Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!’Enough is enough,’ Obama says, calling for deal
Thursday, July 14, 2011
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has declared “enough is enough,” and is demanding that budget negotiators find common ground by week’s end to resolve the nation’s debt limit. Meanwhile, the Senate’s top Republican gained followers for his own last-ditch scheme to avoid a government default.
The continuing impasse was unsettling Wall Street, and a looming Aug. 2 deadline for action was creating new tensions between the president and Republican leaders.
Moody’s Investors Service says it will review the government’s credit rating and a Chinese rating agency issued its own warning. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that failing to increase the nation’s debt ceiling would send “shock waves through the entire financial system.”
In the latest bargaining session, Obama grew frustrated with a Republican leader and brought the meeting to an abrupt end.
Marry Me
Comments
JoeGardener66 1 year, 10 months ago
And the GOP was so fiscally responsible they started two wars while cutting taxes....
Please...both parties have proven to be completely incompetent and irresponsible.
But Americans don't seem to care much as long as they got their NASCAR/AmericanIdol fix.... And now here comes QE3.... Got silver?? LOL
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
I would like to laugh too. What is QE3?
online_editor 1 year, 10 months ago
QE3 would be a third round of Quantitative Easing by the Federal Reserve Bank. In simple terms, the Fed prints more money to release into the economy.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
I appreciate the explanation. Thanks, online editor. Now the silver question makes sense too. Probably best we NOT do this.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
This QE3 business, quite frankly, makes me sick to my stomach. Seems to me the first thing to do is 'no harm'. just let things be for a while. Or as Herman Cain has said he would do, take out the uncertainty in the economy. Until someone actually knows what that involves is President, its best to just let things be.........so what are TBTF banksters?
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
good to know the abbreviations! thanks. Why do you say these things about Hank Paulson?
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
The precious metals people (gold bugs and all) have been predicting the collapse of the US dollar ever since the 1930's. It hasn't happened yet but they keep telling us "this time is different". It's a con and a scam. Precious metals are good for jewelry and very little else.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Now I see why I haven't decided which is better - and if it was a wise thing to do away with the gold standard.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
Joe, those pieces of paper have worked pretty well for me so far. There are a lot of people with a lot of intellectual and financial resources backing the current system. As Muhammad Ali once said: "I can trust someone who is making money when I make money."
People who buy commodities based on newsprint or email "bulletins" are not investors; they are either customers or suckers. Buying brokered certificates for volatile industrial commodities is not a savings or investment plan. It's gambling. The recent rise in silver prices is based primarily on Chinese hedge placements and somewhat on gold bugs like yourself, and today's price is down from yesterday's close on the mere possibility of a deal between congress and the president.
I have read the newsletters, and I could describe your fantasy world in detail. It starts with the US currency collapsing but miraculously everything else stays in place so you can cash in your silver certificates and have the silver delivered to you. That's just the first part but what's the likelihood of all that?
JCLifer 1 year, 10 months ago
I was thinking we had gone way too far when Obama came up with the Cash for Clunkers fiasco.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Sure, '690,114 older cars were taken off the road' and this cost the government - aka the taxpayers - $3 BILLION. It sounds like you think this is a wise way to spend our money. The real question with all of this is "What is the role of government?' Is this something the government should do? If so, why? The government - aka taxpayers - are doing a lot of things and much of it out of kindness, no doubt. The thing is this kindness has consequences. When the government does things that it aught not be doing, problems arise. Much of what we are experiencing with the economy, etc... is the result of government intervening when it has no business doing so. Back to the clunkers, all this did was give car dealers some added income, revved up the auto industry a bit, earned some bankers some additional $ and paid for up to $5,000 for each of the new 690,114 vehicles that replaced the 690,114 older cars were taken off the road. This at the taxpayers expense. Money that could have gone towards something else - or better yet - not spent at all - it was unnecessary. AND this $3 billion does not include the money the new car owners must pay for their purchase or the interest they pay on any loans taken out to acquire the car. Now the government - aka the taxpayers - are paying interest on the money we likely borrowed to make Cash for Clunkers happen. Those are some expensive cars! Munch on that for a bit and let me know what you think....
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Twist twist. LOL. Surely you jest! You are making assumptions by thinking I am a staunch Republican. However, I am not surprised you would say such a thing. To you, I likely sound as though I am when I say this. Yet, a 'staunch Republican' would call me 'liberal'. Get the picture? I am a human being doing my best here on Planet Earth - just like everyone else. To me, calling me a 'staunch Republican is pointless. What purpose does it serve? Actually, I am all for talking about ideas. So attack me if you must. In the mean time, it only seems logical to get a clear understanding of what is going on so the problem can be resolved. First, do 'we' really want to resolve this? huh? More money in the economy can be a good thing. What is important is the source. Cash for clunkers and all the 'stimulus packages' are equivalent to standing on the top of the Empire State Building and dropping the money AND we are likely paying interest on the free fall. We have nothing to show for it, really. It is important to build a foundation as a source for creating wealth. Small businesses are the best example. Herman Cain understands well what the businesses need to thrive. When this foundation is in place, we increase our revenues - businessess grow and we have a steady stream of revenue to meet the basic needs of the government - aka taxpayers. This is when 'more money in the economy' is a good thing. This is very different from the stimulus $$ - do you see it?
