House Websites Jammed After Obama Debt Speech 1042
Hugh Pickens writes "CNN reports that House switchboards have been flooded by phone calls — nearly twice the normal average — and hit with an unusual volume of constituent e-mails as voters voice their concern over the worsening debt-ceiling crisis. At least 104 of 279 congressional websites surveyed by CNN were down or had experienced slow connections on Tuesday, after President Obama's speech Monday night. In his address to the nation, Obama called on the American people to 'make your voice heard.' House Speaker John Boehner's website responded with a 'Server Too Busy' or 'Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)' message during parts of the day. His switchboard reported as many as 150-300 callers on hold, wanting to leave their thoughts for the speaker. House Chief Administrative Officer spokesman Dan Weiser said that lawmakers' websites and phone lines began to sag with the traffic on Monday night. 'Last night we had some website problems. ... There was some websites that were hosted by outside vendors that had slowness, sluggishness, people had trouble getting in. And that was rectified early this morning.'"
Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is extortion. This is anti-American. Rep Mike Lee Admits Extortion. [youtube.com]
In specific Tea Party Republicans are threatening to put the nation into default, holding the entire US economy and millions of lives hostage to pass their amendment to the Constitution. They want the nation to default because it will boost recruitment into their militias. They want a civil war and are apparently beyond compromise. They cannot be reasoned with apparently.
Who are these people? Before they called themselves the Tea Party they called themselves the John Birch Society. [wikipedia.org] and before they were called the John Birch society they called themselves the American Liberty League. [wikipedia.org]
This is the same American Liberty League that was behind the Business Plot. [wikipedia.org]
The Business Plot was the attempt to overthrow the US government and in specific overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship. The history of that can be seen by watching this video. [youtube.com]
Read about Smedley Darlington Butler and how he single handedly saved the nation from a coup. Now that we have a black President the forces looking to have a coup have grown stronger than ever. And these groups hate the feds and the government because these are the ones investigating them. The solution? Tax cuts, smaller government, which means less FBI investigations into them. [youtube.com]
And btw I expect "them" to rate my post down into oblivion. Expect to see it rated as flamebait, overrated or something else.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't rate you down, nor would I but the pace and phrasing of your post makes your post seem unbelievable or as some kind of crazy rant. I will read the source material you have presented and make my own judgements. These are serious accusations.
But I do agree that the Tea Party Republicans are a problem with their impossibly rigid views and policies. Most, if not all, should be made to rethink their positions by having them voted out of their positions.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The only problem with your conspiracy theory is that mod points are handed out semi-randomly. They also expire after about 48 hours. Above and beyond that, you have to contribute and have your posts modded up to get mod points (at least that has been my experience).
What are you proposing? That a bunch of astro-turfers were busy for the last two to three days posting Informative and Insightful comments, waiting for this subject to come up so that they could go through and mod everything down? Or perhaps
Re: (Score:3)
The plan put forward by Harry Reid this weekend has about $2.2 trillion in spending cuts and *no* additional revenue. It's basically everything that the Republicans asked for at the beginning of the negotiations, and they *still* won't vote for it.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a small amount of sympathy for them.
Then I went to one of their rallies and saw the raw racism and insanity of their followers.
"Taxed enough already" - you do realize taxes are the lowest that they've been since the 1950's [usatoday.com], right? That the "top income earners" actually, after you count up all the loopholes and compare how much of their "income" actually gets taxed at the much lower Capital Gains rates, actually pay less in taxes than the middle class do?
This is the problem today. There is so much disinformation and misinformation spewed out there by Rush, Beck, Faux News, and the rest of the insane nutwing noise machine that large numbers of people are willing to give them the "well if even if a little of what they say is true" benefit of the doubt. And then we get people like you who wind up with "sympathy" for the Tea Partiers because you aren't informed enough to realize how full of crap the Tea Party is.
Who pays the taxes (Score:3)
"after you count up all the loopholes and compare how much of their "income" actually gets taxed at the much lower Capital Gains rates, actually pay less in taxes than the middle class do?"
I won't talk rates, I'll talk what's actually paid. Definition: Middle class has a broad definition, but I'll take $30,000-$100,000, which covers the span of most definitions and gives you a large middle class with which to make your argument.
The top 10% of earners, above 114,000, pay 70% of all income taxes. So, no, the
Re:Who pays the taxes (Score:4, Informative)
The top 10% of earners, above 114,000, pay 70% of all income taxes.
And 400 people control more than half of the wealth in the country. You don't see an inherent problem here?
So, no, the middle class pays less than the rich.
If you define "the rich" as people who make above $114,000 per year. Which still doesn't account for your lousy math and inability to calculate the crucial percentage of individual income number from what you claim above.
Meanwhile, Democrats have defined "the rich" as people making above $200k/year individually or $250k total household income. Republicans insist that these people are "not making all that much." What was your point about who the "rich" are again? Please do define your terms so that we can have an actual discussion here.
The lower 50%, below $33,000, pays almost nothing.
Funny thing about that: if you are making below $33,000 per year at today's prices, you have almost no disposable income to start with: you are making the equivalent of $6000 in 1970 money (feel free to run some other calculations yourself [westegg.com]. This is especially true if you are a single parent or have someone else (aging family member) to support. The phrase you are looking for is "blood from a stone."
