Future cuts will NEVER happen. As they approach screams of draconian results
will occur and they will be delayed, again and again. Unless the cuts happen
right away they won't happen.
Just another example of kicking the can down the road...The President demanded a
balanced approach on the path to getting a tax rate increase (for almost every
single American...), but has yet to offer up any significant or realistic
changes to the government's spending appetite, yet will again ask for more
tax revenue before offering up any spending changes. Just Wondering...don't
you wish you could run your household this way?
Intelligent spending cuts now will do more good than spending cuts that are
promised in the future, but never actually happen.We need to change
our erroneous thinking that prosperity comes from government spending. Every
dollar that the government spends must ultimately be taken from the pocket of a
taxpayer, either before or after it is spent. If that money is borrowed, the
taxpayer must also pay the interest on it.
The GOP has yet to pass a sequestration bill in the new Congress. While we may
not agree with the Democrats at least they can lead and get things done. Voters
remember Bush/Chenny telling us deficits don't matter and based upon the
GOP not passing any legislation in the 2 months they've been in Washington
the voters have no trust in them.
Another idea:Tax expenditures are how we spend through the tax code.
So when you repeal or reduce them, you do two things at once: you raise revenues
and you cut spending.Child care provides an example of why tax
expenditures generally are the equivalent of spending programs... Many low- or
moderate-income people receive a subsidy, provided through a spending program,
to help cover their child care costs. Many people with higher incomes similarly
receive a subsidy that reduces their child care costs, but they receive it in
the form of a tax credit. The child-care spending programs that serve
lower-income families are not open-ended entitlement programs; they serve only
as many people as their capped funding allows, and only about one in six
eligible low-income working families receives this assistance. By contrast, the
child care subsidies for higher-income families operate as an open-ended
entitlement provided through the tax code, and all families eligible for the tax
credit can get it. The current structure, in which child care subsidies are
constrained for lower-income families but unlimited for higher-income families,
makes little sense. (Jared Bernstein)
We'll reap the effects of Obama voters. Fiscal cliff (new tax hikes), and
now sequester.Not voting in Romney will be the biggest American
mistake in history.
America voted to continue down this same lame path we had been on. We deserve
everything we get.
What a lie, dems NEVER propose cuts.FT, if they can lead and
get things done, why has the senate under dem leadership failed to pass a budget
In two years when it is time for the deficit to turn down, they will replace
that with a couple more years of increased deficit, and on, and on... Hopefully
this doesn't pass. If they can't stick to a budget now, who actually
thinks they can in a couple years.
More tax increases "mostly on millionaires". I'll support that one
when I see on TV the tax collector walk up to the doors of such millionaire
Obama supporters as Harvey Weinstein, Warren Buffett, Matt Damon, George
Clooney, (well almost any Hollywood millionaire) and take a huge chunk of their
millions FIRST. People like that talk the tax, so let's see them write the
check. They put themselves out there as people we should listen to, so set the
example. Otherwise shut up and act.
Re:m.g.scottIs there some special "carve out" in the tax
code for people in the entertainment industry?How many jobs does the
entertainment industry outsource to India or China? Wealthy
Democrats support policies which go against their best interest. On the other
hand I personally know wealthy people who support Republicans solely for the low
taxes and loopholes they've lobbied for.Economic
growth--GDP--is already weaker than it has been. Discretionary spending is
already being reduced. It is crazy to adopt austerity measures before
employment recovers. We can see how that is working in the EU where
unemployment is above 10% in many countries. Spain had a BUDGET SURPLUS before
the economic crisis and now has an unemployment rate of 26.6%!
Lest all you neo cons forget not one Republican voted for Clinton's deficit
reduction bill in 1992 because it raised taxes. History proved this to be one
of the best economic bills passed in our time that helped us run a surplus a few
years later. That was until the GOP took control and set us on this current
path. Thank God, Americans were smart enough not to vote Romney into office as
he would have accelerated our deficits through unfunded tax cuts.
Of course they did --- that way they can spin it to "look how big a spending
cut we did". The sad thing is that a large number of people will believe
re: worfBigger than slavery?Bigger than the mistreatment
of the native American peoples?I thought Obama's first election
was the biggest, no wait, it was Clinton's election, No it was that
Catholic guy Kennedy, no, etc....
FT,we never ran a surplus.according to the US treasury gross
federal debt at the end of FY:(millions)1997: 5,369,2061998: 5,478,189INCREASE of 108,9831999: 5,605,523INCREASE of 127,3342000: 5,628,700INCREASE of
23,177Gross federal debt INCREASED every year under slick. Where is
the surplus? it does not exist when gross debt increases.Truthseeker,if the wealthy libs support those policies, why do they take
very last tax deduction to which the current law entitles them? If they support
the policies, why do they not show that support by voluntarily paying more than
they owe? They can lead by paying higher taxes. If Buffet was
really concerned about "paying a higher rate" than his secretary,
he'd restructure his compensation package so less of his income came from
sources taxed at a lower rate. "Do as I say and not as I do" by wealthy
libs is really getting old.
The news coverage of sequester cuts is embarrassing. In Chicago the clerk of
the federal court told reporters he would have to close down ONE DAY A WEEK
because of the cuts. Really?As we discovered from the ICE detention
releases, the White House has deniability. They just blame the cuts on career
bureaucrats.So, reporters are reporting knee-jerk rumors of the worst cuts
made by bureaucrats looking for job security.The 2% cuts in growth are
actually insignificant, unless you want to cut where it has maximum hurt.
People who do that ought to be fired from their jobs.Let the sequester
begin. Those of us in the real world have already seen layoffs and pay cuts.
It's time federal workers had some skin in the game.
Re: TruthseekerYou kind of walked right into that one. Yes there is
a loophole for a lot of Hollywood, and it comes from over a billion dollars of
tax benefits given by various states in our country for movie production. I
don't mind, because it does in the long run bring revenue to various
states, and better them than some foriegn country. And speaking of outsourcing,
you bet, Hollywood does film a lot out of the country. Didn't you know
that?Titanic for one, out of hundreds, was made entirely in Mexico. Only
one or two of the James Bond films has been done in the U.S. I could go on, but
it's not necessary.
Re:m.g.scottSilly me. I thought the topic was the federal tax code.
States can create loopholes for paying state taxes, but they can't create
ways for companies to avoid federal taxes can they?Of course some
entertainment dollars are used abroad-- shooting in foreign locations. But
these aren't permanent jobs.Re:Lost in DCBudget deficit
numbers do not include Social SecurityNear the end of Clinton's
term in office, the govt was running a budget surplus. Debt held by the
public reached 49.5% of GDP at the beginning of President Clinton's first
term. It fell to 34.5% of GDP by the end of Clinton's presidency due in
part to decreased military spending, increased taxes (in 1990, 1993 and 1997),
and increased tax revenue resulting from the Dot-com bubble. The budget controls
instituted in the 1990s successfully restrained fiscal action by the Congress
and the President and together with economic growth contributed to the budget
surpluses at the end of the decade.
how did it become Obama's fault that congress could not do its most primary
job responsibility of passing a budget?
Lost in DC-For the sake of arguing it's true the debt slightly
increased during the Clinton years but that was because of the interest
accruing. We actually ran a surplus (taking in more revenue, than what we
spent) because the amount of revenue or taxes we collected was greater than our
spending. Since Nixon, no GOP President has done that and recently Democrats
have a far better track record than the GOP when it comes to managing the
country's fiscal check book. Outside of a few red states, the GOP
continues to loose national appeal because of their hypocritical leadership and
lack of results when they have had power. The latest self created sequestor is
just another example of their poor leadership. If the national debt was truly
the issue they would try to do something similar to what Clinton accomplished,
which is raise revenue and cut spending. Currently, their doing all they can to
reattain power, nothing more.