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
Inflation should only happen when the economy is expanding, and you are contradicting yourself already. When we have inflation but no growth it is an unusual thing called stagflation. The last time it happened was 1970.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
The information is available for you to review and understand. It always has.been there. What needs to change is how you view it. It seems you look at Repubicans or any one who has conservative ideas as though they don't care about 'the elderly, sick and poor'. The Truth of the matter is 'they' do. Consider reading about Paul Ryan's plan, as an example. Yeah, he proposes changes in with some of the 'entitlement programs' and for good reason. The programs were likely set up with the idea that each generation would grow in population as compared to the next. Look what is happening. Consider opening your mind a bit, hkchs, and viewing it from the idea that Paul Ryan really does care about the people you claim 'staunch Republicans' don't. Its a big mess and when you and others make such statements as you do, it doesn't address the problem. It seems to me that if you really cared, you would work to understand. No need to try to be a hero for 'the elderly, sick and poor' - its already covered. Paul Ryan and others are doing a great job!
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
That sounds like the old joke about changing a lightbulb. Conservatives believe that the free market will find a way to have light bulbs get changed. Lately that would involve buying cheaper lightbulbs from China and breaking the public employees' unions so light-bulb changers could be paid less.
Here in Missouri, we just get up and change the lightbulb ourselves.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Ah yes, the lightbulb changing joke......so, is this an aside or does it apply to the conversation?
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
In addition to my previous comment: There are lots of good caring people in the world, including you. I am sure f'the elderly, sick and poor appreciate your efforts to look out for their best interests. It is always good to know there are good caring people around.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
More money into the economy would have caused inflation if we had full employment and full factory usage. We don't have full employment or full factory usage, and inflation is still very moderate. From July 2008 to January 2009 we had deflation.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
do elaborate.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
That would take a college-level course. A simple analogy should suffice for the moment. If the economy was at full employment and full factory utilization, it would be like a balloon and printing money would be like pumping air into the balloon. It would expand or inflate. Since we are not at full employment and not at full factory utilitzation, printing money would be like pumping air into a balloon that's got holes in it. No inflation.
As to the cash for clunkers program, it was set up to rescue the automoile industry and it was introduced when Ford, GM, and especially Chrysler had virtually no sales numbers. Call it another example fo "too big to fail" but it worked about as well as the bailouts of the biggest banks, but not as well as the permanent annual bailouts we give the oil industry.
John 1 year, 10 months ago
Tonto: Actually your analogy, as stated is incorrect. This country (as do, within my knowledge, ALL countries) experience(s) inflation. As no country has ever had 100% employment, your analogy would indicate they would not experience inflation, that simply has never been the case.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
John, you are technically correct but please take a look at the CPI charts. We have had some continuing inflation, except for the period from July 2008 to January 2009. However, the huge cash inflows from the stimulus and TARP and quantitative easing programs have not produced anything like a dangerous level of inflation. My balloon example was oversimplified but I believe it was appropriate in the circumstances.
John 1 year, 10 months ago
After reading and without looking at the index, I agree that, while oversimplified, your analogy works. And, I agree that money in the stimulus did not cause much of a spike in the inflation index. HOWEVER, money printed to make up for money the gov't did NOT have readily available FOR THE stimulus packages, DID cause inflationary spikes. Money from the gov't coffers (if I remember my finance classes properly) used to purchase or hire do not cause any kind of major inflationary tendancies -- after all, most of it is simply money taken from citizenry that would have been spent as a matter of course. But, when the mints have to print money or add money into circulation (for other than replacement of dirty bills) there IS an increase in inflation.
JCLifer 1 year, 10 months ago
The best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that it got 690,114 Obama bumber stickers off the roads.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
funny!
CryAllYouWant 1 year, 10 months ago
Democrat. Republican. The majority of politicians tell us what we want to hear and when elected, rarely do what they say they will. If people would actually worry about the real problems, instead of being sidelined by trivial matters that won't make an ounce of difference, we might actually get somewhere in this great country of ours.
As long as we hide behind the labels, nothing of value will ever be accomplished.
3bunnies 1 year, 10 months ago
interest owed
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Still waiting, hkchs - what are you doing for 'the poor, sick, and weak'?
3blindmice 1 year, 10 months ago
surprising the republicans raised the debt limit 18 times while bush was president
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
So how long are we going to postpone addressing the debt?
asb 1 year, 10 months ago
"Some things it wants to do it must realize that it cannot." I agree completely Grace. The government simply must realize that it can't give developers tax free access to land, and exemptions from environmental regulation; that it can't require less taxes of the wealthiest 2% of Americans than you and I; that it can't let corporations profit without paying at least as high a percentage of taxes as I do; that it can't avoid taxes on the income earned from shuffling money; that it can't allow American natural resources to be squandered for short-term profit without concern for future generation; that . . . oh well, never mind, who are we kidding . . .
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
"So you want to float the tax cuts for millionaire and billionaires by ending medicare as we know it and screwing with social security and medicaid"
There seems to be a pattern of using social security, medicare, and medicaid to justify a perspective. That is shameful! I have listened to our Commander in Chief most every time he has spoken. He says similar things. I have come to see them as scare tactics. What I would like to hear from him is how he is cutting his staff, his administration. How many people did he 'have to' employ when he hired over thirty czars?What about cutting some of the departments..... Department of Energy - what does it do that REQUIRES it exists? Others to consider - Department of Education - Department of Commerce - Department of Agriculture...the list goes on....What do they do that no one in the private sector cannot? My guess is these are, for the most part, unneccessary.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Twist twist again. It is actually quite sad that you jump to such conclusions about Republicans...and me. When will you stop doing that? Some people actually believe such assumptions.
