President Obama's speech today, as prepared for delivery:
"What we've been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially profound. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. Its about the kind of future we want. It's about the kind of country we believe in. And that's what I want to talk about today.
"From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America's wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.
"But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we've built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We've laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We've supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.
"Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. 'There but for the grace of God go I,' we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I'll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.
"For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who've done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.
"Now, at certain times – particularly during periods of war or recession – our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities. And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn't going to hurt if it's temporary.
"But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon. They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid. Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation.
"To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation's deficit. They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush and President Clinton; by Democratic Congresses and a Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but they largely protected the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and key investments in our future.
"As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America's finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.
"But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn't pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.
"To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.
"Of course, that's not what happened. And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets. It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.
"So that's how our fiscal challenge was created. This is how we got here. And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s. We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt. And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future.
"Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, 'Why is this so important? Why does this matter to me?'
"Here's why. Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we'll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments.
"Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse. By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt. That's it. Every other national priority – education, transportation, even national security – will have to be paid for with borrowed money.
"Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. We won't be able to afford good schools, new research, or the repair of roads and bridges – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America. Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books. And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.
"The good news is, this doesn'' have to be our future. This doesn't have to be the country we leave to our children. We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.
"But that starts by being honest about what's causing our deficit. You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys. Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research. Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare. And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.
"Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse –that tackling the deficit issue won't require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.
"So here's the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans' benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What's left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That's 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.
"Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won't solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn't require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.
"One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party's presidential candidates. It's a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.
"Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history.
"A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That's what they're proposing. These aren't the kind of cuts you make when you're trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren't the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that's deeply pessimistic.
"It's a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can't afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can't afford to send them. Go to China and you'll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can't afford any of this.
"It's a vision that says America can't afford to keep the promise we've made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you're a 65 year old who's eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn't worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you're on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.
"This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone's grandparents who wouldn't be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down's syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we'd be telling to fend for themselves.
"Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that's who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that's paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm President.
"The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan's own budget director said, there's nothing 'serious' or 'courageous' about this plan. There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There's nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don't have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.
"The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.
"This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don't have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I'm President, we won't.
"Today, I'm proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It's an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It's an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.
"The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We'll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We'll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.
"The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America's interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America's national security is America's debt.
"Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it's complete.
"The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government's health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government's health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.
"Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare's purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.
"Now, we believe the reforms we've proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we're wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.
"But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.
"That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.
"The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.
"Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn't itemize.
"My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That's why I'm calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission's model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.
"This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It's an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future.
"In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code. That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.
"So this is our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.
"Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach. Some will argue we shouldn't even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans. It's just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn't be here without. That some of you wouldn't be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that's done so much for them. Washington just hasn't asked them to.
"Others will say that we shouldn't even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. I'm sympathetic to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December. It's also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don't begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.
"Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn't make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don't make any changes at all, we won't be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.
"Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people's lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.
"Of course, there are those who will simply say that there's no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They'll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart. And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.
"But I also know that we've come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations. The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget. In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts. And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction.
"I believe we can and must come together again. This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June.
"I don't expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I'm eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum. And though I'm sure the criticism of what I've said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground.
"This larger debate we're having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we're living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. That's a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have.
"But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we've always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can't just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what's required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.
"This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn't a partisan feeling. It isn't a Democratic or Republican idea. It's patriotism.
"The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. He started off by telling me he didn't vote for me and he hasn't always agreed with me. But even though he's worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he said,
'I still believe. I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about. I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the "American Dream" is still alive. . .
'We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain. . . We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.'
"I still believe as well. And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America."
Leave a Comment:
He said what I was needing to hear. I felt his leadership once again. All I have to say is Thank You Mr. President! Thank You!
I hope there was someone listening in Congress, and maybe there are. This morning I heard my local right wing radio screamer get shut down by our local redder than red Congressman. Screamer was saying the government should be shut down, etc., etc., etc, and Bachman, and Beck, and Boehner, and Ryan and on and on and on and the Congressman said, first, Bachman is only out for herself, and closing the government is stupid, and the real question is what to do that matters and though he can endorse in part Ryan's plan it cannot pass as it is and we "have to find a way" to work with the President because I think the man has just about given everything he is going to until we (the R's) give something back."
It was encouraging, so maybe someone in Congress was listening. It was a good speech, and I think my Congressman, whom I have never voted for and will never vote for was spot on. There has to be a way, as the President and he both said, and that our President has given just about everything he is going to.
I choose to hope.
It was the adult conversation/address America has been needing for decades, powerfully so.
Sad we have to blow $20 Trillion in P&I since 81... before these conversations take place in a meaningful way, not to mention another $8 trillion in trade deficits manifesting themselves in factories & jobs fleeing overseas, coming back as cheap imports. Now the cheap imports are getting expensive... and good paying jobs GONE.
Yep, me too. Now to maintain the tone when the round-the-clock assault begins in the concervative media.
This is the man I have admired and loved from the first minute I saw him and heard him speak!
It is amazing that none of the news commentators on CNN said "thank you," as I agree the President deserves a big one for that speech. He really told it like it is.
To balance a budget, everyone knows it takes more than CUTS to rein in expenditures; we have to look at the INCOME side. For example, there are so many tax dollars out there uncollected that we need to beef up the collection process and garner that income -- not the small change from the little guy, but the billions from Fortune 1000 companies that have gotten away with not paying their legitimate tax bills because they can pay KPMG instead to find loopholes.