Re: TruthseekerNo silly me. I didn't realize that wealth
earned overseas or in a particular state was not subject to federal taxes. By the way, just what jobs ARE permanent? And I'd be happy to be
an actor getting millions for "part time" work than working in a
permanent job. Who wouldn't?
To "Truthseeker" you are wrong. According to the US Historical Tables,
we never ran a surplus. A surplus would show up as a decrease in the Gross
Debt. The following is taken from the Historical Tables for the Gross Federal
Debt:Year Gross Debt (millions)1991 $3,598,1781992
$4,001,7871993 $4,351,0441994 $4,643,3071995 $4,920,5861996 $5,181,4651997 $5,369,2061998 $5,478,1891999
$5,605,5232000 $5,628,7002001 $5,769,881The closest
was the 1999-2000 budget that resulted in a $23 billion deficit. Nice try, but
we have not had a surplus in nearly 60 years.
Re: FTLet's for the sake of argument assume your comment that
the "Democrats have a far better track record than the GOP when it comes to
mamaging the counrty's fiscal check book."Well, with Obama
and an added 4 + trillion and growing debt increase, he has trumped all bad
Republican management by a long shot. Remember when (if you are old enough)
Senator LLoyd Benson of Texas was debating Dan Quale? Famous quote from him.
"I could create the illusion of a good economy too if I could write 200
billion dollars in hot checks." 200 billion back then was the budget
deficit. Question, why hasn't Obama been able to create even the illusion
of a good economy with 4 trillion in hot checks? Something is terribly wrong
with what is going on today, and sooner or later this ponzi scheme spending will
collapse. And fingers will be pointing in all directions.
@Something to think about--our big mistake of today effects a much larger number
people:* large percentage of people dependent on government *
a debt exceeding the total value of our combined possessions.* our
children to start school at four years old?* a tax increase followed by
another in just a few weeks.* arming other countries with WMDs*
releasing thousands of convicted criminalsIt is something to think
@Tolstoy "how did it become Obama's fault that congress could not do
its most primary job responsibility of passing a budget?"I
didn't see where anyone was blaming Obama for that. We're blaming him
for originating the current sequester plan. He's blaming everyone else,
because that's who he is and what he does.Responsibility for
the no-show budget goes to Harry Reid and the Senate.
Truthseeker, FT,I posted numbers from the treasury department,
obtained from a US government webpage.Where do your numbers come
from?There can be no surplus when gross federal debt increases.We did NOT take in more than we spent. YOU CANNOT DO THAT WHEN DEBT
INCREASES!!!!And FT, dems have a better track record? REALLY?? NO
ONE has EVER run the kinds of deficits BO has run, and they are LOWER under a
repub congress than when he had a dem congress. Bush ran lower deficits with a
repub congress than with a dem congress
A little civics lesson. Congress spends and appropriates funding. Last time I
checked the House was controlled by the GOP. Also, when you're checking
your facts on deficit spending you can easily see the Federal surplus's
from 1998 to 2001. We're all fortunate Americans weren't buying the
snake oil that Mitt and the GOP was selling last Fall. Here are the
surplus's as reported by the GAO.1998 $69.2 Billion Surplus $97.33
Billion Surplus 1999 $125.6 Billion Surplus $172.76 Billion Surplus 2000 $236.4 Billion Surplus $314.78 Billion Surplus 2001 $127.3 Billion
Surplus $164.9 Billion Surplus
@FT "Congress spends and appropriates funding."Right. The
budget surpluses you list were achieved in years that the Republicans controlled
Congress. Was this the point you were trying to make?"Last time
I checked the House was controlled by the GOP."Right again. And
the Senate is controlled by the Democrats. The Senate has not produced a budget
in years, in spite of their legal obligation to do so.