress won't agree on how to fix it, pushing out an agreement until the 2014 budget after the next election.
It's not only that they don't think we can agree on how to fix it -- they also think that on those occasions when we do agree on fiscal policy, we're still making matters worse.
In a conference call with reporters Monday, S&P’s global head of sovereign ratings, David Beers, said the agency took the action after warning for years of “what we considered to be the gradual deterioration of the U.S. fiscal profile.”
The deterioration was hastened, Beers said, by the $858 billion deal in December between the White House and congressional Republicans to cut the payroll tax for one year and to extend a variety of Bush-era tax cuts through 2012.
It's weird, cause the next paragraph is then:
S&P analysts said they had hoped Obama’s fiscal commission, which offered a plan in December to reduce borrowing by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade, would provide the needed momentum to rein in the debt. But Obama declined to embrace those recommendations and put out a budget plan in February than was “below our expectations,” said analyst John Chambers.
I can't figure out WTF S&P is trying to say here.
Fuck The Poor.
And if I'm not mistaken, these are the assholes in part responsible for our economic mess. Why the fuck are we listening to them?
Krugman summarises pretty well why the standard and poor rating is pretty worthless. Seems to be more political than anything, it gives the right wing media some ammunition against Obama's plan.
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited April 2011
Yeah, well, if the US goes all Bartertown on them we will see exactly how much their bank accounts and stock portfolios (which happen to be 1's and 0's in bank computers and nothing more) are worth.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Because raising taxes (by and large, especially on the wealthy) increases revenue, which is rather important to paying off the deficit. Also, S&P wasn't reacting to Obama's speech, but Republican brinksmanship, threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling if they don't get more massive spending cuts.
I heard an interesting figure on NPR today - 45% of Americans pay no income tax due to deductions, exemptions and credits. I've always fallen into that category, but I've only had a grownup's income for half of last year, and I assumed that once I'd been salaried for 12 months that would probably no longer be true.
So if just under half the country is paying no income tax (note that they're still paying payroll/medi* taxes), and none of our huge corporations, and the tax rate on the rich is the lowest it's been in decades...
Nah, we just need to cut more spending.
But not from the military. They need half our national budget, every red cent we give them to... uh... build robot cheetahs to more efficiently terrify brown people.
I'm really tired of people talking about the deficit commission's "plans" or "recommendations". The group didn't issue jack shit officially, because they couldn't get enough votes on the slash-Social-Security-and-cut-taxes proposal, so stop pretending that outline should be treated as if it had their imprimatur.
I don't think that's how it worked and the coverage is more consistent with my perception. I believe the Commission operated under normal committee rules. Since a majority of the members voted for the Chairmen's plan it is the official Commission Recommendation.
They did not however have the supermajority required to send it to an up-or-down vote to Congress.
Because raising taxes (by and large, especially on the wealthy) increases revenue, which is rather important to paying off the deficit. Also, S&P wasn't reacting to Obama's speech, but Republican brinksmanship, threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling if they don't get more massive spending cuts.
That doesn't seem completely right. While S&P does mention the partisan political situation, they also mention how U.S. debt accumulation has been at a much higher clip than other triple-A countries for some time now. The President's plan doesn't seem to offer much in the way of significant spending reductions. He threw a few bones out in making a commission on military spending, promised to find "waste and abuse" in programs (a few minutes after he called "waste and abuse" a red herring.)
And taxes aren't a magic money spigot, sometimes lowering certain rates increases total revenue, Kennedy and Reagan both did this.
FPA20111 on
The paranoid man believes that everyone is out to get him. The intelligent man knows that everyone is out to get him.
That doesn't seem completely right. While S&P does mention the partisan political situation, they also mention how U.S. debt accumulation has been at a much higher clip than other triple-A countries for some time now. The President's plan doesn't seem to offer much in the way of significant spending reductions. He threw a few bones out in making a commission on military spending, promised to find "waste and abuse" in programs (a few minutes after he called "waste and abuse" a red herring.)
And taxes aren't a magic money spigot, sometimes lowering certain rates increases total revenue, Kennedy and Reagan both did this.
Taxes may not be a Magical Money Spigot but our choices all boil down to "more taxes on the rich" or the budget financed by Misery Unicorns. Which would you prefer?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Well, it would be open to anyone. And they could only donate to certain programs. And if said program has reached an acceptable amount of money, then they can longer donate to it.
I wouldn't actually include the defense budget in this until the money it 'required' was on a more reasonable level. I don't really care if people don't get to make their fancy jet planes.
