Obama holds upper hand in budget confrontation
The reputations of pollsters Rasmussen and Gallup took a deserved beating in the 2012 election, but if nothing else they are still valuable when judged relative to themselves. Rasmussen, for example, now reports that President Obama’s job approval rating among likely voters is at 55 percent, his highest level in a Rasmussen poll since June 2009.
Gallup reports similar numbers:
That would seem to suggest that Republican denials notwithstanding, President Obama comes into negotiations on the so-called fiscal cliff with a considerable amount of leverage. Newly released numbers from a Washington Post/Pew Center poll confirm that assessment:
Given that reality, it’ll be interesting to see the outcome of today’s secret ballot among House Republicans, who will be asked to elect a new chairman of the House Republican Conference. As we reported Monday, House Speaker John Boehner has thrown his support behind Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who qualifies as a moderate, if only within the very narrowly conservative House GOP caucus. If elected, she would also become the only woman in the House GOP leadership, which currently has no women holding any of the 21 House committee chairmanships.
However, those on the more conservative end of the very conservative GOP caucus are rallying behind Georgia’s own Tom Price. That includes House Budget chair Paul Ryan, fresh off his experience on the losing end of the presidential race.
A Price victory would constitute a pretty serious setback for Boehner and would indicate that when the time comes, the speaker would not be able to deliver GOP votes for the budget compromise that will be needed. It would also suggest that House Republicans have not yet learned the necessary lessons of the 2012 election, including the dangers of extremism and the wisdom of outreach to female voters.
If so, they are courting yet another reminder.
– 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
642 comments Add your comment
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
November 14th, 2012
1:03 pm
“Although recent elections in the US House” … was decided by the 2011 “gerrymandering bonanza”
F. Sinkwich
November 14th, 2012
1:05 pm
Why is the fiscal cliff of any concern to Jay and the clump of clueless collectivists here? One would think that the prospect of massive tax increases and slashed defense spending would red-line their nirvana meter.
Regardless, anything short of total capitulation by the republicans to O’bozo and his loonie leftie legislators will be met with total derision, ridicule, and scorn by their MSM amen choir.
Opposition at this point is a fool’s errand. The country has spoken. Majorities want freedom and liberty replaced by a welfare state. O’bozo has succeeded in radically transforming what was once the last best hope for mankind.
RIP USA 1776-2012
Marx on, Comrades!
Mr Right
November 14th, 2012
1:06 pm
Apparently winning less than 51% of the vote in the election means the libs can bash the GOP! I still remember the 2010 elections, yup, the GOP will live to see another day in spite of what the libs say!
Stevie Ray
November 14th, 2012
1:06 pm
guy
November 14th, 2012
12:27 pm
Finally a voice of reason..nice work
Brosephus™
November 14th, 2012
1:06 pm
Re Social Security:
Put me in the “Screw means testing” camp. What needs to be done first before any kind of tinkering happens is that we need to create sustainable J-O-B-S and not just the burger flipping kind. More people working equals more revenues without doing anything to tax rates/percentages. The better paying the job, the more money that flows into Social Security. We’ve been on a steady decline of jobs since the 1970’s as we have had recession after recession followed by “jobless” recoveries.
Our problems are due to a lack of revenues, but it’s not because of tax rates. We need jobs!!!!
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:07 pm
Speaking of SUVs, I’ll tell you some “Bush tax cuts” that should expire. The huge Section 179 deduction for SUVs. IRS, you could generate a lot of tax revenue by auditing every business that took the huge Sec. 179 deduction on SUVs.
alex
November 14th, 2012
1:07 pm
Fun movie, great song…
Mandate–shmandate, divided country, both sides have to compromise, if they do not nothing will get done, fingers will point, and we’ll all be worse off for it, Can’t tax out of it , can’t remove al ot of bennies….
Erwin's cat
November 14th, 2012
1:08 pm
Our problems are due to a lack of revenues, but it’s not because of tax rates. We need jobs!!!!
hear hear
Jefferson
November 14th, 2012
1:08 pm
sinkwich is definately full.
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
1:09 pm
The cons lost two more seats in the US Senate. And remember how they were drooling about how the Dems had so many more Senate seats than they, that were up for re-election?
And in the House the cons had 19 incumbents get sent packing, for a net loss of nine.
All in all, the GOP pretty much got smeared last week…
Jefferson
November 14th, 2012
1:10 pm
Apathy makes for a sorry american.
Brosephus™
November 14th, 2012
1:11 pm
sfd
Dirt STILL does not vote.
—————————————–
But dumb as dirt did and still lost the WH AGAIN
Mick
November 14th, 2012
1:12 pm
sink
What kind of candy azz american are you? Stop the whining and remember the congress makes laws and the gop has been in control of the house 14 of the last 18 years!