Do tell - hkchase, why is it a 'BAD guess' on my part when I question the necessity of each of the identified departments? Outline that - exactly.
3bunnies 1 year, 10 months ago
I agree with Pres. O That the debt ceiling needs to be raised to cover the intrest and expenditures all ready paid out during the Bush Admin. I also agree with him when he says to raise the debt ceiling w/o bringing in revenues solves absolutely nothing. Close corporate tax loop holes,corporate tax breaks, make the wealthy pay there equal share. Revenues and a budget cuts are a necessity. Republicans have cornered themselves by running on the fact that they refused to raise taxes. This is not a tax increase. This is Tax Breaks Eliminated and Tax Loopholes Closed. Pay up Wealthy Republicans. Come next election when your 10 seats are up for new election it will not be your party
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
Dave Ramsey's programs are not applicable to the nation's finances. It's the prospect of default on the debt that hurts the credit rating. The markets hate uncertainty. They don't care about the size of the debt but they want things to be predictable.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Elaborate on this. There are two things going on. The debt and the deficit - as you well know. Seems prosperity - and working towards it -would include paying off debt and living within one's means. Was the USA really prosperous the past decade or two given the debt that has accumulated? Do tell.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
Petunia,
The debt and the deficit are about the same thing. The debt is just accumulated deficits over the years. We were a prosperous nation over the past decade or two and we are still a relatively prosperous nation but we are a little poorer than we used to be.
Prosperity for a country is when people have jobs, housing, food, clothing, and health care, and their kids can get a decent education. In those areas, the United States has fallen from where we were as recently as ten years ago. Political considerations are part of the problem but only a part.
The debt and deficit are just numbers, only with emotional attachments provided by the people who buy and sell politicians. The reason people are so concerned with the deficit and the debt is that the people who buy and sell politicians pay good money to keep their opinions in the press and on peoples' minds.
John 1 year, 10 months ago
I am not sure a slip in the U.S. credit rating is a bad thing. It would mean we borrow less, both as a gov't and as individuals. Less borrowing means less debt. It ithat is a good thing for the poor and middle-income it is then a good thing for governments. It means that we woulld have more of our income to pay on debt reduction rather than increasing our debt.
3bunnies 1 year, 10 months ago
Bush raised the debt limit 7 times during his presidency. Get your facts a little more factual grace
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Show me these as facts.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
This is common knowledge if you keep up. The most recent reference I found was in CNN on April 6, 2011. One of the "heads" of the Tea Party movement was quoted as threatening to line up a primary opponent for John Boehner after Boehner suggested that a compromise with Obama on the debt ceiling was possible. Also in CNN on March 23, Tea Party followers polled were 62% in favor of a short shutdown and 52% in favor of a longer shutdown.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Yes, it is talked about often. hkchs - aka jumpin joe to conclusions - likes to make global statements that misrepresent. So, yes, you are right - common knowledge. Schumer (D) talks about it as if he wants it as does the leader of the Tea Party Nation - a sub group of the Tea Party. Any talk of government shut down by Tea Party leaders has been saying the Democrats are plotting for it so they can blame it on the Tea Party. To this the Tea Party leader(s) have said in effect, 'Yea go ahead'. So maybe others are doing this too - that is making inaccurate general statements. It is really difficult for me to question them b/c I am ready for the next presidential election resulting in Obama's presidency ending. I had hopes for him early on. I am - er- I was just certain he knew what was going on - he spoke sooooo elequently prior to his election - addressing EVERY ASPECT of a given problem. So what it really boils down to is resolving the problems and what is the best way to do this. His ideas - the Democratice ideas - just don't make it work - as I see it.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
Those are polling results - not very easy to misrepresent. The Tea Party people supported a government shutdown - they did not intend to "accept the blame" for a Democrat shutdown. Seriously, if you want rid of Obama, there has to be someone better for me and another hundred fifty million (or so) people to vote FOR. That person could still show up but time is running out.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Just remember: The United States of America's best days are ahead of her. Make that your mantra. Do show me which poll says the Tea Party supported a government shutdown. I will gladly review them!
3bunnies 1 year, 10 months ago
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/cnn-poll-most-say-govt-shutdown-bad-tea-party-disagrees/
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Thanks, 3bunnies.
hkchs - aka jumping joe to conclusions - says 'The Tea Party Republicans WANT to shut down our government.
I read the pdf attached to this article you so kindly provided. One of the questions is as follows: 'Suppose the federal government had to shut down for a few days because Congress did not pass a new spending bill. Would you consider that a good thing for the country or a bad thing for the country?' No where does it say in this question or any other question about WANTING the government to shut down. It is presenting as a what-if and 'good or bad'. Interestingly, the breakdown according to party on this question with answer 'good thing': Democrats21% Independents35% Republicans53%.
Additionally, this poll was in March or April of this year.
Just a little something to chew on.....
John 1 year, 10 months ago
My 5 or 6 K dollars in taxes hurts me a lot more than it does someone who pays 30 K in taxes but has a 3 or 4 M in income. It means I have 20 or 25 K left to pay my mortgage, buy my food, buy my clothes, make car payments, assist my children in their education, and hopefully save some toward my retirement. If there is any left over, I might be able to go on a very short and inexpensive vacation. That is a far cry from someone who has "only" 2 or 3 million dollars to do the same thing. LOL
hudson 1 year, 10 months ago
The late grate united states ! The good times are gone for good !
