Danger from within?

[abelisle]

Republicans, Zealots and Our Security

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

IF China or Iran threatened our national credit rating and tried to drive up our interest rates, or if they sought to damage our education system, we would erupt in outrage.

Well, wake up to the national security threat. Only it’s not coming from abroad, but from our own domestic extremists.

We tend to think of national security narrowly as the risk of a military or terrorist attack. But national security is about protecting our people and our national strength — and the blunt truth is that the biggest threat to America’s national security this summer doesn’t come from China, Iran or any other foreign power. It comes from budget machinations, and budget maniacs, at home.

House Republicans start from a legitimate concern about rising long-term debt. Politicians are usually focused only on short-term issues, so it would be commendable to see the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party seriously focused on containing long-term debt. But on this issue, many House Republicans aren’t serious, they’re just obsessive in a destructive way. The upshot is that in their effort to protect the American economy from debt, some of them are willing to drag it over the cliff of default.

It is not exactly true that this would be our first default. We defaulted in 1790. By some definitions, we defaulted on certain gold obligations in 1933. And in 1979, the United States had trouble managing payouts to some individual investors on time (partly because of a failure of word processing equipment) and thus was in technical default.

Yet even that brief lapse in 1979 raised interest payments in the United States. Terry L. Zivney, a finance professor at Ball State University and co-author of a scholarly paper about the episode, says the 1979 default increased American government borrowing costs by 0.6 of a percentage point indefinitely.

Any deliberate and sustained interruption this year could have a greater impact. We would see higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, business loans and credit cards.

American government borrowing would also become more expensive. In February, the Congressional Budget Office noted that a 1 percentage point rise in interest rates could add more than $1 trillion to borrowing costs over a decade.

In other words, Republican zeal to lower debts could result in increased interest expenses and higher debts. Their mania to save taxpayers could cost taxpayers. That suggests not governance so much as fanaticism.

More broadly, a default would leave America a global laughingstock. Our “soft power,” our promotion of democracy around the world, and our influence would all take a hit. The spectacle of paralysis in the world’s largest economy is already bewildering to many countries. If there is awe for our military prowess and delight in our movies and music, there is scorn for our political/economic management.

While one danger to national security comes from the risk of default, another comes from overzealous budget cuts — especially in education, at the local, state and national levels. When we cut to the education bone, we’re not preserving our future but undermining it.

It should be a national disgrace that the United States government has eliminated spending for major literacy programs in the last few months, with scarcely a murmur of dissent.

Consider Reading Is Fundamental, a 45-year-old nonprofit program that has cost the federal government only $25 million annually. It’s a public-private partnership with 400,000 volunteers, and it puts books in the hands of low-income children. The program helped four million American children improve their reading skills last year. Now it has lost all federal support.

“They have made a real difference for millions of kids,” Kyle Zimmer, founder of First Book, another literacy program that I’ve admired, said of Reading Is Fundamental. “It is a tremendous loss that their federal support has been cut. We are going to pay for these cuts in education for generations.”

Education programs like these aren’t quick fixes, and the relation between spending and outcomes is uncertain and complex. Nurturing reading skills is a slog rather than a sprint — but without universal literacy we have no hope of spreading opportunity, fighting crime or chipping away at poverty.

“The attack on literacy programs reflects a broader assault on education programs,” said Rosa DeLauro, a Democratic member of Congress from Connecticut. She notes that Republicans want to cut everything from early childhood programs to Pell grants for college students. Republican proposals have singled out some 43 education programs for elimination, but it’s not seen as equally essential to end tax loopholes on hedge fund managers.

So let’s remember not only the national security risks posed by Iran and Al Qaeda. Let’s also focus on the risks, however unintentional, from domestic zealots.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes...

[bonnie]

ALEX

THIS is a very interesting post with a lot of good points

I agree that the fall from the inside vs fall from outside

is very possible

dgrimm60

Default is not necessary. Cutting the spending that has put us here is.

There is not enough money in going after the rich boogyman. Enough can be taken from them to eliminate more and more jobs.

That would be sure to fix things.

Maybe if Obama got serious about cuts now instead of 10 years out more would believe he really cares.

China has been warning the US about their out of control borrowing. Apparantly no one was home to hear those warnings

[bonnie]

Quote:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Want to take a guess as to who had these words of wisdom?

Or these.....

Quote:

Raising the debt ceiling to almost $9 trillion, it is a bad idea because more debt would not be good for the economy; he also thought it would be unfair for this generation to force future generations to pay for our increased spending, while bemoaning the higher taxes which he felt would be necessary to increase our dependence on foreign borrowing. He asked Republicans to explain this position. He went so far as to claim that any credible economist would tell the people that debt should be decreased, not increased

[Tom Wetmore]

...

There is not enough money in going after the rich boogyman...

Actually, there is enough money among the rich to completely satisfy the entire national debt.

Total privately held wealth is approximately $60 trillion. 35% of that, $21 trillion is in the hands of the top 1% (the super rich upper class). More than 85%, $51 trillion, is in the hands of the top 25% (the millionaires and billionaires of the US).

The total national public debt is currently $14.3 trillion. The wealth of the top is 150% of that figure. If their wealth was confiscated by the Federal government, they would still have $7 trillion and the Federal government would be completely debt free.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not advocating that this be done. I am simply pointing out the fallacy of the right wing political propaganda that your remark reflects. There is more than enough money in the resources of the rich in the US to pay off our national debt.

Here are some real facts:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

[bonnie]

Actually, there is enough money among the rich to completely satisfy the entire national debt.

Total privately held wealth is approximately $60 trillion. 35% of that, $21 trillion is in the hands of the top 1% (the super rich upper class). More than 85%, $51 trillion, is in the hands of the top 25% (the millionaires and billionaires of the US).

The total national public debt is currently $14.3 trillion. The wealth of the top is 150% of that figure. If their wealth was confiscated by the Federal government, they would still have $7 trillion and the Federal government would be completely debt free.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not advocating that this be done. I am simply pointing out the fallacy of the right wing political propaganda that your remark reflects. There is more than enough resources in the US to pay off our national debt.

For how long? And why should one segment of the population have their finances confiscated to pay for the run away spending that is going on?

When you are done confiscating the wealth of another and that is spent,now who will you rape for their income

[bonnie]

The government spends 1.56 for every dollar of increased revenue or taxes. Not good math if you are trying to reduce a deficit.

Not to often I agree with a liberal but I think this is great advice.

Do you disagree?

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better...

[abelisle]

I agree also, as long as "better leadership" isn't simply pinned on one person - Obama.

I see leadership in this context being the House and the Senate combined. Both intractable and being selfishly stubborn in following their party lines.

[bonnie]

I agree also, as long as "better leadership" isn't simply pinned on one person - Obama.

I see leadership in this context being the House and the Senate combined. Both intractable and being selfishly stubborn in following their party lines.

Pretty sure Obama was speaking of Bush and the buck did stop with him.Wonder when the following changed in his mind?

It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policiesExplain something to me.In your world when you run into financial difficulty what is your first or should be your first reaction. Getting a another credit card with a larger limit,take out another loan so you can spend more,or cut unnecessary spending to the bone?

Do you cut unnecessary spending last,years down the road?

Or if you run into financial difficulty thru your own foolishness do you look for someone that has more than you and demand they give it while you keep spending?

You may consider cutting waste to the bone selfish but a lot of people look at it as being responsible

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Actually, there is enough money among the rich to completely satisfy the entire national debt.

Total privately held wealth is approximately $60 trillion. 35% of that, $21 trillion is in the hands of the top 1% (the super rich upper class). More than 85%, $51 trillion, is in the hands of the top 25% (the millionaires and billionaires of the US).

