The Observation Deck

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp

Hope and Change.. really? This guy is not qualified to run a Kool-Aid stand

I think if he had been listened to in 2006 we'd have a lot less of a recession now and a lot less of a debt problem. I'm disappointed that the dems aren't hammering home the fact that republicans have not wanted to pay for 1. their 10year wars 2. pay for their tax cuts or 3. pay for their Medicare part d/gift to big pharma.

He was right then and he's right now. Not raising the debt ceiling unfortunately would be a grocery cart of money for a loaf of bread kind of disaster.

Ellen Cormier wrote:I think if he had been listened to in 2006 we'd have a lot less of a recession now and a lot less of a debt problem. I'm disappointed that the dems aren't hammering home the fact that republicans have not wanted to pay for 1. their 10year wars 2. pay for their tax cuts or 3. pay for their Medicare part d/gift to big pharma.

He was right then and he's right now. Not raising the debt ceiling unfortunately would be a grocery cart of money for a loaf of bread kind of disaster.

Hope and Change was nothing more than hype.. More war.. More debt... Thanks Obama! Nothing has changed...

pay for their tax cuts

why enable a crack addict? This is our money not the governments. Tax cuts allow us to keep more of what we earn..

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/ ... chart.html

Those evil Bush tax cuts Giving people more of what they earned, especially people who made $50k or less.. (The majority of Americans)

their 10year wars

How many Democrats voted for the war in Iraq? Who was the first president to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities? Who's war now? Amazing, that we elected such a green horn in such trying times.. Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate for president in 2008.

Stephen Eisel wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/04/05/business/tax.chart.html

Those evil Bush tax cuts Giving people more of what they earned, especially people who made $50k or less.. (The majority of Americans)

Do you just read a graph like people read newpaper articles and only look at the top?

That big black bar at the bottom? Those are the tax cuts for people who don't need it. And that money could have been used as revenue by out government.

Obama couldn't solve this debt problem on his own. The President does not have the power to just change things as he pleases. It was Congress and its inability to act when it needed to that caused this mess. And that is entirely the voters fault for putting in a bunch of angry anti-government tea partyers who don't understand the meaning of the word "compromise".

Everyone except the tea party lost here. The moderate republicans lost face, the dems lost what they were fighting for, and Obama had his hands tied because the legislative branch acted like doofuses for weeks. And the country lost because now our rating has been downgraded.

This was just a terrible illustration of how badly behaved elected officials are. Hopefully voters will consider more carefully who they select on the ballot and wont just vote in someone who doesn't like the way the government works.

Do you just read a graph like people read newpaper articles and only look at the top?

That big black bar at the bottom? Those are the tax cuts for people who don't need it. And that money could have been used as revenue by out government.

If you got an A in a class and someone else got an F in that same class.. Should they take an average of both your grades so you both receive a C? These people (most) take risk and create jobs. Why should they be taxed more than the average Joe? Why should successful people be punished and have more of a tax liability? Why can't the government control their spending? Why punish succcessful people? The Jimmy Carter luxury tax impacted who? Did you actually read the numbers or did you just have an emotional liberal hateful anti-rich response ? 15% is not greater than 48%..

Obama couldn't solve this debt problem on his own. The President does not have the power to just change things as he pleases.

Really?





Hope?

Federal Budget 101

The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars (A $ trillion being 1000 stacks of a $1 billion dollars). Few people know how much money that actually is, so here's a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let's put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:

U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Amount cut from the budget: $385


So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the Jones family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $385 from its annual budget. What family would cut $385 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in deficit spending?

It is a start, although hardly a solution.
Now after years of this, the Jones family has $142,710 of debt on its credit card (which is the equivalent of the national debt).
You would think the Jones family would recognize and address this situation, but it does not. Neither does Congress.

The root of the debt problem is that for decades the voters typically did not send people to Congress to save money. They were sent there to bring home the bacon to their own home state.

