Should Obama invoke the 14th Amendment and bypass Congress?

[OmCheeto]

WhoWee: I don't think arguing a conspiracy theory involving Obama is very relevant to the thread, or appropriate for the forum.

I didn't see it as a conspiracy. Though some might see it that way.

I was surprised about the Immelt thing when I first heard about it, and had to think about it for a couple of minutes, then, BING!

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

enemies, being defined in this case, as those who take advantage of the system for their own gains.

Though as I said before, I was heavily invested in GE, but divested when I read their "screw you" message in their annual report. Thanks GE, but no, screw you.

 

[Newai]

I was surprised about the Immelt thing when I first heard about it, and had to think about it for a couple of minutes, then, BING!

That would be Stanley Bing, right?

 

[OmCheeto]

At any rate, these problems are still going to be present no matter who is president.

Why the hell do you think they put Palin on the ticket last election? Because they wanted to be in charge during this mess?









Sorry. I'm not laughing at you. Your statement is correct.

 

[OmCheeto]

That would be Stanley Bing, right?

?

Actually, I'm so illiterate in almost every area of everything, I had to look up who "Harry Reid" was about an hour ago.

Bing. hmmm... "Executricks: Or How to Retire While You're Still Working". I think my boss read that book.

"Sun Tzu Was a Sissy: Conquer Your Enemies, Promote Your Friends, and Wage the Real Art of War ".
Wow! Two Sun Tzu references in less than an hour.

It's a sign!

 

[BobG]

If the bottom 50% of earners had paid more than 20% of all federal income taxes last year and the top 10% of income earners didn't pay the bulk of federal income taxes - you might have a point.

No kidding! The bottom 50% of earners only earned 13% of the nation's total adjusted gross income.

A flat tax sounds great when the top 50% are paying 97% of the federal income taxes, but surely you don't think a flat tax would mean the top 50% would only pay 50% of federal income taxes. With a flat tax, the top 50% would still pay 87% of federal income taxes.

The top 10% earn $3.8 trillion a year. The bottom 50% earn $1.05 trillion a year.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls

 

[WhoWee]

No kidding! The bottom 50% of earners only earned 13% of the nation's total adjusted gross income.

A flat tax sounds great when the top 50% are paying 97% of the federal income taxes, but surely you don't think a flat tax would mean the top 50% would only pay 50% of federal income taxes. With a flat tax, the top 50% would still pay 87% of federal income taxes.

The top 10% earn $3.8 trillion a year. The bottom 50% earn $1.05 trillion a year.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls

IMO - we need more tax payers - and immigration is not the answer - the bottom 50% needs to take a cut in re-distribution. In expectation of arguments about Social Security - why did the President cut the SS deduction - what did it accomplish?

 

[ParticleGrl]

IMO - we need more tax payers - and immigration is not the answer - the bottom 50% needs to take a cut in re-distribution. In expectation of arguments about Social Security - why did the President cut the SS deduction - what did it accomplish?

I define a tax payer as someone who looks at their paycheck and says "oh, its lower than I thought because of taxes." Including only federal income tax is silly- why don't we only look at state taxes? After all- lots of the services most people use are funded by state taxes.

As to the temporary reduction in payroll taxes, it was a one-time cut designed to stimulate consumer demand in a recession. Keep in mind-tax cuts are the right-wing favored forms of economic stimulus.

 

[BobG]

What point are you trying to make? You seem incapable of discussing America's problems; instead, you seem fixated on one person. Even if Obama loses next election and Mitt Romney wins, I doubt there will be much difference in policy. Perhaps you want someone else? I don't know.

Not Ronald Reagan. New Party of Reagan

 

[mheslep]

http://news.yahoo.com/phone-tag-wrong-numbers-collapse-debt-talks-060105421.html

Maybe not proposals exactly, but agreeing to cuts is work toward middle ground. And this is the time when Boehner walked out.

And in fairness:

That's an unsourced line from Politico. I've seen no quotes to reporters, no public statements, and certainly nothing written down from the President, nor from Democratic leadership in Congress.

 

[Lapidus]

Obama offered something like a $4 trillion debt reduction plan, with a spending cut-to-revenue increase ratio of 3:1. It was reported that he even agreed to go 4:1, which is one reason the left is so angry with him. But the House Republicans refused it. They even refused the bipartisan plan from the gang of 6 in the Senate.

