I voted no. But it is probably unavoidable at least for the short term. They should raise it, but only temporarily, it needs to have an expiration date followed by reductions of the debt by lowering the limit each year. The spending HAS to be controlled, somehow, some way. Non-negotiable.
Let's look at our options:
- Crash the economy, and destroy the most trusted financial instrument in the world (US bonds); or
- change a number.
Tough choice.
Now, if we want to discuss deficits, spending, and (dare I say) balancing the budget, then we need to do *THAT* via budgets and appropriations. All this brouhaha about the debt ceiling does is say "you know all those laws Congress passed over the years, all those commitments we've made, all those obligations we've committed to when was appropriated money? Screw them."
That's not a partisan statement - it is simply the way it is. Again - Congress needs to go after spending/budget/deficits while passing budgets and spending laws, not after the fact.
I voted no, but I also think that in the near future it is unavoidable. Like many times in the past, it should only be raised with major spending cuts attached. The cycle has to change.
The Federal government is bloated,
Of the 55 times since 1977 that the Debt ceiling was raised, 28 times spending cuts and/or other reforms were attached. You may think that a talking point as well, but it is a talking point based on FACT NOT ASSUMPTION
I'm afraid that's not true, Howard. Raising the dept limit merely clears the treasury to pay outstanding dept already incurred by by congress. The Fidelity Fund has already dumped T-bills as a precaution-- this is tearing up our credit card -- should the rest of the world follow suit (re China, who holds a huge amount of our dept) we'll find ourselves on the verge of Banana nationhood financially very soon. If the 'full faith and credit' of the United States, the world's reserve currency, is no longer respected, we'll find ourselves in a world of hurt far worse than 2008. It will be more like 1929.
The truth of the matter is, that the debt ceiling in the end will be raised, just like there always is, there will be an 11th hour deal, there always is, Historically, the party in power and the party in opposition have always fought over the debt limit as a means of negotiating compromise. There are in fact, very few debt ceiling increases without some sort of concession.
Yes voters = headline voters. Plenty of money coming in....way too much going out. Impossible to default by any reasonable standard. I can't say it any better than Rand Paul who does not play the typical Washington drama game..."I think it’s irresponsible of the president and his men to even talk about default. There is no reason for us to default. We bring in $250 billion in taxes every month, our interest payment is $20 billion. Tell me why we would ever default. We have legislation called the full faith and credit act and it tells the president, you must pay the interest on the debt. So this is a game. This is kind of like closing the World War II memorial. They all get out on TV and they say, we’re going to default. They’re the ones scaring the marketplace. We should never default."
I voted yes. I really have no idea what would happen if they didnt and I really dont want to find out. I dont think with the state that the economy is in right now we have room for any "experiments" right now.
It would be highly irresponsible for any politician (the ruling class) to take that kind of unknown leap when HIS/HER side of the cliff has a safety net made of steel (most of them are multimillionaires and will feel minimal if any repercussions) while us peasants have safety nets made of tissue paper where they MIGHT hold or they MIGHT rip and we would be thrown into a situation similar to or worse than the Great Depression. I dont appreciate that the "poker chips" of the elite Casino Nite are MINE AND MY FAMILIES LIVES....
Well then Debbie, those elites have successfully intimidated you with their rhetoric along with so many others. When your revenue out paces your debt obligation by more than tenfold, you can only default by choosing to pay the wrong bills first. As convoluted as our fiscal system has gotten, that simple concept still remains.
I agree Jeff..20 billion a month is the interest on the debt..We would never default on this.As long as we have a 4 trillion budget but only taking in 2.5 trillion we will keep borrowing over a trillion dollars a year,and we will always have to raise the debt ceiling...This is a system that is set up for failure... The goal has to be to balance the budget and pay down of the debt..Some programs need to be cut or ended all together..Get rid of all tax subsidizes for every one.. .
