Debt Ceiling Debate: Much ado about nothing

I wish I could get excited about the ongoing debt ceiling debate. Unfortunately, while they talk a good game, the Republicans’ supposedly draconian plans (according to Harry Reid and Barack Obama) is weak tea indeed.

The reality is that Speaker Boehner’s newest plan only purports to cut $1 trillion over the next 10 years. None of that is specific or immediate. Considering that recent deficits have been over $1 trillion annually, even this plan, which is sure to be vetoed by Obama, is supposedly too radical. The reality is that it will continue the current deficit spending unabated and, since one Congress cannot force a future Congress to adhere to its will, there is no reason to believe that the $1 trillion will ever materialize.

The recent past hardly inspires confidence. Remember the deal that kept the federal government from being shut down? The good news is that Republicans have control over spending. All they need to do is refuse to pass any legislation that spends more than we have revenue to cover….

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 Replies to “Debt Ceiling Debate: Much ado about nothing”

  1. I just love to hear the perpetually-stupid rail about “taxing corporations more”. Any and all taxes “paid” by corporations will simply be passed along to the end-consumers of the products and services provided by the corporations. Therefore, any taxes on corporations, or for that matter on any business will be paid by the customer; in other words you and I will pay them.

    Does that mean I agree with Jeff Immelt and GE’s corrupt buying of special “extra” tax breaks, not allowed other businesses who’s CEO’s are not part of the Obama behind-kissing “inner circle”? Absolutely not. But that does not mean that I am in favor of corrupt liberal politicians buying favor with their freeloading welfare voters by imposing taxes on businesses that will be paid by those same duped voters.

    However, since the same liberals have dumbed-down the educational system, those same voters don’t understand basic truths of how businesses stay afloat. And I don’t see any push among politicians to change their misconceptions.

    So, lets “tax the rich” tax those “mean businessmen” who after all, “don’t need that much money” and watch our jobless rate rise to 20 % under the corrupt “leadership” of Obama and the rest of the democrats. I think with a 20 % true unemployment rate, his defeat is assured.

    My 2 cents worth.

  2. I say tax the rich.

    The top 25 hedge managers made over $25.3 billion in 2009. They paid a 15% tax rate. 2010 wasn’t a bad year either. They made $22 billion plus. Again, they paid a flat rate of 15% on their earnings given their “favored” status in the tax code. This is far less than what most Americans pay (those that do “pay” taxes). Hardly fair even under the current tax rate structure which is historically low.

    I note most American corporations are doing quite well. Sitting on record levels of cash. Yeah, the businessman is an endangered species. And still whining about the burdensome tax burdens they must shoulder. (Let’s not mention anything about special “favored” treatments though, be it tax credits, liberal deductions, off-shore banks, etc)

    I note the Don Israel whines about favored treatment of Obama favored businesses. Really, read today’s paper Don? How about a no-bid, cost-plus contract given to KBR during the Bush administration. Republican fingerprints were all over that one. The whistle-blowing federal govt worker paid a high price for not playing along given it violated the law. (I thought Republicans were the party of “law and order”).

    A final note Don, you talk about those freeloading welfare voters and liberal politicians. But wasn’t it Republicans who voted in Medicare Part D thus buying favor with seniors, paving the way for Bush’s second term. The fact that no funding stream was provided didn’t matter did it. Didn’t even use the governments massive buying power to seek good deals (instead allowed favored treatment to Rx manufactures) thus low prices for seniors and the US govt.

    Yeah, funny thing about rose colored glasses, some of us don’t wear them thus are able to see favors granted by anyone with the money to buy a US Congressman or two.

  3. Where does one begin? So, most Americans pay more than 15% of $22 Billion dollars? Yeah, I pay closer to 30% of a lot less money. That being said, that someone pays less tax than another isn’t an argument to RAISE taxes on anyone. If anything the burden is too high on the “Average” American, even though almost half of the population pays no income tax at all.
    Bush? Really? Are we STILL talking about him? Does one Administration giving out favors to corporations REALLY justify another Administration doing it? I think not.
    As for Republicans supporting Medicare part D, well I suppose if I were a Republican, I’d feel attacked, but since I opposed Medicare Part D and the Republicans, I don’t see the relevance.
    The Rose colored glasses you’re wearing are just making your sheet of talking points (Bush! The Republicans did it too! The Rich don’t pay enough Taxes!) look pink there Mark R.
    Let’s start from the premise that the money an individual earns is THEIRS, and that taxes are for the most part a form of theft at best, slavery at worst. We tolerate a certain amount of taxation for essential, constitutionally-mandated purposes. Above and beyond that, there is little legitimacy to the additional spending other than “precedent”. Now we’ve got a Marxist in the White House trying to collapse the economy and a bunch of idiot Republicans who are willing to go along with it so long as they can give the appearance of having done something.
    I hope in the next election cycle all of the bums get tossed.

  4. Given your paying 30% then the assumption is your subject to the tax tables almost every American is required to use. Hedge fund managers don’t have to use the tables. They are taxed at 15% regardless of earnings. If that’s acceptable to you, fine. Seems to me we should all be using the same tables.

    You can wish all the lower taxes you want. Same for the nonsense of only funding constitutionally – mandated programs. Until those programs are removed via Constitutional challenge or otherwise, we have to pay for them. Most Americans want them regardless.

    While I agree that all earnings do belong to each of us and that I would like to see lowered overall tax burdens I don’t see that happening. I believe the tax base should be broaden and all deductions/credits removed for individuals. Business of course should be granted expense deductions but no credits and the corporate tax rate should be 15%.

    Bush is relevant. I was responding to the first posters comments. He acts as if Republicans are above favored treatment practices. All administrations do it. Is it right? To me no but when we have a system of govt that is legally corrupted by money it is what it is.

    Medicare Part D is owned by the Republicans. I jab them because they talk one thing but actions show another. You call Obama a Marxist. Why? I assume because of Obamacare given its a govt program. I’m not familiar beyond that of him talking Karl Marx or Lenin. Don’t care for him but the office of president is limited in power. The real power lies in Congress. And as you said – Congress and the president have failed us.

    Final point – the rich don’t pay enough. I look at historical precedent. But on the same token neither do the lowest incomes, the tax base is no longer broad and too many get back more than they pay in. I would like to see everyone have skin in the game so we can lower overall marginal rates. One thing is for sure – the current system can’t pay the bills. Clinton tax rates did pay the bills.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.