Short-term capital gains taxes go up with your tax bracket, and the rate is the same. Even if you bought something at $10,000 and a few laters it grew with inflation to $10,500, you still have to pay tax on the $500 even though you technically didn't make any money. Long-term rates are less in order to offset inflation losses and encourage long-term investment that helps the economy over quick flipping.
Please get an education and learn to stop lying. [irs.gov] All you have to do is hold an "investment" for slightly longer than a year [moneychimp.com] to get it taxed at a mere 15% instead of your actual income-tax rate. The more money people have, the more money they simply funnel through "cycling" schemes that contribute NOTHING to the economy, in order to take advantage of this loophole.
Capital gains taxes need to be eliminated, pure and simple, and any money gained that way treated as what it is, INCOME and taxed accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know where you pulled your stats from, though I know I have essentially seen the same bullshit floating around for months now. Even if your numbers were anywhere close to correct (or weren't skewed to pull some middle income households into the wealthy), you are neglecting the fact that the amount of income brought in by those groups is far larger by percentage than the amount of taxes they pay. In 2000, the top 10% owned 69.8% of the wealth (it has gotten worse since). They should be paying _at
Re: (Score:3)
Would this be the same mysterious rallies where people shouted 'nigger' and so on, but can offer no proof. Even though there's a $100k bounty to provide proof? Yeah I doubt it. Being a canuck, I've been to a few myself. And I never saw this racism.
Well shit, then again I guess Obama spending more in 3mo than Bush Jr. did in 8 years is pretty telling. You need to invent shit in order to keep the idiots in hand.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:4, Insightful)
I forgot which US president gathered up US citizens and placed them in camps? Which president summarily executed American citizens without benefit of trial? Oh that's right it was FDR, sounds like we already had a dictatorship. As for worrying about FBI investigations, given how well the Justice Dept is handling Operation Gunrunner no one should worry about investigations for a while.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:4, Informative)
To be pedantic: No US president did that. FDR signed an order allowing the military to create exclusion zones. Race wasn't mentioned. It is critically important to remember that, because of it's far wider implications then an order to inter X people. Had race been specified, it never would have stood against the supreme court.
It was General DeWitts order that interred the Japanese.
IT can be argues that the Nihau incident was the tipping point from a military perspective, and fueled by the farmers of CA desire to rid the Japanese from farming.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:5, Interesting)
FDR was guilty of many detrimental acts toward the American people, things which were so blatantly unconstitutional that he had to threaten to pack the Supreme Court with his own men to get the justices to reach such atrocious decisions as Wickard v. Filburn. However, objectively I'm not sure that many other Presidents would have been able to justify taking a different position toward Japan in terms of trade and diplomacy with conditions being what they were, and as such I cannot fault FDR personally for what more or less anybody would have done.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:5, Insightful)
You think that's bad? You can do something. It's worse watching from the sidelines. I'm in another country and can't do squat about the craziness you guys are starting by debating whether or not to continue paying your credit card bill's minimum payment. It's ultimately your business, of course, and you can tell the rest of the world to PFO (damn nosy neighbors meddling in USA internal affairs), but when the financial health of the USA is so intertwined with the rest of the world, it does become cause for legitimate global concern. The rest of the world cares about the decisions you guys are making, and the people in the USA should worry about this fact greatly. Because the obvious interpretation whether you do manage sort things out reasonably in the next little while or not will be: "Divest in the USA, because they can't keep their financial house in order anymore." As Obama has suggested, kicking the can down the road for 6 months and then going through this all over again, and again after that, does not bode well for future investment in the country.
I'm sympathetic and hope you guys sort things out, but, sheesh, get your act together. The numbers don't lie. You have to do something. Get on with it. This is going to affect a large part of the world because the rest of us have banked on the until-now-unquestioned idea that the USA is a reliable country when it comes to paying off its financial debts. Change that impression and people will invest elsewhere instead. It will be disruptive in the short term, but it will eventually be sorted out, with the exception that the USA will lose the special status in the financial realm that it has had for roughly the last century.
Let me put it another way. The rest of the world doesn't particularly care what the underlying political causes of this impasse are. That's your business. What we care about is that usually the USA has been able to put aside the worst kind of politics and do the right thing when necessary. You are a practical if fractious bunch, and that's why you are such a vibrant and successful democracy. If that willingness to put aside political differences for the sake of practicality has changed, well, a lot of things are going to be reassessed -- probably not in your favor. And that would be sad. Kind of like seeing your favorite uncle Sam succumb to dementia as they get older.
Re: (Score:3)
Your title "Rewrite the Constitution of face default!" is a great summary of the Tea Party's position. The irony being that this extortion violates the very constitution that they pretend to follow. Section 4 of the 14th amendment states "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
John Boehner compared negotiating with President Obama t
Re: (Score:3)
If you think there is any significant difference between Democrats and Republicans then you are as dumb as they hope you are.
Both parties work for the banks. The same banks that finance their campaigns and finance the businesses that put them in power. The Republican Bush gave $750 billion dollars to his masters, then the Democrat Obama gave them another $800 billion. Why can't you see who benefits?
