Published: Monday, Nov. 26 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
Instead of second guessing everything our legitimately elected President
proposes...and ran on...why not run for office yourself?
Another rant n rave letter with no solution.From where does the
letter write propose we cut spending. The sequester is scheduled to hit, and
BOTH parties are trying to their hardest to make sure that doesn't happen.
Best estimates are that Obama's tax increases will temporarily increase
revenue by about $150 billion/year. The federal government spends more than that
in less than 10 days! Add to that the fact that Obamacare (subsidized healthcare
insurance for the "poor") has been projected to cost taxpayer's
about $1.2 TRILLION/year! Do the math! Americans committed economic suicide by
rejecting a problem solver and re-election the problem creator! But what do they
care, they will get their free stuff, at least for a little while!
Research by the CBO has found that even moderate increases in the marginal tax
rates on the top 2% of incomes in our nation will have zero effect on the
economic behaviors of those taxpayers.What's being proposed is
for taxes on the very highest incomes to return to the tax rates of the
1990's, when these folks did extremely well in the economy."Wasteful spending?" OK, you tells us exactly what it is, why
it's wasteful, how you'll eliminate it, what you'll do about the
consequences of those cuts, and how much the cuts will effect the budget
deficit. Otherwise, you're just making noise.
Cut wasteful spending?Cool!Lets begin with the wasteful
funding of Hill Air Force Base. Close it down. We have enough bases around the
world. Let those workers up there get real jobs at Delta Airlines or something.
Then we can continue to cut wasteful spending in subsidizing
Utah's education and roads. Lets also cut federal aid to fire cleanup. Let
those folks who had their property damaged by fires this summer depend on
churches and charities. Lets also cut all federal funding to the shale and
natural gas industry which is essentially employing the eastern part of the
state. Let those companies fund themselves and not receive federal handouts.Remember, Utah is the "self-sufficient" state with the awesome
economy who wants to secede from the "Communist" Union. The letter
writer advocated that we cut spending! So lets do it!Perhaps if we
had stuff that we want cut, then we wouldn't look at such spending as
Job creation has been lackluster since we lowered tax rates during the Bush
Administration. As wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top,
fewer jobs are being created.One factor:"The
financial sector, which includes lending, stock brokerage, complex securities
and insurance, among many other services, derives enormous profits from
collateralized debt obligations. These new products require such sophisticated
engineering that the industry now focuses its recruiting on new master’s-
and doctoral-level graduates of science, engineering, math and physics, and pays
them starting wages that are five times or more what they would have earned had
they remained in their own fields.“Because these new hires are often
the very individuals who otherwise would have comprised the most robust pool of
prospective founders of high-growth companies, the financial services
industry’s steady rise has had a cannibalizing effect on entrepreneurship
in the U.S. economy,” said Paul Kedrosky, Kauffman Foundation senior
fellow and one of the paper’s authors. “Excessive financialization
exacerbated and distorted the flow of capital in the economy, potentially
suppressing entrepreneurship by drawing away entrepreneurial
talent.”(Has the Growth of the Financial Sector Harmed the
I have rowed a few boats in my day. One thing is clear, no progress is made
unless both oars are in the water (and with some degree of coordination). In
this case, one oar is spending and the other is revenue. The problem is of
sufficient size that it will need both for there to be any real progress.Thankfully Senators on both sides are beginning to do the hard work of
compromise. The nation comes first, not our party and not our particular
political views. Time for all those involved to come to this understanding.
The talking heads on either side are not friends to our nation, to our
sovereignty, or to our solvency (and these are related).
To "Truthseeker" actually, that is a lie. From 2001 through 2008 job
creation was good, as evidenced by the unemployment rate hovering around 5% and
the high labor participation rate.The job market has been sluggish
since we started to see an increase in regulation and welfare spending.
So Sherman if the President were to cut the annual deficit in at least half by
the end of his second term would that qualify as cutting "reckless"
spending and make him a great President, after all that would be something that
nobody except Clinton has done? Go check official government projections for
budgets into 2016 and that's exactly what's projected. 2013 is
projected to be under a trillion cutinng the deficit from it's high by
nearly 500billion dollars. Good start huh?..Go Obama..four more years, four more
years..oh wait that all ready happened.
So why doesn't the GOP "Compromise" with the democrats and agree to
huge tax increases in exchange for promised spending cuts?Answer:
Because too many of them see such proposals as the huge scam that they are!
"Agree to jack up taxes today and we'll give you some spending cuts
over the next 10 years" is just a shell game. It doesn't matter if they
promise $3 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes (or $10 to $1, or $100 to $1).Until we get some drastic spending CUTS (and I mean real cuts, not phony
ones) the deficit and debt will continue to spiral out of control.The way it works now is: Spending this year = $3.5 trillion. Spending next
year = $3.7 trillion. Call that a $300 billion "cut" because you
didn't increase it to $4 trillion like you planned. Spend $4 trillion
anyway. Take every opportunity to talk about that huge spending cut you agreed
to (at great sacrifice), even though it never happened. Blame the
ever-increasing deficit on rich people not paying their fair share.
There is no developed country on the face of the earth where rich people could
move and pay less in taxes than they do in the U.S.
There is no way this can only be addressed from the expenditure side of the
Please remember to be very quiet as you drive through Box Elder County or
Brigham City.You might wake some of the locals from their dream
Again with the whole "job creators" thing... Don't you understand
that was a label created by a republican hack specifically for low information
President Obama wants to increase the taxes on the high-income people in the
United States. ========= Wrong!Read
today's New York Times.It's not just Pres. Obama.The
Oracle of Omaha, every single Capitalist's mentor and hero -- Warren Buffet "I support President Obama's proposal to
eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a
cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 - maybe $500,000 or so," the Berkshire
Hathaway head wrote."Additionally, we need Congress, right now,
to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable
income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above
that."----------Who should we believe =>Warren Buffet?a true Capitalist and American?orAM radio blow-nothing's like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn
Beck?BTW - I agree, Congress needs to eliminate waste. But It's
gonna take compromising, and so far - the GOP and their 20 year old do nothing
pledges is ruining America.
When it comes to job creation, Sherman has a very good point. Poor people
don't create jobs. If the filthy rich--i.e., the job creators--were taxed
very little or not at all, they could create even more jobs. Then, poor people
could stop whining about the lack of jobs. In fact, taxes on low-income people,
who are job consumers rather than job producers, ought to be increased
significantly until they finally get off their duffs and start creating jobs.Also, I think the IRS needs to get tough on panhandlers who fail to
report the donations they receive. Sure,they dress up all poor and scroungy, but
I suspect most of them are socking big bucks away in overseas accounts, which
creates no jobs here.
Anyone willing to wager me a steak dinner that when (not if) Obama increases
taxes on the "rich" within less than two years, the IRS will collect
less money than before the tax hike? Reason: the "rich" includes most
small businesses and increased taxes will force them to decrease expansion, not
hire or lay off workers. Big businesses will become less competitive and move
over seas or pass the tax increases along and that, my friends means fewer tax
payers! Tax increases on the "rich" is a war on business; those people
who generate wealth in the first place. When was the last time a poor person
offered you a job?
Now you've stepped over the line, old man...
@steve wPoor people do not creat jobs? Who is producing the products that
gives the business owner the revenue to grow his business and hire more workers?
The truth is both the worker and the owner rely on each other for financial well
being. Something that seems to get lost in this conversation.
Pretty fundamental concept; spend only what you have. Even so, it is far too
complex for politicians who want to be Santa Claus and don't want to do the
heavy lifting of public service.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments