Economy

Rant

Thanks Grover!

Posted 9 months ago|22 comments|391 views
But the Monster Looks So Loveable!
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
Now that America's Credit rating has been down graded, everyone will be pointing fingers over who is to blame. I think when everything comes to light everyone will agree that it is all Grover's Fault. Let me explain.

Grover Norquist since 1986 has been coercing Republicans to sign a pledge to never raise taxes for any reason. He enforces this pledge by cutting off the flow of money to those who don't sign and uphold the pledge, and by recruiting and supporting challengers to those who don't tow the line. http://www.washingtonpost.com/how-grover...

All but 13 of the Republicans in Congress and most of the Republican Governors have signed the pledge.

It doesn't matter if we have wars, national disasters, economic catastrophes, almost all Republicans have promised not to pay for any of these things.

That is the real reason we have a debt problem. It isn't that we have a spending problem. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our schools are in trouble and our students not able to compete. We are laying off police, firemen, and releasing prisoners, and we can't compete in research and development or encourage the high tech green jobs.

The problem is that the Republicans took a budget surplus, and then started two wars, doubled military spending, give the drug companies billions in Medicare part B, and then gave the rich huge tax cuts, and didn't pay for any of it. The doubling of the National Debt is all because Republicans had pledged not to pay for their purchases, and instead just put it on the credit card.

Then their policies resulted in an economic meltdown which further reduced revenue by 25%. It is clear to all economists that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem, but the right has an effective propaganda machine that convinces people that black is white and up is down.

During World War Two, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and much of the cold war, we were able to maintain our AAA bond rating by raising taxes on the rich to 90%. When Bush started two wars he reduced the effective tax rates on the rich to 17%. http://www.creators.com/opinion/mark-shi...

Since then gap between the rich and the rest of us have grown to obscene amounts. At the same time 2/3rds of corporations pay no taxes at all. Corporations used to pay 28% of our bills now they only pay 1/6th of that. http://failedempire.wordpress.com/2011/0...

Now the Republicans have made an ideological stand to maintain this unfair class warfare, and to try to starve the beast until the government can no longer protect or help the people at all.

All of the economists told the Republicans that messing with the debt ceiling extension was playing with fire, that it would cause uncertainty in the markets and a drop in consumer confidence. They were told that it would result in disaster, but they were willing to risk destroying the nation economically, because their main goal was to defeat Obama, and they know that even if the Republicans destroyed the economy, Obama will be blamed for it.

For the first time in the history of S&P the United State's AAA bond rating has been reduced. This will lead to higher interest rates which will mean higher house payments which will slow down our economy even further and cost thousands of jobs. This also means that the interest on the National Debt will probably also increase. Now rates are at historic lows. This year we will pay about $500 billion just for the interest on the debt. If Treasury bills go from their current rates of less than .1% to just .2% Interest, then the current $500 billion would double to a Trillion dollars. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/poli...

This entire debt ceiling fiasco which caused the downgrade was entirely preventable. This entire downgrade was a Tea Party inflicted wound. The debt ceiling extension which until now was a simple bookkeeping exercise which has been done routinely 77 times, had been held hostage for purely ideological reasons. It was to protect the Republican pledge not to raise taxes for any reason.

Most economists and 2/3rds of the American people thought a balanced approach to reducing the debt should include budget cuts and tax increases to the rich. But the Tea Party and indeed all of the Republicans refused to raise any revenue at all, or even to cut wasteful subsidies to oil companies that are making record profits. Most Tea Party members of the House declared that they would not vote for an extension of the debt ceiling for any reason.

In its statement, S&P said that it had changed its view "of the difficulties of bridging the gulf between the political parties" over a credible deficit reduction plan.
S&P said it was now "pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics anytime soon."

In other words S&P knows that it is impossible to pay off the debt without revenue increases, and the intransigence of the Republicans means that unless they change their mind about no new taxes, than there is no chance that we can get our fiscal house in order.

The Republicans have drawn an ideological line in the sand. All of the debt must be paid on the backs of the poor and the middle class, and the rich and the corporations will never be asked to share in the belt tightening.

S&P knows that this is nonsense. The poor and the middle class are already suffering too much. That is why there is no demand and why the economy isn't recovering.

S&P knows that even if ALL social programs are eliminated that it still wouldn't balance the budget. The only way to balance the budget and start paying off the National Debt is if the people with 90% of the money in the country start paying their fair share.

Because the Tea Party was willing to destroy the nation's economy to protect tax cuts for the rich, our debt will probably be increased $5 trillion in 10 years because the interest on the debt will double. Because the austerity programs the Tea Party insisted on, will slow down the economy and cause another recession, It may cause another $5 or $10 trillion to be added to the National Debt because there will be less people paying taxes and more people dependant on government services. But that is OK because the ideological Tea Party radicals were able to coerce $2 trillion in cuts to social programs.

Thanks Grover!

UPDATE - 9 months ago
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

From Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors "Research Update" (pdf) – the actual report on what they did and why – published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress – and even the Gang of Twelve – will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: I thought the tax cuts included everyone, including people that get tax refunds without paying any taxes to begin with. It's easy for someone with no money to point out that someone else isn't paying their fair share. 90% tax is fair? Hardly.

If you want a fair share, then advocate a fair tax. From each according to his ability to pay. Make everyone pay the same percentage, no loopholes. If you make 10,000, then give Uncle Sam 1000. If you make a billion, then give a million.

Stop making the income tax system a social entitlement program, and it might just work. Use social entitlement programs instead.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: "Just over half of federal government spending in fiscal 2008 was mandatory. Almost all such spending is for entitlements, expenditures for which depend on individual eligibility and participation, and which are funded at whatever level is needed to cover the resulting costs. Less than 40 percent of spending in fiscal 2008 was discretionary"

"Mandatory spending has claimed a much larger share of the federal budget over the past four decades, more than doubling from about one-fourth of federal spending in 1962 to just over half today . In contrast, the share of the budget going for discretionary spending has fallen from two-thirds in 1962 to about two-fifths now."

"Interest on the national debt has fluctuated over the period: it climbed from 6 percent in 1962 to more than 15 percent in the mid-1990s, fell to about 7 percent in the early 2000s, and then rose again in recent years."

"Social Security claimed just over one-third of mandatory spending in fiscal 2008 . Medicare and Medicaid took up 25 percent and 13 percent, respectively. The remaining 28 percent covered income security programs (such as food stamps), retirement and disability programs (including pensions for federal retireees), and other programs."

"About half of fiscal 2008 discretionary spending paid for defense..."

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: That means that in 2008, 20% of the total budget went towards defense.
9 months ago: Al.

You didn't major in math, huh?

If you raise taxes to 100% of what is earned by everybody in the United States, it wouldn't fund the government to the end of the month.

It's something we tea partiers call "Common Sense".
9 months ago: I like how he started by not blaming anyone then turned to his truth...

The Tea Party did it... Well at least they are no longer blaming Bush.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
9 months ago: The only budget plan that actually does what the vast majority of the people want, balances the budget in 10 years and starts paying off the debt, is the Peoples Budget. It does this with a common sense balance of cuts and new revenue, and creates millions of new jobs which would further reduce the deficit. The Republican budget would add $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade! http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/04/23/t...

If you talk about common sense you should realize that if you buy a house you have to make the payments. If you have budget problems, you can stop going out to eat, you can stop buying stuff, you can tighten your belt, but you still have to make those house payments or you will loose the house. The budget austerity measures you make have little effect on the house payments.

The National Debt is the House payments. The austerity measures and budget cuts to the social discretionary spending is equivalent to going out to eat. The military spending is like buying a new car. As the Tax Policy info said that OOTB supplied, Military spending accounts for 54% of discretionary spending (Discretionary spending is what Congress can change). Republicans are trying to balance the entire budget by cutting only the non military discretionary spending. That same source will show you that non military discretionary spending is only 46%. But Discretionary spending is only 38% of the total budget. That means that if you eliminated ALL nonmilitary discretionary spending it would only be 17.5% of the total budget. Since we borrow about 44% of the total budget, you can see that totally eliminating all government spending except military would still leave a deficit of 26.5% of the budget.

It should even be obvious to the math challenged like Red that we can't balance all of the budget on the poor and middle class. (Yes Red I did OK in math and did teach it too) The rich, the corporations, and the military, will have to make some sacrifices too.

Obviously we can't balance the budget without cutting the Military, the major spending source. It is just as obvious that we can't balance the budget let alone pay off the house, unless we have a job. (revenue).

The rich only paying 17% of their income in taxes is a joke. Until Bush the effective rate was 30% (including all the tax loopholes). Before Reagan the effective tax rate of the rich was 70%. The rich are only paying half of what they should. http://www.progressinaction.com/republic...

The Fair tax is also a joke. It is not fair and is just another scheme by the rich to pay even less that the 17% they are now paying. We have always had a progressive tax system but it has become less progressive with each Republican administration.

Revenue revisions would have to generate enough revenue to balance the budget. It can't be revenue neutral or we will continue to have budget deficits. but I do see some sense in the right's arguments. Income tax penalizes work which we want to encourage. If we had a simple transaction tax on Everyone of only.2% every time money was moved it would be fair, everyone would have the same rate, there would be no forms or loopholes and the banks would take it out automatically. But with the $1.5 Trillion daily gambling in currency speculation, derivatives, hedge funds and algorithmic stock trades that occur can occur several times in a minute, enough revenue could be ge
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
9 months ago: Enough revenue could be generated with a transaction tax to eliminate the Income tax, and it would just discourage harmful behavior.

We may not be able to pay off all of the debt by just taxing the rich, but just allowing the Bush Tax cuts expire will give us $800 billion. The rest has to come from other sources. A simple carbon tax would discourage harmful use of fossil fuels and part of the revenue could be used to offset increased energy costs while the rest could go into energy research so we can compete on the world market. How about charging the going private rate for mineral and energy extraction on government (our) land, instead of giving everything away for pennies? There are many other sources of revenue that now favor the rich and the corporations instead of the people. How about restoring tax fairness? http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/legislati...

On the budget cut side of the equation, it should be a balanced mix of Military and non military discretionary spending, but all tax cuts should be judged according to the effectiveness of the program. Does the program do what it was intended to do? Does it create jobs? Does it save money in the future? Right now we have no idea where military spending is going, how effective it is, or even what the spending is for or how much is spent. This is madness!

As far as entitlements, Social Security is stable till 2037 and would be stable indefinitely if the cap (above which no taxes are paid) was raised to 250,000.
Medicare needs some means testing to make it more stable but medical costs need to be reduced by investing in a nation wide computer network to help with diagnosis, treatment and to give side effects of drugs and interactions.

I blame Grover Norquist for coercing the Republicans into the pledge. I blame the Tea Party for being just plain crazy and for being willing to destroy the nation just to protect the tax cuts of the rich who bankrolls them.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: Where do you get your 38% figure for discretionary spending? Have the entitlement programs bloated to 62% of the budget already? If that's the case , we could eliminate ALL discretionary spending and still have a shortfall of 6%. Of course, that would mean no new roads, bridges, no military whatsoever, no space exploration, no disease research, and on and on.

Face it. We are borrowing money to give to people who feel like they deserve a free ride. Getting able bodied people off their duffs and back to work is the key. If we get entitlements back to 1970 levels (38% of the budget), and trim the total military to pre-2005 levels, we could begin paying down the debt next year. Oh yeah, get rid of Obama care, carbon tax, and value added tax, so free enterprise can start putting taxpayers back to work.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: Social Security would be stable if the government would keep it's greedy, lying, vote-buying hands out of the lockbox. If it hadn't been raided over and over again, retirees wouldn't haven't to face a life of abject poverty in their golden years, trying to live on $1400/month. Upwards of three trillion dollars has been stolen and replaced with worthless IOUs.

Medicare/Medicaid would also be stable if there were comptrollers enforcing the rules of use. The way it is now, you can write whatever you want on the application, and they have to accept it as truth, with no investigation. And the individual caseworkers are instructed to get as many people on the rolls as possible. It's job security for a whole bureaucracy.

The whole debt farce is just one set of the three different sets of books our government keeps. The true debt we are facing is almost 211 trillion dollars. How do you propose we pay that down? Even if we balanced the budget today, and had a zero deficit, this year our indebtedness would rise by $4.15 trillion. Do you think we can tax our way out?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: 36 million retirees collecting social security for an average of 14 years equals 504 million years of SS payments. Almost three trillion stolen from our retirees. That's almost $6000/year for every retiree in the country. Money that could have been going back into the economy.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: On the transaction tax: $2.00 out of every $1000 would not be terrible. Several trillion dollars changes hands every day in the US alone. That would be around $3 billion/ day or $1.1 trillion per year. That would be enough incentive to totally wipe out the stock market here, and finish driving all the big money players overseas. It would also be an open invitation of assassination for any President who even dared to propose such a tax. Look at what happened to JFK over simply wanting to return Silver Certificate money into the hands and ownership of the people. That wasn't worth nearly as much as a trillion dollars a year.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: RE: update

Ah yes, Standard and Poors, owned by McGraw-Hill, owned by Rock_McGraw, owned by the Rockefeller Group.

"Some even believe we (Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure---one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
David Rockefeller, "Memoirs", 2002
9 months ago: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle
9 months ago: Did you miss the part of the report that assumes that the tax cut for high income earners lapse from 2013 onward and the debt still rises to 78% of GDP by 2021? Or the part which says if interest rate increase by a whopping 50 basis points (1/2 percent) the debt would rise to 101% of GDP by 2021.

Can we say "Cherry Picking"?

Read it yourself page 4 and page 5. Next 2 paragraphs after your Republican statement.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2...
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
9 months ago: OOTB the 38% figure was from figure 1. Composition of federal spending from the Tax Policy Institute you sited. 54% is mandatory spending which is broken down in figure 4. All of the Mandatory spending goes to hard working Americans who paid into the system and deserve to retire on THEIR savings.

S&P said the main reason they downgraded our credit is that they believe that because of Republican resistance to any revenue that the Bush Tax cuts would not be allowed to lapse as scheduled. That would be disastrous to the national debt.

They had three scenarios. The one you site above is the worse case in which our credit rating is downgraded further to AA because the Republicans continue their intransigence and don't allow the Bush Taxes to lapse and they assume that "the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2
trillion) that the act calls for does not occur."

The thing about the Bush Tax cuts is that all that is necessary for them to lapse is that we do nothing.

It would be madness to allow them to continue, which would result in the further reduction of our credit rating and increased interest rates. The increased credit rates would make the interest on the national debt double or triple which would crowd out all other spending. that interest would also increase the size of the National Debt growing another trillion or more per year which would negate all of the budget cuts.

The best way to reduce the National debt is to restore our credit rating by having a balance of fair cuts and fair taxes on corporations and the rich and use that additional revenue to stimulate the economy, provide jobs, rebuild our infrastructure, and grow the economy.

Growing the economy and providing jobs decrease the size of the deficit because there are fewer people reliant on government and more people working and paying taxes.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: Yes you are correct about the 38% figure. I had forgotten about the huge 8% of all the trillions we collect in taxes that goes just to pay the interest on the debt.

"All of the Mandatory spending goes to hard working Americans who paid into the system and deserve to retire on THEIR savings."

Here is the 2010 breakdown on "mandatory" spending, which was at 55.3% of the total budget for that year:

Social Security = $700.7 billion, 20.0%
Medicare = $520.4 billion, 15.1%
Income Security[4] = $437.8 billion, 12.7%
Medicaid, Other Health = $290.0 billion, 8.3%
Federal Civilian and Military Retirement = $138.9 billion, 4.0%
Other = $86.1 billion, 2.5%

Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
9 months ago: It is becoming obvious that Congress will have to raise revenue and there is resistance because they think taxes discourage jobs. But we have thrown money at the rich and corporations for ten years and the rich and corporations didn't keep their end of the bargain and create any jobs.

Obviously if we raise tax rates so the rich and corporations pay their fair share while at the same time giving tax breaks if anyone ACTUALLY creates any jobs we can balance the budget, start paying off the debt and it won't discourage jobs.

On the transaction tax: .2% is such a small amount that it would not be a disincentive to people making legitimate stock trades, and would force the big guys to put a bit of skin in the game. This tax could balance the budget and the 98% of people who are not big traders would not even notice it!

The neat thing is that it wouldn't discourage job creation because the whole speculation wall street trading thing is totally divorced from the free market and doesn't have anything to do with Hayaks or Adam Smith's Business cycles.

It is true that a transaction tax would be more effective if it was enacted world wide. Europe has been considering this tax for quite a while and has been asking the US to join them for that reason. http://www.taxationinfonews.com/2011/01/...
and http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,578...

The Tobin Tax which was developed by James Tobin, a Ph.D. Nobel-laureate economist at Yale University, has been around for a while and it would be the best and least painful of any taxes. http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: It took about 8 years for the Reagan tax cuts to kick in and jump start the economy, and we enjoyed twenty years of economic prosperity. It took about 8 years for the Clinton tax increases to start us into a downward slide again. When W reinstated the tax cuts, they would have worked out fine over time as well, but we have suffered through 2 years of Obama promising to not only raise taxes, but also to invent new taxes on business, such as value added taxes, health insurance taxes, and carbon taxes.
Obama is more than willing to let the tax cuts ride, knowing that the average citizen will assume that tax cuts don't work as an economic stimulator, without looking at the bigger picture.

".2% is such a small amount "

It looks like a small amount on paper, until you apply it to real figures. $1,000,000 x .002 = $2000.00

So if I want to gamble on the stock market, which is a gamble already, it's going to cost me two grand just to roll the dice.
9 months ago: Al.

You're worried.

We're about to break you.

You're howling at the moon.

You are about to come over to our side.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: Standard and Poors is also the same agency that granted AAA status to the CDO's (collaterized debt obligations) that caused the financial crisis. CDO's, backed by nothing but garbage mortgages and liar loans (no documentation loans) and Alt A junk loans given to borrowers who couldn't get credit at the local convenience store.

Over 30,000 CDOs got the AAA rating from the S&P. This email from an S&P employee, uncovered by a Congressional investigation, says it all: "Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters." But even when it became obvious that the mortgage glut was over, S&P didn't get out.

S&P is a tool of the bankers, and a tool of the Rockefeller Group.

Ironically, S&P was given legitimacy by the Federal government in order to bless new new bond issues to wary investors. It has turned and bitten the hand that feeds it.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
9 months ago: OOTB Reagan tripled the National Debt by cutting taxes and borrowing to make up for the lost revenue. This behavior is what got us into the current deficit problem in the first place. We still haven't paid off Reagan's debt. Unemployment went up to 10.8% after his big tax cuts.

Inequality also exploded during his term because Reagan just shifted the tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class.

But Reagan wasn't as crazy as the current crop. He realized that this was unstable so he raised taxes 11 times. He is known as a small government fiscal conservative but the truth is he grew the size of the federal government enormously. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/0...

You are right about S&P being a tool of Wall Street, but these are the same guys that started and funded the Tea Party. The Tea Party are dupes of the rich who are using them to prevent them from having to pay their fair share.

But the pendulum has swung about as far right as it will go. In Wisconsin people took back their government in two Senate Districts, because the right overreached and now there is buyers remorse.

They were elected to create jobs, but everything they have done worsens the jobless situation. Popularity of the Republicans has nose dived, especially the Tea Party. As the austerity measures the Tea Party insisted on kick in we will loose millions of additional jobs and the economy will tank further. People will realize who is responsible for that just around election time.

Now even Wall Street is having buyers remorse. Dow is down 520 today. The Republican corporate sponsors are soon going to take their unruly children to the woodshed and are going to tell them they better play nice or they will cut off their funds.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
9 months ago: Altruist

Your statement about unemployment figures under Reagan is twisted. Unemployment jumped to 10.8% only because of the inept and ridiculous policies of Jimmy Carter.

After Reagan cut taxes, the unemployment figures dropped steadily until March of 1989, when the tax increases from Bush Sr. caused unemployment to creep back up again.

Then the Clinton traumatizing effects of NAFTA and other globalization policies were able to keep unemployment low, but also kept wages low.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times. Do you know which taxes he raised? Reagan raised payroll taxes to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, and slowed the marginal budget increases by over 30%.

The only new government division created under Reagan was the Dept. of Veteran's Affairs, which added about 60,000 new jobs to administer to the veterans of US wars and their dependents.

Wisconsin had recall elections for six state positions. After millions of dollars were spent (once again) on campaign rhetoric, only two seats were returned to the Democrats. The voters decided that they would be better served by leaving the remaining 4 Republicans to represent their wishes.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.