I liked what President Obama said about "investment" because that is so true: analyze where we can make the highest income, both short-term and long-term, and invest the necessary resources to generate that income. Instead the Republicans would make their cuts in those programs for the poor and middle class that make up only 12% of all expenditures.
I look forward to Bill Maher's proffered budget, as I'll bet it is based on something similar: cutting from the biggest slices like military offensives and investing in the biggest sources of generating income.
It was just a speech. Like so many others that really had no actual results. I will wait to see how this pans out before I say how great this was. Again it was just a speech. He also said in speeches he would close Gitmo, have open hearings on C-span on heath insurance reform (I do not count the one day photo op as open hearings), and bring home the troops. Let's see - Gitmo is open 2 years later (and will start military trials) and he increased troops in Afghanistan, has kept tens of thousands in Iraq, and sent hundreds of cruise missles into another country (and this from a man that won a Nobel PEACE prize only months after he was in office).
But... he does give a good speech....
By the way, even if he taxed people earning over $250k at 100%, it would only fund the fed budget for about 6 months - 6 months. Same with the corporations at 100% tax rate. Both would not even fund a full year. We are so screwed. We will just have to keep the bond Ponzi scheme going until the suckers all around the world wise up and realize that the bonds we sell today are used to pay the interest on the bonds redeemed from previous years (about 40% of the new bond income). Maybe Maddof should be in charge of that.
Skip, can you back that up with actual numbers. How many taxpayers in various brackets, like 250K to 1 M, 1M to 100M, 100M to 1B and 1B+? How much the 100% tax would bring in, etc. Also the amount of deficit.
I just find it hard to believe.
Also cutting 100% of the less than 12% of the budget for the poor and Mid class that the repubs want to cot will also not cover the current deficit.
What say we just fund at tax rate we had going during the '50s. You like Ike? I like Ike.
Steve I have heard talking heads with some of those stats (and not just from the right - also libertarians and I think one Dem). I don't have any exact figures, but lets say I am REALLY far off and taking all their assets would cut the debt in half to about 7 trillion (which is 7,000 Billion). And lets say we ONLY have 1% interest on that remaining debt (which is very very conservative don't you think) - the interest on that would be close to 6 billion a month or 72 billion a year. Not bad, but thats at 1% interest and that's not even touching the 7 trillion. Add to that the new debt added every year from the annual deficits - currently close to 2 trillion a year. Say we cut that to 1 trillion a year....see where I'm going. There is NO way we can now get out of this without drastic cuts (remember we taxed all the 250k plus people and corps at 100% already. Does ANYONE really believe the feds will EVER spend less than they take in in the near future . REALLY???
President Obama ALWAYS come through in the end; remember to have patience, he's a deliberate & bides his time but has our backs!!!!
Thank You Mr. President, Thats what we needed to hear, now lets stick together and get it done. and the ones that don't support what you just said, we will not vote for them next election.
We shouldn't get too excited. We've been down this road before. He gives a great speech, then the "negotiating" starts and he completely disappears and then caves. He's like Lucy with the football and liberals are like Charlie Brown.
I sent an email to him, Mr. President, and said the same thing.. T H A N K YOU! I thought he should know that there are people out there that arent TEA POTS. or is that TEA BAGS...People who agree with his basic beliefs. Maybe we should all drop him a note, so he knows we're all still here.
Metric I felt the same way. Actually last night when I was getting ready to go to bed I told my mom that if our president rolled over again or caved on something as important as Medicaid and Medicare I might not even vote come next election. I'm a Liberal and I'm just finding all this nonsense crazy. The GOP is the party of No now aren't they? It makes me disappointed in them for not caring about others.
I hope enough people come to their senses and write letters to their reps so that we can have our voices heard.
Today though I actually felt a slight bit of relief for the first time in a very long time. I felt that I could sleep and trust my/our president to handle the things that we should rely on him to handle.
*sighs*
~B
This was a satisfying speech. (To those who say it is just a speech--why bother commenting on it? That is the current topic--the president's speech) And to the liberal democrats (and I am as liberal/progressive as anyone you will ever meet) whose disappointment leads them to stomp their feet and stick their tongues out and continue their tantrums by saying "I won't vote for Obama", how exactly do you think that will help? Primaries are the time to do that. (didn't vote for him in the primary) But now you need to support the candidate that is best for our country,and that is not going to be anyone the republicans are offering. How ridiculous would it be if these liberals were actually responsible for helping Obama's republican challenger to win? Criticize him, call him out, let him and others know what you think. But don't refuse to exercise your precious right to vote,or throw it away on a candidate who cannot or should not win, in a fit of anger.
This was the comment I meant to post--the edited version of my previous one that I thought was too harsh. But I see I posted the first one too, so sorry.
I do not understand liberal democrats whose anger or frustration with President Obama leads them to refuse to support his candidacy. How will that help? Temper tantrums don't help anyone. I am a liberal democrat. Obama is not as progressive as I am---of course I expected that. He is a centrist. I do get frustrated with his negotiations. But now is not the time to refuse to vote for him or support him. (That's what the primary is for. And I didn't vote for him then) He is still a far far better choice for president than anyone the republicans are going to offer us. How ridiculous would it be if these liberals/progressives actually help put that republican in office? By all means, criticize him, call him out, let him know what you think. But do not let anger make you throw away your precious right to vote or waste it on a candidate who cannot or should not win.
skip - that tired old claim that taxing 100% of the wealthiest's wealth wouldn't fix the problem does not mean it would not help if they contributed at a higher rate. If you had $100,000 in credit card debt and someone offered you $20,000, would you turn it down because it wouldn't cover your entire debt? That is a very lame argument. Everyone needs to contribute as much as they can to keep our country the great country we all think it is. Everyone's contribution helps. I probably make less than most people here and I wouldn't mind paying a bit more to help my country. If I can do it at my income level, surely millionaires and billionaires can pay a bit more. A 4% tax increase will not make much difference to a billionaire, but it would help the country a lot, whereas a 4% tax increase on my income level would not be much help to the country, but would probably mean the difference between having health insurance or not for me.
Amazing speech. Reminded me of the movies "The American President" & "Dave".
"and I Am the President" ~ M. Douglas
Great speech!
You have pinpointed the problem exactly.
Really liked his approach to what needs to be done. His promise to not let the republicians destroy Medicare and Medicaid I thought was right on target. I can deal with "surgical cuts" to popular programs but this taking a "hatchet" to do the job is just wrong.
Diva, I totally agree with you. it is not about doing away with these heath care programs for citizens, to solve our budget crisis.It is doing a mix of cuts and increasing income stream that will ultimately put our federal budget back on track.
Please note a just aired interview with a Ft. Worth tea party leader (about 2:30 edt) who in his rant actually said that Texas is running a surplus! Was allowed to go on without any confrontation! Please review specifics of Texas. Gov Perry said the day before his reelection that we were running a surplus and didn't need the US at all. The day after the election were were in a substantial deficit (over 20 billion $ for next two years) and now every school district is laying off teachers and nursing homes are in a panic. Apparently our casual state legislature voted to sunset state gas revenues and mismanaged business tax changes, so that we are in a continuing crisis. Our politicians are focused on social issues and apparently are not concerned about budget. Don't let politicians from Texas brag that we do it right here. Present the truth!
David Lachar
Sugar Land, Texas
I heard his statement and it sent my red flag up, so I'm glad you clarified.
Surplus in Texas???
So in which alternate dimension does this guy live?
Yeah, I just posted on this too, all the way at #65. There was no questioning of this guy by the interviewer, very disappointing to allow him to spew his talking point lies. Also, Texas has been coasting along on federal stimulus money that has hidden the deficit, but that will be gone by the beginning of the next fiscal year. Hence the despicable budget recently passed by the Texas House.
Surplus in Texas??? Just more nonsense from the teabaggers disinformation machine, pathetic as they are. Just read the other day that private nursing homes are closing all over the state do to the lack of funds needed from the state to help keep them running. Texas is broke, period. Like I said before, the neocons could'nt run a lemonade stand, let alone a state or this country.
I needed to hear this... Brilliant, thank you... (lol ams 707 - I AM the President)
I loved it, too. I hope he and his people keep hammering these truths & facts home. I only wish it was on at prime time so everyone could learn something about how we got here and what needs to be done to keep the American Dream alive. (But not during American Idol, of course. ;-)
Now let's pray that actions follow his words. His ability to speak has never been in doubt, it's his followup that often doesn't equal it. I'm cautiously hopeful.
AGREED!
I'm still stinging from my feeling betrayed over the patriot act renewal and renewal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - 2 reasons why I *specifically* voted for him.
If he can/will really DO what he says, he has a chance to earn my vote back in the next election.
I agree11 I"ll wait and see His action!!
I'm not so optimistic. He's ALWAYS talked sense and spoke as though he had a really firm grasp of what was going on. His delivery, on the other hand, has almost always sucked. He has had far less trouble offending progressive and liberal members of his own party than he has Republicans. I've said it before, if he was Julius Caesar he would reach a compromise with Brutus wherein he gets stabbed to death in the Forum. He honestly believe that you can compromise with people who want to destroy you...and the Republicans are very honest and clear in this desire. That isn't compromise, that's appeasement. If he is sincere in his Progressivism, then he lacks the courage of his convictions. He is a fine poet, but is actions are those of a pretend friend to liberals...and not even that good on the pretend part.
He's a centrist and pragmatic. He gave up the tax cuts to the rich in order to keep them for the middle class, to get the START Treaty, to get DADT, to get tax cuts for small businesses and unemployment extension. What some progressives seem NOT to understand that in our form of government seldom if ever do you get 100% of what you want. FDR and LBJ had to compromise. It's not appeasement. It's understanding the legislative procedure. It's counting votes (and arm twisting doesn't always work). It's not about instant gratification. Had I been alive when SS was passed, as a woman I probably would have been EXCLUDED. No major legislation was ever passed at one time in its entirety. Nor has any President come into office and simply undone everything the previous president has done. This President is held to a different standard and I can't help but wonder why.
I feel your pain guys. However, when you say he has to earn your vote back...seriously? The Patriot Act...do you realize what will happen if some Tea Party candidate gets elected instead of Obama....Immigrants will be deported alongside public employees, the poor, and women who want rights to their own reproductive systems.
To go to the table demanding far more than you can ever reasonably expect to get is bargaining. To concede on vital points before you even get to the bargaining table is appeasement.
I felt equally buoyed and dismayed by the Prez speech.... it was great... but the republican machine will grind it to pieces with spin, alternate baked "financial numbers" and opinions told to them by rich despots like the Koch Bros. that the play-dough minded subscribers to Fox News will eat up like candy and IGNORE the facts.
I wish him luck... along with the aging baby boomers that I am one of.
loved his comment just what I needed to hear
Sounds good. I hope he actually fights for what he says. No more capitulation.
I definitely agree with what he said, and do like the path he laid out. Unfortunately I'm sure those who have fought against this president from day one will continue to fight this to protect that top 1%.
That top 1% that pays for 40% of everything the govt. does. Those horrible people. how dare they.
Yes. To think they pay all that money in taxes and still net a few billion anyway. And to ask them to give up a few million more? They must feel put upon. raise their taxes and I bet you once a year they wind up eating something that came out of a ... can.
Yeah like caviar.
It's not their responsibility to pay for the people that haven't succeeded.
I keep seaching for a pithy comeback to that, Mark. I realize you might just be using sarcasm. Please tell me you are.
Is everyone who has not saved enough of their own money to replace the medicare benefits they assumed would be there "not successful"? Because that's easily over 50% of the US population. And then the social security benefits that are the next to go?
The GOP plan comes down to two lists. Either you've been millionnaire-level successful, or you are going to die younger for lack of medical care and penniless for paying everything you have for what you could get. And that will be about an 5%-95% split.
Just say, "in the wealthiest and most powerful country the world has ever seen, 5% are "successful" and 95% failed."
Haven't succeeded, Mark?
Ok - I think I finally have the "pithy" comment:
It's not about who was "successful," it's about who was "fortunate." And the very rich sure draw attention to the fact the the root word of "fortunate" is... (sound trumpets)....
Fortune.
"It's not their responsibility to pay for the people that haven't succeeded."
Success being a clever way to scam cash, as opposed to working for it.
"It's not their responsibility to pay for the people that haven't succeeded."
Except that it is, based on the first word of the Constitution.
"It's not their responsibility to pay for the people that haven't succeeded."
Except that it is, based on the Gospel of Jesus.
Covah, spank em one time for me!
Charity would take the place of govt. if they didn't take their money.
God presents us with three general ways in the Bible to take care of the poor and needy: 1) through the family, 2) through the church, and 3) through individual charity. The applicable passages for these three ways are Deut. 14:28, 29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16.
Now, the first two ways are pretty clear.
People's first obligation is to the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned in their own families. Then, they have an obligation to the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned in their local church organization.
God established the pattern for this kind of church giving in Numbers 18:24 and Deuteronomy 14:28, 29. As David Chilton points out in "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators," the bulk of Christian giving to the local church should be geared toward financing professional theologians, experts in biblical law and church discipline, teachers of God's Word and leaders skilled in worship. It was only every third year that all the giving was set aside to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned, including full-time religious leaders who don't have a regular job. Even then, the money was not given just to anyone who showed up. Those able to work but don't do not qualify for help. Also, those who have families to take care of them don't qualify, nor do widows under age 60 qualify, according to 1 Timothy 5:3-16.
Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, talks about the third way in Matthew 6. He tells His listeners that they should give individual charity. He also says they should give such charity secretly: "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."
Despite what Barack Obama, John McCain or George Bush and their supporters think, in none of the Bible passages just cited does God cite the government as the means by which the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned are housed, clothed and fed!
The modern welfare state: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies and other so-called assistance programs for the needy, the downtrodden, and the sick – funded through taxation.
But did the Founding Fathers intend for a government-provided social safety net? The evidence clearly says no.
The often-misunderstood general welfare clause simply outlines specific responsibilities and powers of the federal government, leaving all others to the states and to the people. James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, said, "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proof was not contemplated by its creators."
Sooooooooooo....by Mark's logic, it isn't MY responsibility to pay for the bailout of Wall Street because they weren't "successful"...they got caught up in their own subprime mortgage scam. It's not MY responsibility to pay for corporate welfare for Exxon/Mobil, because it isn't "successful" enough to succeed without billions from my pockets each year.
The list could go on and on, but the core of the matter is that as long as we live in a society, we MUST look after the welfare of others. Even the smallest social unit, the family, operates on that principle.
The repub's ideology of self-reliance is a myth, as they themselves benefitted from the help of others, from the teachers that educated them, the police and firefighters that protected them, the military that kept them safe........and so on. Unless you are some hermit living on a desert island, completely removed from civilization, building your own shelter, growing your own food, making your own clothes, then you absolutely depend on others for your very survival, just as others depend on you.
Let's face it, the repub ideology of extreme self-reliance is an ill-fitting mask to cover up a philosophy of greed and extreme selfishness.
....gov't doesn't take money away from charities Mark....the reason why gov't has to step in where charities don't is because people don't donate enough money to charities or volunteer enough to help take care of their fellow citizens to where the gov't doesn't have to get involved. No one is stopping you or anyone else from getting involved and if everyone did then the gov't could back off on a lot of it's social help programs. You need to go back and read your history- every social program the government has created has been prompted by a fallout in society. Meaning charities and churches weren't doing enough so someone had to step in and help and since the US gov't has a mandate to take care of it's citizens the gov't had to do so. If people had stepped up individually the gov't wouldn't have been forced to. Programs today like SS and medicare exist because no one else will take care of the elderly. Are you taking care of your parents/did you take care of them as they were senior? The majority of Americans do not want to take care of their parents, especially if their parents suffer from medical issues. So they stick mom and dad in a nursing home or otherwise move away from mom and dad to avoid that problem. SS and medicare then have to step up in order to take care of the family members you failed to care for. That isn't the gov'ts fault, that is yours.
The problem Mark has is he doesn't want the gov't to do anything. Mark doesn't deny that people need to be taken care of and that people cannot always afford to do so. What he denies is that the gov't should offer them help. He believes either a private business should do it, a charity/church should do it, or that person should be screwed. It doesn't bother Mark that there are homeless people, mentally ill people, poor, sick, etc. That isn't his issue- and the irony, of course, is this is exactly why the gov't has to get involved to begin w/. If Mark actually cared for these people then the gov't wouldn't have to. Yet again this is another example of conservatives projecting on to others what it is they themselves do (or in this case fail to do).
If the govt. never stepped in in the beginning, we would be where we are today.
No. You would have more than 20 million people living on the streets if social security and medicare did not currently exist. The income disparity- the difference between those who are poor and those who are wealthy- would be more than 2x what it is now. Where do you get that these social programs, those provided by the gov't, destroy our society? Honestly I want to know how you come to that conclusion? These are people who like you have worked their entire lives. You won't have enough to retire off of free of gov't assistance, just so you know. W/O these social benefit programs you, Mark, would also be homeless or living in extreme poverty. Where do you get that the gov't isn't helping to make things better?
The "1% pays 40% of the taxes" whine is getting pretty old. The top 10% has more money than the bottom 90%. Of course they are going to pay most of the taxes, they have most of the money. You can't get money from people who don't have it. All you can do is cut spending on anything that benefits those who have no money. Do you want to be a country that has a few rich people in gated mansions while most of the rest are starving? Why would anyone want to live in a country like that? I thought civilization had long ago discovered that that model doesn't work and evolved past it.
Mark, they system and idea you hypothesize substitutes religion for government. It relies on an assumption of integrity, honesty, and ethical behavior by ALL people. Which, sadly, is not reality. People are not inherently good, just, and charitable. Neither are they inherently bad. What people are is inherently selfish, egotistical, and need driven.
People don't act generally with integrity, compassion, and honesty. Individuals may, but as a collective, we do not. This is more true the higher you go up the ladder of power. Rockefeller and Standard Oil are an object history lesson in how people and businesses operate "within the law" but in a manner which most people consider wholly unethical.
So yes, we get it Mark, you don't like government. But you fail to thoroughly examine the alternative you desire, it's foreseeable outcomes are bleak and unjust, except for the people who start at the top or manage to claw their way there, usually by exploitation and/or savagery. You would balance this savagery with the lessons and ideas of religion...but history tells us that is doomed to failure, as wealth and power are accumulated by "the church" it too becomes corrupt.
If the govt. never stepped in in the beginning, we would be where we are today. Canada.
Imagine the horror!
Charity would take the place of govt. if they didn't take their money.
Hoover tried that. It did not work.
Charity would take the place of govt. if they didn't take their money.
Just like in Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, and other rich, government-free nations.
Mark's post is plagiarized from World Net Daily.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=71564
and
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=9913
God established the pattern for this kind of church giving in the Holy Koran. Praise Allah! The giving of alms is one of the five "pillars" of Islam.
Every winger is a Muslim in disguise.
That last one was GOOD, Covah. Praise Allah!
Well, pretty poor Muslims when it comes to it. Because everyone knows hows receiving alms weakens moral character and increases dependency. Then they are laying around in their Armani business suits next to their Lambourghinis shaking their alms cup at you demanding a hand out!
Isn't plagiarism grounds for deletion of the post, at a minimum?
Of all the lame excuses to stiff the poor and not to pay your taxes that one takes the cake. So government welfare defies God. Good thing we have a secular government so this does not matter. If the wingers want a theocracy let them go to Iran. And there are no gays there, either.
Christ said render unto Caesar. That means Pay your taxes dumbass! At no point did Christ or Abraham or Moses for that matter say a goddamn thing about TAX-BREAKS! Though Christ said plenty AGAINST the wealthy ( "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, you can't follow two masters) and he knocked over the tables of the money changers. Couple that with Matthew 25 (When I was hungry...") and it becomes clear that Christ was a filthy pinko commie.
It's time for an adult conversation, context and all, on TRMS about the fiscal nightmare that's been created.
Powerful speech, given the reality of our fiscal anchor. Is it too much to address the other deficit of the Twin Deficits, that of trade? Too much????? And interest on the debt going to potentially $1 Trillion per year. I guess interest on the debt is very relevant! ;-)
In theory, free trade results in approximately balanced trade. Too much export, your currency appreciates. Too much import, your currency devalues.
For the last 30 years, the USA's official policy is to maintain the dollar at above-market levels to keep our imports cheap and our exports expensive. Two generations have grown up thinking that "a strong dollar" is necessary for the welfare of the United States.
Good luck swimming upstream against that .
That was Milton Friedman's fatal advise in 1971 to Nixon, via the theory you state, an outcome he would never have expected ($8 Trillion in accumulated trade deficits), when he advocated the US defaulting on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreements to balance our accounts with the rest of the world, which was put in place to prevent balance of payment crisises from unraveling the world's trading system. Maintaining a healthy dollar, which plenty in the world are complaining about, is the key to retaining the magic carpet ride of having the Reserve Currency status as well. Lose that to a "basket of currencies" and our standard of living could would unravel... as if there hasn't already been enough damage via cheap imports coming in, well paying jobs going out. It's a nightmare.
Cheap imports has been the crack cocaine for US trade ramifications. Our manufacturers started making the exodus to overseas, taking millions of good paying American jobs with it. Results? A hollowed-out American economy, a shell of its former self. Thank you Friedman, Nixon, and Reagan! Reagan is the one who kicked off 29 straight trade deficits, amounting to $8 Trillion in accumulated Current Account trade deficits and borrowed prosperity on an epic scale.
National Geographic show "America's Port" had a great yet sad quote from a crane operator who made the wry observation while deloading containers from Asia, and putting empties back on for transport back: "Air, it's America's greatest export." This from someone on the front lines of our import/export economic friendly warfare. And shipping migrant-picked agricultural produce to ship overseas markets hardly furthers our economic base via those exports. Hardly a fair trade, even if the dollar amounts could be equal. Jobs gone. Imports now getting more expensive via world inflation. Little value-added economic prowess coming from the US these days.
I needed to hear this from you, Mr. President... thank you. Let's get it done!
ams707 - I AM President - Love it!
I am HIV+ and I have to take a medication that costs about $2000 per month. I am glad that he said that as long as he is president that he will not allow Social Security and Medicare to be changed from what we know it. The wealthiest should pay more. If it isn't in tax increases, then it should be closing the tax loopholes and stop allowing the senseless deductions. The president said himself that he doesn't need a tax cut. That means a lot to me.
How much more do they need to take before it takes the incentive out of working.
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
Right, the rich people are all tapped out....from working to hide their money in tax shelters and loopholes. Why the hell do I pay more in taxes than GE? The repubs declared war on the middle class in 1980, and guess what? The middle class is finally waking up to the fact that the richest Americans have stolen practically everything we have, and are coming back for more. When they have emptied our wallets, they now say it's time to cut education, healthcare and social security so they can have it all. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!!! They want a revolution? Bachmann and the gang keep saying so. Well, when a revolution happens, it will not be the brain dead Tea Partiers that will be leading it....they will be the ones wondering why everyone is coming after them. It's taken a while, but I can finally understand the incredible anger and passion that Russian peasants felt toward the Czar and the ruling class when the Russian Revolution finally broke out. They ended up with the wrong solution, communism, but it is completely understandable why they wanted to get rid of the system that had been oppressing them and enslaving them.
You know, Mark - the truth is I can not figure out why people who are not wealthy so vehemently defend the "rights" of the people who do have big money.
Oh wait - you have money, don't you?
Duh. My bad.
Actually Dan he doesn't. Mark is middle-class like the rest of us. The difference is Mark has a fantasy where he believes he will one day be super wealthy. Therefore it's upsetting, in his world, to think that he may have to give some of that money up to the gov't.
Duh,I wonder why Bank Robbers rob banks....?
@Mickey: Got it. And he doesn't realize that the superwealthy after taxes are still superwealthy, or at least really, really, really wealthy.
@Bob! I've been saying this all along.
"... because that's where the money is!"
Update: March 28, 2011: Our story, “More on GE and Taxes,” provides the latest update.
Recently, some news stories have suggested that GE owes no income tax or questioned why GE’s consolidated tax rate in the last few years has been lower than historical levels and lower than the U.S. statutory rate. These stories have grossly simplified the facts concerning GE’s recent tax rates. An article in today’s New York Times (“At GE on Tax Day, Billions of Reasons to Smile”) presents a particularly distorted and misleading account of GE tax payments. A few facts about GE missing from the Times story:
Here are some other facts about GE’s taxes:
Do you really pay more in tax than GE?
I still don't understand why you think someone that has worked hard all their life should have to foot the bill for some that haven't worked hard.
Ah - I understand you now. You think that if you haven't gotten wealthy enough to not need medicare and social security once your body is too old, you didn't work hard.
And GE (which, by the way, is a corporation, not a person, no matter what the Supreme Court says) works hard for its money.
All I have to do is work hard.
Not sure what I've been doing for 30 years now. Felt like I already have been.
I'll try harder.
Mark to you realise how much I paid in taxes last year even after my modest deductions for medical expenses? I paid roughly 35%. I am on SSDI and I have Medicare. I work a small part time job just be able to get the employer insurance so I can afford my $2000 a month HIV medicine. That doesn't include the other medications I have to take. My out of pocket costs just for medicine and medical care alone are close to $10,000 a year. Of that I can only take the standard deduction, because if I take more than the standard deduction I am put at risk of an audit. Do you know what the individual standard deduction for me is? It is $5700, that still leaves me $4300 in out of pocket expenses. My income last year was $10,193. Now you tell me with out SSDI and Medicare how am I and others with disabilities supposed to survive? Regardless of what you say. Large corporations and the very wealthy look for loopholes and tax havens as much as possible, so they don't have to pay their fair share. When you look at the percent of what large corporations and the very wealthy pay in taxes it is quite a bit less than the 35% that I am still forced to have to pay. I have no problems with the very wealthy making money or large corporations making a profit. What I have a problem with is when they do everything possible to keep from paying their fair share of taxes. You can't equate payroll taxes with the corporate tax rate. Payroll taxes are paid by the employee not the employer. I really have no problems paying taxes and even paying higher taxes if needed. I have a problem when the tax the people who can least afford to pay higher taxes have to shoulder the burden.
Yes Dan all rich people worked hard to get there and all poor people are lazy and deserve to be poor. I wonder who works harder- a US soldier deployed to Afghanistan who makes 18k/yr (the payment of recruit/airmen/pfcs) OR the CEO of a corporation like Halliburton. But don't worry the GOP supports out troops (GMAFB).
