Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

Grant · Jan 16, 2012

Catawba said:
Clinton lowered Capital gains rates from 28% to 20%, but increased other taxes and closed loopholes:

"Mr. Clinton, in 1993, signed the largest tax increase in American history, and on top of George HW Bush's a couple of years earlier in the midst of a recession. After HW's tax increase, the GDP began to rebound as Bill Clinton took office, promising to focus like a laser on "the economy, stupid". After Clinton's 1993 tax increase on the wealthy, job growth began, and by the end of Clinton's term 23M new jobs had been created."
Capital Gains Jumped Under Clinton And Fell Under Bush For Reasons That Had Little To Do With Either | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

Bush II lowered Capital gains tax rate again to 15%. What is proposed now is raising them back to the level they had been lowered to by Clinton.

Why is it Obama is blamed for the debt then? The point is the only time in the last 30 years the deficit has been reduced significantly was when both sides came together in the 90's to both cut spending and increase taxes. The Congress in the 90's saw that spending cuts, especially in the military, were not enough, they saw that it also required tax increases.

That is what will eventually have to be done again, because it is not possible without doing both spending cuts and tax increases. It is ironic it is the GOP that is balking at cutting government spending now as well as their usual opposition to increasing revenues.

The problem is spending money you don't have. That's a lesson that should be taught in grade school but it seems its a lesson still ignored, even in Harvard.

There is no guarantee that sending DC more money will reduce the deficit. If they cannot live within their means then sending them more money will do no good whatsoever. They will just run through that and continue to borrow until they run out of lenders, and that time appears to be fast approaching.

Then they will just print it as they need it. That's not difficult to predict or understand.

Catawba · Jan 16, 2012

Dickieboy said:
Clinton did increase taxes on the wealthy but he also CUT taxes at the same time for low income families. He also raised taxes on Social Security income. Thus it was not merely ‘raised taxes on the rich’.

Take it up with the CBO, it was their assessment.

Please point out where the GOP is balking on this…much of the discussion has been on the skepticism of his words and the apparent nominal monetary effect it will have but no one that I have read/heard is against this proposal.

"Paul Light, a New York University professor who specializes in government reform, called Obama's approach promising, but he said it's unlikely that Congress — which helped create the maze of agencies and departments — would cede him the authority he seeks.

"People don't like to give up turf," Light said. "This all begins in Congress, which likes the duplication and overlap of regulations and agencies. It gives members lots of things to brag about when they get home."

"If the authority were granted, Congress would be required to hold an up-or-down vote on the president's plan — without making any changes to it — within 90 days of its submission."

Obama seeks power to streamline federal government | McClatchy

"Skeptical Republicans questioned both the merit and the timing of Obama's announcement."

Obama unveils plan to streamline government - Page 2 - CNN

Catawba · Jan 16, 2012

Grant said:
The problem is spending money you don't have. That's a lesson that should be taught in grade school but it seems its a lesson still ignored, even in Harvard.

There is no guarantee that sending DC more money will reduce the deficit. If they cannot live within their means then sending them more money will do no good whatsoever. They will just run through that and continue to borrow until they run out of lenders, and that time appears to be fast approaching.

Then they will just print it as they need it. That's not difficult to predict or understand.

The debt was created by 30 years of both spending too much and tax breaks for the rich. The only way to address that 30 years of debt is by both spending less and eliminating the tax breaks for the rich.

Grant · Jan 16, 2012

Catawba said:
The debt was created by 30 years of both spending too much and tax breaks for the rich. The only way to address that 30 years of debt is by both spending less and eliminating the tax breaks for the rich.

Spending too much yes, tax breaks for the rich, no.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that if "the rich" paid three times what they are now that the budget would be balanced? Of course not! Not if they paid 20 times or gave the government all their money.

You seemed to have memorized your response of "tax the rich" without thinking this through. Other countries have tried to "tax the rich", such as happened in the UK, and the rich just physically fled. Now they can just press a button on their computer.

Thomas Sowell explains part of it quite well in this column and its worth a read. You Can

AdamT · Jan 16, 2012

Grant said:
Spending too much yes, tax breaks for the rich, no.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that if "the rich" paid three times what they are now that the budget would be balanced? Of course not! Not if they paid 20 times or gave the government all their money.

You seemed to have memorized your response of "tax the rich" without thinking this through. Other countries have tried to "tax the rich", such as happened in the UK, and the rich just physically fled. Now they can just press a button on their computer.

Thomas Sowell explains part of it quite well in this column and its worth a read. You Can

There is some evidence, from none other than Reagan's former economic advisor, that the debt would be around $2 trillion less than its current level if the top effective tax rate had been frozen in 1986.

Bruce Bartlett: The Rich Can Afford to Pay More Taxes - NYTimes.com

Grant · Jan 16, 2012

AdamT said:
There is some evidence, from none other than Reagan's former economic advisor, that the debt would be around $2 trillion less than its current level if the top effective tax rate had been frozen in 1986.

Bruce Bartlett: The Rich Can Afford to Pay More Taxes - NYTimes.com

Even if we were to give this man the benefit of any doubt it still means that the US would be $13 trillion in debt rather than the $15 trillion and growing. Can you explain what advantage that would be or where any benefits might lie?

The problem is government spending and if Americans cant figure that out then you can kiss it all goodbye.

Catawba · Jan 16, 2012

AdamT said:
There is some evidence, from none other than Reagan's former economic advisor, that the debt would be around $2 trillion less than its current level if the top effective tax rate had been frozen in 1986.

Bruce Bartlett: The Rich Can Afford to Pay More Taxes - NYTimes.com

And from another source:

"Tax cuts for America’s top earners are costing everyone, every hour of every day, a new report from the National Priorities Project finds.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. America’s top earners will get an average tax cut of $66,384 in 2011, while the bottom 20 percent will get an average cut of $107. "

Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour: Report

Swit · Jan 16, 2012

Grant said:
The problem is government spending and if Americans cant figure that out then you can kiss it all goodbye.

OK, lets just make the assumption that you are correct.... that its ONLY government spending that is the issue. Fine, show us all where we we can trim the fat so to speak:

u-s-federal-government-spending-by-category-program-2011.jpg

Keep in mind... in order to only spend that amount which the federal government receives as revenues you need to chop 36% of this pie.... where would you propose we make the cuts?

EDIT: source link

Grant · Jan 16, 2012

Catawba said:
And from another source:

"Tax cuts for America’s top earners are costing everyone, every hour of every day, a new report from the National Priorities Project finds.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. America’s top earners will get an average tax cut of $66,384 in 2011, while the bottom 20 percent will get an average cut of $107. "

Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour: Report

Okay, it's the Huffington Post, which caters to the too far out there to take seriously crowd, and the equally vacuous NPP, but lets go with their number anyway, rounded off.

At $12 million an hour that is $288 million per day it is "costing" the government.

Meanwhile the government is spending $4 billion per day. U.S. National Debt Clock

Can you see the difference?

And the Huffington Post article assumes that the people with this $11 million dollars per hour to give to the government would just leave their money where it is. That's just silly. You can ask yourself if you would do that if you were a millionaire and then ask yourself again why you are not a millionaire.

Grant · Jan 16, 2012

Swit said:
OK, lets just make the assumption that you are correct.... that its ONLY government spending that is the issue. Fine, show us all where we we can trim the fat so to speak:

View attachment 67121266

Keep in mind... in order to only spend that amount which the federal government receives as revenues you need to chop 36% of this pie.... where would you propose we make the cuts?

EDIT: source link

Well if you can't find any cuts in there I guess you're screwed.

j-mac · Jan 16, 2012

Grant said:
Well if you can't find any cuts in there I guess you're screwed.

Plenty of cuts in there, the only thing it is depending on is who's sacred cow is going to be gored in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Oh, and we could stop giving my money to China so they can teach prostitutes to drink responsibly while on the job.

j-mac

AdamT · Jan 16, 2012

j-mac said:
Plenty of cuts in there, the only thing it is depending on is who's sacred cow is going to be gored in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Oh, and we could stop giving my money to China so they can teach prostitutes to drink responsibly while on the job.

j-mac

Oh great, so Chinese hookers will be as drunk as Georgia legislators?

Swit · Jan 16, 2012

Grant said:
Well if you can't find any cuts in there I guess you're screwed.