This is not about the obvious need for draconian cuts in entitlements and spending. Your suggestion as such is completely media driven. This is about the right refusing to put one dime of this on the back of billionaires. These are extraordinarily bad times where the rich are richer than they've ever been, they profited the most over the last fifteen years, they enjoy the lowest tax rates in since Truman, and they are unwilling to contribute a dime to their country. No matter how much Obama offered to cut, the right refused to take one more dime from the rich, and purely out of princple. This cannot be justified in any moral or rational sense. We are faced with a fundamental choice and one worth fighting for. Knowing that the poor and middle class will be asked to sacrifice a lot if we are to achieve a balanced budget, are the rich going to contribute to the solution, or do they get a completely free ride on the backs of the working class? Obama is right to draw the line. In the words of even many conservative pundits, he made an extraodinarily generous offer. It was crazy to refuse it! But the right would drive us over a cliff based on the delusions of people like Bachmann who thinks we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills, and the demand that the rich shall contribute nothing to the solution.

I don't know what this long thread is about and all the discussing, but Ivan nailed with this posts.

It is just the mother of all no-brainers http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1

I'm from Europe, and as everbody else here, it is beyond my comprehension how anybody half-way educated or sensible can defend or even support the current Republican party and their irresponsible and insane behavior.

 

[mheslep]

...
I'm from Europe, and as everbody else here, ...

Why must you attribute your opinion to the entire continent of Europe?

 

[hbjon]

There was a lot of talk on closing the overseas tax-shelters, but that talk seems to have quieted down somewhat. Pretax money funneled overseas is a crime against the taxpayers. Pretax money converted into commodities and shipped overseas is a crime against the taxpayers. Remember the plane loads of money sent to Iraq to create their new currency? What happened there? I believe the planes disappeared. Can't seem to find any facts on this. Was it the largest heist in history? Sorry to run off on some tangents here.

 

[mheslep]

... Was it the largest heist in history? ...

That would be Medicare and Medicaid fraud, ongoing, year after year.

 

[Newai]

That's an unsourced line from Politico. I've seen no quotes to reporters, no public statements, and certainly nothing written down from the President, nor from Democratic leadership in Congress.

Okay. Here's what I found on CBS:

The deal on the table, as Mr. Obama laid it out, included more than $1 trillion in cuts to domestic and defense discretionary spending, as well as $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He said he asked for approximately $1.2 trillion in revenue increases that he said would have come from eliminating loopholes and deductions and engaging in broad tax reform, not hiking tax rates.

The deal, he said, called for less in tax increases than the deal worked out by the bipartisan "Gang of Six" negotiators, while including as much in discretionary savings. He said if the deal was unbalanced, "it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20082266-503544.html
I'm sorry I don't have any transcripts available, but I hope this is within PF guidelines for sourcing.

 

[mheslep]

Okay. Here's what I found on CBS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20082266-503544.html
I'm sorry I don't have any transcripts available, but I hope this is within PF guidelines for sourcing.

I did not mean to say that the previous source was outside guidelines, nor this one. Both are mainstream outlets. However both sources are reporting no more than unsourced hand waiving. They mean little or nothing. The President states Friday that "We have set forth a plan" on this subject. I say that's false. The US House passed the Ryan budget months ago, which was a detailed, quantifiable plan. More recently the US House passed Cut Cap and Balance. That was a plan. Those plans, being plans, are open for detailed criticism. There has been no such plan from the President or the Senate.

The above is particularly important is light of the history these negotiations to which Russ_W drew attention back in #89. (point 6)
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3419038&postcount=89

 

[Newai]

I think that's a very strict call for documentation, even within the normal bread and butter discussions in this sub-forum. You asked for "specific cut proposals." I didn't expect that you would dismiss the mainstream report I offered, which I thought had followed your example in the quote at post #94. So, just what is acceptable to you, then? Because otherwise, I don't see how it's possible to answer your question.

 

[turbo]

The President cannot legislate spending or taxation, so it is not surprising that he has not put out a detailed plan. He apparently put a lot of "entitlement" spending on the table in talks with the GOP, (incurring the rage of progressives and liberals) but the GOP turned him down because there were revenue-increases linked to the cuts. Please refer to the two David Brooks links earlier in the thread because I'm not going to dig them up again.

The GOP has one agenda. Kill Obama's chances for a second term. It doesn't matter to them if they panic the markets and the world's financial sector with the specter of default, IMO, and plunge the US into a much deeper recession. If they truly wanted to curb spending, there are myriad ways to cut without harming the elderly, disabled, and poor. If my senators (both Republican) go along with this blackmail, they can no longer count on my vote. Fiscal conservatism seems dead in the DC GOP and that is really sad. Where are the adults?

 

[mheslep]

I think that's a very strict call for documentation, even within the normal bread and butter discussions in this sub-forum. You asked for "specific cut proposals." I didn't expect that you would dismiss the mainstream report I offered, which I thought had followed your example in the quote at post #94. So, just what is acceptable to you, then? Because otherwise, I don't see how it's possible to answer your question.

