Chambliss takes a leadership risk
By endorsing a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction deal in Washington, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss has risked making himself a target of an angry Republican base here in Georgia, regardless of how the crisis is finally resolved.
The proposal embraced by Chambliss and other members of the bipartisan Gang of Six calls for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other programs,, which conservatives support. However, it also proposes collecting an additional $1 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years, and conservative orthodoxy insists that any plan that produces additional government revenue is betrayal.
Under the circumstances, the last thing Chambliss needs is some liberal columnist praising his willingness to lead on a tough issue of great national importance. And it would hurt the senator even more to contrast his leadership with the absence of leadership among his fellow Republicans in Georgia’s House delegation, most of whom have taken a deeply irresponsible approach to the nation’s fiscal crisis.
So I’ll make sure not to say those things.
Instead, maybe it would be better to condemn Chambliss for backing a plan that would cut future Social Security benefits by hundreds of billions of dollars. Yeah, that’s the ticket! Accuse him of being mean to old people!
Except that he’s not. The Gang of Six does propose to reduce future benefits by changing the way that Social Security benefits are adjusted for inflation. But that’s just common sense. Most experts agree that the current inflation-adjusting mechanism is set too high, and over time would boost benefits significantly higher than inflation would require. The new approach — borrowed from recommendations released late last year by a presidential commission — would be more accurate, and thus more fair.
And as Chambliss takes pains to point out, all savings generated by changes in Social Security would be used to make Social Security financially sound. It’s an important point: No revenue generated by the self-insurance program is being spent elsewhere.
In fact, any liberal groups or politicians who attack the Gang of Six proposals regarding Social Security are probably playing politics. The changes sought by Chambliss and his colleagues are reasonable and would be necessary regardless of the nation’s larger fiscal challenges.
Still, that doesn’t exactly improve Chambliss’ standing with his base.
How about ObamaCare? While the Gang of Six doesn’t propose to repeal the entire health-care reform package so hated by conservatives, it does call for abandoning one of its major new programs. The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program, also known as the CLASS Act, was created to be a voluntary self-insurance plan in which citizens paid monthly premiums in return for long-term nursing-home care should they need it.
The Gang of Six plan calls for outright repeal of CLASS, noting that recent analysis has cast doubt on the program’s ability to be self-sustaining, as required by law.
“Simply put, it could be difficult, if not impossible, to balance money coming into the program with the money that could ultimately flow out, and thus to create a program that would be solvent and sustainable,” as the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation reports.
So hey, killing part of ObamaCare ought to buy Chambliss at least some protection on his right flank, correct?
Still, there’s that little matter of $1 trillion in revenue increases. Poll after poll demonstrates that most Americans support attacking the debt problem through both spending cuts and tax increases. Politically, it’s the only way to cut a deal. And mathematically, it’s impossible to address the debt through spending cuts alone. The numbers just do not work.
As Chambliss noted in a discussion at the AJC back in April, non-defense, non-entitlement spending accounts for just 12 percent of the budget.
“Now you could cut out that whole 12 percent and you wouldn’t solve this problem of $14 trillion in debt,” he said. “You got to have enough money to run the government and you got to have excess money to start paying down on that debt.”
Yes, you do. Unfortunately, many of his fellow Republicans just can’t bring themselves to believe it.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
484 comments Add your comment
MiltonMan
July 22nd, 2011
12:46 pm
Liberals defintion of “shared sacrifice”:
Sock it to those evil rich Americans who make more than $250k.
Liberal logic: If you are single and make more than $200k, you are rich. If you are married and make over $250k, you are rich. Good God, get married but make sure your spouse makes a lot less than you do.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
12:47 pm
“Last year I put up exactly $585,000 I’d be willing to throw another 30% in if it will make you happy.”
Now we know who the richest guy is on this blog…
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
12:48 pm
Fletch & Mike
Be careful, I’m guessing that he’ll call y’all liberal liars next or something. RB is so damned negative about most things that he makes negative infinity look good.
md
July 22nd, 2011
12:48 pm
“When people no longer are pulling money out of their own pockets, a natural indifference occurs so that the fraudsters can bill whatever they want and no one cares. ”
Not too sure “cares” is the appropriate word……..I care very much, but when those 30k bills come in, one needs an accountant to figure out how things were billed……and not having a clue as to how adjustments are made, the lay person is screwed from the get go………
Do agree with the premise that it will only get worse…….folks are already clueless, now there will be xxx more clueless added to the pool………..
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
12:50 pm
Hi Paul!
I think it’s a case of “who you ask” in the military re: the F22. it’s all about dollars in the districts, not about what’s best for the country.
as far as the elbow to the sternum goes, I’d never do that to a fellow Bookmaniac. a withering stare, maybe … but no elbow
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
12:51 pm
” If you are married and make over $250k, you are rich”
yes. if you make a quarter of a million dollars, you are rich.
if you decide to spend every penny of it, that’s your own damned fault. but, yes, making a QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS does, in fact, make you wealthy.
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
12:53 pm
(is it me, or have we totally gone through the looking glass when people think a quarter of a million dollars is NOT wealthy)
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
12:54 pm
If you are single and make more than $200k, you are rich. If you are married and make over $250k, you are rich.
Ummmm…. Look at the percentage of people who annually make that kind of income and ask yourself that question again. What is the percentage of people in the world that has an annual income that high or higher. Some people can work an entire life and not make $250k.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
12:54 pm
“yes. if you make a quarter of a million dollars, you are rich.”
Wow, this statement might be the most inocrrect post of the day… First off, making 250K doesn’t mean netting 250K, huge difference. Making 250K is no where near rich. Yeah, you’ve got a 500K house, nice car, nice clothes, do some traveling, but rich, I think not… Not even close, rich means you don’t have to work if you don’t want to…
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
12:56 pm
My Migraine 12:44
The answer to your question “What would happen if we simply cut all non-defense and non-entitlement spending totally and completely?” is answered in Jay’s piece.
“As Chambliss noted in a discussion at the AJC back in April, non-defense, non-entitlement spending accounts for just 12 percent of the budget.
“Now you could cut out that whole 12 percent and you wouldn’t solve this problem of $14 trillion in debt,” he said. “You got to have enough money to run the government and you got to have excess money to start paying down on that debt.”
Yes, you do. Unfortunately, many of his fellow Republicans just can’t bring themselves to believe it.”
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
12:58 pm
“(is it me, or have we totally gone through the looking glass when people think a quarter of a million dollars is NOT wealthy)”
Why not? At a local commission meeting last night, the head of our local Democrat party actually called for spending cuts. (To be fair it was in the same speech she made calling for a renewal of a tax – typical liberal two-sidedness)
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
12:59 pm
Woodstock Mike
“Now we know who the richest guy is on this blog…”
Not to detract from anyone, but as a matter of logic…. no, we do not know.
Couple Rules of Thumb:
No matter how much you make, someone probably makes more. So stop comparing.
No matter how much you make, at the end of the year it’s gone. What it’s gone on is your choice.
facts is facts
July 22nd, 2011
12:59 pm
Don’t really have a dog in this fight, and maybe some of you more enthusiastic folks from both sides need to consider that you don’t either. Like most, my knowledge of the “Gang of Six” proposal is limited to the very vague and polit-speak talking points being offered by the Gang of Six and the Gang of Media. But here’s my question; if the “revenue” side of this equation includes eliminating/reducing the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable donation deduction, the IRA contribution deduction; etc. BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE increasing capital gains from 15% to 29% (can you say; “hedge fund” can you say “Wall Street owns Obama and the GOP”?) and increasing corporate tax rates to that corporate citizens pay the same rate as individual citizens; it seems to me that the middle class (which now includes those in the $50,000.00 – $350,000 per year income bracket), will be responsible for the lion’s share of the revenue. Think of it this way; you earn $150,000.00 year and you live in a $200,000.00. the $10,000 0r $11,000.00 you deduct from your federal taxes (mortgage interest, charitable contributions, IRA, etc.) is a more significant chunk of change in terms of your (baseline) standard of living, as opposed to a hedge fund manager who earns $500 million per year, and pays only $75 million in taxes. Bottom line, he probably doesn’t have a mortgage on his $10 million home in the Hamptons, doesn’t make charitable contributions or contributes $5K a year to his Roth IRA. No sir, the gang of six (and Obama) would be more aptly named “the Gang of 2%”. Taxation without representation is tyranny; right? When sounds to me like the 2% are well-represented, and the rest of us are beholden to the tyrants.
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:00 pm
USinUK
I agree wholeheartedly with the first comment.
The second? Aw nuts…. that would’ve been fun to watch!
Finn McCool
July 22nd, 2011
1:01 pm
“Deportations Of Immigrants Hits Record Number Under Obama Administration”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/22/deportations-obama-immigration_n_906676.html
Logical Dude
July 22nd, 2011
1:01 pm
Woodstock Mike: rich means you don’t have to work if you don’t want to…
I guess “rich” has many definitions. I would define it a little bit differently than you do. Although your definition is a very good one.
MiltonMan
July 22nd, 2011
1:01 pm
US – so clueless that he does not even understand the difference between being rich vs. wealthy; shows his ignorance by using the two interchangeably.
A “rich” person making 200k living in NYC is the same as a “rich” person making 200k living in Macon???
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
July 22nd, 2011
1:02 pm
Well, it don’t seem to me there’s any need to increase taxes. We can just cut back on spending and balance the budget. If we cut food stamps by just a third we’d have a good start.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a Compassionate Conservative. I’m probly the most Compassionate Conservative in GA. But let me ask you this: When’s the last time you saw a skinny woman using food stamps? You ain’t seen it because they’re all fat. And they’re all fat because they eat too much.
I say it won’t hurt them to skip one meal a day. In fact, we’d be doing them a big favor if we made them do it by just cutting what we spend on food stamps by a third. Anyhow, these welfare queens don’t need to be buying luxury blue jeans for their kids and Gucci loafers. And the welfare queen I saw last night at WalMart could hock that Rolex watch she was wearing and feed her family for three or four months. Not to mention the BMW she was driving.
So little cuts like that would get us back to a Balanced Budget pretty soon. Sure, the kids might complain about being hungry, but they cut make up skipping lunch at supper time. They’ll thank us for making them lean and mean when they grow up. I say there’s no need for anybody to pay a penny more in taxes.
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
1:02 pm
facts
I see the Go6 proposal as an answer to those who said that we can’t tax the rich to make things work out. They’re gonna stick it to the middle class. We all know the poor are not going to be able to pay it. What better way to finish off the middle class than to do it under the guise of fiscal accountability?