This is a bad idea. When you let people designate where their money goes, you only get money in the "sexy" things. I see this in non-profits with specifically designated donations. They can be good, but they can also be really unworkable. You end up with a million dollars to purchase instruments (and only instruments) for inner city music education, but no money for the building or transportation or outreach or whatever. Then you end up with $980,000 worth of gear in a warehouse and 5 kids playing really nice trumpets in an alley.
Which is why I said there are caps on how much a given charity can receive. Eventually it'll get to the point where ONLY the things people might not 'like' are left and then it ends up being between that or giving to the government. This would also have the benefit of making people pay-in sooner so that they can pay for what they want instead of risking those no longer being available. Maybe even sweeten the pot, if you will, by making certain things count for more (110-150%). Sure, maybe you don't really wanna fund education/health care for poor people but if the alternative is you paying several millions more in taxes or 'donations' you might feel differently.
Unless, of course, you're just that huge of an asshole.
I heard an interesting figure on NPR today - 45% of Americans pay no income tax due to deductions, exemptions and credits. I've always fallen into that category, but I've only had a grownup's income for half of last year, and I assumed that once I'd been salaried for 12 months that would probably no longer be true.
So if just under half the country is paying no income tax (note that they're still paying payroll/medi* taxes), and none of our huge corporations, and the tax rate on the rich is the lowest it's been in decades...
Nah, we just need to cut more spending.
But not from the military. They need half our national budget, every red cent we give them to... uh... build robot cheetahs to more efficiently terrify brown people.
Military spending is at historic lows even while fighting two wars. The solution is not inside the Pentagon's budget.
FPA20111 on
The paranoid man believes that everyone is out to get him. The intelligent man knows that everyone is out to get him.
Because raising taxes (by and large, especially on the wealthy) increases revenue, which is rather important to paying off the deficit. Also, S&P wasn't reacting to Obama's speech, but Republican brinksmanship, threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling if they don't get more massive spending cuts.
That doesn't seem completely right. While S&P does mention the partisan political situation, they also mention how U.S. debt accumulation has been at a much higher clip than other triple-A countries for some time now. The President's plan doesn't seem to offer much in the way of significant spending reductions. He threw a few bones out in making a commission on military spending, promised to find "waste and abuse" in programs (a few minutes after he called "waste and abuse" a red herring.)
And taxes aren't a magic money spigot, sometimes lowering certain rates increases total revenue, Kennedy and Reagan both did this.
The United States had a big stimulus package that is ending.
The end of special recession stimulus spending and increasing revenues as the economy recovers narrow things down. It's not as though every single year going forward the government will be dealing with a global economic meltdown.
Also, other triple A rated nations, like Britain, have smaller opener economies that are more vulnerable to finance pressures. They are forced into brutal austerity where we are not - as is demonstrated by the fact that Britain is undertaking some rather sharp measures right now whereas we are receiving polite letters saying that perhaps there is a chance that S&P might consider lowering our rating in several years if some kind of medium range agreement on the budget isn't reached sometime in the next year and a half.
And by the by, tax rates under Kennedy and Reagan were a lot higher. If you think you can cut taxes and have revenue go up at this point you are engaging in the same wishful thinking that created the situation we are in right now. George Bush cut taxes and the economy was pretty luke warm. Bill Clinton raised taxes and the economy was very strong. Clearly cutting taxes and increasing revenue are not tightly related.
Speaker on
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I'm really tired of people talking about the deficit commission's "plans" or "recommendations". The group didn't issue jack shit officially, because they couldn't get enough votes on the slash-Social-Security-and-cut-taxes proposal, so stop pretending that outline should be treated as if it had their imprimatur.
I don't think that's how it worked and the coverage is more consistent with my perception.
I don't mean to be harsh here, but since when do we rely on the media to cover anything remotely complicated accurately?
I believe the Commission operated under normal committee rules. Since a majority of the members voted for the Chairmen's plan it is the official Commission Recommendation.
Unfortunately, they didn't vote in time - the Commission ceased to exist, legally, the day before they held the vote, so it was essentially meaningless.
I heard an interesting figure on NPR today - 45% of Americans pay no income tax due to deductions, exemptions and credits. I've always fallen into that category, but I've only had a grownup's income for half of last year, and I assumed that once I'd been salaried for 12 months that would probably no longer be true.
So if just under half the country is paying no income tax (note that they're still paying payroll/medi* taxes), and none of our huge corporations, and the tax rate on the rich is the lowest it's been in decades...
Nah, we just need to cut more spending.
