I remember the days when a billion was a large number. I remember sitting in grade school being taught that the end of the numerical road stopped in the billions, because any number beyond that was irrelevant. Now, the current administration is throwing the number “trillion” like it’s yesterday’s holiday fruit cake.
The White House is now asking for Congress to increase the government’s debt ceiling limit by an additional $1.2 trillion. Will they get their way? Of course, because it’s politics as usual. The request will be made while the House is in recess. There will be no one there to challenge the request and hold the administration accountable for their “out of control” spending.
Let’s put the number “trillion” into perspective. Let’s say I agreed to give you one trillion dollars, with the catch being that I will only pay you one dollar every second. The transaction would take nearly 31,688 years, 269 days, 1 hour, 46 minutes and 40 seconds. That’s how much a trillion dollars is. Now the administration wants permission to spend another trillion dollars.
What’s more disconcerting is the fact that the additional debt limit increase will be used to serve the nation’s borrowing needs through 2013. This begs the question, what do we do beyond 2013? The answer: Increase the debt ceiling again.
When is enough, enough? When can Washington join the rest of us at the adults table engaging in an adult conversation? The federal government has a serious spending habit and they refuse to put in place accountability measures that protect our nation. They want and have a free license to spend as much money as they want.
What they fail to realize is that this money, which we don’t have, is not theirs to spend. They were merely elected to office to be the stewards of “our” money. There appears to be no regard to the long-term damage that most economists are predicting if these habits continue to persist.
Fortunately, for these politicians, the majority of them won’t be in office when their full destruction is realized. It will be left to our children and grandchildren to pick up the pieces. The tragic reality is that picking up the pieces will entail enormous taxes. They will be paying for our current politicians’ lack of regard for their future.
Perhaps the administration is hoping that this story will be lost on us since it is breaking during the holidays. Perhaps they are counting on the fact that many of us are not paying attention due to the business and craziness of the Christmas season. We should never stop paying attention, especially when it’s our kids’ futures on the line.
My hope is that Washington will stop fighting efforts to hold them responsible. I hope that they will understand that Washington needs to live by the same financial rules that we all have to live by. If you can’t afford it, don’t spend it.
Last year, the Obama administration lectured Americans about tough choices ahead of us during these tough economic times. As Americans, we were to make great sacrifices for the sake of our fellow Americans. Imagine if Washington lived by that same edict.
Michael “Winey” Weinstein can be heard on The Mike&Winey Show on 92.3 KTAR. (www.mike&winey.com).
Accuracy posted at 7:10 pm on Fri, Dec 30, 2011.
“Washington needs to solve its spending problem”
In particular, solve/ax the Congressional spending of the Social Security's annual surplus. Congress has said that the Social Security trust fund itself had a theoretical $2.6 trillion surplus . . . But, that Social Security tax money has/is being used for other purposes by the federal government.
The big $2.6 trillion trust funds, projected to grow to $4.2 trillion in 2023, that Michael “Winey” Weinstein did even not mention in his article.
Rich posted at 8:01 pm on Fri, Dec 30, 2011.
During the year 2022, all the people born in 1957 become eligible for Social Security. if you think, Winey, that people are overspending now, well, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Dale Whiting posted at 11:32 pm on Fri, Dec 30, 2011.
How about putting some contemporaneous perspective on this Whiney!
Washington spends when Congress approves the spending. And Congress approves the spending when Congressmen and Women get paid to vote for spending. And who pays Congress to approve spending? Not the Administration. Not the Supreme Court. Not the voters.
But most of the spending does go for salaries and benefits. When we buy something made in the US, those making what is bought get paid for the making. So just like Corporations, Congressional Spending goes to those who own stock, the stock is being favored by Congress.
Now think this out again, Whiney. Your approach is backwards and a bit misdirected. Log onto Bernie Sander's web page and sign his petition to overrule Citizens United and get the money out of politics so that we can get spending back under control.
chatmandu002 posted at 11:21 am on Sat, Dec 31, 2011.
The Tea Party core values are:
Fiscal responsibility.
Constitutionally limited government.
Free market enterprise.
Slabside posted at 3:03 pm on Sat, Dec 31, 2011.
Thank you chatmandu002. According to Dale and Cerulean the Tea Party is nothing but racists.
Cerulean posted at 8:09 am on Fri, Nov 4, 2011.
The closest thing to a minority I ever saw at a Know-Nothing tea party rally was a sign that made a references to "niggar" or "imam" etc. etc. etc. .
Dale Whiting posted at 7:36 am on Mon, Sep 5, 2011.
We Whites do have own support groups. Ever heard of the KKK? And when was the last time you saw a picture of a Tea Party ralley with a minority pictured in it?
Slabside posted at 5:42 pm on Sat, Dec 31, 2011.
The national debt on Jan 2007, BEFORE Pelosi and Reid picked up the nation's checkbook:
$8,675,085,083,537.48
a growth of $2,947,308,345,233.84 OR
$491,218,057,538.80 per year for Bush's first 6 years with a Republican controlled congress.
From the day DEMOCRATS took over congress Jan 3 2007 with the debt at:
$8,675,085,083,537.48
the debt grew to
$10,628,881,485,510.23 on the day Bush left office Jan 20 2009
a growth of $1,953,796,401,972.75
or $976,898,200,986.38 for each of the two years Bush had a DEMOCRAT controlled congress.
$976,898,200,986.38 per year with a DEMOCRAT congress vs $491,218,057,538.80 per year with a Republican congress AND the expense of 9/11 and the beginning of the war on terror.
Now compare that with $10,626,877,048,913.08 on Jan 20, 2009 the day Obama took office to $14,587,192,870,422.65 Aug 15, 2011.
treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Arizona Willie posted at 9:40 am on Sun, Jan 1, 2012.
No no no no no no no.
Washington doesn't have a spending problem.
It has an income problem.
Because of tax cuts and subsidies for corporations and tax cuts for the wealthy, the government isn't taking in enough to pay its bills.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM
Granted Bush the Lessor started two unfunded wars and the unfunded Medicare prescription benefit ALL ON BORROWED MONEY, which increased the deficit because he didn't do anything to increase revenues. In fact he decreased them.
That is what the Republicans call the height of personal irresponsibility when individuals borrow money they can't pay back.
But it's ok when they do it.
And they paint the Democrats with the evil brush because the Dems want to increase the governments income in order to pay the bills.
Evidently, if we elected another Republican President ( could we really be that stupid? ) we can expect the nations debt to be increased even more because the Republicans are eager to start a war with Iran and they want to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy even more.
No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.
No one is going to pay the countries bill but US.
Well, of course, the Republicans want your grandchildren to pay -- they refuse to pay themselves.
In most places I've been they call people like that " deadbeats ".
Republican Party = party of deadbeats.
Rich posted at 2:55 pm on Sun, Jan 1, 2012.
Uncle Donkey goes out and buys things he can't afford and Auntie Elephant let's him get a higher line on his Mastercard. An income problem? Maybe, since about 47% take rather than give. In the end Uncle Sam gets stuck with the bill. The thing is, we should probably consider reining in both Uncle Donkey and Auntie Elephant. This discussion is breaking down to a case of which extreme is worse.
Arizona Willie posted at 3:17 pm on Sun, Jan 1, 2012.
No the discussion is about whether the government has to kill it's social programs such as Social Security and Medicare ( which is what the Republicans are actually after though they aren't honest enough to come out and say so ), or if it should raise taxes on the wealthy and eliminate corporate loopholes and subsidies that let them get away with paying almost no taxes.
Mr.Whiney blames government for spending instead of blaming government for giving corporations subsidies and loopholes and letting them and wealthy individuals get away without paying their fair share for living in this country.
Obama should stop all corporate loopholes and subsidies by Executive Order and if a company tries to leave America it should be Nationalized.
Cerulean posted at 3:37 pm on Sun, Jan 1, 2012.
Yes, Slabside, those are words that I have seen on signs. I believe that tax evaders, skin heads, gun toting vigilante groups and “birthers” gravitate to the Know-Nothing tea party.
Winey wrote, in part, “Last year, the Obama administration lectured Americans about tough choices ahead of us during these tough economic times. As Americans, we were to make great sacrifices for the sake of our fellow Americans. Imagine if Washington lived by that same edict.”