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
I dare to say: The United States of America's best days are ahead of her. I am certain of this.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
What are LWNs?
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
LWN might qualify as name calling. How about it, online_editor?
online_editor 1 year, 10 months ago
I'm not sure what computer geeks would do without LWN.
lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
Why would AMAZED2/GRACEFUL want to "eliminate" a computing news site (or webzine) with an emphasis on free software and software for Unix-like operating systems?
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
I wonder the same thing - seems they would assist in making The United States of America the best.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
That was an inside joke, Petunia. I am waiting for my "bada-boom" but I really can't elaborate further. It gets pretty peculiar here once you know the players a little better.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
when?
3bunnies 1 year, 10 months ago
I wonder where Grace expects the money to come from if we do not cut spending, close the Bush Admin. Tax loopholes, and remove the breaks for the wealthy people, and corporations. Stll wandering around the Garden of La La Land, where the money grows on trees.
3blindmice 1 year, 10 months ago
taxes for corporations and the wealthy are the lowest they have been in us history and still there are no jobs being created. when I look at progressive countries like sweden and denmark I wonder how they can charge a much higher corporate tax than the us does and is still is more competive businessly and the people living there have a higher standard of living than the us.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
What a mess!
jcmom69 1 year, 10 months ago
Saw this on Facebook and had to share with the NT family for a little laugh;-)
"Salary of the US President... $400,000. Salary of retired US Presidents... $180,000. Salary of House/Senate... $174,000. Salary of Speaker of house... $223,500.... Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders... $193,400.......... Average US Salary... $33,000 to $77,000. HELLO! I think we found where the cuts should be made!"
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Good Point! It is likely these salaries don't include travel expenses, meals, etc... all or in part.... so the elected ones actually receive more than this. Thanks for the info.
evenkeel 1 year, 10 months ago
jcmom69, certainly these politicians do not earn their hundreds of thousands of salary. We can all agree with that I think. But is that really the issue? Let's keep our eye on the ball here. Math is hard, but not this hard. Let's acknowledge that the problem isn't going to be solved by trimming politician salaries-however satisfying that would be. The federal government is borrowing $4 BILLION EVERY DAY.
jcmom69 1 year, 10 months ago
i didn't say I necessary agreed with that.. I said I thought I would share for a laugh.. I apologize if the sense of humor was not obvious enough.
MommaR 1 year, 10 months ago
You know if Families would take care of each other there wouldn't be a need for welfare or many other government aid....that is the biggest problem with this country, no family values. Back in the good old days, parents took care of their kids and kids took care of their parents, My parents moved here from Indiana to take care of my Mom's grandparents, they didn't have nursing homes where you just drop them off and expect the government to foot the bill. My husband's family lived in one house, three stories, his grandparents on the first floor, his family on the second and an aunt and Uncle on the third...family taking care of family. When the time comes my Dad will move in with us, no we aren't rich(very far from it), but I don't expect the government to take care of my family. Enough is enough, enough of the government being in my business and enough of people who think the government owes them a living, get of your rear and take care of your own
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Valid points, Momma R. The 'entitlements' people refer to are programs people pay into and as a result, expect something from it. I beleive we are required to pay into them. I also think this is a reasonable expectation. The problem, as I see it, has to do with the circumstances as they are now. Very different from when these programs were started and now warrant changes. So, how to honor the promises of these programs and value family? Maybe for some families valuing family means utilizing and maximizing on the programs ones loved one contributed to.....
MommaR 1 year, 10 months ago
Using and maximizing is fine, it's the living off the government and my money I have a problem with. If social security shut down today and never paid out another penny, my family would take care of each other, pool our resources and survive. I have never collected welfare, WIC, food stamps, we got by. I collected unemployment, a few checks, but I found work and started over and paid taxes on what I collected, never claimed EIC on my taxes....nobody should ever be able to get a refund greater than the amount they pay in. I could go on about government and wasteful programs, but I could write a book
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Valid Points. It sounds like these have been options available to you and you chose not to do so. If so, this is very noble. I do not know the purpose of the EIC. It may well be a loophole to be done away with - would likely save taxpayer money. Yet, people who do claim this on their taxes are, by definition, law abiding in this context. For me, it is important to distinguish between people who contribute and those who do not yet are very capable of contributing. they may well make wonderful contributions if they would give themselves the chance.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
You said: 'it's the living off the government and my money I have a problem with'. I said: 'those who do not yet are very capable of contributing' - 'those' meaning the people who ive off the social welfare programs. Are we saying the same thing?
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
What are you asking, hks. Do clarify.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
The quote you provide is in the context of the EIC.and income taxes. Maybe she will let you know about the SS. Good luck.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
MommaR, it's a stretch to apply retirement system rules to the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security, but getting more out than you paid in is a fundamental premise of retirement savings and pension plans.
You invest your money and have professional managers help it grow. Even if you only get savings account interest, the comppounding over your lifetime should create a substantial increase in your investment.
jcmom69 1 year, 10 months ago
Directed to Grace "That is the only answer that will work" Arrogance is what I see in this statement.. You sound as though you think you are versed enough to handle such a job..My theory is things usually gets worse before it gets better..Have a little faith in our country's president would you please..Benefit of doubt is something this country believes in. I have seen so many posts by you with such negativity about not only President Obama, but our Country in a whole. Instead of constantly bashing the added debt try remembering all the good Obama has done in the same short time..I know of the top of my head I can think of many..and he has accomplished much more positive in such a short time than any other to date as far as I am concerned. By the way Grace, I was wondering, Is it not Hypocritical for you say "the secret to solving the problem is economic growth" when you are in favor of shutting legal businesses down?