Just like my comment said I dont want to find out...so if that makes me intimidated then grab your Crayolas and color me Coward Yellow right along with the rest of the world. The fact is NO ONE knows what will happen and everyone on either side has basically said so and there are too many people (myself included) living on the edge right now.
The Ruling Class has found that if they move their factories to underdeveloped countries they not only get slave labor and unregulated license to treat humans and our planet in whatever manner they choose so long as it fattens their wallets even more...they also are making themselves new customers....thus we Americans are not important to them anymore in the Henry Ford "my employees must be able to afford to buy my product' sense. They dont care if we have expendable income because THEY DONT NEED US ANYMORE!! That is why it doesnt matter to them that the middle class is disappearing and will soon cease to exist and those directly responsible for this are buying the politicians to make sure NOTHING stands in the way of their amassing billions.
"Yes we are making record profits...but how DARE you ask US to contribute more.....cut Social Security/Medicare to pay for YOUR problem, it is not of MY concern".
Isn't this why Detroit is bankrupt?....What if the city of Batavia ran the same way?Borrowing 30% of their budget every year.The same with the county or school budget..
Raising the debt ceiling has continuously allowed the Obama Administration to add more debt. Obama voted against Bush's request to raise the debt ceiling and stated, raising the debt ceiling was due to the inabilities of the Bush Administration to budget our finances. Obama recently stated, raising the debt ceiling will not lead to more debt. However, every time the Obama Administration has raised the debt ceiling they add more bills. Obama has handed out money like it grows on trees. So, those who believe the economy will collapse if they do not raise the debt ceiling, where does the buck stop? Obama has threat turmoil before and nothing happen. Obama is full of threats and lies. His Presidential leadership skills are the worst ever.
Debbie, you "voted yes and don't know what would happen either way".
To heck with this poll, lets talk about elections.
With utmost respect, folks that support this type of action blindly are part of the reason we are in the deep doo doo we are. Under-informed folks vote based on what they feel. Informed folks vote for what they know.
No matter what you see on the news, there is no way our nation will default on it's obligations, no matter what obama/reid/pelosi are ranting about.
I'd add to that the further we sink ourselves into debt is literally stealing from future generations. Do you have kids or grand kids?
If you vote, I would applaud you to look at facts - not warm fuzzy feelings.
Debbie, Never did I say, insinuate or imply that you were a Brainless Moron, nor do I believe such.
It is however, the second time that you have so commented something similar and attached my name without basis.
I always assumed that you simply disagreed with me and others. I thank you not to imply that I think otherwise.
In fact on one particular post I welcomed your opinion despite being in opposition to mine.
In case you don't remember
"On a side note, thank you for becoming active here, it is refreshing to have another to debate that doesn't consider name calling a premise to begin a discussion. Although we are obviously miles apart politically, I for one am glad that you are throwing your 2 cents in."
Didnt mean you....."People" in the general sense. You know ones who think I drink kool-aid and when I take my fuzzy uninformed self down to the town hall to carry out my constitutional right to vote and blindly color in those dots thus destroying my country. SMH
What you have just described Debbie is what is in fact wrong with politics today.
Since around 2006 especially, politics has become the politics of personal identity rather than the politics of idea exchange.
In 2006 the congressional races were all about tying republican congressional candidates to a wacko who preyed on young congressional pages from Florida
2008 brought us name calling on both sides that totally distracted from the issues and the issues then were more than serious.
2010, brought the demonization of the Tea Party, the fact is the TEA Party is just several groups of people most of them over fifty that are frightened of big government, Even many who actually preach the same concept the Tea Party promotes to this day belittle them at times because the constant name calling caught on.
2012 brought out right lies about Mitt Romney, like he directly caused the death of a woman because a plant closed in Kansas, when the FACT was she was insured for years and employed by another company at the time of her death. Paul Ryan was characterized as wanting to end Medicare when in FACT his plan called for no such thing and was CO WRITTEN by a champion of Medicare and a VERY LIBERAL Senator Ron Wyden.
I have seen on more than one occasion people berate others on here for using talking points while at the same time using the other parties TALKING POINTS to counter their argument.
It isn't one party, it is both parties, it isn't one philosophy it is all philosophies of late that seem to feel the need to denigrate their opposition.
Sean Penn is one of the most liberal and radically liberal out there, Kidd Rock one of the most vocal conservative performers yet they produced this
There are few on here that I honestly can say I agree with and disagree with politically, and a few that even though I agree with, I also wish would choose a little more cordial wording expressing their views, Likewise some I oppose that I wish would as well. Unfortunately, the free flow of ideas is at times polluted with anger and venom on both sides, and that is most unfortunate.
Good God...
Hitting that date with a NO vote, would be the start of the BEST thing that could happen to this Republic! (America is absolutely NOT a "democracy", no matter how badly the socialist pundits want you to believe that it is, as evidenced by the incredibly frequent and specific (tho incorrect) labeling US as such in interviews, 'news' reports, conversations, and MANY TV shows and movies... OK, off of my soap-box...)
Not raising the debt limit simply means no new debt... The government, at that moment, begins to live exactly the same way that you or I do (or should, anyways.)
There is plenty of revenue to take care of the "Minimum Payment" required by the creditor, and also to fund the operation of the Federal government, though that government entity would, of necessity, not really much resemble the one we knew just a week ago... it would have to have totally ELIMINATED a significant number of unnecessary (Really!) Federal agencies. This also allows for those dependent upon government for their very survival, to survive. There CANNOT be any other way if this representative Republic is to survive.
YES, it will hurt like HELL! The nation's biggest employer will become 5% of it's current size almost overnight. (Government could preemptively start purchasing (cheaply) bulk sustaining foods (rice and beans at the same time provides a complete protein) in order to keep the newly unemployed alive.) Cut all taxes on EVERYBODY/EVERYTHING by 50% for the next 12 months, but enforce that portion by all corporations. Quadruple the tariff on the import of ANY/ ALL services/goods from outside the U.S., thus forcing American based corporations to hire here. Eliminate the Federal Reserve at the end of the next 12 months, and re-establish the gold-standard on that date. Finally, watch a leaner and meaner USA to climb out of the pOOp it placed itself nostril-deep in...!
Realistically, the only other thing that is even POSSIBLE, is the fact that your grand-children WILL live in China's newest acquisition, with all the concomitant "joys" of being a 'citizen' of Communist China...
Other than maybe some minor changes in the first choice, you WILL get one or the other. Short of an armed revolution (which would have the unfortunate benefit of having fewer mouths to feed) there really aren't any other alternatives. Either way, the lifestyles that Americans are used to ARE going to change drastically...
Interesting that I get comments about "talking points", yet Jeff comes back with the "those elites have successfully intimidated you" drivel.....
My interpretation of that sort of answer has always been "you do not agree with me therefore you must be a brainless drone listening to those who do not agree with me..."
Thanks, Debbie, for the links.. unfortunately one keeps returning "that document is not available."
Particularly this passage: "As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."
There is no doubt that Washington could see the eventual traps we would fall into if we were not vigilant.
The Framers of the Constitution provided a specific method to extinguish anticipated deficits through an emergency direct tax. Hamilton, in No. 36 of The Federalist Papers, reminds us:
"Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is
not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but
is to be determined by the number of each State, as described in
the second section of first article [United States Constitution].
An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish a rule,
a circumstance which effectively shuts the door to partiality or
oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have
been provided against with guarded circumspection." (EMPHASIS
ADDED)
The rule of apportionment was written into our constitution to remedy a major defect associated with "democracies", which Madison points out in No. 10 of The Federalist Papers:
"... have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have
ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights
of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as
they have been violent in their deaths."
And so, the Founding Fathers formed a Constitutional Republic to avoid
the predictable disastrous consequences of democracy.
The intended use of the emergency direct taxing power to extinguish
deficits is not only far superior to any of the proposed balanced budget
amendments being offered . . . it is already part of our Constitution. The
method in text form is as follows:
The Fair Share Balanced Budget Method
"A R T I C L E (?)"