The total national public debt is currently $14.3 trillion. The wealth of the top is 150% of that figure. If their wealth was confiscated by the Federal government, they would still have $7 trillion and the Federal government would be completely debt free.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not advocating that this be done. I am simply pointing out the fallacy of the right wing political propaganda that your remark reflects. There is more than enough resources in the US to pay off our national debt.

For how long? And why should one segment of the population have their finances confiscated to pay for the run away spending that is going on?

When you are done confiscating the wealth of another and that is spent,now who will you rape for their income

As I said, I am not advocating "confiscation" ...

You ask why target the rich? Because as Warren Buffett and Obama both said of themselves, they are better able to contribute without feeling the pinch of just a 3% increase in their taxes. That is the maximum that has been proposed. That alone would go a long toward solving the deficit problem and begin the process of reducing the debt.

[bonnie]

Quote:

As I said, I am not advocating "confiscation" ...

Of course you are. Contributions are freely given,confiscation is taken.Taxes are confiscated before you ever see your paycheck

Quote:

You ask why target the rich? Because as Warren Buffett and Obama both said of themselves, they are better able to contribute without feeling the pinch of just a 3% increase in their taxes. That is the maximum that has been proposed. That alone would go a long toward solving the deficit problem and begin the process of reducing the debt.

It would not do a thing to solve the problem. The root cause of the problem that has put us here would remain.The more money you give the government the more they spend.

Neither Obama or Buffett has to wait for the taxes to be raised 3%.They can do that nicely all on their own.It is called a contribution.

Unless you correct the problem no amount of money is going to fix it.

If I had to I could manage the 3%,I am almost certain you could afford to pay a additional 3%,so you contribute.

I have much better places for my money than a government that has no more control than a spoiled child.

[Tom Wetmore]

Were you singing that same song when George W. was president? What tune were you singing when the national debt nearly doubled under his watch?

Check the debt clock timeline if you doubt me. When George W took office the debt was $5.7 trillion. When he left office it was over $10 trillion.

The $4 trillion increase since Obama took office has been in a large part due to the wars and the economic collapse inherited from the Bush years. That he has not been able to fix it cannot fully rest on his shoulders. Every effort he has attempted has been opposed and/or blocked by the Republicans in Congress. Obama's hands are tied by an impotent Congress.

[bonnie]

Were you singing that same song when George W. was president? What tune were you singing when the national debt nearly doubled under his watch?

[Dr. Shane]

The $4 trillion increase since Obama took office has been in a large part due to the wars and the economic collapse inherited from the Bush years.

[Dr. Shane]

Were you singing that same song when George W. was president?

I was very alarmed at the accumulation of debt during the Bush years. He spent like a Democrat and taxed like a Republican. I was also very alarmed that every time I heard liberals talking about the cost of the War on Terror they would talk about their pet projects that they would rather be spending the money on. I was like "People! We are paying for the wars with a credit card. It isn't money we should be spending else where. It is money we shouldn't be spending."

What was Obama's stimulus all about? $1 trillion of Democrat pet projects. The Democrats got all of the pet projects paid for that they wanted to pay for with the money going to the War on Terror.

Bush did spend way too much money but we need to give him credit where credit is due. For the last few years of his presidency he had the deficit in decline. It didn't spike up until TARP and Obama was part of that so blame can be passed out to everyone that was sitting at the table.

[Dr. Shane]

Total privately held wealth is approximately $60 trillion. 35% of that, $21 trillion is in the hands of the top 1% (the super rich upper class). More than 85%, $51 trillion, is in the hands of the top 25% (the millionaires and billionaires of the US).

The total national public debt is currently $14.3 trillion. The wealth of the top is 150% of that figure. If their wealth was confiscated by the Federal government, they would still have $7 trillion and the Federal government would be completely debt free.

One must understand that the term "wealth" here is being defined as marketable goods. The claim that the rich do not have enough wealth to pay off the national debt is referring to liquid assets, not marketable goods. Basically, the claim is stating that the rich do not have enough money in the bank which is what they need to pay taxes.

