That was the "Share" code not the embed code. When you click on share it automatically shows you the highlighted "share" code that's not the one to use. You need to click on the button that says "Embed" underneath and slightly to the left. There you will find the highlighted "embed" code.
This is no longer about consequences for our children.
This is about us, in the immediate future.
If the financial markets do not see clear and convincing evidence of political will in the US to rectify the fiscal situation, we are looking at chaos and "global Argentina" within the next 18 months.
FWIW - and this isn't my own political preference, just my sense of what the markets are looking for - what is necessary is an end to the growth of government spending as a percent of GDP, and then increases in tax revenue. Just one or the other doesn't look to cut it.
(Why taxes? Debt as a percent of GDP could likely be stabilized with spending and entitlement cuts alone, but 100% or so of GDP is too high a level - it has to be seen as being paid down to 60% or so.)
Alphie - in the context of just giving my opinion as to what the markets are looking for - yeah, more revenue. Could be higher tax rates, or broader. Whatever. Bond holders want to get paid, they don't much care how.
Agreed. I have felt, for a long time now, that it was about us, now, not our children.
I can abide "new revenue" [taxes, fees, etc.] only if real cuts are applied to spending. For now...
1. No new programs, entitlement or otherwise. Period. Just STOP the hemorrhaging. Reverse the entire obscenity of spending legislation from the past 2+ years. Period. Just do it. Now. Add nothing to it until the fiscal house is in order. N-o-t-h-i-n-g!
2. The entire tax code is both simplified and made economically sensible, not just special interest serving. That a new code require every filer to pay at least some percentage of tax ... time to re-vest in the country for those 49 odd % that don't now.
3. No expenditure (zero, nada, upso, fuggedaboutit...)by Congressional or executive action be permitted unless the budget, executive and congressional reconciled and approved, is passed by 01 Oct of any given fiscal year. If not, no pay for Congress or the West Wing or any SES or cabinet level federal employees, subsequently, until the budget is passed. Period. CR's can only cover civil servants with the same no-new-start proviso now extant in CR's.
Yeah, I know, I'm thinking like a child and over simplifying. But then again i am taking about snotty children...e.g., Congress and the White House.
Hey ... immature as the above comment is, it's at lest better than what I really think ... that after 01 Oct of any year without an approved budget, one Congress person, one SES'r, one Cabinet level soul, and one West Winger be stood up against a wall and shot, every day until a budget is passed.
Aridog, when it comes to the congressional slap-fest over raising the debt ceiling, your #9 is too weighty and complicated for the current players. They are all IDIOTS.
This ideological "line in the sand" that Obama and Boehner have drawn is worrisome. They have guaranteed that the battle will come down to a winner and a loser, instead of considering what prudent action the country should take to avoid default, balance the freakin' budget, and greatly encourage the business climate.
If we default, it will be the opening volley in a civil war that we can ill afford, being fought in the midst of a capital "D" Depression.
If we raise the debt ceiling without concurrently and substantially taking a machete to entitlement programs, we're merely pushing back the default date. Our credit rating will STILL go down the shitter.
I am not optimistic. I cannot see raising the debt ceiling. It would be a huge mistake. I cannot see raising taxes on people who currently foot 99% of the bill while half the country fiddles.
Raising taxes is not prudent. What part of the Laffer curve do these people not understand? After a certain point taxes act like a brake on the economy -- actually causing a reduction in government revenues rather than an increase.
The taxation committee in Congress does not recognize this effect. This committee was once asked what would happen if they taxed everything over $200,00 at 100%. They blithely predicted huge increases in revenues. When asked if they really thought the economy would expand with that rate of taxation, they admitted they did not consider changes in economic behaviour when making their assessments.
Back in the 90's, Washington State greatly increased the tax on cigarettes. Once it took effect, there was no noticeable decrease in smoking. What was noticed was that more and more people bought their cigarettes in Oregon or on Indian Reservations -- and that the state was actually getting less money than it was before.
The reason Democrats want to "tax the rich" is because they feel anyone who is successful is somehow evil and needs to be punished. That and the fact that to them, taxes -- and the debt ceiling -- are a never-ending gravy trains that can be increased and increased with no negative effects.
We do not need to raise taxes. We need to cut spending. My bank is not going to increase my lines of credit just so I can pay my bills (in fact, if I told them I needed more credit so I could pay my bills, they would probably cut me off at the knees). Nor can I go in and tell my employer that he needs to pay me more and more money (he'd tell me to take a hike). Things do not work any differently for the government than they do in real life. Government IS real life, whether Washington DC wants to admit it or not.
My saying I could abide new taxes is a "Pollyanna" statement entirely dependent upon a total revision of the tax codes ... which is just not going to happen. There is no reason a simplified tax code cannot be written on 10 pages or less ... personally I'd favor one page.
Lady Red .... vis a vis the "line in the sand":
The entire establishment in Washington is now inextricably caught up in the "how's it going to impact the next election?" Period. That's the winners and losers part of it ...the "process" now defines the product, the "process" IS the product. There is NO product. Just process.
Frankly, I don't see a way out of it. "Just Stop" is not in the Beltway lexicon. I actually believe the Jug Eared Messiah is an ignorant inexperienced (intentionally) "Manchurian Candidate" fabricated from thin air by the denizens of the West Wing and the far left leadership wing of the Democratic Party. I think John Kerry was the first attempt, and Obama was the second successful try.
I want a sane solution, but hesitatingly anticipate violence ... driven by lies. It would not be the first time in my life I saw the U S Army 82nd Airborne enforcing martial law where I live.
We cannot ignore what happens when Republicans compromise with Democrats: the part the Republicans agreed to goes into effect almost immediately, but they never seem to get around to the part the Democrats agreed to. Look at the luxury tax of the early '90's: Bush the elder agreed to the tax because the Democrats agreed to spending cuts. We are still waiting for the spending cuts. What did we get out of it? A destroyed industry in the U.S.
Boehner flat stated this morning that the GOP will have a framework by the end of the day, and that they are prepared to go forward unilaterally. I believe him.
The GOP bill will pass the house, and then be dumped in the senate's lap. They either cave and pass it, or else they'll be held responsible for the default.
That was the "Share" code not the embed code. When you click on share it automatically shows you the highlighted "share" code that's not the one to use. You need to click on the button that says "Embed" underneath and slightly to the left. There you will find the highlighted "embed" code.
ReplyDeleteOoooh. Love that.
ReplyDeleteI LOVE, love, love this!!!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Dances :-)
I disagree about the timing.
ReplyDeleteThis is no longer about consequences for our children.
This is about us, in the immediate future.
If the financial markets do not see clear and convincing evidence of political will in the US to rectify the fiscal situation, we are looking at chaos and "global Argentina" within the next 18 months.
FWIW - and this isn't my own political preference, just my sense of what the markets are looking for - what is necessary is an end to the growth of government spending as a percent of GDP, and then increases in tax revenue. Just one or the other doesn't look to cut it.
(Why taxes? Debt as a percent of GDP could likely be stabilized with spending and entitlement cuts alone, but 100% or so of GDP is too high a level - it has to be seen as being paid down to 60% or so.)
"and then increases in tax revenue."
ReplyDeletelewy, I notice you didn't say "increases in tax rates".
Alphie - in the context of just giving my opinion as to what the markets are looking for - yeah, more revenue. Could be higher tax rates, or broader. Whatever. Bond holders want to get paid, they don't much care how.
ReplyDeleteTest [again damn it] ... to see I have cure for no-post gremlin of late. x( :-L
ReplyDeleteHot dang!! With Opera it all works [again] the "glitch" was IE apparently ... ~x(
ReplyDeleteNow back to regularly scheduled nonsense...
ReplyDeleteLewy said...
This is about us, in the immediate future.
Agreed. I have felt, for a long time now, that it was about us, now, not our children.
I can abide "new revenue" [taxes, fees, etc.] only if real cuts are applied to spending. For now...
1. No new programs, entitlement or otherwise. Period. Just STOP the hemorrhaging. Reverse the entire obscenity of spending legislation from the past 2+ years. Period. Just do it. Now. Add nothing to it until the fiscal house is in order. N-o-t-h-i-n-g!
2. The entire tax code is both simplified and made economically sensible, not just special interest serving. That a new code require every filer to pay at least some percentage of tax ... time to re-vest in the country for those 49 odd % that don't now.
3. No expenditure (zero, nada, upso, fuggedaboutit...)by Congressional or executive action be permitted unless the budget, executive and congressional reconciled and approved, is passed by 01 Oct of any given fiscal year. If not, no pay for Congress or the West Wing or any SES or cabinet level federal employees, subsequently, until the budget is passed. Period. CR's can only cover civil servants with the same no-new-start proviso now extant in CR's.
Yeah, I know, I'm thinking like a child and over simplifying. But then again i am taking about snotty children...e.g., Congress and the White House.
Hey ... immature as the above comment is, it's at lest better than what I really think ... that after 01 Oct of any year without an approved budget, one Congress person, one SES'r, one Cabinet level soul, and one West Winger be stood up against a wall and shot, every day until a budget is passed.
ReplyDeleteAridog, when it comes to the congressional slap-fest over raising the debt ceiling, your #9 is too weighty and complicated for the current players. They are all IDIOTS.
ReplyDeleteThis ideological "line in the sand" that Obama and Boehner have drawn is worrisome. They have guaranteed that the battle will come down to a winner and a loser, instead of considering what prudent action the country should take to avoid default, balance the freakin' budget, and greatly encourage the business climate.
If we default, it will be the opening volley in a civil war that we can ill afford, being fought in the midst of a capital "D" Depression.
If we raise the debt ceiling without concurrently and substantially taking a machete to entitlement programs, we're merely pushing back the default date. Our credit rating will STILL go down the shitter.
I am not optimistic. I cannot see raising the debt ceiling. It would be a huge mistake. I cannot see raising taxes on people who currently foot 99% of the bill while half the country fiddles.
Raising taxes is not prudent. What part of the Laffer curve do these people not understand? After a certain point taxes act like a brake on the economy -- actually causing a reduction in government revenues rather than an increase.
ReplyDeleteThe taxation committee in Congress does not recognize this effect. This committee was once asked what would happen if they taxed everything over $200,00 at 100%. They blithely predicted huge increases in revenues. When asked if they really thought the economy would expand with that rate of taxation, they admitted they did not consider changes in economic behaviour when making their assessments.
Back in the 90's, Washington State greatly increased the tax on cigarettes. Once it took effect, there was no noticeable decrease in smoking. What was noticed was that more and more people bought their cigarettes in Oregon or on Indian Reservations -- and that the state was actually getting less money than it was before.
The reason Democrats want to "tax the rich" is because they feel anyone who is successful is somehow evil and needs to be punished. That and the fact that to them, taxes -- and the debt ceiling -- are a never-ending gravy trains that can be increased and increased with no negative effects.
We do not need to raise taxes. We need to cut spending. My bank is not going to increase my lines of credit just so I can pay my bills (in fact, if I told them I needed more credit so I could pay my bills, they would probably cut me off at the knees). Nor can I go in and tell my employer that he needs to pay me more and more money (he'd tell me to take a hike). Things do not work any differently for the government than they do in real life. Government IS real life, whether Washington DC wants to admit it or not.
RadioMattM ....
ReplyDeleteMy saying I could abide new taxes is a "Pollyanna" statement entirely dependent upon a total revision of the tax codes ... which is just not going to happen. There is no reason a simplified tax code cannot be written on 10 pages or less ... personally I'd favor one page.
Lady Red .... vis a vis the "line in the sand":
The entire establishment in Washington is now inextricably caught up in the "how's it going to impact the next election?" Period. That's the winners and losers part of it ...the "process" now defines the product, the "process" IS the product. There is NO product. Just process.
Frankly, I don't see a way out of it. "Just Stop" is not in the Beltway lexicon. I actually believe the Jug Eared Messiah is an ignorant inexperienced (intentionally) "Manchurian Candidate" fabricated from thin air by the denizens of the West Wing and the far left leadership wing of the Democratic Party. I think John Kerry was the first attempt, and Obama was the second successful try.
I want a sane solution, but hesitatingly anticipate violence ... driven by lies. It would not be the first time in my life I saw the U S Army 82nd Airborne enforcing martial law where I live.
We cannot ignore what happens when Republicans compromise with Democrats: the part the Republicans agreed to goes into effect almost immediately, but they never seem to get around to the part the Democrats agreed to. Look at the luxury tax of the early '90's: Bush the elder agreed to the tax because the Democrats agreed to spending cuts. We are still waiting for the spending cuts. What did we get out of it? A destroyed industry in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteBoehner flat stated this morning that the GOP will have a framework by the end of the day, and that they are prepared to go forward unilaterally. I believe him.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP bill will pass the house, and then be dumped in the senate's lap. They either cave and pass it, or else they'll be held responsible for the default.
Gamesmanship in the face of disaster.
The good news? Both sides have booted Obama to the curb. He is an utter failure as a leader.
ReplyDeleteHe is an utter failure as a leader.
ReplyDeleteToo bad more people did not realize it before he was elected.