I can find plenty of things to cut, it just wouldn't be anywhere near the 36% required to balance spending vs. revenues. By dodging the question I asked, it appears you can't either. Is it safe to assume you now acknowledge the need to increase revenues as well as cut spending?

Grant · Jan 16, 2012

j-mac said:
Plenty of cuts in there, the only thing it is depending on is who's sacred cow is going to be gored in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Oh, and we could stop giving my money to China so they can teach prostitutes to drink responsibly while on the job.

j-mac

There is at least a trillion dollars to be saved in there, J-mac.

Trouble is people get accustomed to these programs, dependent on them, and then believe them to be a "right". That's true all over the world.

At one time Americans used to help each other and feel good about it and now they expect the government to do all of that. We can see also that it has weakened American society and divided one against the other. There is not the same American pride there once was, that's certain, and dependency can do that.

I still feel confident though that the American people, the 'silent majority", will grab the opportunity to turn things around next November. It's a must.

Catawba · Jan 16, 2012

Grant said:
Okay, it's the Huffington Post, which caters to the too far out there to take seriously crowd, and the equally vacuous NPP, but lets go with their number anyway, rounded off.

The report was by the National Priorities Project, not Huffington Post, and is just one more source to back up the need for eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy.

At $12 million an hour that is $288 million per day it is "costing" the government.

Indeed! Over a 30 year period that is over $3 trillion dollars! From the same article by another source: "The cost of tax cuts for upper income earners is the same as the Social Security shortfall for the next 75 years, the Center for Budget and Priorities estimates."

Meanwhile the government is spending $4 billion per day. U.S. National Debt Clock

Can you see the difference?

Yes, I do see, that is why the elimination of the tax cuts for the wealthy will have to be coupled with huge cuts in our excessive military spending and multiple optional wars, as well as reform of our health care system.

And the Huffington Post article assumes that the people with this $11 million dollars per hour to give to the government would just leave their money where it is. That's just silly. You can ask yourself if you would do that if you were a millionaire and then ask yourself again why you are not a millionaire.

We know from experience its not being invested in jobs in this country, so who gives a **** what they would be doing with it overseas to line their own profits? The middle class agreed to the tax cuts for the wealthy for the last decade on the promise it would create jobs.

Where are the jobs?

j-mac · Jan 16, 2012

AdamT said:
Oh great, so Chinese hookers will be as drunk as Georgia legislators?

That was pretty good, I think I actually snorted.....heh, heh....

j-mac

Grant · Jan 16, 2012

Swit said:
I can find plenty of things to cut, it just wouldn't be anywhere near the 36% required to balance spending vs. revenues. By dodging the question I asked, it appears you can't either. Is it safe to assume you now acknowledge the need to increase revenues as well as cut spending?

I would eliminate or cut income security, medicare, energy, education, and several other departments. These should be the responsibility of the individual States.

Grant · Jan 16, 2012

Catawba said:
The report was by the National Priorities Project, not Huffington Post, and is just one more source to back up the need for eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yes, i acknowledged the NPP and only sites like the Huffington Post would bother publishing it.

Indeed! Over a 30 year period that is over $3 trillion dollars! From the same article by another source: "The cost of tax cuts for upper income earners is the same as the Social Security shortfall for the next 75 years, the Center for Budget and Priorities estimates."

And the US would still be $12 trillion in debt! And that is assuming money stays in the country. As you might know corporations are already leaving, manufacturing ids dying out and Detroit is more the future than than past.

Yes, I do see, that is why the elimination of the tax cuts for the wealthy will have to be coupled with huge cuts in our excessive military spending and multiple optional wars, as well as reform of our health care system.

You mean BHO's idea of reform? Are you serious?

We know from experience its not being invested in jobs in this country, so who gives a **** what they would be doing with it overseas to line their own profits?

There are already complaints of companies and corporations leaving. I don;t see why this trend won't continue.

It is something you might consider. The middle class agreed to the tax cuts for the wealthy for the last decade on the promise it would create jobs.

The middle class decided no such thing.

Where are the jobs?

They're leaving because the country is poorly run. That has happened to all countries throughout history and you might just have to get used to it.