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
1:03 pm
facts is facts, why would you increase the tax on capital gains? That money has ALREADY been taxed at the original rate when earned, then re-taxed at another 15%. How much more do you want to take away from the money that actually GROWS businesses?
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
1:03 pm
Mike – “Yeah, you’ve got a 500K house, nice car, nice clothes, do some traveling, but rich, I think not… Not even close, rich means you don’t have to work if you don’t want to…”
which is why I say, if you decide to SPEND all that money, that’s your own fault. However, yes, making $250K/year is, in fact, rich when you consider that the median income is roughly a fifth of that.
Finn McCool
July 22nd, 2011
1:03 pm
I see you guys are still confused about what qualifies as “wealthy”.
If you hire a lawn service to cut your lawn you are not wealthy. IF you employ a full time gardener, you are probably “wealthy.”
IF you cook your own meals or eat out every day, you are probably aren’t wealthy, IF you employ a full time chef, you are probably “wealthy.”
IF you employ a “house staff”, you are probably wealthy, IF you hire a maid a few days a week, you ain’t wealthy!
MiltonMan
July 22nd, 2011
1:05 pm
Liberals on this board having a tough, tough time using their one-cell “functioning” brain to try to define a rich person.
Brosephus – goes from a rich person in the USA & compares it to what others make around the whole world. Man, I did not know that global residents pay American taxes.
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:05 pm
USinUK
“(is it me, or have we totally gone through the looking glass when people think a quarter of a million dollars is NOT wealthy)”
During the campaign, to alleviate worries of the wealthy, Candidate Obama redefined ‘middle class’ as ‘households making less than $250,000 a year.” As a point of fact, I disagree tremendously. As a political move to reduce mistrust and attract votes, it was brilliant.
The real irony, though, is that Candidate Obama’s redefinition was completely, totally, without reservation adopted by Republicans. They embraced it, they live it
and I’m amazed to think they might actually believe it.
Woodstock Mike,
As Jay noted on this topic, whatever one might choose to call himself, when one makes more than 95 out of 100 households, ‘average’ is a stretch.
Finn McCool
July 22nd, 2011
1:05 pm
You can make a million a year, that doesn’t mean you are wealthy.
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
1:05 pm
“Deportations Of Immigrants Hits Record Number Under Obama Administration”
Why do Democrats hate illegal immigrants?
(I just thought I’d get that one out there)
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
1:05 pm
Milton – if you choose to spend it all by living in Manhattan or LA, that’s your choice.
making 5x the median income makes you rich / wealthy/ filthy with lucre, however you choose to look at it.
md
July 22nd, 2011
1:07 pm
“(is it me, or have we totally gone through the looking glass when people think a quarter of a million dollars is NOT wealthy)”
Depends on one’s perspective…….to many around the globe, 20 or 30k is wealthy…………here, not so much.
Always liked the comedian that compared “our” poor with those in other countries……….one can count the ribs on the poor outside the US……..while our poor seem to all weigh 300 pounds………
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
1:08 pm
Paul – “and I’m amazed to think they might actually believe it”
what amazes ME is that they seem to think that, if, at the end of the day, if you only have $10 in your bank account, you’re actually middle class, despite living in a >$500K house, nice car, nice clothes, vacations, private schools, etc …
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
1:09 pm
@USinUK
See, I think may be assuming that people desire the same things or need the same things as you. That’s a false assumption. This is simply a fact, a family making 250K/yr is not rich. Especially if you live in a major metropolitan are of the United States. Comparing the median income to this means nothing. If fact if you live in New York City 250K/yr probably just gets you by…
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
1:09 pm
md – which is why I’m comparing it to the US median income of roughly $50K/year.
so, yes, 5x that amount is, in fact, rich.
even if they’ve had so much lipo that their ribs are showing.
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
1:09 pm
“if you choose to spend it all by living in Manhattan or LA, that’s your choice.”
That’s a bit simplistic, USinUK. Sure, you can choose to live out in the boonies and commute every day, but if your business is IN one of those cities, it makes perfect sense to live in one of those cities to save time (which is also money) and be more efficient and responsive to your customers.
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
1:10 pm
USinner @ 1:03
I was scratching my head and thinking the same thing. If my annual income, either pre or post deductions was at the $250k mark, I don’t see why I would need a different house other than the one I’m in now. It’s the mindset like that which is causing more government spending. It isn’t the politicians at all.
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
1:10 pm
woodstock – unfortunately, that’s not how our tax system works. it’s based on medians and averages regardless of where you live.
md
July 22nd, 2011
1:11 pm
Don’t agree with the blanket statement that making 250k is “rich”…….I know quite a few business folks that made 250k, but their debt to start that business is in the millions……..they are not rich.
Depends on how long they make that 250k……………………..
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
1:11 pm
@US in UK
sorry for the poor grammar in my previous post, typing and trying to work… LOL
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:12 pm
Brocephus 1:10
[polite golf clap]
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
1:12 pm
“Always liked the comedian that compared “our” poor with those in other countries……….one can count the ribs on the poor outside the US……..while our poor seem to all weigh 300 pounds…”
Delivered the right way, that’s funny.