Let's say in a hypothetical situation that all the rich decided they were going to sell off all of their marketable goods and donate the money to the government to pay off the national debt. So all the land, buildings, airplanes, ships, trains, communication infrastructure, satellites, computers, etc. held by the wealthy is put up for sale. Who would be in a position to buy all of that stuff? That could never work so it is silly to even think that way.

The assets that are relevant to the discussion are the liquid assets. From what I have seen, the rich don't have the liquid assets needed. If we don't cut our spending down and manage the budget well, the government will have to go after the middle class. I don't see how the rich can pay for a run-away deficit. Last I saw, Obama is spending over $4 billion a day. Compare that to the $500 million a day that Clinton was spending.

[Tom Wetmore]

You may want to take a closer look at how wealth is defined in the studies I was relying on. (Check the links I posted.) Wealth/marketable assets was primarily liquid assets. (They are not including vehicles and other types of depreciating personal property.) The top tier of the wealthy have only about 22% of their wealth tied up in real estate. That leaves $16.4 trillion of that in liquid investments, i.e., cash, stocks and bonds. (Cash alone is about $2.1 trillion) That is still more than the national debt.

Again, I am not advocating taking all of their money. I am just countering the wrong perception that there is not enough money to pay off our national debt. But with that amount of wealth, increasing their annual income tax rate by a mere 3% (the maximum that has been suggested) is hardly going to make a dent in their wealth. Inflation could hurt them worse. And a minor hiccup in the financial markets will cost them more than that in a single day. The wrecked economy has already cost them vastly more than the Bush era tax cuts ever gave them.

[Dr. Shane]

You may want to take a closer look at how wealth is defined in the studies I was relying on. (Check the links I posted.) Wealth/marketable assets was primarily liquid assets.

[Dr. Shane]

...increasing their annual income tax rate by a mere 3% (the maximum that has been suggested) is hardly going to make a dent in their wealth.

First, the concern isn't that the individual rich person cannot afford a 3% tax increase. The concern is that all that money combined being taken out of the private sector will deepen the recession.

Second, if we are talking about serious deficit reduction, that additional 3% from the rich isn't going to make a significant impact. There just isn't enough rich people. An additional 3% from the middle class would make a much larger impact because there are so many middle class people.

Again, let me be clear, I have no problem taxing the rich if by so doing we don't deepen or prolong the recession. I believe the rich should pay a greater percentage of taxes than the poor.

The problem we are in is that tax revenue flowing into the federal government has declined because of the recession. There are less people working and thus less people paying taxes. Companies are doing less business. I believe the number I heard is 15%. Revenues are down 15%. At the same time, spending has skyrocketed. What we need is to get more revenue. How do we do that? If raising taxes results in a longer and/or deeper recession, that means even less taxes. We could raise taxes and actually collect less revenue. The best thing is to get everyone back to work. That needs to be our priority. I don't see how raising taxes is going to decrease unemployment.

[Tom Wetmore]

You apparently didn't read what I posted very carefully. I said primarily as in "mostly", "majority of", "more of that than the other" I then listed the liquid assets that were the the top 1% own that exceed the national debt. What part of enough is so hard to understand?!?!

But more significantly, you are consistently bypassing the point I have repeatedly stressed. I am not advocating that as a solution or even suggesting it as an option that ought to be considered. I am only countering the fallacious right wing political propaganda to justify leaving the rich out of the solution.

It is simply nonsense to say that the top 1% don't have the resources collectively to be a part of the solution, that they will be unable to make more jobs for us poor working stiffs if they have to shoulder 3% more their income toward carrying of the revenue burden or that we have to wait until they get a little richer (i.e., before the economy improves) before we raise even a modest amount of revenue from them.

A majority of the American people favor solving the problem by cutting spending and raising revenue. The most recent poll showed that 62% favored this approach. If that were a percentage for an election, that would be a landslide. Yet the Republicans seem to be deaf to what the majority of Americans want them to do. They will pay for this in 2012.

[bonnie]

Quote:

What part of enough is so hard to understand?!?!