But not from the military. They need half our national budget, every red cent we give them to... uh... build robot cheetahs to more efficiently terrify brown people.
Military spending is at historic lows even while fighting two wars. The solution is not inside the Pentagon's budget.
"Historic" being since before WWII, or before the Cold War?
Either way, I'm betting it should "historically" be lower.
"Historic low" being a relative term, meaning the lowest since... the late 1990s? We really, really don't need to be spending anywhere near as much money as we were during the Cold War. Even if we don't use it for deficit reduction, that money would be waaaaaayyyy better spent on things like roads, bridges, alternative energy, medical research, and high-speed rail (just to name a few).
I heard an interesting figure on NPR today - 45% of Americans pay no income tax due to deductions, exemptions and credits. I've always fallen into that category, but I've only had a grownup's income for half of last year, and I assumed that once I'd been salaried for 12 months that would probably no longer be true.
So if just under half the country is paying no income tax (note that they're still paying payroll/medi* taxes), and none of our huge corporations, and the tax rate on the rich is the lowest it's been in decades...
Nah, we just need to cut more spending.
But not from the military. They need half our national budget, every red cent we give them to... uh... build robot cheetahs to more efficiently terrify brown people.
Military spending is at historic lows even while fighting two wars. The solution is not inside the Pentagon's budget.
In 2010 we spent 685 Billion Dollars on defense. 57% of our tax revenue and the highest amount ever spent by a single entity on its Military.
For 2012 we are slated to spend over 710 Billion dollars on defense. Over half of our entire $1.4 Trillion budget for next year will be Defense spending.
Posts
Not always. Case in point - 30s Germany.
DeMint? Not a chance. Being a crazy ass isn't enough for the Senate to kick you out. Even McCarthy was only censured.
Fun project:
- Track donations from financial institutions, made between March 15, 2011 and June 15, 2011, to elected representatives who threaten to oppose raising the ceiling.
- Compare these rates against the same period in years past, and years to come.
- Data permitting, post your findings on the most ambitious protection racket ever conducted.
This is a bit more dire than a crazy senator rooting out Communists.
I was reading this and thinking "okay, this is pretty vanilla republican behavior, I don't see what's..."
and then I realized my eyes had kept subconsciously skipping the word "amendment".
then I had a good chuckle, because apparently my crazy filter is up to spec.
course the GOP blocked legislation that would've made PACs have to reveal their donors
I can't see how anyone could object to this, California has already shown how useful having budget requirements built into a constitution is.
@ArbitraryDescriptor: Sorry for stating that wrong. I was trying to concede the point that "the chamber of commerce and wall street" could use it's influence to pass the raising of the debt ceiling by influencing the republicans, not actually making that claim.
What, exactly, do you think PAC's and 527's are, if not organizations in which wealthy "donors" pool resources and collude to achieve political goals?
This is, scarily though, the line I've been hearing from most of the GOP faithful I talk to for like months now. They want to play brinkmanship with the debt ceiling to get some sort of constitutional debt-ceiling/balanced-budget thing through.
Along with massive cuts too, of course.
It's because the deficit is large, and there is a risk that the Republicans and Democrats in the current Congress won't agree on how to fix it, pushing out an agreement until the 2014 budget after the next election.
I'm there with "cuts".
It's not only that they don't think we can agree on how to fix it -- they also think that on those occasions when we do agree on fiscal policy, we're still making matters worse.
Only bad analogies.
A bad analogy is like a giant Twinkie filled with wood glue.
It's weird, cause the next paragraph is then:
I can't figure out WTF S&P is trying to say here.
Well played sir.
Bickering with Graham over the port survey thing probably hurt his chance at reelection, so if he's giving up on that, then he'd make a great fall guy for economic terrorism. And if the Senate cannot pass their own debt ceiling bill, and the House will only pass one with riders in it, then the GOP will have a much better handle on the story's narrative.
At that point, the story can become 'the Dems care more about (insert rider issues here) than keeping the economy from collapsing'. That the same could easily be said of the other side as well, will be brushed aside with, 'Look, this is the bill we have now. We could talk about ideal situations and such, but then we'd be talking about how we let ourselves get put into this situation to begin with. We just raised the debt ceiling last year, and now we're having to raise it this year as well. It's not unreasonable to add provisions to help insure we won't be raising it yet again next year. This is not economic terrorism, we're not attacking the economy**. We're attacking Big Government Overspending™. And abortion. Because the presence of an aborted fetus can cause dollar bills within a fifty mile radius to spontaneously erupt in hellfire*, which is obviously bad for the economy."
*This remark is not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate, uh, something, thus making it to pull a Jon Kyl.
**Might qualify as being the same as above.
We're rich/the servants of the rich and you did not kowtow enough to our interests. Fear us or we'll make the economy implode again. The ratings agencies: underrated villains in the financial meltdown.
Fuck The Poor.
And if I'm not mistaken, these are the assholes in part responsible for our economic mess. Why the fuck are we listening to them?
The government just needs to hire Standard & Poors to do some consulting for it. They'll bump the rating back up to AAA in no time, then.
Krugman summarises pretty well why the standard and poor rating is pretty worthless. Seems to be more political than anything, it gives the right wing media some ammunition against Obama's plan.
The US spiraling into another recession from which it pretty much doesn't ever escape is bad
Actually, its great for them. See my several posts to understand why.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
So if just under half the country is paying no income tax (note that they're still paying payroll/medi* taxes), and none of our huge corporations, and the tax rate on the rich is the lowest it's been in decades...
Nah, we just need to cut more spending.
But not from the military. They need half our national budget, every red cent we give them to... uh... build robot cheetahs to more efficiently terrify brown people.
I don't think that's how it worked and the coverage is more consistent with my perception. I believe the Commission operated under normal committee rules. Since a majority of the members voted for the Chairmen's plan it is the official Commission Recommendation.
They did not however have the supermajority required to send it to an up-or-down vote to Congress.
That doesn't seem completely right. While S&P does mention the partisan political situation, they also mention how U.S. debt accumulation has been at a much higher clip than other triple-A countries for some time now. The President's plan doesn't seem to offer much in the way of significant spending reductions. He threw a few bones out in making a commission on military spending, promised to find "waste and abuse" in programs (a few minutes after he called "waste and abuse" a red herring.)
And taxes aren't a magic money spigot, sometimes lowering certain rates increases total revenue, Kennedy and Reagan both did this.
Also the part where things get back on track in 14 years instead of 30.
Taxes may not be a Magical Money Spigot but our choices all boil down to "more taxes on the rich" or the budget financed by Misery Unicorns. Which would you prefer?
Which is why I said there are caps on how much a given charity can receive. Eventually it'll get to the point where ONLY the things people might not 'like' are left and then it ends up being between that or giving to the government. This would also have the benefit of making people pay-in sooner so that they can pay for what they want instead of risking those no longer being available. Maybe even sweeten the pot, if you will, by making certain things count for more (110-150%). Sure, maybe you don't really wanna fund education/health care for poor people but if the alternative is you paying several millions more in taxes or 'donations' you might feel differently.
Unless, of course, you're just that huge of an asshole.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Military spending is at historic lows even while fighting two wars. The solution is not inside the Pentagon's budget.
The United States had a big stimulus package that is ending.
The end of special recession stimulus spending and increasing revenues as the economy recovers narrow things down. It's not as though every single year going forward the government will be dealing with a global economic meltdown.
Also, other triple A rated nations, like Britain, have smaller opener economies that are more vulnerable to finance pressures. They are forced into brutal austerity where we are not - as is demonstrated by the fact that Britain is undertaking some rather sharp measures right now whereas we are receiving polite letters saying that perhaps there is a chance that S&P might consider lowering our rating in several years if some kind of medium range agreement on the budget isn't reached sometime in the next year and a half.
And by the by, tax rates under Kennedy and Reagan were a lot higher. If you think you can cut taxes and have revenue go up at this point you are engaging in the same wishful thinking that created the situation we are in right now. George Bush cut taxes and the economy was pretty luke warm. Bill Clinton raised taxes and the economy was very strong. Clearly cutting taxes and increasing revenue are not tightly related.
45% of Americans pay no income tax because they (have no wealth) make no money.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Either way, I'm betting it should "historically" be lower.
EDIT: Looked it up
"Historic low" being a relative term, meaning the lowest since... the late 1990s? We really, really don't need to be spending anywhere near as much money as we were during the Cold War. Even if we don't use it for deficit reduction, that money would be waaaaaayyyy better spent on things like roads, bridges, alternative energy, medical research, and high-speed rail (just to name a few).
Interesting how Republicans are so anti-tax, but get up in arms about lots of people not paying any taxes.
EDIT: re: the commission's vote.
In 2010 we spent 685 Billion Dollars on defense. 57% of our tax revenue and the highest amount ever spent by a single entity on its Military.
For 2012 we are slated to spend over 710 Billion dollars on defense. Over half of our entire $1.4 Trillion budget for next year will be Defense spending.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube