Does the President want Dictatorial Powers?
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
December 3, 2012 9:57am CST
In the latest Fiscal Cliff talks the President proposed that we increase taxes on the rich, cut medicare and increase spending and by the way give the president the power to increase the debt without congressional approval. He already has the power to make most of the decisions involving Health Care. He is hiring more Federal and state workers which cost the taxpayers almost $1.50 to $2.00 per $1.00 in wages for each job created. He took an oath to uphold the laws of this nation then by executive order he tells us what laws he will not enforce and will not defend in court.
http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-faces-line-sand-fiscal-cliff-talks-002614266.html
It seems like the President considers compromise as give me everything I want and maybe I will give you a little of what you want. In previous debt talks the Republicans gave in and accepted cut in the budget 10 years from now which could be overturned by future congresses. We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem and we have to get it under control now or face a major depression.
5 people like this
9 responses
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
3 Dec 12
Bob, we have a revenue problem, and the sooner republicans recognize that the better the county will be. If you want to be the worlds policemen than it is going to cost money. If you want to enforce your will and freedom it will cost you money.
Mitt Romney tried to tell the American people we had a revenue problem, not a tax problem and the American people rejected that idea.
Like I said in an earlier post, tax rates are going to go up no matter what republicans do. It is only a matter of how much, and who bares the brunt of them!!!
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
5 Dec 12
Under the Bush tax cuts the poorest received a 30% reduction in their taxes (15% to 10%) while the rich received a 4.6% (39.6% to 35%) decrease. Our tax code is based on wages or how much you work so we are telling people that if you work hard and put in the hours you will pay more in taxes. President Bush also increased the standard and personal deductions which meant that more poor people would no longer pay federal income tax.
According to the IRS the top 400 tax payers earn $81 billion dollars and pay $16.1 billion in taxes, while the bottom 50% (67 million people) of the tax payers earned $1.05 trillion in income and paid $18.5 billion in taxes. Who is paying their fair share? If President Obama's goal is to raise revenue for the government then he should be looking at increasing taxes on the bottom 50%. One of the miss conceptions is that when you increase taxes the rich, they will continue to work and invest at the same rate they are now. We are seeing now that many business are already cutting back because it will cost them too much to expand and hire more people so in effect the government will get less tax revenue, which will mean that the rich will become those making over $125.000 a year. just like the wealthy were once millionaires and billionaires now it is those making $250,000. How long will it be before the taxes will be increased for everyone Remember the income tax was to be a tax on the top 1% of wage earners now look who is paying income taxes.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
6 Dec 12
Bob, if I am paying 10% in taxes making $50,000 a year I would pay $5,000 in taxes, and you lower it 30% I am only paying 7% or $3,500, or a $1,500 savings. If I was making $1,000,000 and I am paying 39.6 (which I have said millions of times that I have NEVER met anyone paying that much, and I know A LOT of people in that tax bracket) I would pay $369,000 in taxes. If I was paying 35% I am paying $350,000 that is a $19,000 difference. Are you really trying to tell us that $1,500 is more than $19,000?
The problem with raising taxes on the poorest people is that they will have less money to spend. The richest people in this country can't drive the economy of this country, and EVERYONE knows this.
Bob, you seam like a smart guy, please explain this to me: If you run a restaurant and your business increases so much that customers are leaving would worry about taxes, or hiring people befor your business goes under? This is the core of the argument republicans have been trying to push about taxes and Obamacare. If you put taxes and possible regulation ahead of your business than your business will go under because you don't know how to run your business. Obama care, and taxes are NOT going to make it impossible to hire people if your business justifies it. The problem you are seeing today is the greed factor of business owners today. They aren't happy with making a living, they want to make a fortune, and we all know that fortunes are earned, they aren't handed to you by anyone (especially the government). If people focus on ways of making money instead of how to screw the IRS as much as possible they will see that they will make more money than they could have saved in multiple lifetimes.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
4 Dec 12
Rodney, YES, I do go out and get a second job. I have worked two jobs most of my life, and I have no problem working my A$$ off to take care of my family. When we run into financial problems we look at our expenses, and our income and we cut what we can, and if we still can't make it work, I increase our revenue.
If you look at what republicans want to do, you will see that they want the people who already are taken care of by the tax system to sacrifice NOTHING, while the rest of the country should. This is why republicans not only lost the presidential race, but lost seats in congress.