The debt ceiling will be raised because the banks want it raised. An ever increasing share of tax money will f
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how democracy works, FYI. It isn't extortion, it is how that pesky legislative process works. Troubling, I know.
So it's okay for that scumbag to threaten the lives of seniors, of poor people, of veterans, of anyone by threatening to let the nation default which means the checks wont be sent out to them? What about troops serving right now who are risking their lives so that ignorant congressman can safely speak like that? What about law enforcement who protects scumbags like him from being robbed and preyed upon?
Do you realize he's not only threatening all their jobs, but he's threatening to withhold their pay that they earned fair and square. He is doing this so that he can score political points and try to pass a Constitutional amendment which has no hope in hell of passing. So what he is doing is attempting to extort the entire nation.
If you think that is how democracy works, maybe when people like him call the police the police should decide "you know, we aren't going to keep you safe anymore unless you agree to write this bill for us.", in fact maybe the whole government could do the same thing to these congressmen. Then it would be called blackmail and extortion right? I guess it's not extortion if a Republican congressman does it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Debts will get paid, the US will and cannot default because there is more than enough income to pay for our interest to our creditors.
It is how it works, this is how legislation gets passed.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:4, Insightful)
Social Security had a surplus "During 2009, total benefits of $686 billion were paid out versus income (taxes and interest) of $807 billion, a $121 billion annual surplus"
Can't find medicare quickly, but will look.
Debt payments are around $189 billion
Wiki aggregates it nicely with all the standard references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget [wikipedia.org]
There *IS* more than enough money to pay these things.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:4, Informative)
You realize this says "taxes and interest" under income, right? Social security contribution from the American people only come through a tax... why would the word "interest" be under income?
Because social security 'invests' its money into federal securities, which the federal government then uses to finance other programs (this and similar IOUs to trust funds make up about 4+ trillion of the current debt). The intention is, of course, to pay off the necessary securities before the social security payments need to be sent.
Now, the federal government could choose to pay those obligations and default on something else. Not all of the debt has to go bad at once, but this is a delicate balance. Do you pay your overseas creditors? Do you pay your employees? Do you pay your debts that you owe to yourself (social security)? As far as protecting the credit rating goes, it's probably wisest to pay outside creditors first. The fact is we already hit the debt ceiling in May, and we are holding on until August 2nd by not investing in certain federal pension and retirement programs with the excuse "we'll make it up later once we get a higher debt limit". This is at least a slight bit of evidence that we are more likely to prioritize outside creditors, and therefore default on something like social security or federal wages.
But it all remains to be seen... The fact is I'm a little surprised the Treasury hasn't released a plan with its payment priorities already, or at least I haven't been able to find one.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:4)
So it's okay for that scumbag to threaten the lives of seniors, of poor people, of veterans, of anyone by threatening to let the nation default which means the checks wont be sent out to them?
Maybe people should have thought about that before voting for these people.
Go ahead, mod me down, I have karma to burn.
Re: (Score:3)
What about troops serving right now who are risking their lives so that ignorant congressman can safely speak like that?
Sorry, but what is the connection between Afghan hill tribes, or a middle-eastern despot (1 down, ten to go) and free speech in America? That makes no sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but your rhetoric doesn't fly. It wasn't this Congressman who threatened the lives of seniors, poor people or veterans, it was Obama. The fact of the matter is that if the debt ceiling is not raised, there is no reason for the federal government to default. There is, also, no reason for the federal government to not send out SS checks or pay the military.
I have a question for you, what happens if they increase the debt ceiling and no one wants to buy the new bonds? That day is going to come sooner or later. Isn't it a good idea to start reining in spending now, while people are still willing to buy U.S. government bonds rather than wait for that day?
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:4, Informative)
Guess what? That is up to Obama, unless Congress passes a law specifying differently. That means it is Obama who is threatening the lives of seniors, poor people or veterans. Obama or the Democrats in the Senate could put a proposal on the table and then we could debate the relative merits of the Republicans' plan and the Democrats' plan. The problem with criticizing the Republican's plan is that it is the only plan on the table. There are, currently, no other options (except to keep on racking up ever more debt until to no one will loan the government any money).
That's complete nonsense. If Congress abdicates on its responsibility to pay the country's bills, then yes, decisions will have to be made about where we will default [politifact.com], but that isn't on Obama. It's Congress' responsibility to pay the bills.
Saying that the Republican plan is the only plan is bullshit though. Proposing something that you know the other side can't possibly agree to is not a good-faith negotiation. There are two ways to close the deficit gap, cutting spending and raising revenues. The Tea Party Republicans want to take one of those completely off the table and have refused any compromise at all. This is on them.
There have been plenty of other plans being put together, even bi-partisan plans, but the Tea Party faction refuses to budge at all on any sort of tax revenue increase, so those plans are dead before they can even be formed. As long as they insist that only cuts and no revenues can be part of the bill, they are the ones holding the country hostage. Wonder how people will like the tax we all get to pay when it starts costing us more to borrow anything at all because our credit gets downgraded.