I agree with the President, we need to make sacrifices. Fortunately, health reform is on its way as a first step to reducing the deficits. I wonder how Republicans would cut spending? They balk at reductions in military spending and squawk at the mention of tax increases on those with more than plenty of cash on hand. Republicans balk and squawk, balk and squawk, occasionally they bring out the sour whine. Would they follow Arizona Republican’s lead? Would Republican’s sell the White House to J.P Morgan, just to turn around and pay twice its worth to rent it? Would Republicans eliminate the EPA then sell the Grand Canyon to Canada to mine with impunity? Would Republicans end Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and the Federal Reserve? They may very well try!
Lastly, I wish all of the Trib. Staff and everyone, a healthy and joyful year!
Slabside posted at 7:57 pm on Sun, Jan 1, 2012.
@Cerulean, "Yes, Slabside, those are words that I have seen on signs. I believe that tax evaders, skin heads, gun toting vigilante groups and “birthers” gravitate to the Know-Nothing tea party."
Cerulean, please post a link to the picture of these signs at a Tea Party. You won't respond because you are a liar.
Cerulean posted at 7:34 am on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
Slab, I will put your derisive parlance aside and conclude that you are in denial. Your denial betrays your intelligence.
A simple image search for ‘racist signs at tea party events’ reveals 2,900,000 results.
Rich posted at 11:06 am on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
"fair share" is getting a little annoying seeing as it is only a rather silly cliche. Only the wealthiest pay anything close to a fair share, the government's budget divided by the population. 'fair share' apparently means, 'I don't want to pay so someone else should pay for me.' How about a minimum tax? When the 'credits' etc. reach zero, your tax is $100. So the 47% with the freebie pay at least a token. The notion that corporations etc. need to pay more is just ignorance to the point of brain death. Look at their P&L, taxes are either cost of sales or overhead, to which is added an overhead expense to collect it. In any profitable corporation the only taxpayer is the end user of the product or service. It's cheaper not to make corporations your tax collectors. 'fair share' is only idiocy that sounds good, and now just a silly cliche devoid of meaning.
Arizona Willie posted at 12:28 pm on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
Rich, if taxes are paid by the end user of the product or service and corporations don't actually pay taxes --- THEN WHY DO CORPORATIONS MOVE TO LOW TAX LOCATIONS?
Why do cities give companies tax breaks to induce them to move to that city? Why would a company care about tax cuts if they just pass them on and it doesn't affect their bottom line?
Can't have it both ways even if you are a Republican.
Either taxes influence corporations to take actions such as moving to a lower tax location or those cities are throwing away the tax money for nothing.
If the taxes don't affect the corporation they would not seek tax cuts. They would not pay lobbiests millions of dollars to influence Congress to write them special legislation that gives them tax breaks.
The statement that corporations don't care about taxes because they just pass them on the the customer is absurd on its face -- if you have the ability to think logically at all.
Rich posted at 2:10 pm on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
THEN WHY DO CORPORATIONS MOVE TO LOW TAX LOCATIONS? - To make their price more competitive and it is a form of bribery they can get away with.
Why do cities give companies tax breaks to induce them to move to that city? To get the corporations to donate to their next election campaign.
Why would a company care about tax cuts if they just pass them on and it doesn't affect their bottom line? Because leeches and the sufficiently ignorant either don't want to know or don't know that so it's bad PR to make a point of it. Also business taxes are about control, not money.
Either taxes influence corporations to take actions such as moving to a lower tax location or those cities are throwing away the tax money for nothing. Not for nothing, the politicians are doing it to use tax money to run for office, of course given the public officials we end up with under this system it's for less than nothing.
If the taxes don't affect the corporation they would not seek tax cuts. They would not pay lobbiests millions of dollars to influence Congress to write them special legislation that gives them tax breaks. Of course they would, and do. Taxation is a means of control above and beyond any payment, whether you pay or not the government still gets to know and influence your business.
The statement that corporations don't care about taxes because they just pass them on the the customer is absurd on its face -- if you have the ability to think logically at all. Yes, it is, and no one has said that but you. As far as money goes, they just pass it through. Taxes on business have very little to do with money and a great deal to do with political control. Read a corporate report and think logically, if you know what logic is and aren't just fooling yourself..
Slabside posted at 2:42 pm on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
Yes Cerulean as I figured... you lied yet again and then side step the issue. You are pathetic.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:24 am on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Rich, you are mixing taxes and ( political ) control. Yes government use taxes to control a lot of behaviors, personal and corporate.
But the TRUTH is that companies DO PAY INCOME TAXES. And they ARE NOT passed on to the consumer.
You talk about reading balance sheets . ha, yeah. Why do you think companies report AFTER TAX INCOME?
Companies do pass on sales taxes they pay but, just like you and I, come the end of the year they have Corporate Income Tax which is paid on their profit.
How exactly do you think that Corporate Income Tax is passed on?
If I bought a new Escalade last year do you think GM is going to send me a bill for another $375 for tax they had to pay on the profit they made on my car?
Absurd isn't it?
Companies care about how much income tax they pay because it leaves them less money to operate on and to pay dividends with ( if they pay dividends ).
Once again ... the TRUTH is that Corporate Income Tax IS NOT passed on to the consumer.
If companies added the Corporate Income Tax they paid last year to the price of their product this year that would have been compounding so badly that a can of pork and beans would cost $14.32 instead of $. 98 cents.
The cheapest Chevrolet car built would cost over $100,000.
Companies, on their balance sheets, report pre-tax and after-tax incomes.
TAXES MATTER to companies. The story that companies don't care about taxes because they pass them on to the consumer is a FLAT OUT LIE.
Yes, some taxes do get passed on.
But not the Corporate Federal or State Income Taxes.
Rich posted at 9:25 am on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Willie, either you are purposely trying to twist this or you are really not smart enough to understand basic bookkeeping. There are two classes of expenses, cost of sales and overhead, taxes can be in either or both, Income tax of all sorts becomes a feature of the price calculation. What you continue to spout is a nineteenth century idea that had failed pretty universally throughout the twentieth. It's a Utopian plan that is just plain silly if examined closely. It fails for several reasons, among them inflation, the sapping of greed/ambition, the attempted control of creativity, and the diminution of personal responsibility are only the tip of the iceberg. As to taxes, your Escalde example, projected income taxes were in the price you paid, it was one of the factors that made up the price and it was already in the corporate coffers before the car was bought by a dealership which was floored by a bank and offered to you. If you want to follow the money, the projected income tax is a part of the price a dealer paid, that was financed (in the auto business this is called flooring) by a bank or financial institution, and the money given to the corporation before the car is even offered for sale. The amount collected is the projection, plus a factor of overhead and debt service. Thus the end user pays the tax plus for the corporation to collect it. If you work, you pay FICA, by the time you collect any, you've already paid. Same principle.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:35 am on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Rich, your theory that corporations don't pay taxes is part of the failed trickle down Reaganomics.
The end of the discussion is the FACT that Corporations file Income Taxes. They are taxed. They cannot pas the tax they pay then on to the consumer because the tax is paid on profits made in their transactions with the consumer which happened prior to their calculating the tax.
PS. I did pretty well as a trader. I made enough to make the down payment on this house and buy all new furniture for it.
And, in 2007, I was able to see the market was corrupted and moved my money out of stocks and quit trading. I used to be sitting in front of my computer ready to trade when the market opened and I worked it all day long.
So I may not be too smart, but I ain't too stupid either. At least I can understand that companies DO care about their tax rate. I < don't > understand why you can't understand that. If taxes didn't cost they they wouldn't care.
period
end of discussion
Arizona Willie posted at 11:36 am on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Rich, please excuse the typos in that response. I hate this forum software because you can't edit your posts.
mnjcpa posted at 11:47 am on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Rich - my applause for your response & you've explained it best.
AZ Willie - I'm in the tax business and your logic is so far off it's laughable. The very methods you used to buy your house are the same at work with corporations. Costs are passed on to the consumer - no matter whether it's taxes or other costs.
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and it's not enough for folks like you. It never ends with a liberal and there's never enough. Everybody should benefit and be the same. Ridiculous!