JCLifer 1 year, 10 months ago
What good has Obama done? Seriously- please list some examples.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Honestly, I can come up with two things: 1) Pres Obama gave the go ahead for the Seals to get bin Laden. 2) Pres Obama goes home to Chicago in January 2012, having completed one term as President of the United States of America.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
NOOOOOOO! Good try, hkchs - you had me going there for a minute. thought you were truly understanding. Last time I think that of you. YOU KNOW I was referring to the next presidential election. So, as a one term president, he leaves DC to his home in Chicago in January 2013. Honestly, I am ready to vote the presidential election THIS November so he can go home January 2012. I'll be patient... proud of yourself? LOL? teeheehee?....
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
Have you seriously got a better candidate in mind? Please let me know what definite policy initiatives your candidate has put on his platform. That old routine of shouting "Limited government!" while continuing to increase spending won't fly with me.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Well, that is a matter of opinion. For me, Herman Cain offers alot of promise. I am certain he has the business mind necessary to provide this country's economy with what it needs. Are you familar with him? if not, Consider visiting his website: hermancain.com HERMAN CAIN FOR PRESIDENT!
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
Been there. Sorry. No policy initiatives. His "main" page offers tee shirts for sale. What I found on Herman Cain's website was a disgraceful collection of generalities, adjectives, and bumper sticker slogans. The central theme is "we hate Obama ... and Democrats ... and liberals ..." That's not a very useful approach to running a country. He recently announced his belief that communities could ban mosques, which doesn't meet constitutiional muster. He's a joke. Sorry if I offend you.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
More serious disappointment. Cain knows more, and better. Why has his campaign so far been such a collection of bumper sticker slogans?
Cain has been active in politics since the 1996 Dole Campaign when he was president of the National Restaurant Association. His role seems to have been to work against the Clinton Health Care program on behalf of the restaurant industry, which (Still) has an extremely high percentage of non-covered employees. He has served on the Board of the Federal Reserve - Kansas City Branch and been Chairman and CEO of Nabisco. Why does he need to act like Eric Cantor?
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
all reasons to not support him with your vote. I am certain he has a mind for resolving the financia mess we are in. I last saw him in the New Hampshire debate. I am certain he has a clear picture of how to get the economy going. That is the sole reason for my support. I would not presume to know why he said what he said about the mosques and certainly cannot support it. Always have to pick and choose what package deal seems the best and at this time, I am supporting him. Usually, I look at other party candidates as well. To this point I have not done that. Who do you support? OH and thanks for the in-case apology- always a good thing.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
I made an assumption when I read your posts about Herman Cain - that you thoroughly read his website and accurately represented it in your post. I was wrong.
You said, 'What I found on Herman Cain's website was a disgraceful collection of generalities, adjectives, and bumper sticker slogans. The central theme is "we hate Obama ... and Democrats ... and liberals ..."
That is wrong,tonto, and you know it. As an example of what Pres Cain has to say about 'entitlements': 'Modernize Social Programs - Big government enthusiasts designed social programs to provide a financial safety net, but, in turn, dependency on the government for the most vulnerable in society became an expected entitlement. Decades since their inception, far too many Americans have shifted their expectations from government assistance to entitlement. Too many people have exchanged their freedom for a false sense of security that these programs are supposed to provide.
Unfortunately, this has not only been to the sociological detriment of America, but also to its economic detriment. Simply, ever-expanding social programs are compromising the current and future financial stability of this great country. According to a May 2009 article in Newsweek, current projections indicate that Medicare will go bankrupt by 2017 and Social Security will bottom out by 2037. These figures are advanced from 2008’s estimates, which forecasted Medicare’s bankruptcy to occur in 2019 and 2041 for Social Security. The situation will continue to worsen if we do not do something differently.
For the generations or workers who have paid into Social Security and Medicare, the federal government’s inevitable failure to pay them as they retire is undeniably stealing. These are generations who have worked and sacrificed to leave this country a better place for their children and grand children as they retire. The current behavior of an out of control federal government does little to ease their minds.
The federal government has imposed expensive and often counter-productive social and welfare programs on the states and the people. It is time to admit the mistakes, and get the federal government out of the way. This will allow states, cities, churches, charities and businesses to offer a helping hand instead of a handout where they live. People closest to the problems are the best ones to solve the problems effectively.
We can fulfill our responsibility to our golden age citizens and future retirees by empowering them instead of restricting them.'
Yes, Pres Obama is mentioned in the 'Newsroom' section of his website. That is about the extent of it. In the 'Issues' section, as exemplified here, he speaks very clear and actually rather eloquently. As I see it, he has an accurate picture of what is going on. My Grandma would say, "Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it for awhile." That just happens to come to mind.....
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
Step back a moment. I read all that, Petunia, and the situation is that you and I have significantly different understandings of what is a generality and what is a detail. There are lots of adjectives and buzzwords in the body of information you copied from Cain's website to your post.
The single most obvious example is Social Security. There is a well-known set of minor tweaks to the system that would make it solvent for another seventy-five years. Increasing the maximum taxable income and increasing the full-benefit retirement age would fix the current problems. During those seventy-five years, structural changes could be made as needed. A drastic immediate solution is not needed, although there is a constituency for shutting down the system so the large amount of federal debt held by the system would not have to be paid back.
Most people are in favor of general cuts to unspecified programs but not the ones they use or plan to use. Cain surely knows the actual situation with respect to social security but probably can't get the GOP nomination by speaking truthfully about it. He probably can't get it by speaking sensibly on a number of topics, but that one is the simplest one to illustrate.
evenkeel 1 year, 10 months ago
Give me a number please, what is, to you, the rich paying their fair share?
Here are the facts: The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the income tax. The top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the income tax. The top 40% of income earners pay 99% of the income tax. (The bottom 60% pay 1%.)
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover President Obama's deficit for THIS YEAR. And we, as a nation, would be less free.
Seems to me, instead of demanding the "rich" pay more taxes for government over-spending, it would be more appropriate to ask the poor to send the rich a thank-you note. Something along the lines of:
"Dear Rich Person, Thanks for paying so much of the income tax. You are not only paying your fair share, you are paying my share also."
What does a stamp and an envelope cost these days?
3blindmice 1 year, 10 months ago
the top 1% pay on average less than 12% of their income in taxes. I pay close to 30% of my income
evenkeel 1 year, 10 months ago
Yes 3blindmice, I am with you. I support a flat tax- the only way to get everyone to pay their fair share.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
What are the reasons for supporting the flat tax instead of the consumption tax?
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
It's all a con game. The devil is always in the details - the specifics of what is taxed and what is exempted. People like to talk in generalities until it is time to tax other people but not them. Then they get their accountants and lawyers and lobbyists cranked up and "fix" things.
The flat tax would ensure that everyone regardless of income level pays the same rate of tax on their income. The issue of fairness come up again since it is the specifics of what is taxed and what is exempted that matters. If your income is exempted, you don't really care what the rate is.
The consumption tax would tax everything that normal people need every day. Rent, food, medical care, clothing, drugs, lawyer fees, accountant fees, and more would be taxed but income would not be taxed. Some people claim that it would reduce tax cheating but those people have no imagination. Some people claim a consumption tax is "more fair" since everyone pays the same rate on the same things. The plan fails even the simplest social justice measurements but as an arguing point, the FairTax.org people have invented a "prebate" system to rebate sales taxes on poverty level expenditures. The prebate is not calculated on the tax that would actually be .paid by a person on a poverty level income since that actual tax amount depends on too many other factors.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
I would prefer a consumption tax without the prebate. It seems it would be alot easier and cost efficient to identify specific food items to be tax exempt - either for everyone or only people below a certain income level. Everyone buys stuff and would automatically pay taxes including but not limited to people who may not have a 'reportable' income - ie drug dealers, working illegal immigrants, under the table pay - that's some 'fairness'. Also, those with a greater income typically purchase more things - and it is likely these things are more expensive. There is no big IRS system to support with tax dollars, no April 15. Likely other good reasons for the consumption tax. So, why call it a 'con game'? Sounds conspiratorial to say that.
tonto 1 year, 10 months ago
I think you are confusing the ability to pay taxes with taxable income, total income, and wealth. Taxable income is just a technical number that you calculate after appplying the tax law and IRS rules to your particular situation and in the way most beneficial to you. There's no real moral value to that number.
jcmom69 1 year, 10 months ago
Since Congress authorizes the spending, it's not really Obama's fault at all. Congress controls the purse strings. They passed the spending. They are responsible. Would a Republican be taking the same heat? Only if the Democrats were practicing scorched earth politics, which is what the Tea Party is engaged in on this topic.
But this has nothing to do with Obama's policies and everything to do with Congressional spending in the last few decades. Since 1981, Republicans have had 16 years in control, Democrats 14 (although that latter is notional, since the Democrats have been pretty ineffective in the last decade, not able to push their agenda for many of those years.) So this is Congress' fault, but the political play is blame the Democrats and Obama for the "crisis" of the Republicans not wanting to allow the US to pay the debt they (and the Democrats) incurred (in the last 16 years, it's been R 10, D 6, so there's a decided tilt one way if you look at the Clinton era and later.) Even the "big spending" that Obama did (the economic rescue stuff, for example) is a continuation of existing policies begun by his predecessor and approved of by Congress before he even came into office.
Remember, the Republicans have said they will do whatever it takes to make Obama a one term President. This is solid evidence of that. Obama was treating this as an opportunity to actually fix things, and so was Boehner, but the hardliners have derailed that opportunity so far, and seem intent on driving us over a cliff that the Congress created, all for the purpose of discrediting Obama for problems their party was instrumental in establishing.
jcmom69 1 year, 10 months ago
Having a majority and having control are two very different things. For complete control a party must have enough votes to overcome a Presidential veto and/or enough to overcome a Senate filibuster. The Democrats, except for a brief interval in 2009, have had neither and thus were never in control. The buck doesn't stop with Bush either... the recession had numerous causes. But to say that it's Obama's fault is silly, since the meltdown occurred before he was elected. Anyone can blame the Democratic or Republican parties but in the end it the voters who has control..
jcmom69 1 year, 10 months ago
2010 general elections, Republicans regained control of the House while the Democrats remained in control of the Senate.
jcmom69 1 year, 10 months ago
evenkeel 1 year, 10 months ago
Wow jcmom69. I hope I am never at a picnic with you. I may end up drinking your kool-aide.
asb 1 year, 10 months ago
That's some good stuff Mom's drinking there Even, accurate and only a sampling. Let's not forget bringing us up with the rest of the developed world regarding health care and health insurance.
asb 1 year, 10 months ago
Sorry Grace, you're wrong on every point, either through deliberate spreading of falsehoods or by being duped by your Obama hating sources. The auto industry is making cars and employing a lot of people, Lybia is almost free from Gadaphi, our respect has rebounded from the arrogance of the Bush years, has actually opened energy pathways while addressing corruption in the oil industry and its "regulators," joined every nation on earth in stimulating the economy to level out the recession, has offered a deficit-reduction plan, made good appointments to the Court, promotes hybrid and electric transportation to save capitalism, and is a better President than we've had in a long time. You are, once again, completely wrong, you just hate the man. What is it about this man you hate Grace?
John 1 year, 10 months ago
It is important to remember that idealogy is important. The Republican idealogy is that the solution to the problem involves no increase in taxes. While I am a conservative and generally agree with the Republican stance, I believe the tax loopholes should be closed. I do not consider that a tax increase. However, I am tired of hearing of the whining about the Republicans' inwillingness to compromise; compromise means you are willing to approve or agree to something that you do not believe will solve the problem and, in fact, will exacerbate the problem.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
John - I appreciate this post including this definition of 'compromise. This word is used so often lately and I cringe every time I hear it! Negotiate is so much better - give and take while maintaining one's principles. KUDOS!
John 1 year, 10 months ago
You are allowing your hatred and foaming at the mouth to interfere with your reasoning. I usually vote Rebublican (do you even read the post you're so vehemently against?), in fact I was a several year employee of the RNC (look up the acronym). The Democrats also have idealogy, just as do the Republicans. While leadership does imply that the president should present some ideas, it is not POTUS who passes a law. You really need to sit back and take a breath (12 or 13 of them).
asb 1 year, 10 months ago
"Take to the streets?" You'd lose Grace. We've had this talk before, your people are outnumbered, outsmarted, outgunned, and without any military support you'd be out living in the streets. Street war is bad for business and once your people forget who your sponsors are, Americorporate, you're done. You'd be back in little meeting rooms pamphleteering and foaming about race, class, taxes, and the evil left; all without the true power of the GOP and only a sliver of the population behind you. Go for it Grace, get out there and light it up. My fuzzy!
asb 1 year, 10 months ago
Man-child again? Grace we all know that is a term used extensively in our history to describe ignorant imature black men, never applied to white men. So, as I've asked before, what is it REALLY that you don't like about this president?
jcmom69 1 year, 10 months ago
Renewed dialogue with NATO and other allies and partners on strategic issues.
Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force… this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
Should I list the other 100 I have???
This is a lot to accomplish in such a short amount of time. He was elected President, he wasn’t elected Jesus.
Now, let's share the blame; list all the things Congress and "religion" has done "wrong" over the last 200 years. It is only fair.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
You are right - people expected alot of him. I may have been one of them. I remember a woman quit her job when Obama became president. She thought he was going to take care of her. I am curious to know what she is doing now - did she go back to work or is she still waiting?
Your last statement "Now, let's share the blame; list all the things Congress and "religion" has done "wrong" over the last 200 years. It is only fair.' is a bit puzzling to me. Much of what Pres Obama has done has required Congressional action also.... and the religion part. what are you asking? Most everyone - individually or collectively - do things based on their beliefs or 'belief system'. So, it seems as though this is next to impossilbe to answer.
John 1 year, 10 months ago
@JCMOM69: Each of the 3 things you mention are legitimate statements made by every president. To believe that your choice for POTUS, Obama, is the only president to make such changes in the last 20 years is just plain silly. For your info, the military has been issued body armor for decades. See that? Decades!! It was simply time to make the money available to purchase updated armor. To purchase updated equipment is a line item in the military budget. If the money is not made available, it cannot be purchased. President Obama saw it as a way to gain votes, so he made the money available -- which had another negative affect on the budget. . . . Nothing is easy and President Obama is simply another politician. . . . and not a very good one, at that.
jcmom69 1 year, 10 months ago
maybe those last three were bad examples.. My point was merely that he is not ALL bad... All presidents have a big job to do, and none of them do everything right or the way we think they should.. I just do not think it is fair for some on this board to keep bashing this man, when in fact he deserves some respect for being the leader (no matter how bad some may think he is) of our Country..
John 1 year, 10 months ago
I cannot argue with those statements, not at all.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
LOL - twist, twist... okay, I'll give you credit for asking for clarification instead of jumping to a conclusion.... we can call this progress, hkchs.
John 1 year, 10 months ago
Nope, simply stating the obvious. Any unplanned major purchase has a major impact on existing budgets. The effect of such a thing is magnified the further down the food-chain you go.
The statement was simply that EVERY president has had things happen on his watch that "benefits" or "improves" life in the military. It may even be unintentional. Howeveer, the implication in the original statement was that Obama brought about the improved body armor -- that simply is not true. However, as I wrote, things happen on every watch that bring about good.
soxfan 1 year, 10 months ago
enough is enough-what? and this is coming from someone who voted present in the u.s. senate and the same in the illinois senate and now it's spend-spend-spend i dont think so don l chicago
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
what does this mean? 'don l chicago' It is at the end of your posts. It is helpful to know this so I am fully understanding everything you are saying. Do tell.
jcmom69 1 year, 10 months ago
I do not support.