The President submits a detailed budget proposal every year. Here is that budget from February, which includes the tax raises on upper incomes.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview
In particular see table 3-3 here, where the deficit is increasing in 2020.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/econ_analyses.pdf

Usually, so does the Senate.

 

[Newai]

That's not a budget proposal.

 

[hbjon]

Debt ceiling raised= Your dollar worth less. Debt ceiling lowered= Your dollar worth more. If your holdings are in the Euro or other currencies, higher debt limit= higher Euro value because your currency is not being dilluted. All the gold has been purchased already with "good money", when everyone ran out of "good money", the "bad money" started competing for the gold reserves. Now, congress has to raise the limit on how much "bad money" is allowed to be in existence. Historically, bad money always chases out the good money. See Greshams Dynamic.

 

[mheslep]

That's not a budget proposal.

Of course it is:
From the President's Office of Management and Budget, we have the "Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012." It is not law (can not be as is), but is a document submitted to Congress.

In any case I am not inclined to chase red herrings. You have your example of a detailed plan.

 

[Newai]

Oh it is. Never mind.

 

[turbo]

Oh it is. Never mind.

Can we have an Emily Litella smiley with a link to "never mind"?

 

[WhoWee]

I define a tax payer as someone who looks at their paycheck and says "oh, its lower than I thought because of taxes." Including only federal income tax is silly- why don't we only look at state taxes? After all- lots of the services most people use are funded by state taxes.

As to the temporary reduction in payroll taxes, it was a one-time cut designed to stimulate consumer demand in a recession. Keep in mind-tax cuts are the right-wing favored forms of economic stimulus.

I know quite a few people - who are tax payers - that don't fit your definition.

Let's be precise. It was a reduction in Social Security collections - a reduction of revenues to the Government - at a time of uncertainty as the President doesn't know if he can send out Social Security checks next month.

The workers experienced a reduction - but not their employers - the people who hire other people. Last, a person earning $25,000 per year kept about $10 per week?

 

[Newai]

Can we have an Emily Litella smiley with a link to "never mind"?

I have mild autism, so I miss things at times.

 

[Proton Soup]

Debt ceiling raised= Your dollar worth less. Debt ceiling lowered= Your dollar worth more. If your holdings are in the Euro or other currencies, higher debt limit= higher Euro value because your currency is not being dilluted. All the gold has been purchased already with "good money", when everyone ran out of "good money", the "bad money" started competing for the gold reserves. Now, congress has to raise the limit on how much "bad money" is allowed to be in existence. Historically, bad money always chases out the good money. See Greshams Dynamic.

this is the part no one seems to get.

and this euro stuff just pisses me off. we end up having to support libya's war because europe has divested itself of military spending. they save huge amounts on their military budgets so that they can invest in social programs and lure our businesses there with lowered tax rates. our dollar is suffering because we are europe's military.

i'm at the point now where i think "defaulting" is the best thing that could happen to this country. we are complete idiots.

 

[MarcoD]

this is the part no one seems to get.

and this euro stuff just pisses me off. we end up having to support libya's war because europe has divested itself of military spending. they save huge amounts on their military budgets so that they can invest in social programs and lure our businesses there with lowered tax rates. our dollar is suffering because we are europe's military.

i'm at the point now where i think "defaulting" is the best thing that could happen to this country. we are complete idiots.

The EU has the same problems as the US when it comes to industry. Basically, banks/investors cash in on industry which has become uncompetitive, and build factories elsewhere, where China is -at the moment- the most striking example. If anything, blame banks, investors, open markets or even capitalism for that.

Note also that there is virtually no money coming into the EU. On the contrary, money goes into the US because of the deficits.

With an extreme trade deficit and an extreme government budget deficit, you cannot even state that that hurt the US in the last decennia. As it stands at the moment, China -for example- is giving goods away, essentially for free. They just hope that at some point the US will make good on its future promise to pay off their debt (which in the end must mean that goods are shipped back from the US).

Defaulting in some sense isn't a bad option because all the money which was borrowed or poured back into the US will evaporate. Which, again, means that banks would just have given away their money to the government, also that other countries would have given goods (oil/iPhones) for free to the US over the last decades.

But defaulting also implies that you blow up the US economy. And it stands to be seen how long it will take for the US economy to recover from that. It would be unclear for everyone if banks or the rest of the world would be inclined to invest in the US that fast, go for the same scheme, factories are not build easily, and this is not the fifties where the US was in some sense one of the very few producers of (high-end) goods in the world.

But, as it stands at the moment, there really is nobody else to blame except for your government. It is the same as a family which borrowed too much at the bank, and tries to borrow itself out of the position it put itself into. You can't blame a bank for providing cheap credit, which -rather silly- the majority of the Greeks now seem to do.

As far as I can see the US went to an unsustainable mode of borrowing decades ago. I am amazed that the US has a triple A rating, whereas Greece has not, but the debt per capita or as percentage of GDP is much larger (though I see different numbers on that). But a lot of people in the EU have been wondering about that for years.

Please note that I write all this with a tongue-in-cheek. I really believe it will work out one way or another since it a solution must be found. The US can borrow more, inflate, implement austerity measures, redeem only a part, or eventually work itself out of the debt position it put itself into; heck, they can also just nationalize all banks and close the borders. It will work out one way or another, but, sorry to say, my best guess is that the coming years will be those of recession, unemployment, and less consumption than before - an adjustment for a decade, or so.
But people have been saying that for years and it never happened, I am not an economist, so what do I know?

(Given all of the above, the most likely scenario still is that the US government will come to some agreement now, in the future fix the biggest parts of the deficits, or maybe even banks will start to help out the government, and stuff will just continue as normal.)

(And regarding the military issues. I agree somewhat, the EU needs a coherent army. Note that the EUs army is bigger than that of the US, but just not mobile because of the interests of all the different states. But also, people in the EU go into welfare when unemployment is high, in the US people just go into the military, and that is subsequently used. From an economic perspective, it is just a manner of hiding unemployment and stimulating the economy.)

 

[WhoWee]

If Congress fails to act, should Obama follow the advice of Bill Clinton?

I just thought of something. As it seems that Congress will now find a solution on their own, if the President fails to sign the Bill (because it doesn't extend the ceiling past the 2012 election as he demanded) - the financial collapse of the US Government will be President Obama's fault - won't it?

 

[mheslep]

I am amazed that the US has a triple A rating, whereas Greece has not, but the debt per capita or as percentage of GDP is much larger (though I see different numbers on that). ...

Really? How would you judge the odds of getting your money back plus interest if you loaned money to the Greek government for ten years vs a loan to the US govt?

 

[MarcoD]

Really? How would you judge the odds of getting your money back plus interest if you loaned money to the Greek government for ten years vs the US govt?

Don't know. The Greeks didn't default on their debt so far - but I agree you have a point there, that country is a mess. But from an economic point it doesn't make sense. This is not about honor, or corruption, or something but just about money. At some point, for a country it will just be cheaper to default than to pay back, and then it will (while crying out loud that it was all the fault of the banks in the first place).

(And when it comes to ratings. I would be more worried about losing AAA too late, rather than too soon. If AAA continues indefinitely, there just is no reason for the US government to fix problems.)

 

[WhoWee]

Don't know. The Greeks didn't default on their debt so far - but I agree you have a point there. But from an economic point it doesn't make sense. This is not about honor or something but just about money. At some point, for a country it will just be cheaper to default than to pay back, and then it will.

There is a factor in Greece that can't be overlooked when discussing their economic problems - the underground economy.
http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/issue06/katsios.pdf

 

[mheslep]

Don't know. The Greeks didn't default on their debt so far

Well Greek http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/us-eurozone-greece-programme-idUSTRE76L2PQ20110722" is a couple weeks away now.

Since the selective default rating is expected to be a matter of days or a few weeks at the most, the enhanced collateral money is only a temporary measure.

- but I agree you have a point there, that country is a mess. But from an economic point it doesn't make sense...

Economically speaking the only thing that matters is the expectation of bond holders / buyers that they will be repaid in real terms.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Whatever your views may be, please call Speaker Boehner and tell his staff what you think.

Also, if you haven't done so already, please call or email [no texting, go to their website and use the contact page] your House representitive and Senators.

Speaker Boehner's office: (202) 225-0600

Your President is asking for your help.

 

[WhoWee]

Whatever your views may be, please call Speaker Boehner and tell his staff what you think.

Also, if you haven't done so already, please call or email [no texting, go to their website and use the contact page] your House representitive and Senators.

Speaker Boehner's office: (202) 225-0600

Your President is asking for your help.

I took the President's advice and sent an email to the Speaker. I recommended allowing President Obama to sign off on a $20Trillion debt limit as per the current trajectory - coupled with an equal amount of spending cuts over the same period. The President wants a big deal - give him one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I took the President's advice and sent an email to the Speaker. I recommended allowing President Obama to sign off on a $20Trillion debt limit as per the current trajectory - coupled with an equal amount of spending cuts over the same period. The President wants a big deal - give him one.

Do you mean debt ceiling increases equal to spending cuts, or eliminating the debt entirely?