The International Monetary Fund has finally stated the obvious: the United States lacks any “credible strategy” to stabilize its mounting debt — and our lack of restraint is now posing a threat to the world economy. The IMF does not mention President Obama’s decision to launch a third war and spend billions in Libya.
In the meantime, Obama is reportedly about to call for higher taxes. The failure of the Democrats to deal with the debt crisis and the decision to go to war in Libya will undermine the credibility of the Administration on the issue. Because of their failure to control congressional spending for years, the Democrats will now go into the next election with a demand for higher taxes and record spending. This is not to forget the wasteful and wild spending of George W. Bush. However, the Democrats had an opportunity to show greater fiscal control and anti-pork policies. They did not.
The IMF rebuke is well deserved. What is astonishing is that we have political system that appears immune from the disaster caused by leaders of both parties.
Source: FT
Swarthmore mom
The re-election rate in 2010 was 86%, with the lifer still in charge of the committees.
Bob From District 9
1- Take a breath before you give yourself a heart attack.
2- W’s and teamred’s spending topped even LBJ’s great society and Vietnam War spending, so they are as culpable as you think they are. Obama and teamblue have upped the ante in relation to W’s disastrous spending.
3- I lived in Brazil in the mid 80’s so I know what happens when the federales print money like there is no tomorrow. The difference between no money and worthless money is negligible when you can’t feed your family.
Are you allowing for the fact that GW Bush left Obama nearly $12T of that debt?
US debt when W took over 5.6T. When W left 10.6T. Current 14T. So sure why not the number is too big to quibble over 1.4T.
linky http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Have you forgotten, or didn’t you know, the fiscal year runs from Oct 1 to Sept 31 of the next year? Obama did not get a budget until Oct of 2009. At that time the national debt was somewhere around $11.8T. IOW, nearly $12T. Yes, that is worth quibbling about. Bush alone was responsible for half the debt Obama inherited. If you consider the fact that Clinton left Bush balanced budgets calculated to pay off the national debt in 10 years, and it is now 10 years after Clinton left office, I could reasonably attribute 100% of the national debt to GW Bush.
Are you allowing for the fact that the growth in debt as a percent of GDP from WW2 till Jan 2009 was 100% under three anti-tax republican presidents?
Sure, it also grew under teamblue, ergo both are at fault.
Wrong! Look at the stats available from the Federal Budget History Files. Note I said the debt as a percent of GDP. From the end of WWII till 1981 the debt as percent of GDP (The debt burden) went down consistently, under republican and democratic president. After 1981 the debt burden went from 33% of GDP to 67% when Clinton took office. When Bush took office it was down to 57% of GDP. When Obama took office it was pushing 90% of GDP.
100% of debt burden growth, debt as percent of GDP, growth from the end of WWII till 2009 was republican.
Are you allowing for the fact that we have not yet recovered from a near depression that may yet turn into a full scale depression?
The rate at which we are de-valuing the dollar via QE2, very high inflation versus a possible depression…pick your poison. We are screwed either way.
Not exactly the same. depression is collapse of the economic system, leaving most people with little or nothing, and nothing to counterbalance the fall. Inflation does hit incomes, but with any sort of COLA it also reduces the burden of debt. Deflation doesn’t do that. That is the big difference, and the reason to prefer inflation over deflation.
Again both parties spend, tax and borrow with reckless abandon. Until WE fire enough of them to get serious, cheer-leading for either of the two major parties is delusional. They are both in bed with big businesses, check the tarp vote. Constantly send the same fools to DC will give us the same results.
smallguy, “Different fools” were sent to DC in 2010, and they are making things worse. State government has been negatively affected by the new governors that were elected in 2010.
Bob From District 9 1, April 13, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Are you allowing for the fact that GW Bush left Obama nearly $12T of that debt?
US debt when W took over 5.6T. When W left 10.6T. Current 14T. So sure why not the number is too big to quibble over 1.4T.
linky http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Are you allowing for the fact that the growth in debt as a percent of GDP from WW2 till Jan 2009 was 100% under three anti-tax republican presidents?
Sure, it also grew under teamblue, ergo both are at fault.
Are you allowing for the fact that we have not yet recovered from a near depression that may yet turn into a full scale depression?
The rate at which we are de-valuing the dollar via QE2, very high inflation versus a possible depression…pick your poison. We are screwed either way.
Again both parties spend, tax and borrow with reckless abandon. Until WE fire enough of them to get serious, cheer-leading for either of the two major parties is delusional. They are both in bed with big businesses, check the tarp vote. Constantly send the same fools to DC will give us the same results.
12 Tax-Dodging Corporations Spent $1 Billion To Influence Washington Over The Last Decade
By Zaid Jilani
Think Progress, 4/13/2011
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/13/tax-dodging-lobbying-congress/
Excerpt:
As ThinkProgress has been reporting, while Main Street Americans are having their services gutted and public investment is being slashed, some of the country’s most profitable corporations are getting away with paying little to nothing in taxes.
A new report by Public Campaign examines how these major corporations have influenced Congress to craft a tax code that lets them get away with making so much money and paying so little taxes in return. In its report, “The Artful Dodgers,” Public Campaign juxtaposes the limited tax liability of dozen major corporations with the companies’ campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, which amount to more than a billion dollars over the last decade:
EXXON MOBIL: The oil giant that was the world’s most profitable corporation in 2008 has spent $5.7 million in campaign contributions over the last ten years and $138 million in lobbying expenditures. Its federal corporate income tax liabilities for 2009? Absolutely nothing. Not only did it pay nothing, but it also received a tax rebate the same year of $156 million.
CHEVRON: Chevron spent $4.4 million in campaign contributions and $91 million in lobbying expenditures over the last decade. It received a tax refund of $19 million in 2009 while making $10 billion in profits and $324 million in government contracts in 2008.
CONOCOPHILLIPS: The Texas-based gasoline giant spent $2.5 million in campaign contributions and $63 million in lobbying expenditures over the last decade. It received “$451 million through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction,” a special tax break, between 2007 and 2009, despite $16 billion in profits over the same period of time.
VALERO ENERGY: Valero spent $4.1 million in campaign contributions and $4.8 million in lobbying expenditures from 2001 to 2010. It received a $157 million tax rebate in 2009 despite $68 billion in sales during the same year. It received “$134 million through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction” over the last three years.
BANK OF AMERICA: Bank of America employees contributed $11 million to federal political campaigns from 2001 to 2010 and spent $24 million lobbying over the same period of time. It made $4.4 billion in profits in 2010 while receiving a tax refund of $1.9 billion.
CITIGROUP: Citigroup employees contributed $15 million to federal political campaigns from 2001 to 2010 and spent $62 million lobbying over the same period of time. It made $4 billion in profits in 2010 while paying absolutely nothing in federal corporate income taxes. It also received a $1.9 billion tax refund.
GOLDMAN SACHS: The mega-bank Goldman Sachs, which is often called “Government Sachs” in insider circles because of its clout over Washington, spent $22 million in campaign contributions and $21 million in lobbying over the last decade. It paid an ultra-low tax rate of 1.1 percent in 2008, while also receiving $800 billion in governmentloans to help weather the financial crisis.
Blouise,
An IPad for a 2 1/2 year old? Yikes! Yes, you should be careful in restaurants!!
Jim,
I am a little late, but you mentioned above that tax cuts are in Ryan’s budget. Yes, they are. Tax cuts for the wealthy and tax cuts for the corporations are part of his budget. Now, with that one trillion dollars of revenue is lost, guess who has to pay for it? The poor, middle class and seniors. A perfect storm for Teapublicans. Greed is such a wonderful vice.
BIL,
“Jim is just proving that his knowledge of English and history is on par with his knowledge of accounting and economics.
That is to say practically non-existent.”
Lol – He’d be pretty entertaining on “Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader?”
Jim
1, April 13, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Buddha Is Laughing
Your problem is that America has been giving to the needy.
*******
Ya, Buddha, we’ve been giving to the needy rich–but no matter how much they get they NEED more and more, doncha know!
Gyges,
I was always hoping Mel would get around to making “History of the World, Part II”.
Mel Brooks said it better than me, although you probably shouldn’t listen to this at work or around anyone that doesn’t know you laugh at profanity.
http://youtu.be/rYqF_BtIwAU
Jim,
“If someone pays 10% and another pays 35% then the one paying 35% pays more. It doesn’t matter how much one has. This is the problem with Liberals. They don’t understand basic accounting.”
Apparently you’re the one that’s bad at accounting.
If I pay 35% of $1 I pay #.35 if I pay 10% of $10 I pay $1.
$1>$.35
It very much matters what that percentage is based on.
SL,
Jim is just proving that his knowledge of English and history is on par with his knowledge of accounting and economics.
That is to say practically non-existent.
Jim,
“Your answer still doesn’t address the numbers. Hiding money is one thing. Different rates is another.”
Well, Jim, higher rates don’t apply if they’re not reporting the higher numbers as income … it isn’t brain surgery. Really, it isn’t.
Jim,
Not that I have high hopes for this, but…
There are several axis of political beliefs. Liberal’s opposite is not protectionist, it’s authoritarian. You’re applying a term (liberal) that refers to one’s position on equality and freedom to essentially economic positions.
Furthermore, one’s stances on intentional trade and protectionism are not directly related to ones position on a progressive tax system. For instance, I like the idea of tariffs on goods that can be made in the U.S. and I also support a progressive tax system.
Words are tools, don’t use a knife when you need a screwdriver.
Jim,
What part of the qualifier “almost every” didn’t register? Rome’s downfall was most certainly assisted by the decadence of the wealthy ignoring the needs of the state, however, the needs they were ignoring didn’t relate to the poor but rather to the maintenance and control of the outermost regions of the Empire which were allowed to slowly fall in to barbarian hands until the day that the barbarians were actually at the gates. The effects of the stupidity of avarice upon society can be manifold.
And the “War of Poverty”? Yeah, well, get back to me when a war on that front actually starts and then we can discuss the nature of its success or failure. Historically the only war on poverty in this country was the reforms instituted by FDR which worked quite well. The only war on poverty currently going on in this country is an effort to destroy those advances and further perpetuate war on the impoverished. That’s not the same thing as a War on Poverty.
You should also learn the difference between “charity” and “necessary social support mechanisms”. Or ignore them like the French and the Russians did. See how that works out.
Jim,
“The Roman Empire didn’t give to the poor. Get your facts in order when making comparisons to History.”
What part of “Almost every empire that has crumbled from within has had those features in common: the rich partied and rode rough shod over the needs of society as a whole as the poor starved and suffered. That is the poor starved and suffered until they came for the rich whom they outnumbered vastly” has escaped your remaining brain cell?
Buddha Is Laughing
Funny, Debt is no joking matter and repeating history isn’t either!
Stamford Liberal
Your answer still doesn’t address the numbers. Hiding money is one thing. Different rates is another. Change the tax code to avoid these loopholes and I believe that is part of Ryan’s plan.
Blouise,
“Where in the hell do people get these ideas?! The 1840′s?!
Buddha, how in the hell are we going to get anywhere when so many of our fellow countrymen are that badly educated?”
Well, one percent of us are going to say “Let them eat cake.”
Some of us are having a sale:
Fire-proof hand baskets – $2
Torches – 3 for $10
Portable Guillotine Hip Holster – $15