Eighty Deuce · Jan 16, 2012

Swit said:
I can find plenty of things to cut, it just wouldn't be anywhere near the 36% required to balance spending vs. revenues. By dodging the question I asked, it appears you can't either. Is it safe to assume you now acknowledge the need to increase revenues as well as cut spending?

The Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended a 3:1 ratio, cuts to revenue increases. And they laid out the plan. They were Obama's commission. He ignored them.

So what is the Democrat plan besides class-envy and being reckless ?

Eighty Deuce · Jan 16, 2012

Swit said:
I can find plenty of things to cut, it just wouldn't be anywhere near the 36% required to balance spending vs. revenues. By dodging the question I asked, it appears you can't either. Is it safe to assume you now acknowledge the need to increase revenues as well as cut spending?

Further, you don't have to "cut" a damned thing. All you need to do is increase spending by only 2% per year, and we are balanced by 2017. That's a "cut" in liberal Democrat lala free-stuff land though. Democrats make cutting cheese a "blame the rich Republicans " issue though, so progress seems futile until Democrtats are out of office.

Dickieboy · Jan 16, 2012

AdamT said:
There is some evidence, from none other than Reagan's former economic advisor, that the debt would be around $2 trillion less than its current level if the top effective tax rate had been frozen in 1986.

Yes, he did say that but he also said:

Of course, these are not hard numbers. If the effective tax rate had stayed at 33.1 percent on the top 1 percent of taxpayers all these years, their behavior would undoubtedly have changed.

And it probably would have been impractical to maintain a higher rate on just the top 1 percent of taxpayers without having had higher rates on many of those below that percentile. But it does show the order of magnitude of how much revenue has been sacrificed from tax cuts on those with very high incomes.

So I guess we will never know...cherry pick much?

Catawba · Jan 16, 2012

Grant said:
And the US would still be $12 trillion in debt! And that is assuming money stays in the country. As you might know corporations are already leaving, manufacturing ids dying out and Detroit is more the future than than past.

If you are not interested in cutting the National debt by $3 trillion dollars you are in a heap big hypocritical pickle then.

You mean BHO's idea of reform? Are you serious?

Its not BHO's idea, we are the only industrialized nation left on the planet with an antiquated health care system that is the most expensive on the planet.

There are already complaints of companies and corporations leaving. I don;t see why this trend won't continue.

Good riddance!!! Of what use are they, if they are not producing jobs and paying their fair share of the taxes.

The middle class decided no such thing.

The middle class are the ones who voted in representatives that cut the taxes for the wealthy because they were told that investment would trickle down to them in jobs. We now have a decade of experience that shows us that was a lie.

AdamT · Jan 16, 2012

Dickieboy said:
Yes, he did say that but he also said:

Of course, these are not hard numbers. If the effective tax rate had stayed at 33.1 percent on the top 1 percent of taxpayers all these years, their behavior would undoubtedly have changed.

And it probably would have been impractical to maintain a higher rate on just the top 1 percent of taxpayers without having had higher rates on many of those below that percentile. But it does show the order of magnitude of how much revenue has been sacrificed from tax cuts on those with very high incomes.

So I guess we will never know...cherry pick much?

That's why I included the link -- so you could read it for yourself. Also why I said "some evidence". Nitpick much?

Dickieboy · Jan 16, 2012

AdamT said:
Nitpick much?

Only to the extent that I learned from you...:lamo

Catawba · Jan 16, 2012

Eighty Deuce said:
The Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended a 3:1 ratio, cuts to revenue increases. And they laid out the plan. They were Obama's commission. He ignored them.

So what is the Democrat plan besides class-envy and being reckless ?

"Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) walks away from debt ceiling talks with Biden after refusing to consider any tax increases. The administration had offered $2.4 trillion in spending cuts for $400 billion in taxes, an 83:17 split."
How Republican Tax Intransigence Sank The Super Committee: A Timeline | ThinkProgress

Say what now?

Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

Grant

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Grant

AdamT

Grant

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Swit

Grant

Grant

j-mac

AdamT

Swit

Grant

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

j-mac

Grant

Grant

Eighty Deuce

Eighty Deuce

Dickieboy

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

AdamT

Dickieboy

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist