Americans Are With The Republicans on Debt...

Point is this: 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of the tax revenue, but only earn 25% of the income. If that's fair to you, fine - freedom of opinion is a great thing. I think that when you get a small party contributing the majority of the finance, then you start to lose control of who's really in charge. If you push the top 1% to fund 50% or 60% of the income tax revenue, then they will have that much more control. Some people feel that the higher proportion of taxes is a punishment for being successful (myself included). I don't work to pay taxes, I work to provide for myself and those I choose.

If I was being taxed at 70% above a certain level, I would take the rest of the year off once I reached that level.

Look at a shareholder meeting for a publicly traded company... if someone owns enough shares, they can pretty much control who gets on the board, and how the company is run.

Nobody. You're right. But one person's "avoiding taxes" is another person's "taking advantage of legal deductions". Not taking advantage of them would be the equivalent of writing a voluntary check. But i don't see John Kerry or Oprah Winfrey threatening to leave the country if the guy they advocated for the White House raises their taxes....like he said he would while they were advocating for him.

I guess i missed the mass exodus when Bill Clinton raised taxes. Originally Posted by Doove

That's true, there wasn't a mass exodus. The cost of moving out of the country was more than the cost of paying the increased taxes. Also, if I can recall, the average tax rate paid didn't change as much. It's easier to see at a state (or even city) level. Just look at Houston and the property taxes. How many houses for sale do you see advertising "NO MUD TAXES!" The cost of choosing one subdivision over another is lower than the savings, so it's a viable selling point. If you want some further examples, look at which states gained and lost congressional seats from the latest census. Closing the loopholes and leveling the playing field WRT federal taxes is the way to go - instead of focusing on the top tax bracket, balance the average tax rate. It's a progressive system on paper, but in practice it favors the wealthy and it does so in such a way as to make the majority of people unaware of it!

No Obama is not saying two things- when he made that original statement in 2006 it was when we were spending a half billion dollars a day on the Ira war countless billions on Afghanistan and a blind man could see that we couldn't fiscally sustain that type of spending. Do you think this spending got out of control in 2009 when Obama took over? Heck No! this had been going on for years- the majority of this spending disaster is the result of the poor spending and waste by the Bush adminsitration- add up the cost of the Iraq war? Medicare Part D is a 100 billion dollar a year program not paid for and billed right to the deficit so you guys are taking his message out of context.
Look at it this way if in the 2000 presidential elections if someone were to have asked George Bush would he be in favor of raising the debt ceiling if America would one day have to finance a war that would cost a HALF of a BILLION TAX PAYERS DOLLARS A DAY- don't you think Bush in hindsight would have said:" that's crazy and would be a sign of poor leadership and fiscal irresponsibility? When I was in High school I wouldn't have imagined taking out 50,000 dollars in student loans to pay for Pharmacy school but I did and I am dealing with- so for you to take something Obama said based on what was going on in 2006(2 huge expensive wars) and say that he's double talking is being dishonest by you guys. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

That is a fact. They were spending a shit load on both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, none of that war spending made the One Trillion Annual spending mark. ALL government spending sites show that 2008 was the ONLY year during the last administration that the spending was over One Trillion thanks to TARP. There has been NO budget passed in congress and they are spending over a Trillion every year now, over FOUR TRILLION in 1/4 the amount of time of the last adminstration.

The Federal Public Debt is 14.5+ Trillion Dollars and climbing. Where is the same outrage you held for Bush? And before you ask that of me, I'll tell you I've been complaining about the Bush spending also.

It's hypocritical to say Bush spent a lot and not admit that the spending now is a shyte-load more. Bush had his 2 wars, but BO has added several more countries onto the DOD spending spree.

Sorry WE, but he didn't answer the question: What will Obama do?

Will he make / not make the payments on the debt if there isn't a debt ceiling deal? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Assuming that there is no deal, and I think that there will be, he'll direct the Treasury to ignore the ceiling and pay our bills on existing debt, citing the 14th Amendment and separation of powers. They may not do that right away, but as the damage to the economy spreads, and the Dow plunges 30 - 40+%, I don't see how he can do anything else.

Then the question becomes what he will do about on-going expenses of government operation. He'll let the damage spread for a while, to put pressure on the Republicans, but I think the public tolerance for economic pain, especially in the stock market and to a lesser degree the bond market, is limited right now. And both markets will react sharply and negatively.

That is a fact. They were spending a shit load on both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, none of that war spending made the One Trillion Annual spending mark. ALL government spending sites show that 2008 was the ONLY year during the last administration that the spending was over One Trillion thanks to TARP. There has been NO budget passed in congress and they are spending over a Trillion every year now, over FOUR TRILLION in 1/4 the amount of time of the last adminstration.

The Federal Public Debt is 14.5+ Trillion Dollars and climbing. Where is the same outrage you held for Bush? And before you ask that of me, I'll tell you I've been complaining about the Bush spending also.