We've seen poll after poll now that shows that something like 70% of the country, including a large percentage of Republicans, think that both taxes and cuts should be part of any compromise plan, but the House Republicans won't allow it. This shit is on them, and I think people will see it that way come the next election too. You can't just sit there with your little faction and insist that everything be done your way. That's not how democracy works, and people will recognize which side isn't willing to compromise and get a plan put together that can pass both houses. If the shit hits the fan, we know which group is responsible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:4, Funny)
Now if you had used some argument to show how "Obama" was really white, and Boehner/et al were really Black, then he would switch sides to join you immediately.
Obama's mother was white, so he is just as white as he is black. Does that help? As far a Boehner being black, I got nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
We have over $2T in revenues. All that means is that the federal government will have to prioritize.
How about we start means-testing Social Security and Medicare. If Grandma has a pension, fat 401k or private assets she gets no Social Security.
So what if she "paid into the system her whole life." I have no kids and pay thousands of dollars in property taxes, mainly to support local schools. Do you see me whining, bitching and moaning about the injustice of paying for something from which I derive no personal benefit?
I have a better idea. How about we do the following programs:
1. Stop Agriculture subsidies
2. Stop Ethanol subsidies
3. Raise the tariffs on goods entering this country from countries like China so our tarrif restricts their exports to us like they restrict our exports to them.
4. Impose a tariff on any US companies' goods that are manufactured over seas so it becomes cheaper for them to be made here.
5. Stop bombing brown people
6. Quit Being Team America world Police and bring all our troops home from E
Re:And what about contractors? (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't to say the Republicans are right in the legislative track they want to take, but I think holding the debt ceiling as a poker chip is absolutely fair game. Why else would you have a debt ceiling? The other side is exaggerating the consequences by acting as if the worst possible allocation of funds is the only option when it isn't. That's lying to the American public in hopes of scaring them in to a position, and I don't think that is fair game at all. Perhaps you see lying as a valid political tool, and not the process of law. If that's the case, we'll just have to disagree.
Re:And what about contractors? (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue I take with that line of thought is it ignores what the debt ceiling is. The ceiling isn't spending the money. The budget is. When congress passed it's budget they know when and how much the ceiling was going to have to be increased. In the past decade the biggest factors for increased debt (according to bloomberg business news) was the Wars, the medicare drug program, and TARP. All of which the speaker, Eric Cantor, and Senate minority lead McConnell voted for. They helped run this tab up, and now they are threatening to walk out on the bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Or just not have the ceiling at all. Which is what every other major country does. Be that as it may the vast majority of the debt run up in the last 10 years is directly attributed to GOP budget policy. That's not my opinion, it's Bloomberg News. That's hardly a liberal rag.
As far as the TARP, the projections show we'll have to wait until 2020 to see how much we actually get back.
Obama - Job Killer (Score:5, Funny)
He's already threatened mine. In fact, I could make an argument he got me laid off.
I work in Aerospace at a company that manufactures interior fittings for private jets. Essentially we pimp them out.
When Obama first opened his Pie Hole about how corporations should not be buying these jets, within two weeks we had nearly 60% of our orders canceled as the jet builders like Gulfstream, Falcon, etc. had their orders canceled or placed on hold. With one Class Warfare speech he helped put thousands of people out of work.
Now, a year later I'm back with the same company and sure enough DipShit opens his PieHole again trying to demonize jet owners. We saw a 15% decrease in orders this time. I guess people realize he's just talking out of his ass.
Private jets, yachts, expensive cars, etc. are no different than dishwashers, washers, dryers, TVs, etc. They are luxuries that people pay for and the industries that build these things support thousands of jobs. In fact, in our industry, it’s almost 100% U.S. jobs, and well paying jobs at that.
People bitch and moan about how "rich people" and corporations have their money locked up and are not hiring, yet when they engage in commerce with that very same money, purchasing high end goods that end up paying for many, many salaries, they are demonized by this POS POTUS.
Re: (Score:3)
When Obama first opened his Pie Hole about how corporations should not be buying these jets, within two weeks we had nearly 60% of our orders canceled as the jet builders like Gulfstream, Falcon, etc. had their orders canceled or placed on hold. With one Class Warfare speech he helped put thousands of people out of work.
He didn't say they shouldn't be buying them, he said they shouldn't be getting a tax break on them.
Private jets, yachts, expensive cars, etc. are no different than dishwashers, washers, dryers, TVs, etc. They are luxuries that people pay for and the industries that build these things support thousands of jobs. In fact, in our industry, itâ(TM)s almost 100% U.S. jobs, and well paying jobs at that.
I don't get a tax break on my TV or dishwasher. Why should some company get one on a jet?
People bitch and moan about how "rich people" and corporations have their money locked up and are not hiring, yet when they engage in commerce with that very same money, purchasing high end goods that end up paying for many, many salaries, they are demonized by this POS POTUS.
Demonized? Really? Because he said they shouldn't get a tax break on a jet?
Re:Obama - Job Killer (Score:4, Informative)
Making it more expensive for someone purchase and use anything just because YOU somehow think it's unfair that they can, is stupid.