That is what those earning 200,000 and up are saying.What you are saying is it is never enough for some.

Quote:

But more significantly, you are consistently bypassing the point I have repeatedly stressed. I am not advocating that as a solution or even suggesting it as an option that ought to be considered. I am only countering the fallacious right wing political propaganda to justify leaving the rich out of the solution.

Unless those earning 200,000 and up have been exempted from paying federal income tax they are part of the solution

Quote:

It is simply nonsense to say that the top 1% don't have the resources collectively to be a part of the solution, that they will be unable to make more jobs for us poor working stiffs if they have to shoulder 3% more their income toward carrying of the revenue burden or that we have to wait until they get a little richer (i.e., before the economy improves) before we raise even a modest amount of revenue from them.

Every dime of taxes brought in will be spent,plus. For every dollar of increased revenue,1.56 is spent.

You seem to think Obama can order small business to just hire and pay more taxes.The higher the tax the more kept out of the private economy

Quote:

A majority of the American people favor solving the problem by cutting spending and raising revenue. The most recent poll showed that 62% favored this approach. If that were a percentage for an election, that would be a landslide. Yet the Republicans seem to be deaf to what the majority of Americans want them to do. They will pay for this in 2012.

A reduction in proposed increase is not cutting spending as most define cuts.

Funny,polls show Obama loses in a landslide to any generic conservative

[bonnie]

It is simply nonsense to say that the top 1% don't have the resources collectively to be a part of the solution, that they will be unable to make more jobs for us poor working stiffs if they have to shoulder 3% more their income toward carrying of the revenue burden or that we have to wait until they get a little richer (i.e., before the economy improves) before we raise even a modest amount of revenue from them.

What is nonesense is to imply the top 1% is not part of the solution already or that Obama is only concerned about that 1%.

This "brightest man to inhabit the White House"wants 200,000.00

to pay their fair share.You know the ones,the rich at 200,000.00 that have corporate jets.

It may come as a shock to you but no one begins a business with the goal of providing jobs for "you poor working stiffs"

If my neighbor pays 10% 0n 50,000.00 and I pay 10% on 1,000,000.00 I have paid far more than John Doe already.

In addition to begin a business I would risk all I owned,double the hours of John Doe making 50,000.00.The added burden of knowing I had a payroll to meet every week,before the payroll of my family and everything else that goes into running a small business.

Small business,those that will be the biggest target of Obama's desire to "get the rich" are already pulling in their horns because of his leadership.

Put more debt on the small business and watch it get worse

[olger]

You apparently didn't read what I posted very carefully. I said primarily as in "mostly", "majority of", "more of that than the other" I then listed the liquid assets that were the the top 1% own that exceed the national debt. What part of enough is so hard to understand?!?!

But more significantly, you are consistently bypassing the point I have repeatedly stressed. I am not advocating that as a solution or even suggesting it as an option that ought to be considered. I am only countering the fallacious right wing political propaganda to justify leaving the rich out of the solution.

It is simply nonsense to say that the top 1% don't have the resources collectively to be a part of the solution, that they will be unable to make more jobs for us poor working stiffs if they have to shoulder 3% more their income toward carrying of the revenue burden or that we have to wait until they get a little richer (i.e., before the economy improves) before we raise even a modest amount of revenue from them.

A majority of the American people favor solving the problem by cutting spending and raising revenue. The most recent poll showed that 62% favored this approach. If that were a percentage for an election, that would be a landslide. Yet the Republicans seem to be deaf to what the majority of Americans want them to do. They will pay for this in 2012.

I would assume then that you would be in favor of the Flat Tax, given your appeal to revenue equity.

`oG

[bonnie]

Quote:

I would assume then that you would be in favor of the Flat Tax, given your appeal to revenue equity.

`oG

As always it is tough to beat the "equality" in God's plan

10% or?? of 50,000.00 and 10% of 1,000,000.00 is about as revenue equal you can get.

[Dr. Shane]

I then listed the liquid assets that were the the top 1% own that exceed the national debt.