The tax would be 30% or higher.
Witness the proponents trying to claim that $1 taxed as $1.30 is a 23% tax instead of 30%, they know 30% would lose supporters.
We have a progressive tax in our Income tax. The rich pay proportionally more than the poor do. The rational behind this is that the rich are better able to pay ($100,000 is affordable to a rich person who makes $1,000,000, while $1,000 is not affordable to a poor man who makes $10,000 a year). The rich also receive a greater share of the benefits of our free enterprise system, thus they have a greater responsibility to maintain that system.
A flat tax is regressive in nature. It does not tax income, so money made and invested is not taxed. The rich would therefore pay a smaller proportion of their income in taxes than a poor person who needs to spend all he makes to just get by
The results would be devastating in my opinion.
John 1 year, 10 months ago
@JCMOM69, actually it is not a progressive tax because the wealthier do NOT pay progressively more. They are SUPPOSED to, but do not. That would only be true if they paid by the standard tax scale. Loopholes allow them to get the "taxable income" to a much lower amount and then they can use several different scales. And where do you get that everyone would pay 30%??? That would be up to whoever was writing the bill or tax code. Actually, if you do a little figuring you'll find that 10% if EVERYONE paid tax on their income (only the income, whether interest or wages or profit) would result in a higher taxable amount of money paid to the gov't. Yes, I said "profit. If the corporations can receive the benefits of and be treated as an individual then they can pay the taxes too.
John 1 year, 10 months ago
Again, Graceful, you do not do your homework or think your own statements through. Yes, corporations pay taxes. To use your silly arguement would mean that the only ones who do pay taxes are the employees because ALL businesses pass their taxes on in costs of their products -- so therefore they should not be taxed. I take back what I said earlier: I do not think you work for a major corporation, I velieve that you are a major (sole) owner of a corporation and want to skate around your taxes.
Bulldog145 1 year, 10 months ago
Want to solve some debt problems first make the Hollywood left pay their taxes; a million here 40 million there in unpayed taxes would get the ball rolling. Then we defund the UN and every other third world orgnization that spend most of it time running the US in the ground but love out tax dollars. Take care of the homless ans starving here first. We pay out taxes to pay for US problems not everyone else. All we are doing is bulding a world dependent on US taxes. We have a bed enough problem right now with people inside our Country that thing they are entitled to other peoples money. We start reenvesting here, and take care of Americans First!!!
asb 1 year, 10 months ago
Well now, we have a starting point. Raising the taxes on the rich (Hollywood billionaires). Thank you Amazed. But we wouldn't have to raise them, just cut some of their loopholes and deductions, and even lower their tax rate a bit, but generate a more equitable revenue stream from these evil corporate LWNs. Wonderful idea you have there. You and BHO are now somewhat on the same page. And, we could cut spending on their benefits . . . surely there are benefits for the rich, like, um, well I'll leave that up to you. A tax deduction is welfare, good for a group that you want to help so we can all benefit. Health care food, shelter and a basic retirement is welfare, good for a group that . . . get it? Blunting the world-wide recession required faith in the future and substantial borrowing. All governments are doing it. Obama reminded you of this when the Stimulus was started. Now is the time to start paying it down. Nobody lives well without debt, as long as it's payed for and kept in the open. Borrowing to pay off debt IS dangerous, and only needs to be done in fiscal emergencies, like the one we're still climbing out of. Only the corporate right, by fanning the populist right, are fighting paying their share. They are using you. But the corporate GOP WILL raise the debt ceiling to keep the system solvent, they'll just make political hay right up to the last minute.
John 1 year, 10 months ago
"Nobody lives well without debt," What?! I truly hope that is sarcasm or you're defining the word, debt, as short term, such as utilities, rent, etc.. If not then it is a prime example of one thing thiat is wrong with this country. Of course one can live well without borrowing. It simply means that "living well" does NOT mean having every new thing IMMEDIATELY. It requires things like saving and patience and proritizing. Individual saving, in the U.S., is at a world-wide low. That has a major impact on our economy and our well-being.
John 1 year, 10 months ago
Grace, your rantings are interesting but are becoming boring. Again, you need to do your homework. You don't believe in "socialism"? Hmmm. Does that mean you do not now, or will not when the time comes, draw Social Security? You are trying to divide apples from apples. Of course streamling the tax code involves closing loopholes. You will never convince me that someoine earning millions of dollars and paying only a hundred K or so has near the impact of someone making 30 K and paying 6K in taxes. Nobody disagrees that spending needs to be slashed. However your pro-corporation stance indicates to me that you work for a large corporation and buy into their mantra that they will take care of you. . . Oh yeah? How bout GE, you know, that corporation that made billions -- more than it has ever made and PAID NO TAXES AT ALL. Your hatred of anything other than FAR right wing in blinding you to reality.
Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago
Good time to ask the question: What EXACTLY are 'core government functions'? Dept of Education? Dept. of Commerce? Dept of Agriculture? Dept. of Energy? Dept of HHS? - just to name a few.....and if, in general terms, the Dept is a 'core government function', is everything within the department a 'core government function'?
3blindmice 1 year, 10 months ago
great article explaining exactly how the rich are getting by without paying taxes. vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?printable=true everyone should educate themselves about the reality of the american economy and where it is ultimately headed. As it now stands the income equality in america is worse than it is in egypt.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.