That's pretty disingenuous. They aren't making it more expensive, they're taking away a tax break that was given for one item, but not others. Why should that one item get a break? If it can't make it in the market on a level playing field with the same taxes as everything else, maybe they need to rethink their business plan. Asking for a government handout is not a business plan.
His statements regarding this were couched in terms that portrayed those who buy and use private jets as selfish and financially foolish. His implications were clear. If you couldnâ(TM)t see it then you need to pay more attention.
Which statement was that? Every time he mentioned it, it was in relation to elimination of a tax break that there's no good reason to have. I saw nothing about owning planes being selfish or foolish. Could you be specific about what he said that implies that?
And if your purchase of a single washing machine literally supported hundreds of jobs, then I bet you would get a tax break for buying one too.
Again, they shouldn't need a tax break. The plane is worth it or it isn't. Money not spent on planes will be spent on something else that also creates jobs. At least it would be if Congress would quit screwing around and start doing things to create jobs again. Taxes are already the lowest they've been in several decades. More tax breaks aren't going to create jobs. Taxes have been higher during past economic booms, so that's not the issue here.
Re: (Score:3)
There are approximately $2.6 trillion dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund; those assets can be used to pay benefits
Um no they can't. The Social security trust fund isn't some giant vault with stacks of $100 bills but is filled with a bunch of I.O.U.s that are government bonds, so nothing to tap here
Treasury could sell some of its assets in order to pay the bills.
What assets? Oh you must mean the gold and other precious metals the the treasury holds which sounds like a really stupid idea. Maybe yo
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:4, Insightful)
Democracy is based on debating ideas, compromising and coming to an agreement.
The showboating that these congressmen are involved in right now is not democracy, and runs contrary to their duty to serve the nation.
Re: (Score:3)
You're completely mistaken. Every chance they get for the past decade or 2, the Republicans have been quite willing to make meaningful tax cuts that would prevent any deficit reduction. They've also sponsored quite a few meaningful spending increases over those years.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is how democracy works, FYI. It isn't extortion, it is how that pesky legislative process works. Troubling, I know.
No. It is not how democracy was intended to work. You do not threaten to harm the country if your demands are not met.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll take more taxes, so long as we cut spending and actually start PAYING DOWN the national debt.
Right now when we talk about deficit reductions, we talk about reducing how much we're increasing the debt. Never do we talk about paying down our credit cards.
Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that the responsibility for creating the budget rests in the house, right? You know the one that already passed this year's fiscal budget, and is now playing games with our economy by giving themselves a chance to vote on that same fiscal budget twice. This is not a dictatorship. This is a republic and people seem to forget their civics lessons in their zeal to hang the blame solely on the President. Don't tell me you attended the same retarded civics class with Michelle Bachman.
Personally I believe the president should issue an executive order raising the arbitrary debt ceiling. Section 4 of the 14th amendment requires such drastic action since it states that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." In other words, the republicans already authorized this year's debt when they passed the fiscal budget, and they are violating the constitution by refusing to make sure we have enough funds (from both taxes and credit) to meet those obligations.
I have many times. They are individuals that may have good intentions but are easily led astray. They arguments have little basis in fact, and their misinterpretations of the constitution is horrifying.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me put it another way. If congress abuses its constitutional obligations and passes a budget that they had no intention of enforcing then what are the repercussions?
Remember it was 1995 when house republicans repealed the Gephardt rule that (since 1979) automatically raised the debt ceiling to an amount required to fund the passed budget. This was part of their showdown with President Clinton that caused two governmental shutdowns. Let me remind you that they only refused to pass a budget and never thr
Re: (Score:3)
Of all the ways to push a position, why has Congress opted for such a destructive one? Your credit card example and what Congress is doing have the same problem: it damages our credit rating. Our interest rates will go up, and this will hurt everyone. Even bankers and the rich will be hurt, though it might appear all this is good for them. Congress could have done so many other things to force a deal on our finances. But they chose a way that ironically will harm our finances in order to "save" them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting comparison, but the big difference is that the time for the US government to debate taxes and spending is when the government passes a budget, not when bills come in.
Congress has already approved this spending, if they want to change it, change the next budget.
What is happening now is pure extortion. Cut our previously agreed to budget (a legal document for the executive branch must follow) or we will destroy the countries credit rating.
Also, Passing a balanced budget amendments would not preven
Wrong I am afraid (Score:3)
The answer is not to give a little ground, it is for both sides to completely cave in.
The US welfare system and other social programs is a joke, they are horribly inefficient and provide little. Why does the US spend more on healthcare yet get less?
And why do the rich in America got an entire party supposedly representing 50% of the population cater solely to their needs? Because all the republican tax cuts are for the super rich, not the working middle class.
America needs to reform. A better tax system and
Re: (Score:3)
The debt crisis involves a complex series of tradeoffs, and polling along the lines of "would you rather let millionaires keep their tax cuts, or cut all services to the poor" might get us more accurate information.
This is the point. I suspect that 47% (not a majority, mind you, just a plurality) has wildly different ideas about how to go about balancing the budget. We already know that 72% [cnn.com] of Americans support raising taxes on the highest tax bracket. Plans for reducing and eventually eliminating the deficit *should* be on the table at all times, but we shouldn't be held hostage by the debt ceiling. Obama should do as Clinton said: raise it and let the court figure it out. He cares way too much about getting re-
Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like the more extreme Republicans that are running things in the House don't have a political philosophy so much as they have a religion. It's hard to convince a zealot of anything.
Pay attention, kids: we're experiencing history! This is another stage in the long decline of the United States.
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is another stage in the long decline of the United States.
If we keep spending at the rate we are, it'll be a much faster decline.
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. On the other hand, people seem to want things like Social Security and Medicare, so a rational decision would be to raise taxes to pay for those things people want, and to reduce spending on things people don't want, such as unfunded wars to build friendly nations.
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
People seem to want social security because they've paid into it their entire lives without having an alternative of opting out. It was supposed to be self sustainable.
Look at the taxes over the past 50 years. Back in 1981 the top 5% of wealthy americans paid a 70% tax rate. How come now in 2011 they pay less taxes than people making 1/10th their yearly earnings? Something is wrong with that. Look at all the tax breaks for the wealthy, lets start there. Then lets look at our out of control spending.
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
It /was/ more-or-less self-sustaining, it's just that the Feds stole money from the trust fund to pay for other things. Because that was easier than raising taxes directly.
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
And there are solutions being suggested, but they'll never pass the Party of No.
Raising the maximum income for having to pay into SS, for example, or alternately raising the retirement age a bit.
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I want social security - as a concept, not my social security - because I want to feel like I live in a civilized country. Not because of any money I may have paid into it so far.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush Spent More... (Score:3)
No, Obama has spent more dollars, but Bush has spent more PERMANTE dollars.
By this I mean that Bush's policies amounted to taking tax money and burning it on the white house lawn.
While Obama has certainly done some of this as well, most of his most expensive policies have already or will recoup most if not all the money invested. What this means is that the long term impact is just the interest on the debt for the time the money was out.
There is an intersting article published a few days ago:
http://ezkool. [ezkool.com]
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
The programs don't depend on exponential growth. They depend on revenue. If that revenue is not adequately or accurately adjusted to match reality, then you will get a shortfall.
But neither SS nor our tax code accurately reflect the wealth distribution or population demographics. A mere 20% of the population controls the vast majority of wealth in this country. Our population base has been in decline because it is too much of a financial strain to have more than one or two kids. Wages have been stagnant for most Americans for at least a decade. And thanks to the "job creators", jobs have been moving overseas leaving lower paying jobs (or no jobs) in their place, further diminishing revenues of any sort. This doesn't even take into account the various tax loopholes, dodges, and other tricks those with the bucks (people and corporations) can afford to employ to avoid their tax burden.
We can fund SS. We can even fund our gross bloated unnecessary budget. There is plenty of revenue available to pay for it and more. The problem is nobody wants to raise taxes to levels necessary to cover the expenses, nor do those with the wealth want to pay for it.
Greed is what will kill the US, not any particular set of defense, social, or discretionary spending. It's why any balanced budget amendment will never ever pass congress. It's why congress never comes up with long term solutions. It's why people who don't need social program assistance think it's all a big waste of money and why "those lazy welfare bastards can't work like the rest of us".
The US has a GDP of around $15 trillion. Our tax revenue is $2.1 trillion. Our latest budget is $3.5 trillion. We have plenty of room to cover our bills. We CHOOSE not to.
Re: (Score:3)
A mere 20% of the population controls the vast majority of wealth in this country
And pay almost all of the taxes. Half of the people in the country pay no income taxes, and many are given a tax "rebate" (on taxes they never even paid!) as a form of redistribution.
But neither SS nor our tax code accurately reflect the wealth distribution or population demographics.
True. The vast majority of people on the receiving end pay little or nothing for what they get. The small number of people who pay most of the taxes are in the opposite situation.
There is plenty of revenue available to pay for it and more
No, there isn't. What you mean is that you think there's plenty of economic activity that could be taxed in order to raise that revenue, and you th
Re: (Score:3)
And pay almost all of the taxes. Half of the people in the country pay no income taxes, and many are given a tax "rebate" (on taxes they never even paid!) as a form of redistribution.
SS is not paid from income tax, and neither is MC. They are separately taxed. And while the 20% pay most of the income taxes, they use many loopholes and tricks (some more gray than others) to reduce their liabilities to below what it would be. The amount of revenue generated from taxes is far from what one would think just by looking at the tax brackets, both on a corporate and individual level.
No, there isn't. What you mean is that you think there's plenty of economic activity that could be taxed in order to raise that revenue, and you think you know that further taxing the economy will grow the economy. A notion that has been proven wrong every time.
Taxes don't just come from economic activity, and yes there is plenty, even in our craptastic economy. Also, if r
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
>They are pyramid schemes that depend on an exponential population growth that hasn't been happening because people just aren't fucking like they used to.
What the hell are you talking about?
Social security is a pension plan where people pay into it their whole lives and get money back when they retire, how is that a pyramid scheme? Exponential growth? Good job pulling that out of your ass.
The only flaw with medicare/medicaid system is that it has not been paired with a rise in taxes. If you're going to provide medical coverage for a large group of people, they need to be taxed accordingly for the service provided (like every other sane country does). The solution isn't to get rid of the programs, since both are very useful programs, the solution is to actually pay for them with appropriate taxation.
