Americans Are With The Republicans on Debt...

The House Republicans need to pass a temporary increase in the debt ceiling, along with the $2 to $3 trillion in cuts they have been seeking and send it along to the Senate for action or inaction.

Let the Democratic Senate do Obama's bidding in blocking passage !

Americans are watching....

The American people want a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. That's clear. Republicans can fight against that to their own detriment. I think that they'll wise up and back down. The Republican leadership isn't stupid. Which isn't the same as a high proportion of their followers.

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. Originally Posted by DragonTongue

All well and good, but what you pay in Federal income tax doesn't buy you lobbying time. And you can still only use your one vote. You wanna lobby? Fine, but you've gotta ante up IN ADDITION to you income taxes. You want more than one vote? Sorry, but you're in the wrong country. You are incorrect, sir. It's still a bad analogy.

The American people want a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans.. Originally Posted by TheTexasTornado

not me.I m not rich eigher.Envy is not a good trait.

not me.I m not rich eigher.Envy is not a good trait. Originally Posted by JONBALLS

You disparage your fellow Americans/ It's not envy. It's fairness. They had their chance to 'trickle down', and it didn't get the vast majority of Americans anything. Now we should go back to the old way--when America was prosperous.

All well and good, but what you pay in Federal income tax doesn't buy you lobbying time. And you can still only use your one vote. You wanna lobby? Fine, but you've gotta ante up IN ADDITION to you income taxes. Originally Posted by TheTexasTornado

That's exactly what I was saying... I would be more inclined to keep in contact with the representative. I hear a lot of people complain about how much influence Wall-Street has on politics. I don't see why wealthy individuals wouldn't be just as dangerous, if not more-so. But I do concede that it's not an apples-apples analogy.

I really wasn't following politics until Bush's re-election, so I'm catching up on the history of the policies without the benefit of feeling the pulse of real-time developments. I've also been hearing whispers of further 401(k) caps and re-defining personal retirement accounts as sources of additional revenue, it will be interesting to follow those as they come to light.

You disparage your fellow Americans/ It's not envy. It's fairness. They had their chance to 'trickle down', and it didn't get the vast majority of Americans anything. Now we should go back to the old way--when America was prosperous. Originally Posted by TheTexasTornado

The top 1% earners account for approximately 25% of the nations taxable income. What % of the total federal income tax do you consider to be fair for them to pay? 25%? 50%? 75%?

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 !! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Why doesn't your scenario of paying some debts and not others violate the equal protections clause?

You say that expenditure x is "non-essential." The person entitled to expenditure x notes that you are paying expenditure y. Both are authorized under the law. What gives the representative on one branch of the government the unilateral power to decide which law to obey and which law not to obey? Which debt to honor and which one not to honor? That's a ridiculous position and clearly violates the Constitution.

We'll pay U.S. creditors, but not Chinese creditors? We'll pay someone who is entitled to compensation under the Social Security laws, but not someone who is entitled to compensation under the Agricultural Price Support laws? Funny, I thought we were a nation of laws, not of men? Now the President, without input from Congress gets to decide which laws are OK and which ones are "non-essential." Can he decide that half the defense budget is "non-essential." Can he decide that the capital gains tax breaks on the book are "non-essential." Could he decide that we need immigration reform and declare our borders open and disband the INS by saying that was a "non-essential" service?

You disparage your fellow Americans/ It's fairness. . Originally Posted by TheTexasTornado

no, its theft..

I will leave the answer to your question up to the Supreme Court where it ultimately will land.

My point is, if Obam invokes the 14th and does as you say, it will certianly result in legal actions to stop him. I don't think the WH or the Obama re-election campgain want that fight. Especially if they think they are winning the defecit arguement with the electorate.

Why doesn't your scenario of paying some debts and not others violate the equal protections clause?
Originally Posted by TexTushHog

My thoughts:

The American people want a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. I agree that most Americans support an increase of some kind - but they also want to see drastic cuts first !!!!

Republicans can fight against that to their own detriment. I think that they'll wise up and back down. The Republican leadership isn't stupid. Which isn't the same as a high proportion of their followers. They can't. 235 memebers of the House took the "No Tax" pledge. They will not break that pledge. Otherwise it will be doomsday from the base. Originally Posted by TheTexasTornado

You disparage your fellow Americans/ It's not envy. It's fairness. They had their chance to 'trickle down', and it didn't get the vast majority of Americans anything. Now we should go back to the old way--when America was prosperous. Originally Posted by TheTexasTornado

It won’t be the Republicans who suffer when grandma doesn’t get her $800 monthly SS check while Obama, Reid and Pelosi do receive their nearly $20,000 monthly stipends. Plus, if their exclusive, private health club remains open while food inspectors are furloughed; well, that’ll play real well in the press won’t it? Similarly, each Congressman and Senator has an annual office budget of nearly $1 million—that’s more than half a billion dollars that could probably be better spent.

As Congress and the “Anointed One” continue to posture on and debate whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, it’s interesting to note that the “Anointed One” continues to expand government programs and government spending while simultaneously saying he is willing to cut government spending. It appears that the “Anointed One” is “Janus-faced”. But, alas! Like poor Janus, the “Anointed One” has also lost his faithful flock. More and more Americans do not believe in the little man in the White House. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

And in regards to the budget, means-tested welfare is insuring the poor are getting more than a trickle: Since the beginning of the War on Poverty [1964], government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation adjusted 2008 dollars).

In his first two years in office, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one third from $522 billion to $697 billion. The combined two-year increase will equal almost $263 billion ($88.2 billion in FY 2009 plus $174.6 billion in FY 2010). After adjusting for inflation, this increase is two and a half times greater than any previous increase in federal welfare spending in U.S. history. As a share of the economy, annual federal welfare spending will rise by roughly 1.2 percent of GDP.

Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.

While campaigning for the presidency, Obama lamented that “the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month.” Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.

Most of Obama’s increases in welfare spending are permanent expansions of the welfare state, not temporary increases in response to the current recession. According to the long-term spending plans set forth in Obama’s FY 2010 budget, combined federal and state spending will not drop significantly after the recession ends. In fact, by 2014, welfare spending is likely to equal $1 trillion per year.

According to President Obama’s budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years (FY 2009 to FY 2018). This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a poor family of four. Over the next decade, federal spending will equal $7.5 trillion, while state spending will reach $2.8 trillion.

These figures do not include any of the increases in health care expenditure currently being debated in Congress. In the years ahead, average annual welfare spending will be roughly twice the spending levels under President Bill Clinton after adjusting for inflation. Total means-tested spending is likely to average roughly 6 percent of GDP for the next decade. (p 2)

Rector, Robert, Katherine Bradley, and Rachel Sheffield. “Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor.” Heritage Special Report SR-67. 16 September 2009.

Some nuanced polling on the issue of what the public wants on how to reduce the debt:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...al-mainstream/

Of the major players, Gallup has one of the worst polling track records...very unreliable polling data.

How do we even know that the polls are even close to being accurate. Has anyone here ever been contacted by a pollster for a national poll? Polls are statistical analysis, they can be skewed just by the question being asked.

If I wanted to get a poll that was favorable to the inner city schools, who would ever be the wiser if they didn't poll a city that has a great inner city school system over a poorly ran school system? I can't deny I've looked at polls or even used them to attempt getting a point across. however, it's fairly obvious there are polls on both sides of the political spectrum that are favorable and/or unfavorable. We will never be able to convence someone of "public opinion" when polls brought to light are opposite the original poll being pushed. The left will never believe a poll coming from a source on the right and vice-versa.

The old adage of three types of lies has statistics as the third type of lie. Polls are a tool used when a group would like to sway public opinion. how many times has someone looked at a poll and said, "well, if the rest of the country says ok, it must be a good thing" instead of researching the polled question.