It's hypocritical to say Bush spent a lot and not admit that the spending now is a shyte-load more. Bush had his 2 wars, but BO has added several more countries onto the DOD spending spree. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

This question gets asked a lot and here's the answer- Obama spent all that money for what reason(s)? The answer is to fix the shit Bush fucked up- you guys who ask this question act as if Obama on Day 1 walked in with a Booming economy, no wars and a surplus. Compare the govt on Day 1 when George W Bush took office to day 1 when Obama took office- 2 complete 360 degree differences- Bush walked in with a booming economy and a surplus- it's like comparing apples to oranges.

All this talk about Bush Tax Cuts made me go back and dig for what all they entailed... I was surprised from the hype, it seemed that they only favored the rich... HOWEVER - the rich actually got the lowest % benefit from them... Now I see why Obama only wanted to let SOME of them expire. They would lead everyone to believe that the middle and lower class got nothing from Bush's Tax Cuts.

Article from HumanEvents.com referencing non-partisan report posted below:

Who Gets What From Bush Tax Cut by Human Events (more by this author)
Posted 01/13/2003 ET
Updated 05/19/2003 ET

The facts are unlikely to have any impact on Democratic demagogues intent on waging class war, but, according to an analysis done by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the new Bush tax-cut plan promises to be a windfall for the middle class.

The first Bush tax cut law in 2001, says the Tax Foundation, "effectively eliminated" the income tax for families of four earning less than $35,000. If enacted, the new Bush tax proposal would eliminate 96% of the current income tax bill for families of four earning $40,000.

Under Bush’s plan, they would pay a total of $45 in federal income tax.

In addition to the elimination of the tax on dividends that is getting most of the media attention, Bush’s plan would accelerate each of the phased-in tax cuts enacted in his 2001 proposal. If approved by Congress, the cuts will be retroactive to January 1, meaning they will translate into significant immediate reductions in the taxes withheld from workers paychecks—that is, if they didn’t drop off the tax rolls after the first Bush tax cut.

The Bush plan, the Tax Foundation says, includes:

• "Raising the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000. For a family with two children (earning less than $100,000 per year), this provision alone will mean a tax cut of $800."

• "Reducing the marriage penalty by (1) setting the standard deduction at two times the single amount for married couples filing jointly (this increases the standard deduction from $7,950 to $9,500 for couples), and (2) setting the top 15% bracket threshold at two times the single amount for couples (this increases the top amount in the 15% bracket from $47,450 to $56,800)."

• "Expanding the income threshold of the new 10% rate from $12,000 for couples to $14,000."

• "Accelerating all of the marginal rate cuts to January 1, 2003 (the new rates are: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%)."

Current Bush Plan
AGI TaxableIncome TaxLiability TaxableIncome TaxLiability TaxCut$ TaxCut%Liability
$40K $19,850 $1,178 $18,300 $45 $1,133 96%
$50K $29,850 $2,678 $28,300 $1,545 $1,133 42%
$67K $46,850 $5,228 $45,300 $4,095 $1,133 22%
$75K $54,850 $7,316 $53,300 $5,295 $2,021 28%
$100K $67,800 $10,812 $67,800 $8,570 $2,242 21%
$150K $108,046 $22,878 $108,046 $20,632 $2,247 10%
$175K $128,796 $28,905 $128,796 $26,243 $2,662 9%
$200K $149,546 $35,130 $149,546 $32,053 $3,077 9%

HUMAN EVENTS is the news source President Reagan called his "favorite newspaper" and we still hold high the Reaganesque principles of free enterprise, limited government and, above all, a staunch, unwavering defense of American freedom.

I disagree with you, but appreciate the direct answer. I don't think Obama needs a constitutional fight at this point. He can simply not borrow more money (afterall without an offical debt ceiling agreement lenders won't lend at current rates) continue to service the debt out of the revenue, and begin cutting non-essential services. It puts Obama in a similar position as you opine, but without the constitutional fight.


But the bigger point we both agree on, I think, is that the Democrats mantra of "we will default (on Aug. 2nd) if we don't raise the debt ceiling" is bogus !!

Assuming that there is no deal, and I think that there will be, he'll direct the Treasury to ignore the ceiling and pay our bills on existing debt, citing the 14th Amendment and separation of powers. They may not do that right away, but as the damage to the economy spreads, and the Dow plunges 30 - 40+%, I don't see how he can do anything else.

Then the question becomes what he will do about on-going expenses of government operation. He'll let the damage spread for a while, to put pressure on the Republicans, but I think the public tolerance for economic pain, especially in the stock market and to a lesser degree the bond market, is limited right now. And both markets will react sharply and negatively. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Look at a shareholder meeting for a publicly traded company... if someone owns enough shares, they can pretty much control who gets on the board, and how the company is run. Originally Posted by DragonTongue

You can't be serious. Believe it or not, you only get to vote once in political elections in America, regardless of how much you pay in taxes. In corporate America, you get one vote for every share you own. You do see the difference, don't you? Paying taxes is so fundamentally different from purchasing equity that it makes for a ridiculous analogy.

