Americans Are With The Republicans on Debt...

To say neither side should....is rhetoric. I am asking you how you think Obama will govern if both sides don't give in.......Why are you evading my questions?

Let me repeat...if no deal is made and the debt ceiling isn't increased......

What will Obama do then?

Make the interest/debt payments, or fully fund the rest of the government?

Whirl unless Obama's actions are different from his Rhetoric- I agree with Obama when he says that neither part should make ultimatums and that both parties need to put aside political rhetoric and posturing and make the best decision for America. However, I think Boehner is trying to appeal to the TEA Party instead of doing the right thing. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Whirl unless Obama's actions are different from his Rhetoric- I agree with Obama when he says that neither part should make ultimatums and that both parties need to put aside political rhetoric and posturing and make the best decision for America. However, I think Boehner is trying to appeal to the TEA Party instead of doing the right thing. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

It is pretty obvious to me who has assumed the leadership role in the debt ceiling discussions and it is not Boehner. The Tea Party is leading him around on a leash. He seems to be scared to death (he is probably on the verge of tears once again) to make a decision that might anger the Tea Party. On the other hand, Obama appears to have made a difficult decision that many (if not most) in his party are not in favor of.

Now I ask of you, who is the leader? And who is not?
Who is willing to take on his party faithful and who is not?
Who is willing to make the difficult decisions and who is not?

You might not like it Whirly but a true leader will stand up and make the difficult decisions, which is something Boehner is obviously afraid to do!

As for me personally, I am pissed off at both Obama and Boehner.

I am pissed at Obama because he is apparently willing to raise the retirement age and/or perhaps something even worse.

I am pissed at Boehner because he does not have the balls to stand up to the Tea Party. The Speaker is supposed to be the Leader of the House of Representatives. He is not leading, he is being led! Apparently, Boehner feels it is ok to screw the middle class workers by raising their retirement age. But Crybaby Boehner refuses to consider rescending the Bush tax cuts that only benefit their wealthy campaign donors, corporate executives and the Wall Street Investment Banker crowd! Apparently, Boehner has no problem with the middle class being left to suffer the consequences while the rich continue to pad their pocketbooks!! WTF is (W)rong with this picture?

Boehner is a friggin' WUSS!!!!

Obama was demanding a halt to government spending in 2006, and the every indicator shows government spending is more out of hand today than it was in 2006. So the only real difference is who is in office. He can't expect to have it both ways. He says it was wrong in 2006 so, unless he is a hypocrite, it's still wrong today.

Obama was demanding a halt to government spending in 2006, and the every indicator shows government spending is more out of hand today than it was in 2006. So the only real difference is who is in office. He can't expect to have it both ways. He says it was wrong in 2006 so, unless he is a hypocrite, it's still wrong today. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Um, no. In fact, that's why pragmatism is a virtue. One should always deal with the circumstances at hand, rather than being dogmatic--believing that the same solution works regardless of the problem. Case in point: reducing taxes can have a stimulating effect on the economy. Only to a certain point, however. Once you reduce them beyond that point, you get economic contraction. That's demonstrably where we are now. The Bush tax cuts have devastated the US economy. More tax cuts--or even failing to raise taxes will only continue the harm.

It is pretty obvious to me who has assumed the leadership role in the debt ceiling discussions and it is not Boehner. The Tea Party is leading him around on a leash. He seems to be scared to death (he is probably on the verge of tears once again) to make a decision that might anger the Tea Party. On the other hand, Obama appears to have made a difficult decision that many (if not most) in his party are not in favor of.

Now I ask of you, who is the leader? And who is not?
Who is willing to take on his party faithful and who is not?
Who is willing to make the difficult decisions and who is not?

You might not like it Whirly but a true leader will stand up and make the difficult decisions, which is something Boehner is obviously afraid to do!

As for me personally, I am pissed off at both Obama and Boehner.

I am pissed at Obama because he is apparently willing to raise the retirement age and/or perhaps something even worse.

I am pissed at Boehner because he does not have the balls to stand up to the Tea Party. The Speaker is supposed to be the Leader of the House of Representatives. He is not leading, he is being led! Apparently, Boehner feels it is ok to screw the middle class workers by raising their retirement age. But Crybaby Boehner refuses to consider rescending the Bush tax cuts that only benefit their wealthy campaign donors, corporate executives and the Wall Street Investment Banker crowd! Apparently, Boehner has no problem with the middle class being left to suffer the consequences while the rich continue to pad their pocketbooks!! WTF is (W)rong with this picture?

Boehner is a friggin' WUSS!!!! Originally Posted by bigtex

Whirl BigTex answered my question for you- Obama is showing true leadership by making difficult choices that his party doesn't like- Boehner is not being a WUSS Big Tex he's being a PUSSY- no sense of sugar coating the truth Boehner is simply posturing to the Tea party and Independents like myself and every other American can see through his plan.
Whirl if the debt ceiling is not raised the GOP will look very bad and the polls will show it- Whirl give me one reason why not raise taxes on the wealthy?