It’s is beyond sad that your side sets the bar for the term “sore losers”, you wear it well…
DannyX
November 14th, 2012
1:12 pm
“RIP USA 1776-2012″
Sinkwich, get a hold of yourself and stop being such a hysterical drama queen.
MadMax
November 14th, 2012
1:12 pm
Get – if we keep printing money, eventually, everyone will be a millionaire; But possibly, the million dollar threshold will be the poverty line by then,
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
1:13 pm
SfD — “Their influence may very well outsize their raw numbers–consider, if you will, that Fox News’ most popular programs only snag a couple million viewers per night, but they are still the “Number 1 Cable News Source”–and with time and money to burn, they could make things very difficult for sane politicians who want to keep these crucial programs afloat.”
“That make sense?”
Mmmhh . . . yes and no. I think I understand where your objection is coming from, but it seems to be expressed as ‘let’s not pizz off the proles.’
Frankly, I think that voters need to be *reminded* that SS isn’t a Federal retirement program and was never meant to be; that most Americans won’t make it if SS is all they have; that Americans can easily go down to their bank and open a retirement account and that the original — and current — purpose of SS was to save your bacon if you retired in poverty. I think Americans need to be reminded that SS is *insurance* and that’s how they should be thinking of the program — and I think that public opinion could be redirected with enough effort on that score.
Besides that, when you remind people that SS is insurance and not a retirement program, it kinda cuts the legs out from under a lot of conservative arguments about privatizing SS or ‘I wanna invest mah munneez MAH way.’
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
November 14th, 2012
1:13 pm
To paraphrase Beldar Conehead:
~It is as if we have grabbed them by the base of their snarglies~
John Konop
November 14th, 2012
1:13 pm
Joe H M,
…….. FWIW, I much prefer the idea advanced earlier; of lifting the income cap entirely and subjecting *all* income, including interest, to the SS tax..
Once again it will not work over time via less workers and more retires. Right now Medicare pays out 2 to 3 times what someone contributes while working. Seriously it is simple math without adding more people paying you cannot tax your way out with payroll tax. And with the savings rate being so low, you do not have enough people that qualify for your reduced payout plan. The only way out is cutting cost and increasing people that contribute. The upside to a VAT or national sales tax is you have contribution from foreign tourism and business via their expenditures. Also the wealthy do consume way more than lower income people. Finally, a NST or VAT would be no different or less to lower income people than payroll taxes today.
Brosephus™
November 14th, 2012
1:14 pm
EC @ 1:08
I have yet to hear a single friggin’ economist make that fact known. That’s why I don’t give many of the talking mouthpieces much of an audience for anything. Until we address the basics, none of the other stuff matters.
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
1:14 pm
The McCarthyites just suffered their third humiliating defeat in the past four elections.
What gives, Andy?
You manly Republicans can’t even beat a few pinkos?
LOL…
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
November 14th, 2012
1:15 pm
Let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire and then turn around and give the middle class a tax cut (so it will be a wash for them.)
You don’t even have to discuss it with Republicans!
Obama to Boehner: “Tell it to the hand, Boehner; talk to the hand.”
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
1:17 pm
Brosephus — “Our problems are due to a lack of revenues, but it’s not because of tax rates. We need jobs!!!!”
I don’t disagree at all.
I think we were talking about budgety, wonky things because that’s where the thread started.
John Konop
November 14th, 2012
1:19 pm
Joe H M,
BTW I am not saying not to do any means testing, I am just saying your formula does not add up via the ratio of low savings, large increase of ratio of retires to workers and not enough wealthy people.
AmericaShrugged
November 14th, 2012
1:19 pm
Ah the lib myth of gerrymandering. Funny, I thought the gerymandering was after the 2010 election where the Reps did even better in the House than after the gerrymandering. Romney won 24 states, the Reps hold 30 of the governor spots. If you take the Presidential results by county it’s a Republican rout. Truth is they have to gerrymander districts to get more minority/liberal representation because the libs only constitute a majority in urban areas.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:19 pm
Brocephus – I hear what you’re saying about creating jobs, and no need to raise tax rates. However, since job creation and economic recovery are issues of public confidence, what can be done to create meaningful jobs? There is no public confidence now. We don’t generate sufficient tax revenues to reinstate Roosevelt era public works programs. What’s the solution?
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
1:21 pm
J. Konop — “Once again it will not work over time via less workers and more retires.”
Not sure I follow you. You’re advocating more workers added into the revenue mix. I’m advocating more workers *and* more investors into the mix. Either you’re misunderstanding me or I’m misunderstanding you — or both.
“Right now Medicare pays out 2 to 3 times what someone contributes while working. Seriously it is simple math without adding more people paying you cannot tax your way out with payroll tax.”