"We, the US are victims of decades of total fiscal irresponsibility on the grandest of scales. To have the audacity to believe the rich should be expected to bail us out of something they have had little or no part of creating is beyond stupid."
The ultra wealthy in this country were the beneficiaries of this irresponsibility. The tax deduction on mortgage wasn't meant to be used on your multimillion dollar mansion, or your second mansion. Yet the ultra wealthy bought enough congressmen and women to get that in. The Bush tax cuts have cut hundreds of billion in revenue out of the system that could have been used to pay down our debt, and again the ultra wealthy were the main beneficiaries of that irresponsibility.
Please explain to me what you mean by "little or no part of creating is beyond stupid."?
When the ultra wealthy spend hundred of millions buying elected officials, do you think we are STUPID enough to think that they aren't trying to buy influence? Do you HONESTLY think WE are THAT STUPID!!!!!!! Are YOU that STUPID!!!!!!
"95% of ALL taxes are paid by the top 2% wage earners"
Really, that isn't what the Heritage Foundation says. Do you want to question them?
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners?nomobile
Rodney, how much of our current deficit is a result of the Bush wars? Why don't you do some search and you ignore what you find because it won't support your talking points. How much of the current deficit is just INTEREST on the Bush tax cuts, and his wars?
1 person likes this
@SuperShames (780)
• India
3 Dec 12
Hi bobmnu.
Well first of all thanks for starting an interesting topic. Though I am not an american and neither I hold any special interest in American politics. But what interests is the topic. I have been studying macro economics in my MBA course and hence I felt interested in conversing on this topic. By the your statement that American do not have revenue problem but they do have spending problem is very true. In fact America has such a vast history that these issues can be dealt by just looking back into the history... I think America should find ways of cutting down on their expenditure in such a way that the lost jobs as a result in turn can be channeled in a more proper way creating a synergy effect. Anyways have a nice day...
=SuperShames=
1 person likes this
@SuperShames (780)
• India
6 Dec 12
Hi annie.
Well as I have mentioned before as well that I do not have much information and knowledge about the policies being followed in US. But I definitely heard a lot of praises about Obama's Healthcare plan. Can you please explain on what new features did Obama's Healthcare include? Anyways have a nice day ..
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
7 Dec 12
So glad the Independent Payment Advisory Board wasn't operating yet...
Annie, what do we do when there is NO MONEY to pay for all these social programs. Have you seen the riots in Greece, Spain? We do stand in danger of just such a happening you know. Whether in OUR lifetimes or that of our children and grandchildren. I don't know about you, I have adult grandchildren trying to enter the job market, not doing so well.
The messiah cannot walk on water and produce loaves and fishes my friend. If we're broke, if we get downgraded again, if the rich leave or stop investing, if we CRASH- NO ONE will have ANYTHING. And LOTS OF FOLKS WILL DIE.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Dec 12
Regarding your title question, my short answer would be no, at least no more than any President has wanted this kind of power. I don't have the exact figures in front of me but President Obama hasn't used his Executive Order "powers" any more than many of his predecessors nor has he used the signing statement as much as at least his most recent predecessor. I guess the solution for those of us who disagree with these actions is to push to have the laws changed.
I know you're well aware it was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who came up with the proposal to give the President the power to increase the debt CEILING. Former Fed Chairman and conservative Republican Alan Greenspan doesn't think there should be any such thing as a "debt ceiling" and I tend to agree since it's nothing more than a gimmick that before last year didn't really mean a thing. How can the Republicans try to convince their constituents with straight faces that it's "responsible" to spend the money then basically announce the intention to default on our debt? Because of the way they put off doing what they knew HAD to be done last year billions was wasted. Now that's really fiscally responsible, isn't it?
I think the polls show and will continue to show the American people know who's at fault here and who will and won't compromise. Boehner and his cronies seems to forget that Mitt lost the election in a landslide; why else would they be continuing to push for the Romney/Ryan policies that were soundly rejected by the voters last month?
As for the hiring of federal and state workers, the truth is it's the loss of many government jobs that's kept the unemployment rate as high as it is. One estimate is that it would be under 7% were it not for all the layoffs of public service employees.
We DO have a revenue problem and cutting spending too much is exactly what will put us into a depression. Look at Europe - it's austerity measures there that have brought on a double-dip recession. Now is not the time to throw more Americans into poverty, not that there's ever a good time to do that.