Like dan said, GE is not a person. Every employee and investor of GE pays taxes, so even if GE didn't pay taxes, who cares. The money gets taxed at some point anyways.
US soldier deployed to Afghanistan who makes 18k/yr. Last time I checked, we didn't have a draft for our troops. They know what it pays and they know the risk. They get tons of benefits on top of their salary.
Payroll taxes are paid by the employee not the employer.
Companies are responsible for paying their portion of payroll taxes. These payroll taxes are an added expense over and above the expense of an employee's gross pay. The employer-portion of payroll taxes include the following:
Right- so you do believe that soldiers work less hard than CEO's. I hope every military (ex and current) person on this blog heard that loud and clear.
stop puting words in my mouth. I never said that or implied it. I'm sure some do and some don't. What makes you think a CEO doesn't work hard. They had to go to school and work hard. Do you think school is easy? Are you calling every student lazy now?
And all those employer paid taxes are built into the product costs, too, so the consumers actually pay them, and blah, blah, blah...
I'm betting Mark works for GE, and has bought into their corporate "survival of the fittest" culture hook, line, and sinker. And because he survives the 15% purge of "low performers" they do every year, he assumes he "works harder."
Maybe the most erksome part of this conversation is actually we are talking about GE, who in a world of successful companies they stand apart when it comes to performance-based callousness.
A friend describes GE as the Borg*. Cold, calculating, and ultimately, we will all be assimilated.
(*forgive the Star Trek reference. It just works.)
Actually, GE is a person in some contexts of the law. It's called "corporate personhood." You might want to look that up.
As to the "tons of benefits" veterans get, Mark. I have this to say as a veteran: You may think that "volunteering" exempts or excuses society from responsibility for the consequences of service, but it doesn't.
It's just the belief that businesses do nothing wrong and if you want a service it must be provided by a business in order to be a good thing. Anyone who isn't wealthy is lazy and doesn't work hard for it and deserves their poverty as a punishment. Everyone who is rich works hard and deserves their wealth. I am beginning to see now why the GOP has no qualms about grandstanding in front of a bunch of soldiers during election season only to propose cutting their benefits in the name of "fiscal discipline." After all they are so lazy to be making that poor pay! And this is why the government should subsidize businesses, picking winners and losers w/in the market, and why the government should use all that tax payer money to keep afloat every company out there. Because if it's a company it's inherently good. Oh and this is exactly why Christians who bomb abortion clinics can't be called terrorists. Because Christian=good and terrorist=bad. In the Republican world there is no such thing as a lazy CEO who doesn't deserve their money, just like there's no such thing as a poor person who came about poverty through no personal fault. There's no such thing as a bad Christian, either.
Interestingly enough the feminist part of me seems to recognize there's an odd parallel between this selfish and immature way of looking at the world and male dominance w/in society. It's kind've like how JS did a sketch on his show a few weeks ago equating businesses to male lovers and how they are cheating on us (America being the woman in JS' analogy) w/ China and India because China and India understand them better and give them what they want. All the while it's never occurred to anyone that the business is the one who isn't owning up (I.E. manning up) to his responsibilities, but is rather peddling them on to other people. Which is something that 6-year-olds do. Because after all if my mother keeps telling me I'm special then that means I deserve everything+cake, right? It seems hyper-masculinity dominates the GOP mindset to it's own self-detriment. Even though most people who belong to the Republican party are voting against their own interests they will fall in line because mentally they haven't matured beyond that of a young child. They haven't learned those basic sentiments you were supposed to learn as a kid like sharing and compassion. It's all about me me me...very interesting. Perhaps this explains why earlier Mark referred to sex as only having the purpose of reproduction. Perhaps in a hyper-masculine world men feel comfortable about that? Very, very interesting.
Mickey, I think many people in this country (Mark is an example but hardly the only one) have failed to grasp the new-old reality. This is no longer a country were you can "work hard and get ahead." It was true for 1 or 2 generations last century, but it's not true any longer. (Aside: historically it's not true either, very few societies had true social mobility, certainly not pre-ww2 america)
For the last 30 years, the US has been returning to the historic pattern of civilization, where a few people have the wealth and power, and most people have to work very very hard just to "break even." History is replete with peasant uprisings because of this very pattern. I am not suggesting or encouraging an uprising, just pointing out the pattern.
Damn John! Are you sure you are a conservative? I'm not asking you to change anything - please DON'T. Its just that this degree of self and historical awareness is downright foreign to most of the conservatives I've tangled with. To both geek out and man crush in the same sentence, you are an elegant relic of a more civilized age (Obi Wan Kenobi describing a lightsaber, more or less.) An Eisenhower Republican. I love you man!
To go back to your point, we are more headed down the road to Japan during the Clinton Administration than we are Germany...both of which benefited from the equivalent of the Marshall Plan as it was called for Germany. Japan became more corporatist, anti-union, hostile to regulation. If you recall, Japan had an economic crisis during the Clinton Administration that convulsed the Asian markets and destroyed its economy for two decades. What did they do right that we haven't? Held on to their manufacturing. Be afraid, be very afraid.
No, sir. I'm not sure that I am a conservative, except I fit no other definition, so if I have to be labeled... In any case, I believe in the following (in no particular order), label me as you will:
Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Service, Excellence
Trying to rise above personal interests
That my liberty ends where yours begins
The for every freedom, there is responsibility both personal and social
Changing things slowly
Critical thinking informed by experience and history
Thinking things through to the end and trying to reduce unintended consequences
I honestly wish there were more people like you in the world, moreso than people like myself. You've always been a gentleman whereas I've cultivated a reputation for being a hateful bastard. You've got Class.
That's very nice of you to say, thank you. :)
Though you shouldn't be self-reproachful, your posts don't read as hateful to me. Sometimes a message needs to be delivered with some force and passion.
John - that was actually marvelous.
I can't read all your posts, but perhaps you are neither a conservative or a liberal. Perhaps you are a thinker.
To insert a quote from HL Mencken that so very much applies:
For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
What we need is a long discussion with a thoughtful solution to happen in a 10-second soundbite world.
Dude, I think we are both in the wrong business.
"GoMerticToday" states "Payroll taxes are paid by the employee not the employer". This is correct. The employer deducts certain taxes from the paycheck so they are not income and are untaxed. You do not pay income tax on FICA.
The employer pays nothing. If the employee does not generate a greater value than the employee is paid then the employee is out of a job.
LOVED Obama's speech! Now the Dems need to GET BUSY talking up what the Prez said today. Most Americans are with Obama & the Dems. PLEASE don't let the Repubs dominate this debate!
How about a video of the Obama speech on TRMS blog homepage?? You've got Bill Maher! Thanks for posting the text.
The President showed his strength with this speech.
99 pound weakling draws a line, several lines, in the sand! I've been expecting the worst, because he's been delivering the worst, but I found myself cheering. So what if the stock market sinks my IRA! My president was lost but now he's found -- for the moment at least. A consummate juggling of understatement, firm statement, and a style that (finally) explains it all for you. Of course, Rachel is the best explainer on TV. And of course, I could have done better. But he came in nice third. He did it good.
Great missive Howard! Loved your analogies, but hey, I COULD HAVE done better than YOU. :) So. Rachel first, ME second, Prez third then you guys can all jump in with your 12 cents... :)
See my comments as they relate to various respondents below and above.
Mark plagiarized from http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/qt/payroll_basics.htm
.
He's walking a fine line (for the benefit of swing voters) & he did it well but he needs to use the bully pulpit more for his base.You only compromise on so much & you fight like hell for the rest.I am saddened that he only wants to "review" defence cuts .....surely by now Gates should have a pretty good idea where the axe should fall.
He needs to follow this up with more speeches........keep at it ........drown the repub's in provable fact.
Saved millions of jobs my ass! He bailed out wall street! Total bull@!$%# in my opinion.
"In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets."
Aparently you were not paying attention. Remember all the jobs he saved with the GM and Chrysler bailouts? Plus saving a vital business to this country? The top ten economist in this country all have stated if the President had done nothing we would be in a depression worse than the 30's.
Yes, Don is/was NOT paying attention. The 'bailouts' were the last piss on yew from the bushco fiasco, remember now Don? Obama DID continue the 'program already in progress' as instructed by the monied elite, as he grappled with the impending calamity, and now Grandma/pa etc. is/are expected to pick up the tab - again? Had this action he continued not been done, the trigger that was aimed at our collective heads would have been pulled, much as they are trying to do now - again.
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses? How convenient. Almost as convenient as forgetting how we got to this chapter in the book in the first place.
He reassured me about his commitment to a social agenda; we Americans are in this together. The hard resolve of the GOP to change the course of this country was not addressed directly, although, I thought he defined the two approaches to the deficit well in the social context, direction our country can take. He did not address the fallacy of the numbers in the GOP 2012 budget. I refuse to call it the Ryan budget as it comes from the Heritage Foundation not the best source for any budget. How do you get a group, in this case the GOP, who are acting as the bully in the room to be reasonable? They have not shown either an affinity for real math or an understanding of economics. Trickle down economics aka voodoo economics do not work.
Great rhetoric! Classic Obama! He will decrease the deficit by a ratio of spending to revenue (3 to 1). Good luck suckers!
I feel sad for you.
Janice: Don't...people like that don't merit pity.
The truth hurts Janice and Edgar. I feel sad for ALL of us. At least Nikolas has his eyes open.
The trolls are having a pity party for themselves...isn't that cute!
I asked him this morning to say NO. I said you have meant them more than half way and not it's time for them to bend and give. I said for him to have the strength to say NO in order for them all to represent all of America instead of their just working for the wealth of America with the trickle down turning into tinkle on. WELL - I heard NO and let's have that conversation. I heard NO and let's cooperate to find a plan that works for all. I heard our President say NO to slash and burn and yes to acknowledging the problems now and in the future. I heard a great President wanting to work NOT just for his base or his party but for the country, this democracy and our America. SO PROUD.
Well, it has already begun...partisan bickering about what the President has said. I wish people would pay attention to what he is saying more. He stated it exactly. What type of America are you wanting in the next few years? Everyone knows that we got into terrible dept due to Bush's wars where we went from a surplus to an enormous deficit in his 8 years of service. Why can't the Tea Party and GOP see that to understand why the spending has been the way it was. We had to help our economy and get it back on track or we were heading to another Great Depression. Other channel pundits are saying that it has never been proven that these tax cuts are taking away from the lower and middle class. Are they insane? What do they think happens? Bush had these tax cuts in place and it did not increase massive jobs etc.... In fact middle class income decreased overall. Where do we go from here? Keep asking, what type of America do they want? Don't they care for their fellow citizen? That's the question everyone needs to be asking!!!