The problem with the US right now isn't "big government", it's the idiot electorate that wants tons of services and doesn't want to pay for it, so they keep electing people who promise to be able to pull that off somehow (which of course they can't).
Bullshit. Wars that cost trillions of dollars will be the end of us. Get rid of social security and watch how fast it plunges the US into mass poverty as the elderly suddenly can't pay any of their bills.
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the spending problems were a general problem, and generally flagged, I'd have less problem. But it's not. The Republicans tend to show up as deficit hawks during every Democratic administration, but during Republican administrations such things go completely silent. Vice President Dick Cheney is on record as saying something to the tune that the deficit is irrelevant. During the GWB years the deficit spiked, due to tax cuts, 2 wars run "off the books", and the unfunded Medicare prescription drug coverage program.
For the moment, I'm not commenting about deficit budgeting itself, or about any of the things done during the Bush/Cheney years. I'm simply commenting about the change-of-tune. This pattern of deficit-hawk behavior goes back before those 2 administrations, as well.
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we keep spending at the rate we are, it'll be a much faster decline.
Only if we don't tax enough to cover the cost of the spending. Plenty of countries have governments that spend far more than the US, but they make up for it by taxing more. And I'm not talking about Third World countries, I'm talking about places like Canada, Germany, and the UK.
Another thing that I've noticed regularly in discussions of federal government budgets is that it's much easier to rail against "spending" than it is to pick out what would actually be cut. So what spending would you get rid of? Social Security and Medicare (which you probably have a family member collecting on right now)? The military? Food stamps? Unemployment insurance? Section 8 housing? Public schools for your kids? Environmental protection that keeps nearby businesses from making your home unlivable? OSHA or MSHA, which reduce dramatically your chance of death or injury on the job? Highways?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
And increasing the debt ceiling only gives the addict a little more dope. It doesn't prevent the inevitable reckoning that we are on the verge of. The government has maxed out every credit card they have. The Federal government is broke and they want another credit card.
The only point of this D vs R debate is who is going to get the blame. It has nothing to do with changing the inevitable outcome. Thats what I find profoundly uninteresting about the whole topic... not really interested in who gets the blame, and its way too long until the next elections for it to have any effect. So, its all basically a bunch of noise.
The titanic is headed full speed ahead into the iceberg. One side wants to increase speed to flank, so the coal men earn a little more money. The other side want to decrease speed to 3/4 to save coal, and to embarass the helmsman. Everyone is eventually gonna drown anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"If we keep spending at the rate we are, it'll be a much faster decline."
The spending would be fine if we actually paid for it.
It's not religion, it's just politics (Score:3)
Politicians don't believe in anything (yes, that includes your guy too, whoever he is). The only thing they're thinking about is the next election. And, in this case, Republicans have a vested interest in keeping the economy in the shitter through the end of 2012 (because it hurts Obama's reelection potential). In other words, they're not religious, they're just immoral opportunists who won't hesitate to throw the entire country under the bus just to advance their own short-term political interests.
Re:Will it make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, please. The Dems, as usual, are bending over backwards to negotiate.
The now-standard Republican "negotiating" tactic is to throw a tantrum until they get everything they want. Compromise is when the Dems agree with the Republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
The only time either party bends over backwards to negotiate is when they don't have the majority.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting that you thing that... because I don't see either side willing to compromise.
You're only problem is your inability to realize you are just as fucked up as those on the far right.
Re: (Score:3)
You, sir, are being willfully ignorant. Let me enlighten you:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/those_who_wont_take_yes_for_an030606.php [washingtonmonthly.com]
The Dems are the problem only inasmuch as they're spineless wimps who don't know how to negotiate.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more a surprise that a lot of people who will actually lose out with lower taxes are crying for it. In a nutshell, the less you earn, the higher the tax rate you want. At least if you're smart.
Sadly, earning little and being smart are not exactly directly proportional, most of the time.
Re:You've just revealed yourself as an extremist (Score:5, Interesting)
HA HA HA HA.
Do you even know what the amending process entails? Hint: you have to get a supermajority of the state legislatures to approve the amendment. Do you have any fucking idea how long that would take? /Years/. We don't have time for that kind of political theater bullshit. If Republicans want that, they should put it out as a separate measure. If the people and their representatives in the states want it, it'll pass on its own merits.
Re:You've just revealed yourself as an extremist (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Republican plan would allow Obama to increase the debt ceiling by $2.4T"
It's not the President's job to increase the debt ceiling. The cowards are just looking for a way to get around their blood oath AND be able to score points in the next election, pretty much the definition of dirty pool.
Re: (Score:3)
too big to fail? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:too big to fail? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, just maybe, we could not be extremists and try to rejigger the system to bring it back into balance.
Nah, destroy it all. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Check this out, I was discussing a similar idea with some other guys a couple of years ago, if you put all our ideas together you have a good early draft for such a system:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1244451&cid=28083111 [slashdot.org]
Physical devices have finite limits. News at 11 (Score:3)
Or is the real news story that Americans are expressing something about their political parties for once?