Annie
1 person likes this
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
4 Dec 12
Of course he wants dictatorial powers. And with a stroke of the almighty pen, he can have them, for 6 months--thanks to existing executive orders. And yes, we have a spending problem, more so than a revenue problem. We will probably go off the cliff, and it will be--BUSH'S FAULT. I am more worried about his desire for an infinite budget ceiling than anything else at the moment, because he has already charged far more than we can pay-- and the scariest thing is that most of our debt right now is owned by US--we have been buying our own securities and rolling them over to pay ourselves interest. Yes, China holds about 8% of our debt, over a trillion dollars-- but they have been slowly selling for over a year now-- as have some of our other creditors. We, however, are still buying--playing a very expensive shell game.
This president doesn't know the meaning of the word compromise, and never has. If he did, we would have budgets--which we haven't had for a while now. All he understands is campaigning (and breaking campaign promises, and getting away with doing so).
1 person likes this
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
6 Dec 12
The obamderthal does not just want them...He has granted them to himself by way of executive order...
Why does everyone want to cut medicare when it is actually being funded by the people...He should be cutting medicaid which is TRULY an entitlement program totally top heavy with illegal immigrants and others that should not be receiving anything. I thought that his all powerful obamaderthalcare was going to fix all of the health woes...I am still trying to figure out who is actually going to benefit by this monstosity...Everyone must pay and pay and pay for it, but no one that I know of that is poor is going to be able to use it. They must still rely on medicaid and medicare unless they are illegal or moslem, then they can use both. I have to pay for it, but I cannot benefit by it because I am a veteran. Everyone seems to think that all vets get 100% of their health care and meds for free...They are wrong...
Increasing taxes everywhere, especially the rich will destroy us. The food banks and other forms of charity will fold without charitable contributions...The rich are the ones that keep these people going. In some states it is almost impossible for certain folks to get food help except at the food banks.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
7 Dec 12
I don't care WHO asked for the president to have the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, CONGRESS has the Constitutional POWER to spend money NOT THE PRESIDENT.
And the fourteenth amemdment does not give anyone the power to do so either. It says the US debt must be paid. And current revenues would do that. It needs to be said that promises made by Congress for social programs is NOT DEBT. And therefore, since our debt, by law MUST BE PAID, the rest remains discretionary spending and subject to CUTS.
I'm with Mark Levin and Charles Krauthammer, don't play the game. Let it all crash over the cliff and let OBAMA own it.
FACT is, lowering taxes and cutting spending HAS WORKED in the past and saying it didn't over and over so it will be perceieved as truth is insane. What has also worked in the past, is democrats promising future cuts for present tax hike, and then the cuts never materialize. IF the republicans cave, we're done as a party, and THAT is what Obama is looking for.
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
13 Dec 12
I honestly don't know if he wants dictatorial powers or not, but he definitely wants to be in control. While I agree that as POTUS he should be in control....to an extent, that does not mean that you take more power than you should have.
As far as the spending vs revenue question, in some ways we have both. We are spending way more than we should considering that the deficit keeps growing and we have to keep raising the nation's borrowing limit. Before you argue....lol....if that were not the case then we would not have to borrow even more so that more can be spent. Another example would be that Obama would not be trying to include yet another costly stimulus bill in the fiscal cliff talks.
Now that said, we do need to raise revenue....just not so much that it hurts job creations and gets to the point that the people with less incomes simply can't pay, at least temporarily to help lower the debt and deficit. With a balanced approach including both spending cuts and increasing revenue, I think that the government would find that they were able to remain in a more sustainable budget and begin paying off our nation's debts. It is pretty much the same thing that any American family would have to do if they found that they were living outside their means, and had no way to increase their income any further. If the American people can do this, then so should our government.
By the way, no one said that either the spending cuts OR the increasing revenue would be painless....but then if the government had not spent itself (and the American people) into this tight spot in the first place, then they would not have to be trying to fix it now.
The government needs a workable budget and they also need to learn to stay within its limits, just as any other citizen has to have a budget and learn to live within their means.
@ladym33 (10979)
• United States
4 Dec 12
Honestly I don't understand what people were thinking re-electing him. Things are going to get really bad for all of us really, and yes he likes to make his own rules as he goes along and they are not rules that are going to help this country. Come January things are going to become very difficult. Mark my words.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
4 Dec 12
The democrats answer to everything seems to be, throw more money at it. They don't think past the votes they believe they will get from those they say they're helping. Those getting the handout don't see how much they've been hurt by this behavior.