In the same vein, paying Federal income taxes is not the same as making political contributions. $100,000 in political contributions will get you face time with your US Senator. Paying $100,000 in Federal taxes will get you a nice auto-signed form letter and a picture of him/her.

...continue to service the debt out of the revenue, and begin cutting non-essential services. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Yup. Medicare, Social Security and the military will take the biggest hits. Won't Republicans be popular once the Social Security checks stop coming!

Obama won't touch the essential mililtary operations, including pay.....

And I don't think this is a replay of the Clinton shutdown. The media mob won't drive the agenda like it use to.. Also, Americans are fed up with over spending in Washington.....sure there will be fall out in some districts, but there will be offsetting support in other....if this is Obama's gambit then it is certainly high stakes poker.......and the Tea Party organizations, who dominated the mid term elections, will be strong and vocal support for the Republicans hanging tough.....

Reasonable Americans now understand we are carrying too much debt, Washington has gotten too big, and spending/size of Government needs to be reigned in. That wasn't the case in the Clinton shut down.

Yup. Medicare, Social Security and the military will take the biggest hits. Won't Republicans be popular once the Social Security checks stop coming! Originally Posted by TheTexasTornado

This question gets asked a lot and here's the answer- Obama spent all that money for what reason(s)? The answer is to fix the shit Bush fucked up- you guys who ask this question act as if Obama on Day 1 walked in with a Booming economy, no wars and a surplus. Compare the govt on Day 1 when George W Bush took office to day 1 when Obama took office- 2 complete 360 degree differences- Bush walked in with a booming economy and a surplus- it's like comparing apples to oranges. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Day 1 for “W”: 1) His predecessor’s poor employment of intelligence assets allowed foreign agents to enter the country and allowed those agents to diligently train and prepare to perpetrate the single greatest crime against American civilians and the American economy in American history. 2) A red-hot, derivative laden, sub-prime mortgage market—in large part sparked and fanned by Slick Willie’s Community Reinvestment Act which mandated that banks increase the number of loans made to “underserved” markets—was well underway to flare up and incinerate the entire American economy.

the economy sucked, we just came off the internet bubble and they crashed the economy like they always do when handing off the presidency...

This question gets asked a lot and here's the answer- Obama spent all that money for what reason(s)? The answer is to fix the shit Bush fucked up- you guys who ask this question act as if Obama on Day 1 walked in with a Booming economy, no wars and a surplus. Compare the govt on Day 1 when George W Bush took office to day 1 when Obama took office- 2 complete 360 degree differences- Bush walked in with a booming economy and a surplus- it's like comparing apples to oranges. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Your argument is the proverbial fight fire with fire. bush spent a lot, so lets spend more which creates more debt. The surplus you speak of was a budget surplus, not a debt surplus. They did not apply that budget surplus the the public debt, they kept it to spend. And bush spent it after 9/11 when the rules of engagement changed and the WOT began.

I do not agree with the other spending bush inc. spent on things like no child left behind, the patriot act and DHS/TSA, TARP, etc. NONE of that spending ever reached the Trillion dollar mark until TARP. But saying spending at levels reached right now which has never been done in our history is good spending is a diservice. Even though the PERCENTAGE of spending to GDP was higher during WWII, the amount is astronomically higher.

Who do you think is going to pay the debt service now? There is no way that this generation will ever be able to come back to even clinton level spending. Kicking the can down the street is not the way to balance the spending with taxation.

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live.. We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers. Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. - Thomas Jefferson

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression. - Thomas Jefferson

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation. - John Marshall, McCullough v. Maryland, 1819

Eh, doesn't much matter. Looks like Republicans are just going to back down. Smart move. They were going to be tarred and feathered once the Medicare, Social Security, and military checks stopped coming.

You can't be serious. Believe it or not, you only get to vote once in political elections in America, regardless of how much you pay in taxes. In corporate America, you get one vote for every share you own. You do see the difference, don't you? Paying taxes is so fundamentally different from purchasing equity that it makes for a ridiculous analogy.

In the same vein, paying Federal income taxes is not the same as making political contributions. $100,000 in political contributions will get you face time with your US Senator. Paying $100,000 in Federal taxes will get you a nice auto-signed form letter and a picture of him/her. Originally Posted by TheTexasTornado

One person is one vote, correct - that puts the people into the office. But how many of those voters turn off of politics between election cycles? It's the lobbyists and corporations who put pressure on the politicians when they aren't busy campaigning for votes. If I was paying that much in taxes, I would understand the urge to keep a closer eye on my own representatives to keep them in line with what I was paying in. I don't think this analogy is as ridiculous as you claim.