Re: (Score:3)
And those limits can be overwhelmed by a large response.
Or is the real news story that Americans are expressing something about their political parties for once?
I think the buried lead is that these systems weren't even built with the expectation that they'd be used by a significant number of voters.
Oh Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Now we're going to Slashdot them too!
Great filters (Score:4, Informative)
The Congressional filtering system is extremely efficient. No matter what you say, somehow you're always supporting the position that the Congresscritter has already taken.
I've been writing to "my" Congressional "representatives" for almost forty years, and even when I've bluntly said that Senator Bozo has a severe case of craniorectal insertion, I get a letter back thanking me for supporting him.
Re: (Score:3)
March on Washington! "We demand more debt!" (Score:5, Funny)
So we should march on D.C. this week? What should I put on my sign? "More Debt NOW!"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, we already have the debt. We already spent the money. That part was easy, all those trillion dollar packages that nobody read had a whole lot of support.
This is deciding whether or not we are going to pay the bills we already owe. That is why not paying would be so catastrophic.
It's not a bankrupt nation, it's a deadbeat nation.
Call your mortgage holder, tell them you have the money to pay, but you just arent going to anymore, and fuck them. It's a lot different than calling your mortgage broker a
Once the avalanche has started... (Score:4, Informative)
...it's too late for the pebbles to vote. Regardless of your fiscal outlook, the fact is the debt ceiling must be raised, simply because of economic inertia. Fiscal conservatives may be correct that less government spending is good - but that perspective doesn't matter today, as our economic difficulties are the result of decisions years, maybe decades past. If you want to avoid raising debt ceilings in the future (a goal I actually support), that's fine - we can have a discussion on the best fiscal policy to pursue over the next ten years in order to achieve that. But *today* is not the time to debate *this* particular ceiling. That discussion should've happened ten years ago. Playing with the cap today is irresponsible at best, and cynical exploitation of economic trouble created, in part, by an ex-president from your own party, to secure a victory in 2012 ... well, not even at "worst", as that's pretty much exactly what the Republicans are doing.
The point is, you don't change economic trends overnight. The necessity of raising the debt ceiling cannot be altered today, even with the best intentions. I want to stay balanced and not single a particular side for blame, but it seems that the politicking is all about discrediting the sitting president to hurt his incumbent standing in 2012, rather than any form of principled economic disagreement.
Btw: captcha: "defraud"
I couldn't agree with Obama more.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.
Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
-- Amazing how things change...
Re:I couldn't agree with Obama more.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Now what about all the Republicans who cheerfully voted 7 times to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was in power now refusing to do so without massive budget cuts, or in some cases at all.
Hypocrisy is the mother's milk of politics.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact the President Present's monthly deficits are about as big as Bush's yearly deficits wouldn't have anything to do with that, right?
Horse Shit. Bush's per capita deficit in his last year in office is within 10% of Obama's.
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm [skymachines.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt anything has changed. The president does not control the debt ceiling. The president does not control the budget. The president does not control the money. It's congress. The president can veto or accept what congress provides, but that's it. He can get them to come together for talks. He can plead. He can bargain. He can demand. But it all comes down to congress.
It's very likely that he still feels the same way. But do you think he could get the tax revenues and spending cuts he would like to see i
Campaign Promises (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If my mom promises to lose weight, she doesn't break that promise by buying jeans that fit her. She needs to reduce the imbalance between the calories she takes in and the calories she burns. She is already a given size and has already planned out a healthy calorie-reduction diet. She needs jeans that will be possible to wear on that plan. If my mom were to buy only a size 5, and threaten to kill herself if she bought a larger size, and also threaten to kill herself if she can't fit into the size 5, then ye
Re:Campaign Promises (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is Democracy in action (Score:5, Funny)
This is Democracy inaction
There, fixed it for you.
Re:games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:games (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi, you seem to be using the FALSE EQUIVALENCE fallacy!
Let me bring you up to speed: two long and incompetently-waged wars kept of the budget books for political reasons, at the same time we had a tax cut. Nobody's ever cut taxes during a war, let alone two, because that's a really fucking stupid thing to do.
In the latest episode of the Washington Follies, the Republicans demanded big cuts in spending. Fine, say the Dems, here's $3 trillion in spending cuts But we want $1 trilliion in eliminated tax subsidies and raised taxes on the rich. NONONONONO, scream the Republicans, TAXES BAD TAXES BAD.
That's not "durr, they're equally bad".
Re: (Score:3)
It's no new taxes without balancing the budget.
Re:We're a sinking ship (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, except that lowering taxes doesn't seem to grow the economy. Certainly not enough to make up for the lowered rate. Too bad. It's all sensible except for that point.
Anyway, the top 20% pays 86% of the taxes, maybe, but don't they own an equally large (or larger) share of the wealth and income?
When I was a kid, in the 1960s, tax rates were way over 50%. Tax rates in England peaked at 90%. While 90% marginal tax rates will certainly hurt your economy, it's not at all clear than 30%, 40%, 50% rates will do much damage. If we can manage to spend some of that on useful infrastructure things, it may even be good in the long run. Just think! We could have a well-educated, healthy workforce, streets and networks that work, et cetera.