The Bush tax cuts have devastated the US economy. More tax cuts--or even failing to raise taxes will only continue the harm. Originally Posted by TheTexasTornado

I was under the impression that it was a combination of oil hitting $150/bbl, the ARM rates resetting and putting people into houses they couldn't afford, and the ensuing banking crisis that devastated the economy. Raising taxes appears to be a necessity to start whittling down the debt, but targeting the top 5% will only make them more resentful and encourage them to pack up and leave. I'd like to see these politicians learn to say NO and stop spending our money like a kid in a candy store.

Recommended Reading: Rich States Poor States - was informative for me with a non-finance background.

Obama said one thing, and he is now saying another. He originally claimed it was a "reckless fiscal policy" and "failure of leadership" to be in such a position. Should the voters who put him in office now doubt him? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

John Boehner, Eric Cantor and the Republican caucus voted to raise the debt limit how many times for a Republican President? With how many demands attached?

Thought so.

- Whirl give me one reason why not raise taxes on the wealthy? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I know it wasn't addressed to me, but raising the top tier of income tax doesn't hit the wealthy.

They need to reform the code and level the rates between income levels and income types before they focus on taxing the high income earners.

The reason Buffett pays a lower % than his assistant (or secretary - I forget which he said) is because his "income" is taxed as dividends and capital gains. If he was getting paychecks that large, he would be paying a much higher percentage. The more your employer pays you, the higher % bracket you are taxed in... That's not the case with Capital Gains. The field needs to be leveled, and instituting a progressive system for Capital Gains (as we have on income) would serve 2 purposes:
1) People would still be encouraged to save and plan for their own futures / retirements
2) The ultra-wealthy will pay a higher average tax, much more in line with the total % paid by those earning $200-$500k/year.

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?

Whirl BigTex answered my question for you- Obama is showing true leadership by making difficult choices that his party doesn't like- Boehner is not being a WUSS Big Tex he's being a PUSSY- no sense of sugar coating the truth Boehner is simply posturing to the Tea party and Independents like myself and every other American can see through his plan.
Whirl if the debt ceiling is not raised the GOP will look very bad and the polls will show it- Whirl give me one reason why not raise taxes on the wealthy? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

... but targeting the top 5% will only make them more resentful and encourage them to pack up and leave. Originally Posted by DragonTongue

Obviously, you don't think them very patriotic. If the thought of having to pay more than 15% on capital gains is so onerous to them, then I say let them leave. I don't believe they'll be missed.

Will Obama cave in? or,

Will Obama default on our debt? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It seems to me that if raising the debt limit is important enough for you to pose this question 3 or 4 times, then it shouldn't be something that's open to any negotiation. It should just be done. Period.

If the debt limit is not raised, Whirlaway, who will you blame?

I was under the impression that it was a combination of oil hitting $150/bbl, the ARM rates resetting and putting people into houses they couldn't afford, and the ensuing banking crisis that devastated the economy. Originally Posted by DragonTongue

The Bush tax cuts have added some $2 trillion to the national debt and constitute the largest component of projected deficits going forward. These facts are documented in recent reports from the Congressional Budget Office, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They show that simply allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule next year would be sufficient, by itself, to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio.

The things you mention triggered the current economic situation, but the powderkeg was filled by the Bush tax cuts.

Obviously, you don't think them very patriotic. If the thought of having to pay more than 15% on capital gains is so onerous to them, then I say let them leave. I don't believe they'll be missed. Originally Posted by TheTexasTornado

Oprah logs her travel to avoid California taxes.

John Kerry registered his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid taxes in Massachusetts.

Wesley Snipes hired a tax attorney to get out of paying all his taxes (didn't work out too well though)

Bill Clinton pardoned a guy who was unable to come back due to a tax bill in the hundreds of millions (who then made a large donation to his library)

Was it Charlie Rangle who didn't pay taxes on his rental property in PR?

I don't see the wealthy as being any more or less patriotic than anyone else... but how many people write voluntary checks to the IRS? To me the evidence is there that with higher tax bills there is more effort put into minimizing the personal costs.

Oprah logs her travel to avoid California taxes.

John Kerry registered his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid taxes in Massachusetts.

Wesley Snipes hired a tax attorney to get out of paying all his taxes (didn't work out too well though)

Bill Clinton pardoned a guy who was unable to come back due to a tax bill in the hundreds of millions (who then made a large donation to his library)

Was it Charlie Rangle who didn't pay taxes on his rental property in PR?

I don't see the wealthy as being any more or less patriotic than anyone else... but how many people write voluntary checks to the IRS? To me the evidence is there that with higher tax bills there is more effort put into minimizing the personal costs. Originally Posted by DragonTongue

OK, so close the loopholes--something that Republicans have categorically refused to do. And if anyone wants to leave the country, as you claimed they would, then let them! America's not such a bad place for most of us. I have no problem increasing Oprah's taxes, or John Kerry's taxes, or Marc Rich's taxes. I have no problem punishing Charlie Rangel, if he were found guilty of failure to pay taxes.

What's your point?

I don't see the wealthy as being any more or less patriotic than anyone else... but how many people write voluntary checks to the IRS? Originally Posted by DragonTongue

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.

To me the evidence is there that with higher tax bills there is more effort put into minimizing the personal costs.

I guess i missed the mass exodus when Bill Clinton raised taxes.