To affect budget change, Congress needs new marching orders. To some extent, this message was sent at the last election. That was not an anomaly or an accident. The voters (tax payers) voted people in, whom they thought would stop runaway spending. The name "Tea Party" is a fabrication of the media, because the media did not feel comfortable characterizing ordinary citizens as simply angry "Tax-Payers." Even though it was proven to be a grass roots uprising of tax payers, it was not as easy to call ordinary citizens right winged racists who in fact wanted some better representation and responsible fiscal behavior. They needed to call these radicals something. Oh yes - radicals who are going against the status quo of Washington tax-and-spend (see the credit card bullet above).

To prove it, every time you see the word Tea Partier, or Tea Bagger, or similar - exchange the words for Tax-Payer and you'll see my point. It does not nearly sound evil enough. There has to be bad Republicans kicking people down on their luck, throwing grandma off a cliff, being intransigent, rewarding big business, all of the cartoonish cliche's.

But all the name calling has not solved anything. When will the blaming stop? Where are the real ideas for job creation?

The president went on the air last hour and actually said there is nothing that can be cut! However he wants tax increases. Taxes will not and cannot do it. Those evil rich people might be squeezed for a $trillion (not enough), but that golden goose is about squeezed dry. Meanwhile 50% of Americans pay no tax. Is that balanced? When you're in a hole Mr. President, quit digging. You cannot pull money out of the economy and give it the government and create jobs. The government is already the nation's largest employer, which is a crime in itself.

I love the idea of blaming the rating agency (the referee) for how the game (our debt) is being played. His reaction? I don't need no stinking referee to play the game. No? BTW, before the November elections, the Democrats had a super majority. They could have easily raised the debt ceiling then, but chose not to. Why? Because they knew the Republicans could get blamed for being the buzz killers and trying to stop the insanity. "We can make it their fault!" Worked pretty well until the referees showed up.

Dow has dropped 150 points since his ridiculous press conference (which he kept the public waiting for 55 minutes to show up for - gotta love the respect) Barry has no ideas other than taxing "the rich." He's Jimmy Carter on steroids.

It is awfully hard (but not impossible) to reverse course and tell the government to stop borrowing money from our children and spending it now. One rating agency just did, the other is probably not far behind. These are the referee's. Do we really need rules?

In effect, what we have is a reverse mortgage on the country. The problem is that the voters have become addicted to the money. Moreover, the American voters are still in the denial stage, and do not want to face the possibility of going into rehab.

I believe the voters will see 2012 as a necessary intervention.

.

Thealexa Becker wrote:That big black bar at the bottom? Those are the tax cuts for people who don't need it. And that money could have been used as revenue by out government.

You're talking about "their fair share". Who's making that determination? I can live on my under $40K/yr salary, maybe they should should tax 100% of income over $40K?

Think of the billions Bill Gates has given in charity. Would it be better if that money went to the government??

1961 speech wrote:We are told that we give the Lord a tenth and we are told that if the Lord prospers us ten times as much, we give ten times as much. But when you start computing Caesar's share under our present tax system you'll find that the man of average income, if he has prospered ten times as much, his personal income tax goes up 53 times as much. And does it really help the little man? Those of us that believe that we are willing to pay a proportional amount in order to remove the burden from that man of lesser income. Take a man with a gross income of $3500 per year and a wife and two children. When he is finished paying the tax collectors, federal, state and local and all those hidden and indirect taxes at the end of the year, he will find the tax collectors share of his gross $3500 is $1059. Now some people tell us the answer to his problem is to soak those of a higher income even more. But how much leeway is left? If the government, tomorrow, started confiscating all income above $6000, all income, the increased revenue wouldn't pay the interest on the national debt. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that amounted to one-third of its people's earnings. Today, 31 cents out of every dollar earned in the United States goes to the tax collector. And of that 31 cents, 23 cents goes to the federal government, leaving 8 cents for the federal, county and the local community to divide up between itself. No wonder we have to turn to government and ask for federal aid in all of our projects. But wouldn't it make a lot more sense to keep some of that money here in the local community to begin with instead of than routing it through that puzzle palace on the Potomac where its returned to us, minus a sizable carrying charge?

Also, has anyone here taken any economics classes? Just wondering.