I think you’ve missed a post or two of mine. I advocated applying FICA to *all* income — from all sources — a page or two ago. That’s not just workers, that’s investors as well.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
November 14th, 2012
1:22 pm
“Ah the lib myth of gerrymandering”
right. so when the Dems were accused of it, it was a fact, when the GOP does it, it’s a myth.
laugh. flipping. riot.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:22 pm
Joe – aren’t you creating a 7.65% tax rate increase?
John Konop
November 14th, 2012
1:23 pm
Brosephus,
I would argue eliminating payroll taxes and using a VAT or NST would increase jobs.
I would argue making the cuts I proposed and reinvesting into infrastructure would create jobs
I would argue creating an even playing field between big business and small business would create jobs, by eliminating the breaks to them and lowering the rates to small business.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
1:24 pm
A. Shrugged — “If you take the Presidential results by county it’s a Republican rout.”
If you take the raw popular vote, we retained the White House, the Senate and took the House as well. You’re outnumbered and surrounded, son.
Name me one Democrat incumbent at the Federal level who ran for office and lost on Election Day.
Redcoat
November 14th, 2012
1:24 pm
We live in a democracy now……right?
AmericaShrugged
November 14th, 2012
1:24 pm
SS – Take off the cap for collecting, raise the retirement age. Income tax – Lower the rates and flatten the brackets, eliminate most of the deductions and credits, and tax cap;ital gains and dividends at the same rates as ordinary income, jus tlike the bi-partisan committee suggested. It’s fair, as long as you consider progressive tax rates fair, and it limits the damage to the weak recovery.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:25 pm
Joe – I’d say that if investment income is taxed at 7.65% FICA, there should be no consideration at all for phasing out benefits based on income. Fair is fair.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
November 14th, 2012
1:26 pm
Republican gerrymandering … the facts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-gops-gerrymandered-advantages/2012/11/13/4785e4d6-2d2f-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_story.html
As The Post’s Aaron Blake reported, Democrats narrowly outpolled Republicans in the total number of votes cast for congressional candidates. The margin varies depending on whether you count the races in which candidates ran unopposed and those in which members of the same party faced off (as happened in several California districts). But any way you count it, the Democrats came out ahead — in everything but the number of House seats they won.
Consider Pennsylvania, where President Obama won 52 percent of the votes cast, and Democratic Sen. Bob Casey defeated his Republican rival, 53 percent to 45 percent. Yet Democrats won just five of that state’s 18 U.S. House seats. They carried both districts in the Philadelphia area — by 85 percent and 89 percent, respectively — and three other districts, by 77, 69 and 61 percent. Of the 13 districts where Republicans prevailed, GOP candidates won seven with less than 60 percent of the vote; in only one district did the Republican candidate’s total exceed 65 percent of the votes cast.
Why such lopsided numbers? Because Republican-controlled redistricting after the 2010 Census packed Democratic voters into a handful of imaginatively shaped districts around Pennsylvania’s urban centers and created a slew of GOP districts in the rest of the state. The overwhelming Democratic margins in the two heavily African American Philadelphia districts didn’t require constructing oddly shaped districts, but carving up the rest of the state to minimize districts that Democrats might win required politically driven line-drawing of the highest order.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
November 14th, 2012
1:26 pm
America Shrugging
Well first you’ll never succeed with posture like that.
Stand up straight.
Are you admitting to the entire blog that you don’t know the basic civics surrounding census and redistricting?
Do Highlights, Seventeen or Boys World have blog space for you?
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
1:26 pm
Nunna Yobinnes — “Joe – aren’t you creating a 7.65% tax rate increase?”
Another poster wisely pointed out that broadening the FICA applicability to all income types (and removing the income cap) would allow us to lower the rates at some point.
This is the Republican idea of broaden-the-base-and-lower-the-rates at work, right before your eyes.
AmericaShrugged
November 14th, 2012
1:27 pm
USINUK – Of course both parties gerrymander districts, that’s not the point. You act like 50.6% makes the lib way the only way and the American way. Fine, so please tell me why we have 60% godless heathen Rep governors. No gerrymandering there.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
November 14th, 2012
1:27 pm
“Name me one Democrat incumbent at the Federal level who ran for office and lost on Election Day.”
oh! oh! oh!!
I know this one!!
pick me!!
Mick
November 14th, 2012
1:28 pm
Raise the retirement age? How’s about lowering it? Know any constuction workers that are getting up at the age of 66 ready for labor? What about anyone that’s 55, feel like thats a good age to kick back maybe?
stands for decibels
November 14th, 2012
1:29 pm
Besides that, when you remind people that SS is insurance and not a retirement program, it kinda cuts the legs out from under a lot of conservative arguments about privatizing SS or ‘I wanna invest mah munneez MAH way.’
Well, I’ll give you that much.
And you’ll get no argument from me in the need to educate Americans on the need to sock it away for the future. If you want a truly sobering set of numbers–and mind you, this chart ends BEFORE the meltdown:
median value of holdings
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=549&Topic2id=49
family net worth
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=547&Topic2id=49
Again, I suspect the numbers have decreased significantly since these charts were published, and the 2007 numbers don’t exactly give you the warm/fuzzies.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
November 14th, 2012
1:29 pm
“You act like 50.6% makes the lib way the only way and the American way. Fine, so please tell me why we have 60% godless heathen Rep governors. No gerrymandering there.”
you seem to confuse state-wide races with congressional races.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
1:29 pm
Nunna Yobinnes — “Joe – I’d say that if investment income is taxed at 7.65% FICA, there should be no consideration at all for phasing out benefits based on income.”
Why? SS is *insurance.* As I’ve been saying for most of this thread, if you outlive your term life policy, you don’t get jack back from your insurer. If I outlive my policy, then my premiums will go toward paying off a policy for some guy that died while *his* policy was in force. That’s how insurance works.
And it should be how SS works. Only those at or near poverty should be receiving benefits from it. If you’re well-off in retirement, you shouldn’t be able to collect on it, just like I shouldn’t be able to collect on my life policy if I outlive it.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
November 14th, 2012
1:31 pm
And with that … I’m away home …
have a good night, all!!
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:32 pm
sfd – how do you encourage a society to invest for their future retirement years, when they thought they WERE doing that, and now their 401-k or IRA is worth 40% or less of what it used to be?
Mick
November 14th, 2012
1:33 pm
**If you’re well-off in retirement, you shouldn’t be able to collect on it,**
Bullfeathers, you pay into it, you should get back from it, end of story. No changing the rules in the middle of the game, that is truly un-american!!!
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
1:34 pm
SfD — “Again, I suspect the numbers have decreased significantly since these charts were published, and the 2007 numbers don’t exactly give you the warm/fuzzies.”
Creepin’ Cheebus. That makes me want to save harder and faster.
AmericaShrugged
November 14th, 2012
1:35 pm
Granny – Say what? I think I understand it well enough. States gain or lose seats in congress every ten years based on the census results. In most cases state legislatures then do the re-districting. In some states the governor gets a final say and in others the justice dept has to approve the plan to preserve minority representation. Any of that inaccurate or conflicting wih anything I posted please let me know. Otherwise please admit you don’t understand the process.
Stevie Ray
November 14th, 2012
1:35 pm
BRO
Of course you are correct about jobs..what we know for sure is that 100% of either supply side or demand side philosophies work in and of themselves…taxing the “rich” will not really make much of a dent…especially if like me, you feel that they have already been spent..
We need to get banks lending…IMO the only way that will happen is if we break em all up…otherwise, eliminate the concept of too big to fail..
We have a capitalist society sans a very important element…competition…not for silly cell phones or other luxuries, we need banks to lend…
getalife
November 14th, 2012
1:37 pm
There is only one party that voted no on ending SS and Medicare.
It is ignorant to allow our congress to get their corrupt hands on SS and Medicare.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:37 pm
I don’t know Stevie Ray – “You can’t borrow your way out of debt.”
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
1:37 pm
Mick — “Bullfeathers, you pay into it, you should get back from it, end of story.”
Try that line on an insurer. Any insurer.
If you don’t get sick, you don’t get your health insurance premiums back.
If you don’t die, you don’t get your life insurance premiums back (well, you can via an ROP policy, but I understand those are rarely sold).
If your house doesn’t burn down, you don’t get a refund on your homeowner’s policy.
This is how insurance has always worked, and SS *is* insurance. It has been since Day One.
“No changing the rules in the middle of the game, that is truly un-american!!!”
I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe you should go read up on OASDI (the ‘technical name’ for SS), how it came to be and how it works. You’ll find that it’s *insurance,* just as I’m telling you.
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
1:38 pm
We live in a democracy now……right?
We have since 1789.
There was ONLY ONE Incumbent US Senator who was not returned to office.
And with that defeat, a hale and hearty congratulations goes out to Elizabeth Warren!
Consumer advocate and a real threat to banksters and white collar criminals everywhere!
MadMax
November 14th, 2012
1:38 pm
For all those making the “SSI” is an insurance arguement. You only buy insurance for things you want/need to protect. If I’m well off, and prudent, why would I buy insurance for something I will never need? I’d agree it’s a surtax (because I have no choice but to pay it and it’s paid with my after tax income). but insurance, no. That’s a stretch even in post Obamacare SCOTUS America. It’s more like those surcharges on your phone or cable bill. They look and smell like a tax but they are not a tax.
Fred ™
November 14th, 2012
1:38 pm
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:32 pm
sfd – how do you encourage a society to invest for their future retirement years, when they thought they WERE doing that, and now their 401-k or IRA is worth 40% or less of what it used to be?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why you deregulate the banks, insurance companies and Wall Street so they can transfer the rest of that 60% over to the uber rich where it belongs………
stands for decibels
November 14th, 2012
1:39 pm
how do you encourage a society to invest for their future retirement years, when they thought they WERE doing that, and now their 401-k or IRA is worth 40% or less of what it used to be?
Hey, I’m just the unpaid help, how would I know?
but living wages, medicare for all, improved infrastructure, make it so people don’t have to blow quite so much of their income on transportation and internet access (have I mentioned today how badly screwed we are on that?)–this is the kind of stuff a progressive government can advance.
so, you know, work on that.
Stevie Ray
November 14th, 2012
1:40 pm
JOE
I agree but also disagree on your statement that SS is insurance. Premiums are paid and benefits are defined to be certain…more like an annuity…It bears no resemblance to it’s original intent….but with insurance, you have to actually have assets to offset current and future obligations…and future tax payers payables don’t count…unfortunately for us, we will never recover but a fraction of what we have put in…
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:40 pm
Getalife – I always heard that LBJ basically “borrowed” a huge sum from SS for regular budget purposes, and never paid it back (probably followed by more administrations). Correct? Incorrect?
AmericaShrugged
November 14th, 2012
1:40 pm
US – I’m not confusing anything. You act like America has spoken and it’s all Dems all the time. I’m telling you the Dems pretty much only win urban areas and gerrymandered districts, because that’s where there constituents live, which explains why they have the minority of governors and congressmen.
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
1:40 pm
Here is he first rule in losing – when you get smoked, do not pretend that you didn’t.
John Konop
November 14th, 2012
1:41 pm
Joe H M,
….. Not sure I follow you. You’re advocating more workers added into the revenue mix. I’m advocating more workers *and* more investors into the mix. Either you’re misunderstanding me or I’m misunderstanding you — or both….
The problem is Medicare pays out about 2 to 3 the amount a worker contributes over the time they had a job. This amount is increasing via healthcare rising way faster than GDP. You understand without making cuts you cannot tax your way out?
Second baby boomers are creating way more retries than workers via a ratios we have never seen in our country. Using a payroll taxes with a shrinking ratio to fund a growing ration of retired people will be a disaster over time. By replacing it with a VAT or NST now you have everybody who buys something paying into the system. Also you have businesses, tourist…….also helping to fund the entitlement. Also if done right we could slowly start putting away annuities for younger people that would eventually get us out of this mess on the SS side.
Finally this is why your formula will not work, we do not have enough rich people to fund the vast majority over time. The current formula only worked if you are growing workers verse retires. BTW we know this is true via the pension, healthcare problems companies, states……are facing today with retired people.
Read below if you think I am wrong. That is why if we do not widen people paying in via NST or a VAT it will not add up.
Pew Study Finds States Face $2.73 Trillion Bill for Retiree Benefits
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=32368
Fred ™
November 14th, 2012
1:42 pm
AmericaShrugged
November 14th, 2012
1:40 pm
US – I’m not confusing anything. You act like America has spoken and it’s all Dems all the time. I’m telling you the Dems pretty much only win urban areas and gerrymandered districts, because that’s where there constituents live, which explains why they have the minority of governors and congressmen.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is that the new talk radio/Fox news line?
stands for decibels
November 14th, 2012
1:44 pm
By replacing it with a VAT or NST
um… Replace? no. We have to own up to how we’ll need to amend our existing income taxes with additional sales taxes, and maybe we’ll get somewhere.
Because if one seriously talks about replacing income taxes with a VAT, one is off to FairTax la-la land. I’ll leave that to Neal Boortz and the Scientologists.
getalife
November 14th, 2012
1:44 pm
noneya,
They should payback the iou’s, return to full employment and cut corporate welfare instead.
It is time for corporate power to take some personal responsibility and run their corporations without welfare.
Also, there is a new revenue stream by taxing legal weed in legal States.
AmericaShrugged
November 14th, 2012
1:46 pm
Fred – If that’s the best you can come up with you should share the pointy hat with getalife. Please tell me why 30 of the governors are Republican if America loves the liberal Dem way?
Mick
November 14th, 2012
1:46 pm
joe
Sorry, but your “interpretation” doesn’t wash and I’ll be collecting what I put in just like whole life insurance.
Otherwise, let me take my own money from the beginning and invest it, then call me a republican…
Stevie Ray
November 14th, 2012
1:47 pm
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:37 pm
Agreed but that’s not my point..point is that the banks righted their balance sheets with our dough and now they have trillions of capital to employ to fund mortages, business expansions, new business development, R&D and the like…but they won’t…..there are a litany of reasons why but seems we should break them up if not solely to generate a competition to put that money to work…government can’t create a meaningful amount of permanent jobs…no matter what…
We need a no-holds barred plan to reduce deficit and debt that is believable…the problem is that the tax increases are hard to undue while spending cuts are easy to defer…I don’t believe a lick of anything out of DC that cuts spending…what track record do we have?
alex
November 14th, 2012
1:47 pm
Ok to pay into ss and get less out if this philanthropy is recognized in tax benefits or health care benefits ……
@Nunna, Look to the LOOOOng term, be smart, read Bogle papers and pray like hell……..
getalife
November 14th, 2012
1:48 pm
shrugged,
Do not pretend you are smarter than others because you are not.
Thanks.
alex
November 14th, 2012
1:51 pm
@ Stevei, can we believe the banks marking after the mortgage debacle ?But yes the banks and GM were right at the expense of the public and bond-holders./ Well at least The great Octopus has fewer parteners named this year than in years past…..
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:53 pm
Alex – weren’t the banks “forced” to lend to unworthy credit risks? I think the government has to share the blame in the “mortgage debacle”.
Fred ™
November 14th, 2012
1:53 pm
AmericaShrugged
November 14th, 2012
1:46 pm
Fred – If that’s the best you can come up with you should share the pointy hat with getalife. Please tell me why 30 of the governors are Republican if America loves the liberal Dem way?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does that mean you don’t know the answer to my legitimate question or does that mean you DO know and are too ashamed to answer?
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
1:56 pm
…the Dems pretty much only win urban areas…
Hello?
Does that mean that Repubs pretty much only win where there are lots of cows, pigs and chickens?
The answer in both cases is yes.
The GOP has, with its Southern Strategy, apparently permanently ceded both coasts and the upper Midwest to the Democrats.
That means virtually all of America’s greatest centers of commerce, education and culture…
Not good for the once Grand Old Party…
Fred ™
November 14th, 2012
1:57 pm
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
1:53 pm
Alex – weren’t the banks “forced” to lend to unworthy credit risks? I think the government has to share the blame in the “mortgage debacle”.
++++++++++++++++
Nope. They did it on their own. It worked out really well for them. They made the bad loans. They forced people making the bad loans to pay PMI in case they defaulted, (and the PMI companies are owned by the bank) and then when folks defaulted they didn’t use the money paid into PMI, the stuck us, the US taxpayer with the bill. Oh and to make it sweeter, they also foreclosed on the houses.
So they got their loan money back, they got the propoerty, AND they got to keep the money that they raped people for years (and still are) for PMI.
Sweet deal if you can get it. Why are YOU defending this crap? I thought you were one of them “capitalism” dudes.
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
1:58 pm
It is time for corporate power to take some personal responsibility and run their corporations without welfare.
That’s what I’m talking about!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbbFoEAE1I
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
November 14th, 2012
1:59 pm
AmericaShrugged
November 14th, 2012
1:35 pm
Granny – Say what? I think I understand it well enough. States gain or lose seats in congress every ten years based on the census results. In most cases state legislatures then do the re-districting. In some states the governor gets a final say and in others the justice dept has to approve the plan to preserve minority representation. Any of that inaccurate or conflicting wih anything I posted please let me know. Otherwise please admit you don’t understand the process.
.
.
.
I not only understand the process….I reminded folks of the consequences of sporadic voting late in 2010 right at this very blog.
Perhaps you could just tighten up your prose and open up your mind.
Perhaps not.
stands for decibels
November 14th, 2012
1:59 pm
I have yet to hear a single friggin’ economist make that fact known.
wait a minute–doesn’t Krugman count? He’s always talking about the need to focus on jobs jobs jobs. In fact, he is getting tired of trying to reason with you people, I hear.
(and not just Krugthulu of course, but guys like Reich and my favorite “recovering economist,” Atrios.
getalife
November 14th, 2012
2:01 pm
The Dems won the argument by winning the election.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
2:01 pm
I have a hard time buying that the banks came out ahead on the foreclosures. They can’t sell them. My understanding was that the government more or less forced the lenders to make loans to unworthy credit risks to avoid “discrimination” repurcussions.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
November 14th, 2012
2:01 pm
JamVet…. “urban areas” is part of the new code word/dog whistles. Used by Ryan, for example, to claim his economic proposals were not rejected.
Ben Shockley
November 14th, 2012
2:02 pm
Joe Hussein trying to tell us Social Security is insurance, not an entitlement, because “If you’re *well-off* financially in old age, you shouldn’t be able to claim the benefit.”
Unfortunatley, that’s not how it works. You pay in, you collect. Entitlement. Not insurance.
School’s out for the day Joey, run on home now, little one.
stands for decibels
November 14th, 2012
2:03 pm
So they got their loan money back, they got the propoerty, AND they got to keep the money that they raped people for years (and still are) for PMI.
And I believe, can’t actually confirm, that they disappeared anyone who dared utter the word “cramdown” on TeeVee.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
November 14th, 2012
2:03 pm
AMerica Sloucher
“Urban areas”…new code for an nasty old concept and where around 80% of the population resides.
Doggone/GA
November 14th, 2012
2:05 pm
“Because if one seriously talks about replacing income taxes with a VAT, one is off to FairTax la-la land. I’ll leave that to Neal Boortz and the Scientologists”
Not neccessarily. That’s only true if the VAT is a flat rate. It doesn’t have to be
Ben Shockley
November 14th, 2012
2:06 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
1:37 pm
“Mick — “Bullfeathers, you pay into it, you should get back from it, end of story.”
Try that line on an insurer. Any insurer.
If you don’t get sick, you don’t get your health insurance premiums back.
If you don’t die, you don’t get your life insurance premiums back (well, you can via an ROP policy, but I understand those are rarely sold).
If your house doesn’t burn down, you don’t get a refund on your homeowner’s policy.
This is how insurance has always worked, and SS *is* insurance. It has been since Day One.”
Ummm, well, no, that’s not how it has been since Day One. It’s an entitlement. You pay in, you collect. You’re ENTITLED. Not insurance.
Thinking JHM is going to be asked to attend summer school and/or repeat 3rd grade this year.
getalife
November 14th, 2012
2:08 pm
Our President attacks the gop for going after Rice.
No scandal in Benghazi.
Said he has a mandate to help the middle class not the wealthy.
Deal with it cons.
You lost.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
2:08 pm
I don’t think SS is an entitlement, although to some extent it is treated that way. However, is SS really “insurance” or an “annuity”?
getalife
November 14th, 2012
2:11 pm
Get governments stinking hands off SS and Medicare.
The only thing they should do is payback the money they stole from the fund.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
2:11 pm
MadMax — “For all those making the “SSI” is an insurance arguement. You only buy insurance for things you want/need to protect. If I’m well off, and prudent, why would I buy insurance for something I will never need? I’d agree it’s a surtax (because I have no choice but to pay it and it’s paid with my after tax income). but insurance, no.”
Sorry, yes,
In the United States, Social Security refers to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) federal program.
Punch up OASDI in Wikipedia and that’s what you’ll get.
Doggone/GA
November 14th, 2012
2:12 pm
“The only thing they should do is payback the money they stole from the fund”
They didn’t steal it. It’s backed by the same “IOU’s” that the Chinese are so eager to buy from us.
Mama Says
November 14th, 2012
2:13 pm
Jay,
Here’s a challenge for you, if you dare to take it.
I challenge you to write a non bias blog each day for a week.
Your blogs are obviously slanted toward democrats and tend to therefore slant against republicans.
Today’s blog is much of the same. You write it to shore up the democrats upcoming tax argument. You and I know you didn’t write it to point out the need for compromise. Had you decided to take a balanced position your blog would have spoken to the fact that this was a very close race, you would have pointed out that the electoral vote, although largely in Obamas favor, was decided by states who had vote totals that separated the two parties by 2 million votes out of 9 million or more that were cast. Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio were all decided by very close margins. Lose two of those states and its an electoral nail biter. You would also have mentioned that the voters left the house in the cons hands, which you and I both know contradicts the mandate or land slide argument your party has put forth. So speaking strictly about actual voter support, the nation is divided almost evenly on the subjects. Yes you can point out some clear majorities on individual issues. I for one support the democrats approach on the environment but then again I am against subsidies that are 4 times bigger than those we give the oil companies. Which by the way dosent seem to bother democrats. I mean looking forward we are arguing about degrees aren’t we ?
Dems can’t stand giving rich people tax breaks yet you fully support the same if not bigger breaks for green energy companies. So what’s the difference either way they are giveaways as far as our federal budget goes.
Bottom line here Jay is that you have used this blog to further the democratic talking points, be honest.
Can you do as Obama has asked and help bring us to the middle ?
Mick
November 14th, 2012
2:13 pm
ben
How strange it is to agree on something, but I’m ok with social security…
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
2:13 pm
How in the Wide, Wide World of Sports do you Republicans stand a chance going forward when your zeitgeist is still …………………………. Joseph McCarthy?
Fred ™
November 14th, 2012
2:15 pm
Nunna Yobinnes
November 14th, 2012
2:01 pm
I have a hard time buying that the banks came out ahead on the foreclosures. They can’t sell them. My understanding was that the government more or less forced the lenders to make loans to unworthy credit risks to avoid “discrimination” repurcussions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have a hard time “buying” because your “understanding” is flawed. The property WILL sell. Property always does. They got the money AND the property so when it sells isn’t a problem to the banks. I mean if it were they could sell it for much under value while STILL making a hefty profit. Let me break it down for you:
Let’s pretend that YOU gave 10 loans on 10 houses that all cost $250,000. The lendees ALL made payments for a time, so you are making money. But the lenders didn’t put down the amount of money that YOU judged was enough to make them vested so YOU made them all pay extra, non refundable money about and beyond the cost of the loan to “repay” the property in case you went into default.
Well all 10 houses went into default. Instead of using the “insurance” you made all those home owners pay, you got the Government to pay off all ten loans. You also kept every penny of the premiums of the “mortgage insurance” without paying out a dime. So now you have not only all the property and all the loans paid in full, but you get the extra money you cheated teh property owners out of for however long they made payments.
SO even if you sell those 10, $250,000 houses for the ridiculous price of $100,000, you would STILL make another $1,000,000 of EXTRA profit. But the banks aren’t doing that. They are sitting on that property and waiting until it regains value. And why shouldn’t they? They have nothing to lose, we the taxpayers, paid their bills and everything they get out of the houses now is pure profit.
AmericaShrugged
November 14th, 2012
2:15 pm
Fred – I never listen to political talk radio and watch more CNN than Fox, very little of either. I’m also pro choice and in favor of gay marriage among other liberal leanings. What kills me on this blog is the bloggers who goose step to the party line no matter how absurd it might be and the totally irrational arguments they espouse to justify the party line. Or they result to some personal insult.
Your turn. Why are 30 of the governors Republican if this country is so liberal?
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
2:16 pm
My understanding was that the government more or less forced the lenders to make loans to unworthy credit risks to avoid “discrimination” repurcussions. (sic))
Then you are staggeringly ignorant of the facts.
Ben Shockley
November 14th, 2012
2:16 pm
Mick, I have an opinion on Social security, but JHM is offering his (incorrect) opinion as fact. There is no means-test for social security. You pay in, you collect. What you collect is based in part on what you paid in. It’s not insurance. It’s an entitlement. Period. To argue otherwise is, well, not so bright………………….
Fred ™
November 14th, 2012
2:17 pm
Wow. Benny found the courage to come back?
Hi Benny. Did you know that FOX lied and Romney’s election died?
getalife
November 14th, 2012
2:17 pm
Mama,
No.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 14th, 2012
2:17 pm
J. Konop — “You understand without making cuts you cannot tax your way out?”
And why do you think I was advocating means-testing?
“Second baby boomers are creating way more retries than workers via a ratios we have never seen in our country.”
Um, the boomers have been entering retirement for some time. Another 20 years and they’ll pretty much all be at retirement age.
“Finally this is why your formula will not work, we do not have enough rich people to fund the vast majority over time.”
When did I say anything about rich people?
Seriously, John, I get the distinct feeling that you’re either not reading what I’m writing or else you’re just skimming it.
Ben Shockley
November 14th, 2012
2:19 pm
Not only do you not have to be poor or otherwise demonstrate need to collect social security, you no longer even have to be retired.
You pay in/you collect. ENTITLEMENT.
Repeal of the Retirement Earnings Test (RET)
On April 7, 2000 “The Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act of 2000″ was signed into law, eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test (RET) for those beneficiaries at or above Normal Retirement Age (NRA). (The RET still applies to those beneficiaries below NRA.)
The legislation began its swift march through Congress on March 1, 2000 when the full House of Representatives passed H.R. 5 by a vote of 422 to 0. The Senate, on March 22, 2000 then passed the bill by a vote of 100-0 (with a technical amendment). On March 28, 2000 The House agreed to the Senate amendment by a vote of 419-0 and cleared the measure for transmission to the President.
This was a historic change in the Social Security retirement program. From the beginning of Social Security in 1935, retirement benefits have been conditional on the requirement that the beneficiary be substantially retired. This requirement was carried out by the provisions of the RET. The RET has changed considerably over the years. The requirement was first scaled-back in the 1950 Amendments, which exempted workers age 75 and older from the RET. The exempt age was reduced to 72 in 1954, and to age 70 and older in 1977. With the new legislation, starting at the NRA, Social Security retirement benefits will be paid to beneficiaries who are still working. Effectively, for those who have reached full retirement age, this repeals the requirement that the beneficiary be substantially retired in order to receive full Social Security retirement benefits.