Delivered another way, that’s a sad and sorry statement.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
1:13 pm
@USinUK
“woodstock – unfortunately, that’s not how our tax system works. it’s based on medians and averages regardless of where you live.”
I guess I can be more clear if needed, IN THE UNITED STATES A FAMILY MAKING 250K/YR IS NOT CONSIDERED RICH. That is a simple fact. Yes, they make enough money to have a good life and hopefully put some of it away for retirement, but making 250K just isn’t rich, not even close…
1811/0311
July 22nd, 2011
1:13 pm
HEADLINE: “TERROR IN OSLO”
I’m betting from Little Sis’ latest DHS report and video that it’s some white Christian Identity group from Montana that went to Oslo to do this dastardly deed !
What do you think libs. ??
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
1:14 pm
Brocephus – “It’s the mindset like that which is causing more government spending.”
forget that.
it’s that kind of mindset which has put us in the pickle we are today – people who spend everything they make (and more) and who feel they have to live at the top of / exceed their means.
1811/0311
July 22nd, 2011
1:14 pm
I mean, come on, what have Norwegians done to anyone lately ???
Run up the price of sardines ?
facts is facts
July 22nd, 2011
1:14 pm
Milton Man, you are spot on. “Rich” is word used by politicians and gadflies. Whereas WEALTH is a word used to describe the ownership class in a plutocracy. Rich people do not direct Congress or the POTUS via lobbyists; wealthy people do. And “wealthy people” includes corporations. All this “class warfare” nonsense is a distriction and nothing more. The Randian free market wags like to speak of “creation of wealth” as a driving force in capitalism; I agree. Problem is; Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Arthur Blank, and any other wealthy person attained his/her wealth via the stock market (some as traders/hedge fund types, others by taking companies “public”). As individuals they may have become “wealthy” but in order to remain wealthy, or more accurately, continue to build/consolidate their wealth, they need things like the 15% capital gains rate, the Roth IRA contribution deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, etc. You think the housing market is in the tank; wait until there is absolutely ZERO incidentive to own a home unless one can pay cash? How do you think the bubble was inflated? The banks (corporate citizens) made the mortages the “assets” (as opposed to real estate). Ergo the “value” of the mortgage (to Wall Street)trumped the value of one’s home. The American dream for John Q. Public was to be rich (good job, own a home, nice car, etc.). The American dream for John Q, Inc. was to become wealthy, and in 2008, nearly $9 trillion was “transfered” from homeowners and individual investors; to Goldman Sachs, AIG, Bank of America, et al, as well as the hedge fund managers and Wall Street cowboys who executed “the big short”.
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
1:15 pm
Milton Man
Seems like you don’t know much of anything. Seems like people around the world purchase goods from American based multinational corporations. Some countries pay tarriffs to export their goods to the US of A. Not to mention the foreign citizens who live here with green cards and pay American taxes. You also have foreigners on work visas doing the same.
However, beyond your petty attempt to deflect, what percentage of the AMERICAN public has an income of $200k single/$250k married in a single year? What percentage of the AMERICAN people has an annual income less than that? Pretty simple questions to answer, even your single-celled brain should be able to figure that one out.
RB from Gwinnett
July 22nd, 2011
1:15 pm
“RB, so you’re more than willing to let the government default on debt, not pay the interest, and cause economic turmoil? ”
No, i’d prefer they stop spending us into oblivion. The house passed their plan to handle the issue. If the senate fails to pass it or if Obama vetos, it’ll be their fault if we default. This “let us keep spending beyond our means or we’ll blame you” crap only works on morons. Go sell it somewhere else.
1811/0311
July 22nd, 2011
1:15 pm
FOR THOSE WHO MISSED THIS LATE LAST NIGHT:
The Green Thing
In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment.
The woman apologized to him and explained, “We didn’t have the green thing back in my day.”
The clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment.”
He was right — our generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
But we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.
We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.
But she was right. We didn’t have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts — wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us.
When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
But she’s right; we didn’t have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.
We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But we didn’t have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.
We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.
But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the green thing back then?
Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart-mouthed young person.
The Green Thing
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:16 pm
I’ll offer all this talk of ‘rich’ ‘wealth’ ‘whatever’ is semantics. And NYC is the card to pull, but compared to the number of workers in the US, it’s a small percentage.
I’ll go with USinUK’s point: If you live in a neighborhood of 100 households and make more than 95 of them, you’re waaaaaay past ‘better off.’
If you want to use a label to minimize the distinction, at least recognize it for what it is.
And I notice after Fletch’s post, RB from Gwinnett became scarce. Next time she shows up can someone remind her of her ‘how much more you willing to give, huh?’ question and ask her to respond to Fletch’s post? Thanks.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
July 22nd, 2011
1:17 pm
“it’s that kind of mindset which has put us in the pickle we are today – people who spend everything they make (and more) and who feel they have to live at the top of / exceed their means.”
Once again, who is anyone to tell someone how to live. Now allowing people to live beyond their means on credit is what got us into this mess, but is someone makes 1 million bucks a year and blows it, so be it. Crossing a fine line when telling someone else how they should live their life…
Finn McCool
July 22nd, 2011
1:18 pm
Heck, 1811, that ain’t nothing.
i had to walk a mile to school in the snow, with no shoes, uphill both ways….
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:19 pm
Oh, HI RB from Gwinnnett! I see you’re back! Good!
Any comment on Fletch’s post to your question? The answer that was “RB from Gwinnett – “I want a number. In real dollars, how much of your own money are you willing to put in every year?”
Last year I put up exactly $585,000 I’d be willing to throw another 30% in if it will make you happy.”
facts is facts
July 22nd, 2011
1:19 pm
Dave R., because I make no distinction between “growing a business” and “growing a life”. If corporations, hedge funds and Wall Street card sharks claim “gains” and “losses” as income, they should be taxed. I don’t see the difference between some worker bee who earns $50,000.00 as a computer engineer or public school teacher, and some stock broker or hedge fund manager who earns $50,000.00 (in one day); pumping and dumping a stock or short selling. It’s ALL income. In addition. In a perfect world, the playing field would be level and people would be honest, but I think that ‘dream’ ended when Eve bit into the apple, right?
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
1:21 pm
Paul
I saw that too!!!
To his credit, he popped back in at 1:15, but there was no attempt to engage either what Mike or Fletch posted……..
Fletch
July 22nd, 2011
1:21 pm
WOODSTOCK MIKE- “Now we know who the richest guy is on this blog…”
I doubt I’m the richest, I merely answered RB’s question.
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
1:21 pm
Mike – you can put it all in caps if you like, but it’s still making 5x the median. so, yes, it is rich.
it’s not Paris Hilton rich (to maintain the earlier theme) … but it is rich.
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
1:24 pm
Mike @ 1:17
Is that not what our government has been doing for the past 30-40 years, spending everything it had plus more just to be at the top of the pile?
Now, people are saying that the government should not spend more than what it brings in.
md
July 22nd, 2011
1:24 pm
“Last year I put up exactly $585,000 I’d be willing to throw another 30% in if it will make you happy.””
Sounds like Buffet……..why is it that folks will only do what they think is right/needed if others are forced to do the same? Otherwise, it’s a no go…………..
Libertarian
July 22nd, 2011
1:25 pm
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
12:21 pm
You beat me to it. Agree. These people are ridiculous. Most of those things are local issues.
You name a REAL “service” that the Federal government currently provides and I would most likely opt out of it. I would keep national parks and defense (although, i would cut it). Opt out of all entitlements (I already don’t benefit from any of them), Arts funding, Federal education funding (leave local), foreign aid, planned parenthood, NPR, farm subsidies, tax subsidies to companies like GE who pay ALMOST NOTHING in taxes….this list could go on forever.
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
1:28 pm
Fletch
Let me say also, I applaud you and your demeanor here even more. To know you pay that much in taxes is one thing. To know that and see that you don’t have Bitchfest 2011 on this blog about taxes says much more about your character than anything else I’ve seen to date. I tip my hat to you, sir…
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:28 pm
Woodstock Mike – USinUK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg-zT3DZN40&t=0m15s
USinUK
July 22nd, 2011
1:30 pm
Paul –
thanks – that’s just what I needed before heading home!
everyone, have a great weekend
and Jay – travel safe!!!
md
July 22nd, 2011
1:30 pm
Adding insult to injury?
“Casey Anthony gets job offers, taxpayers get legal bill”
And this is part of the problem………how many go on to do well in society yet are never required to repay the assistance given……….we need to start giving folks that choose to vacation in our penal system loans vs assistance………
out of the blue
July 22nd, 2011
1:30 pm
Mighty Righty “Playing with hand grenades”
Before you make such nefarious comments you might want to re-check your history concerning Max…He was awarded both the bronze and silver stars for VALOR, and your comment was Despicable!
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:33 pm
Fletch
I do not mean this personally, only wish to use your post as a springboard.
In spite of the images we’re normally treated to (the brash Wall Streeter screaming “Look what I did!”) my impression from knowing some in Fletch’s situation is there is oftentimes much more evidence of humility. Of a recognition they’ve been blessed by circumstance as well as by their own efforts. That Life has provided opportunities that, grateful they’ve been able to utilize them, there’s also a grateful recognition that Life didn’t impose something else.
Fletch
July 22nd, 2011
1:33 pm
md – “why is it that folks will only do what they think is right/needed if others are forced to do the same? Otherwise, it’s a no go…………..”
I understand your logic, but your comment is in error. RB only asked for a dollar number, to which I responded. Also, if you follow the logic of ” feel free to give more to the government if you want” it will become the same problem that you rail against. If I, or anyone else, begins sending in extra money, and you do not, I will inherently be paying for you.
md
July 22nd, 2011
1:33 pm
You folks do know that it is a 50/50 proposition when others post unsubstantiated info…..right?
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:34 pm
Have a wonderful weekend, USinUK
Jefferson
July 22nd, 2011
1:34 pm
I don’t know what rich is but I know what it takes to live good and taxes don’t put people in the poor house, people do.
Jefferson
July 22nd, 2011
1:35 pm
Actually rich has little to do with money, but most GOPers let money run(ruin) their lives. Not all.
oldguy
July 22nd, 2011
1:36 pm
JAY….Jay…..Jay
“And as Chambliss takes pains to point out, all savings generated by changes in Social Security would be used to make Social Security financially sound. It’s an important point: No revenue generated by the self-insurance program is being spent elsewhere.”
And you were actually able to say that with a staight face!!!
We had this discussion a few weeks ago…
The SS “Trust” fund was put ON BUDGET in 1963 by good old LBJ to fund the “Great Society” that wonderful program that gave us Cabrini Green in Chicago and many other urban ghettos!
Any change in the self insurance plan will do little or nothing to solve the SS problems…… Unless the government is planning to repay the Trillions its stolen from the fund.
How about this: if the government is “obligated” to pay the interest due on the borrowed money to finance the national debt why are they not “obligated” to pay interest on the money “borrowed” from the SS Trust Fund????
Fletch
July 22nd, 2011
1:37 pm
Paul and Brosepuhus – I appreciate the kind words. I honestly don’t have a political axe to grind, so my responses tend to be direct replies to the questions asked.
If someone was to ask me what my net worth was, I would tell them it’s none of their business. However, I don’t mind sharing pieces that may be relevent to the topic at hand.
Message from Matti
July 22nd, 2011
1:38 pm
RB from Gwinnett,
Unless YOU are a regular listener of NPR, seek health services from Planned Parenthood, or benefit from aid to Pakistan, then you didn’t actually answer my question as to which services you are willing to forego. Thanks for posing, though.
Libertarian
July 22nd, 2011
1:38 pm
I wish people would stop demonizing the “rich” (or their version of rich). There’s nothing wrong with being rich. I paid six figures in tax last year and, call me selfish, but I do not want to pay another dime. I think the majority of it was wasted on some kind of bureaucratic BS. I would much rather spread that around to the charities and causes of my choosing. Its difficult to write six figure checks to the government and then read about all the ridiculous waste (cowboy poetry, anyone?)
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:38 pm
md
“how many go on to do well in society yet are never required to repay the assistance given”
Understandable. One can observe, thought, the government brought the charges. The government had a responsibility to ensure it was prepared to prove its claims. If the person they accused does not have the resources for an adequate defense, it’s society’s responsibility to make sure a defense is provided.
So the gov’t accuses, the gov’t doesn’t make its case, the person accused shouldn’t be required to ‘pay back’ the gov’t to defend against their accusation.
Which is far different from someone convicted of a crime being allowed to profit from the crime thru books, movies, tours, etc. Which, I believe, statutes exist to prevent from happening.
Dave R.
July 22nd, 2011
1:38 pm
“because I make no distinction between “growing a business” and “growing a life”. ”
facts is facts, what a business does to grow a business is their business, not yours. What someone does to grow a life is their business as well, and not yours.
md
July 22nd, 2011
1:38 pm
“If I, or anyone else, begins sending in extra money, and you do not, I will inherently be paying for you.”
You would be doing that anyhow, so what’s the difference??
If that is ones ideology, fine…so be it…..but don’t talk it, live it………………..
How much does one really need to be comfortable?? I think it is borderline hypocrisy………
Wonder how many folks Jay is taking on vacation with him knowing their are tons of folks that can’t afford one??
Or how many homeless folks are living in the basement of our Hollywood elite??
I think for the most part, it’s all lip service……………
Mighty Righty
July 22nd, 2011
1:39 pm
out of the blue
July 22nd, 2011
1:30 pm
Mighty Righty “Playing with hand grenades”
Before you make such nefarious comments you might want to re-check your history concerning Max…He was awarded both the bronze and silver stars for VALOR, and your comment was Despicable!
My comment may have been insensitive but it was accurate as anyone knows. He was not wounded in combat. He was infact playing with a grenade when it accidently went off. His words, not mine.
Fletch
July 22nd, 2011
1:40 pm
md -”You folks do know that it is a 50/50 proposition when others post unsubstantiated info…..right?”
Of course it is, what type of evidence is it your looking for?
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
1:41 pm
md
I take a man/woman at their word until proven otherwise. Regardless to how much or how little somebody earns, the most valuable thing a person has, in my eyes, is their honor, and their word goes a long way towards the value of their honor.
oldguy
July 22nd, 2011
1:42 pm
p.s. Jay,
Just what is the “Gang’s” plan? Where can I get a copy??
what is the senate bill # ??
What is the CBO’s rating of its impact ???
The answers: none, nowhere, none, nothing to rate.
Adam
July 22nd, 2011
1:42 pm
Excellent article Jay.
I just love seeing the con responses to this. Either not reading, not comprehending, or just plain ignoring the substance of the article in favor of trotting out talking points. You guys would be better off on websites that are made of articles that say exactly those things. But then I guess you wouldn’t be able to express fear and outrage against those you dislike so much as joy over people agreeing with you.
Craig Spinks
July 22nd, 2011
1:42 pm
Leadership, by its nature, is risky business.
The timid need not apply to positions requiring it.
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:43 pm
Fletch
You are most welcome.
I imagine you’ve gathered there are bloggers who have a difficult time understanding some can discuss or take a position based upon principle, not upon the personal benefit or disadvantage that may accrue.
Schrodinger's cat
July 22nd, 2011
1:44 pm
As I said yesterday – “They’ll deal…in the end it will have zero teeth..It’ll be called the “great get me re-elected act of 2011”…it’ll have higher taxes and spending cuts to never be enacted in the future..or present…both sides will spin it as a win….unless someone has the will to shut-er-down…I’m not convinced it’ll be the end of the end..remember the stimulus both sides agreed on to keep unemployment below 8%?..to believe either side in whole is naive.”
md
July 22nd, 2011
1:44 pm
“Of course it is, what type of evidence is it your looking for?”
Evidence I’d recommend you not post on an anonymous blog……….
So I reserve the right to remain skeptical………as I would suggest others do even with myself…….
and soco…..that’s fine……to each his own……..
Paul
July 22nd, 2011
1:45 pm
oldguy
“Just what is the “Gang’s” plan? Where can I get a copy??
what is the senate bill # ??
What is the CBO’s rating of its impact ???
The answers: none, nowhere, none, nothing to rate.”
You may want to start here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeFwdcpWzQM
Uncle Jed
July 22nd, 2011
1:46 pm
Out of the Way, Please, Mr. President</b.
The Gang of Six puts forward some ideas worth pursuing.
She is writing about President Obama as excerpted below with link following:
…He’s trying to come across as the boss, the indispensable man, the leader. And, of course, the reasonable one.
That’s all very nice and part of Political Positioning 101, but at this point it’s not helping. He’s becoming box-office poison. His numbers are falling. The RealClearPolitics composite job approval poll rating has him down six points since June 2, when the debt ceiling crisis began. That fall, from 52% to 46%, exactly tracks his heightened media presence and his increased attempts to be seen as dominant. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said that if he ran for president today he’d lose, that his job numbers are “worse than they appear,” and that he continues to have real trouble with undecided voters.
And if you’ve watched him lately, you know why. When he speaks on the debt negotiations, he is not only extremely boring, with airy and bromidic language—really they are soul-killing, his talking points—but he never seems to be playing it straight. He always seems to be finagling, playing the angles in some higher game that only he gets. In 2½ years, he has reached the point that took George W. Bush five years to reach: People aren’t listening anymore.
The other day he announced the Gang of Six agreement with words that enveloped the plan in his poisonous embrace: “I wanted to give folks a quick update on the progress that we’re making.” We’re. He has “continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together.” What would those little devils do without Papa? “The good news is that today a group of senators . . . put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged.” I’ve urged. Me, me, me.
That approach includes “shared sacrifice, and everybody is giving up something.” He was like a mother coming in and cheerily announcing: “Dinner’s served! Less for everybody!”
We’re trying to begin a comeback, not a famine. We’re trying to take actions that will allow us to grow.
He’s like a walking headache. He’s probably triggering Michele Bachmann’s migraines.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I love a woman with spunk, and Peggy Noonan offers a perspective that is usually right on target. I have heard her lay into folks from all colors of the political rainbow AND she is pretty dang smart.
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Uncle Jed
July 22nd, 2011
1:47 pm
Okay, I blew the darn HTML tag, AGAIN
Fletch
July 22nd, 2011
1:47 pm
Paul – “I imagine you’ve gathered there are bloggers who have a difficult time understanding some can discuss or take a position based upon principle, not upon the personal benefit or disadvantage that may accrue.”
LOL, I know. I’m still waiting on a reply from yesterday when I asked a blogger if he felt I overpaid for 19 Angus head (4 Bulls, 15 Heifers. I got a lot of words, but none of them addressed the question.
Fletch
July 22nd, 2011
1:48 pm
md – “So I reserve the right to remain skeptical………as I would suggest others do even with myself…….”
Understandable and not unreasonable.
Schrodinger's cat
July 22nd, 2011
1:49 pm
Uncle Jed…That’s why I call him President “Odrama”
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
1:49 pm
md
I’m like you, that evidence should not be posted here. I wouldn’t have even suggested posting a figure on taxes, but that’s just me. I think that’s a big part of what’s wrong with us as a society. We want to get all into everybody else’s business, but when it comes to something personal, it becomes an invasion of privacy.
I’m skeptical of everything, mostly due to the job I have. However, I believe that an honest person is worth their weight in gold when it comes to their word. There’s many ways to find out whether their word is worthless or not though.
Brosephus
July 22nd, 2011
1:50 pm
Catch y’all later… Time to get out and about.
williebkind
July 22nd, 2011
1:53 pm
“among his fellow Republicans in Georgia’s House delegation, most of whom have taken a deeply irresponsible approach to the nation’s fiscal crisis.”
Who was irresponsible for not passing a budget in 2010? Who was in charge? Oh I remember, you could not pass a budget until you rammed ObamaCare down the American peoples’ throat. Liberals sure have a peculiar way with facts and history.
Fletch
July 22nd, 2011
1:53 pm
Brosephus – “Catch y’all later… Time to get out and about.”
Enjoy, I hear it’s pretty steamy down there this week.
M E Brooks
July 22nd, 2011
1:56 pm
The issue is not a Revenue Problem. It never is. It is a Spending Problem. If they truly wanted to raise revenues, they would lower the Tax Rates across the Board like JFK, Reagan, and Bush 2.0 did. In each case revenues increased by $300 Billion, $200 Billion, and $300 Billion. Whenever Tax Rates exceed 19% of the US GDP, Revenues decrease. The real purpose of increasing the Tax Rates is to force a greater percentage of the populace into dependence upon the Federal Govt’ – i.e. Democrats for their lively hood. If it was about Revenue, they would lower Taxes. The truth is that the current system is gamed and will lead to default unless the borrowing stops. It is not a revenue problem. The problem is the Federal Govt’ addiction to spending our money.
oldguy
July 22nd, 2011
1:58 pm
Saw it live Paul…..
“This is a Comprehensive Debt …….. Bla…..bla….bla”
Politicospeak!
No specifics, no details, NOTHING EVEN CLOSE TO SOMETHING RATABLE BY THE CBO!!
i.e. nothing but a kiss and a promise !! as usual.
The old “Trust us” appoach Like the TV ad “Try it, you’ll like it!”
Do I thust politicians ?? NOOOOOOOOOOO!
josef
July 22nd, 2011
1:58 pm
I finally got and answer to the question I’ve been asking. Rich is anybody who makes more than I do and the way to “move up” is to make sure I can keep as many below me as possible by whatever means possible. Got it. It was so simple and there I was trying to complicate it with such silly things as dollar amounts. I’m such a slow learner. The good news is, there’s a whole lot of rich people in the country!
Then here we come putting figures on it so others will know just how much we’re “worth.” Granddaddy always said never let anybody know what you’ve got. That’s an invitation to come and take it one way or another and a fool and his money ARE soon parted. Granny said it was “just plain tacky and trashy.”
Somebody else said rich was being in a position to never have to work again. Well, in that case I suppose I am rich. And you know what? I am. Not ostentatious, not gaudy, none of that, but comfortable. Which means I can go back to work next week doing what I love to do and, hopefully, giving back a little of my self and time to all our future. I’ve got a good, solid, loving relationship, three well-adjusted, happy and productive children, smiling, laughing grandkids, and air conditioning that’s churning away as I sit blathering away…life is good. But, then, I’m rich. I wish everybody could have it this good. What’s wrong with that?
Uncle Jed
July 22nd, 2011
1:59 pm
(I like to fix my errors, sorry for the re-post–I hope it displays correctly this time)
Out of the Way, Please, Mr. President
The Gang of Six puts forward some ideas worth pursuing.
She is writing about President Obama as excerpted below with the link following:
…He’s trying to come across as the boss, the indispensable man, the leader. And, of course, the reasonable one.
That’s all very nice and part of Political Positioning 101, but at this point it’s not helping. He’s becoming box-office poison. His numbers are falling. The RealClearPolitics composite job approval poll rating has him down six points since June 2, when the debt ceiling crisis began. That fall, from 52% to 46%, exactly tracks his heightened media presence and his increased attempts to be seen as dominant. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said that if he ran for president today he’d lose, that his job numbers are “worse than they appear,” and that he continues to have real trouble with undecided voters.
And if you’ve watched him lately, you know why. When he speaks on the debt negotiations, he is not only extremely boring, with airy and bromidic language—really they are soul-killing, his talking points—but he never seems to be playing it straight. He always seems to be finagling, playing the angles in some higher game that only he gets. In 2½ years, he has reached the point that took George W. Bush five years to reach: People aren’t listening anymore.
The other day he announced the Gang of Six agreement with words that enveloped the plan in his poisonous embrace: “I wanted to give folks a quick update on the progress that we’re making.” We’re. He has “continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together.” What would those little devils do without Papa? “The good news is that today a group of senators . . . put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged.” I’ve urged. Me, me, me.
That approach includes “shared sacrifice, and everybody is giving up something.” He was like a mother coming in and cheerily announcing: “Dinner’s served! Less for everybody!”
We’re trying to begin a comeback, not a famine. We’re trying to take actions that will allow us to grow.
He’s like a walking headache. He’s probably triggering Michele Bachmann’s migraines.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I love a woman with spunk, and Peggy Noonan offers a perspective that is usually right on target. I have heard her lay into folks from all colors of the political rainbow AND she is pretty dang smart.
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Message from Matti
July 22nd, 2011
2:00 pm
Oh, here we go again with the throat-ramming fable again. Stop projecting your personal, fantasy-related inner conflicts onto the rest of us, please. Thanks!
jaypat
July 22nd, 2011
2:00 pm
Nothing in this post by Jay Bookman is grounded in reality. Cutting Social Security does not make “common sense” unless you live by the reality as described by right-wing organizations like the Robert Wood Foundation . Social Security is not a part of the problem here; in fact, it is the Social Security Trust Fund that is funding a large part of the operation of the government. It is deliberately deceitful to claim otherwise. Shame on you!
Apparently many of the favored voices at the AJC seem to think the US is still on the gold standard. That ended in 1971. (August 15th of this year will be the 40th anniversary of the event.) Why does that matter? Because on the gold standard, the value of the dollar was tied directly to the amunt of gold on hand compared to the number of dollars outstanding (at the time $35/ounce of gold.)
Now the dollar “floats” (varies in value) against all the other currencies in the world. “Balancing the budget” or “cutting the budget” has no effect on inflation or prices. Doing either will only make the problem worse BECAUSE the root of the economic situation is a lack of customers. They don’t have enough money to buy the goods and services that are necessary to get the economy going again.
As nearly as can be determined,almost $6 trillion was sucked out of the economy during the housing crash. (The total economy of the US is about $14 trillion.) That’s why unemployment is still so high. That’s why states are seeing their revenues shrink. And if we proceed down this contractionary path, it is only going to get worse, not better.
I wish the AJC would hire someone who knew enough about the modern economy to write cogently about it. The current offerings are pitiful in their ignorance.