Mr. Pitchford,
I am not talking about their fair share. I am stating a fact. They do not need a tax break. They want one, but they don't NEED one.

Mr. James,
No one is listening to people with real ideas because they are too busy name calling and blame throwing.

Rich people aren't evil. And they are far from being squeezed dry.

You are right, taxes alone won't do it. But spending cuts alone won't do it either. You need a combination.

Where did you get the 50% of American's don't pay taxes. That really seems wrong. What is your source?

Why is it a crime that the government is the nation's largest employer? Who else would it be? Exxon Mobile? Johnson and Johnson? Who?

And the rating agencies are under scrutiny because they screwed up so badly during the financial crisis. That's all.

I think voters in 2012 are going to do what they always do, vote emotionally on social issues or vote uninformed. This crisis isn't going to change anything. People really don't understand most issues thoroughly.

Stephen Eisel wrote:If you got an A in a class and someone else got an F in that same class.. Should they take an average of both your grades so you both receive a C?

No, because that would screw up my GPA, which is quite lovely right now.

This is a pretty bad analogy since professors teach you the material and then grade it. I never remember getting lessons from the government about how to make money.

These people (most) take risk and create jobs.

I just heard a report that said that fortune 500 companies are actually firing people while small businesses started by middle class people are actually hiring. Those super rich people aren't taking risks.

And furthermore, economically, the evidence would suggest that they aren't going to take risks because the financial stability of this country is still in question. Everyone with a lot of money is being cautious. That is just a fact of the current financial climate. In fact, that would be the smart thing to do. I would do it myself if I had any doubts about future profits.

Sadly, like everything from the left wing or the right wing, it's just rhetoric.

The government can't control their spending because we continously elect either 1) incompitent representatives 2) representatives who easily cave to special interests 3) representatives who mean well but don't have the economic background to make good decisions.

Why do people view taxation as a punishment? Since it isn't, that sounds so melodramatic.

Should we charge the rich people so much that they become poor? Of course not.

Should we consider altering the tax margins? Yes, because we should consider everything.

A well balanced solution will include both tax increases AND spending cuts, both in moderation. Any decent and non-partisan economist will tell you that.

Did you actually read the numbers or did you just have an emotional liberal hateful anti-rich response ? 15% is not greater than 48%..

Although you have these charming little emoticons, I wonder why you are trying to dismiss me with the suggestion that I am a rich person hating and emotional liberal? How do you know?

I took 3 Economics classes in college, Principles of Microeconomics, Principles of Macroeconomics and...I don't recall the name of the last one. I remember very little about any of the classes beyond the concepts of supply and demand.
However, I have been listening to the words of Milton Friedman over the last few months.

I am not talking about their fair share. I am stating a fact. They do not need a tax break. They want one, but they don't NEED one.

If they NEED to pay more, in some person's opinion, they must not be paying their fair share...
They worked for that money and they are entitled to keep it.

Using Stephen's example, you worked for your grades, you should be entitled to keep them.

Where did you get the 50% of American's don't pay taxes. That really seems wrong. What is your source?

http://theweek.com/article/index/214399/half-of-americans-pay-no-income-tax
69 million families, 45% of American households, paid no Federal income tax for 2010. Many of them received tax refunds as well.

Why is it a crime that the government is the nation's largest employer? Who else would it be? Exxon Mobile? Johnson and Johnson? Who?

The larger the federal government is, the more money they need to run it, the less agile it is, the greater number of levels to its bureaucracy, the more...I hope you get my point.

This is a pretty bad analogy since professors teach you the material and then grade it. I never remember getting lessons from the government about how to make money.

The lesson is, that you should be able to keep what you earn.. not have to give 50% to someone else who did not do anything to assist you..

I just heard a report that said that fortune 500 companies are actually firing people while small businesses started by middle class people are actually hiring. Those super rich people aren't taking risks.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/for ... index.html

These Fortune 100 employers have at least 350 openings each, totaling more than 96,000 jobs. Want to work there? We asked company representatives what they're looking for - and secrets to getting hired.