"SECTION 1. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
"SECTION 2. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, Congress shall immediately calculate each State's apportioned share of the tax based upon its number of Representatives as allotted by the Constitution, and then notify the Executive of each State of its apportioned share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."
"SECTION 3. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by the final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of such property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."
That would surely limit government, Debbie. Which would be a good thing. I still think going to a consumption-based tax system and eliminating income and property taxes is the right way to do it, though. With it collected locally and then budgets submitted by the county for approval by municipalities, state submitted to the counties, and the fed submitted to the states for funding as opposed to the top down income tax method, which has resulted in a bloated federal government and the current debt limit standoff.
Tim, I'm not quite sure why you refer to my response to Debbie as drivel when I was directly responding to her "ruling class" moniker not reiterating any talking point.
If I am reading correctly Mr. Jefferson advocated increasing taxes til debt is paid off along with cuts (defense?) to pay off debts....
And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers..... – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 1
“I hope a tax will be preferred [to a loan which threatens to saddle us with a perpetual debt], because it will awaken the attention of the people and make reformation and economy the principle of the next election. The frequent recurrence of this chastening operation can alone restrain the propensity of governments to enlarge expense beyond income.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Albert Gallatin, December 26, 1820; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 12
“I, however, place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Governor William Plumer, July 21, 1816; “The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia,” edited by John P. Foley (1900), Section 2049, p. 234
“The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the constitution which authorizes Congress ‘to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,’ was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Albert Gallatin, June 16, 1817; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 12
“I hope a tax will be preferred [to a loan which threatens to saddle us with a perpetual debt], because it will awaken the attention of the people and make reformation and economy the principle of the next election. The frequent recurrence of this chastening operation can alone restrain the propensity of governments to enlarge expense beyond income.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Albert Gallatin, December 26, 1820; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 12
“It is incumbent on every Generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save One-half the wars of the world; and justifies, I think our present circumspection.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy, December 26, 1820; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 10
“The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife; and I doubt not it will be employed; good principles being as yet prevalent enough for that.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, March 9, 1821; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 12
“There [is a measure] which if not taken we are undone…[It is] to cease borrowing money and to pay off the national debt. If this cannot be done without dismissing the army and putting the ships out of commission, haul them up high and dry and reduce the army to the lowest point at which it was ever established. There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to House Speaker Nathaniel Macon, Monticello, August 19, 1821; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 12
It is so hard to reconcile his thoughts with TODAY'S times though....because we are so far removed from how things actually were back then.
"It must be observed that our revenues are raised almost wholly on imported goods." --Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1793. ME 9:198
Revenues almost wholly on imported goods? Is ANYTHING we import even taxed at all now?
=====
Seems they were fine with progressive taxes and with the rich paying the bulk of the taxes back then...
"Revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts... These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the government, to fulfil contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts, as places at a short day their final redemption. And that redemption once effected, the revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition among the states and a corresponding amendment of the Constitution, be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each state. In time of war, if injustice by ourselves or others must sometimes produce war, increased as the same revenue will be increased by population and consumption and aided by other resources reserved for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses of the year without encroaching on the rights of future generations by burdening them with the debts of the past. War will then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement." -Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805. ME 3:376
"Instead of taxes for the whole year's expenses [of a war], which the people cannot pay, a tax to the amount of the interest and a reasonable portion of the principal will command the whole sum, and throw a part of the burdens of war on times of peace and prosperity." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1814. ME 14:217
"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790. ME 8:110
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41
"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:423
"We are all the more reconciled to the tax on importations, because it falls exclusively on the rich, and with the equal partition of intestate's estates, constitutes the best agrarian law. In fact, the poor man in this country who uses nothing but what is made within his own farm or family, or within the United States, pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture as we ought to do, he will pay not one cent." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1811. ME 13:39
"I rejoice, as a moralist, at the prospect of a reduction of the duties on wine by our national legislature. It is an error to view a tax on that liquor as merely a tax on the rich. It is a prohibition of its use to the middling class of our citizens, and a condemnation of them to the poison of whiskey, which is desolating their houses. No nation is drunken where wine is cheap; and none sober, where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits as the common beverage. It is, in truth, the only antidote to the bane of whiskey. Fix but the duty at the rate of other merchandise, and we can drink wine here as cheap as we do grog; and who will not prefer it? Its extended use will carry health and comfort to a much enlarged circle. Everyone in easy circumstances (as the bulk of our citizens are) will prefer it to the poison to which they are now driven by their government. And the treasury itself will find that a penny apiece from a dozen, is more than a groat from a single one." --Thomas Jefferson to Jean Guillaume Hyde de Neuville, 1818. ME 15:178
"A tax on whiskey is to discourage its consumption; a tax on foreign spirits encourages whiskey by removing its rival from competition... Foreign spirits, wines, teas, coffee, segars, salt, are articles of as innocent consumption as broadcloths and silks; and ought, like them, to pay but the average ad valorem duty of other imported comforts. All of them are ingredients in our happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823. ME 15:432
"The excise law is an infernal one. The first error was to admit it by the Constitution; the second, to act on that admission; the third and last will be, to make it the instrument of dismembering the Union, and setting us all afloat to choose what part of it we will adhere to." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1794. ME 9:295
The only "drivel" I see is people whining about the "moniker" I used in my posts.
Please enlighten me to what would be a more acceptable term for not only those who "Rule" the country literally but also those who "Rule" in the shadows with their funding meant to steer the "Rules" in THEIR favor and gain?
Trust me Debbie, I have no objection to your use of the term, it is apt description of our current governmental structure. I simply restated it in different terminology and was confused by it being described as drivel. You're spot on with that description.
Personally what I find very obscene is the amount of aid sent to foreign countries. I appreciate that disasters happen but, to be honest before we send $$ to other countries we need to take care of home first. The amount of aid we send away is obscene and could go a long way towards fixing our country's financial situation.
Celebrities and the american people have proven that for emergencies they can handle raising billions of dollars for assistance. As was shown during the 2010 Haitian Earthquake and also the 2004 Indoniesian Tsunami.
Heres what the US spent last year on foreign aid in millions of $....
FY2012
Israel $3,075
Afghanistan $2,327
Pakistan $2,102
Iraq $1,683
Egypt $1,557
Jordan $676
Kenya $652
Nigeria $625
Ethiopia $580
Tanzania $531
Something interesting to note in this list is the fact that this does not include any money from from the defense budget, as this note for the chart states....
"These lists consist of funding only from the 150 International Affairs Function. If funding from the
defense budget were included, Pakistan, for example would rank second for both FY2012 and the FY2013
request. Numbers include Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding."
Thats 13,808 million (or 13 billion if my math is correct) just from the first 10 countries we send money to. Take care of home first before sending this money overseas.
A head of household in almost any american community can tell you, you dont spend money on charitable donations if you arent paying the bills first. Why cant the Govt grasp this.
<strong>"Seems they were fine with progressive taxes and with the rich paying the bulk of the taxes back then..."</Strong>
On the contrary Debbie it means the exact opposite. Progressive taxes have absolutely NOTHING to do with consumption whether the product is imported or created domestically. What Jefferson was referring to was not wealth or income, rather spending on luxury, there is a huge difference. The 'Progressive Tax Structure did not even exist when the 16th Amendment was passed, it came along later as the resulting INCOME taxes were invoked. Pretty much apples and oranges.
<Strong>"Revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts... "</strong>
This refers totally to a consumption tax, not an income tax. Whether it be from imports as it was back then, or a consumption tax on domestic products I would be totally for it as long as the 16th Amendment was repealed first.
<strong>These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the government, to fulfil contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts </strong>
Again this relates to purchase beyond essentials, not income per se. So I say repeal the 16th amendment, impose a federal consumption tax on everything except food and medicine, and then budget within the receipts of those taxes collected.
But there is NO correlation between what Jefferson said in his inaugural address and the progressive tax structure created in the 20th century, none at all.
What Foreign Aide is Kyle, is bribery NOT charity (Tsunami and Earthquake relief aside). We have been using foreign aide as a diplomatic tool since the late 1800's. The merits of which would make an entirely different discussion.
As a percentage of GDP Foreign Aide is actually tiny, that is not to say that I advocate more or do not think there is excess there. Just saying it is a mere pittance when compared domestic spending and defense spending.
My list excluded defense budget monies tho Mark.... I forgot to post link again so I will try to find it. This was just foreign aid. I do believe that somewhere I read that Egypt had made a statement that they dont need our aid so my question is......why bother, arent the priorities our own people first?
You presuppose again, that foreign aide is charity, in all but a few cases it is not, it is rather paying off countries to cede to our will rather than forcing them to with troops. Again, I do not say that isn't an issue or even right. It just is what it is.
As far as our own people first, I would much rather see charity and state and local government see to our peoples needs first, the needs of someone in Kansas are not the same as someone in New York when it comes to government aide.
The problem with Federal aide is that it tends to be intrusive, burdened by bureaucracy and less likely to address the root of issues.
Oh and your reference to Egypt, I believe that statement was made by them in response to our cutting much of their aide last month, which actually bolsters my point.
As I said Mark it is hard to use his words in context to what his thoughts on present day laws would be as things are so very different now compared to his time.
However, seeing the only taxes back then were on imports and ONLY the rich had the means to purchase the imports wouldnt one assume he was fine with the rich bearing the brunt?
"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790. ME 8:110
However one interprets that I would not rule out that he might have supported a progressive INCOME tax base on other words spoken by him....
...... This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one.
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
-------
"The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards"
This article cites no sources but he claims this....
Overseas assistance in the federal budget is actually American assistance in disguise. Poor countries receive money from our government under the condition that some of the money (about 50 percent) be used to acquire goods and services from American companies. By doing this, Congress ensures that aid money stimulates the American economy, not fragile ones in need of help. Other self-serving tactics include showering aid on strategically important countries like Egypt, while geopolitical twerps like Malawi — where I lived as a Peace Corps volunteer — get squeezed; and conditioning aid upon the adoption of Western ideals like multiparty democracy and free-market capitalism. In short, we finance them to enrich our companies and import our culture. Score: Congress 1, poor countries 0.
And the story gets better for Americans. When desperate countries face a food crisis, their markets are flooded with excess grain from American farms, purchased and shipped overseas by our government. Procuring food within recipient countries (yes, starving countries have food) would save money and jump-start development, but it wouldn't help the American taxpayer. Similarly, thanks to Congress' generous domestic farm subsidies, impoverished farmers in Africa struggle to compete with U.S. farmers on international markets. Score: Congress 2, poor countries 0.
% of budget State Department & Foreign Aide combined <strong>1.6%</Strong>
% of budget Defense <strong>17.7%</Strong>
% Medicare and Medicaid <strong>24.7%</Strong>
% Social Security <strong>23.2%</Strong>
% Treasury Department (IRS/Secret Service) <strong>3%</Strong>
% Department of Agriculture <strong>4.1%</Strong>
Like I said, a pittance, and while issues can be corrected and cuts made across the board, it doesn't amount to much by itself. And remember, 75% of the Department of Agriculture budget are programs like WIC, Food stamps and School Nutrition
The fact is the only place to cut that would make a significant difference is in social spending, and that is much easier said then done.
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
Then taxes should be equal across the board Mark.... The percentage taken from anyone's income should be exactly the same. No tax shelters or credits or exemptions and so on...
If the rate is say 10% Then the guy making 10,000 pays 1,000 and the guy making 350,000 pays 35,000. That a fair tax structure for income tax.
I think the unfairness comes from all the exemptions, nuances and little loopholes and such. The more money you make the more you can afford to pay lawyers to discover all this minutae in the tax code.
It should be combined with a consumption tax, or have the consumption tax alone. I admire Thomas Jefferson but in today's culture this quote has lost it's meaning due to the modern way of business.
The unfairness I believe comes from the progressive tax system, itself, you and I agree there. The attempts to change the tax system in the 90's gave us people getting returns that exceeded what they actually paid, and in some cases didn't pay at all.
I DO NOT agree with combining a consumption tax and income tax at all, rather repeal the 16th amendment, and do away with the income tax all together. Make it ALL consumption tax. The only thing combining does is sets you up for higher taxes in the end.
I voted no. But it is
I voted no. But it is probably unavoidable at least for the short term. They should raise it, but only temporarily, it needs to have an expiration date followed by reductions of the debt by lowering the limit each year. The spending HAS to be controlled, somehow, some way. Non-negotiable.
Let's look at our options: -
Let's look at our options:
- Crash the economy, and destroy the most trusted financial instrument in the world (US bonds); or
- change a number.
Tough choice.
Now, if we want to discuss deficits, spending, and (dare I say) balancing the budget, then we need to do *THAT* via budgets and appropriations. All this brouhaha about the debt ceiling does is say "you know all those laws Congress passed over the years, all those commitments we've made, all those obligations we've committed to when was appropriated money? Screw them."
That's not a partisan statement - it is simply the way it is. Again - Congress needs to go after spending/budget/deficits while passing budgets and spending laws, not after the fact.
Might want to read the link
Might want to read the link provided before assuming not raising it will crash the economy.
Not raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean we don't pay our bills. It means cutting up the credit card.
Those are Talking Points
Those are Talking Points Tim
I voted no, but I also think that in the near future it is unavoidable. Like many times in the past, it should only be raised with major spending cuts attached. The cycle has to change.
The Federal government is bloated,
Of the 55 times since 1977 that the Debt ceiling was raised, 28 times spending cuts and/or other reforms were attached. You may think that a talking point as well, but it is a talking point based on FACT NOT ASSUMPTION
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/10/08/debt-ceiling-brinksm…
I'm afraid that's not true,
I'm afraid that's not true, Howard. Raising the dept limit merely clears the treasury to pay outstanding dept already incurred by by congress. The Fidelity Fund has already dumped T-bills as a precaution-- this is tearing up our credit card -- should the rest of the world follow suit (re China, who holds a huge amount of our dept) we'll find ourselves on the verge of Banana nationhood financially very soon. If the 'full faith and credit' of the United States, the world's reserve currency, is no longer respected, we'll find ourselves in a world of hurt far worse than 2008. It will be more like 1929.
The truth of the matter is,
The truth of the matter is, that the debt ceiling in the end will be raised, just like there always is, there will be an 11th hour deal, there always is, Historically, the party in power and the party in opposition have always fought over the debt limit as a means of negotiating compromise. There are in fact, very few debt ceiling increases without some sort of concession.
Yes voters = headline voters.
Yes voters = headline voters. Plenty of money coming in....way too much going out. Impossible to default by any reasonable standard. I can't say it any better than Rand Paul who does not play the typical Washington drama game..."I think it’s irresponsible of the president and his men to even talk about default. There is no reason for us to default. We bring in $250 billion in taxes every month, our interest payment is $20 billion. Tell me why we would ever default. We have legislation called the full faith and credit act and it tells the president, you must pay the interest on the debt. So this is a game. This is kind of like closing the World War II memorial. They all get out on TV and they say, we’re going to default. They’re the ones scaring the marketplace. We should never default."
I voted yes. I really have
I voted yes. I really have no idea what would happen if they didnt and I really dont want to find out. I dont think with the state that the economy is in right now we have room for any "experiments" right now.
It would be highly irresponsible for any politician (the ruling class) to take that kind of unknown leap when HIS/HER side of the cliff has a safety net made of steel (most of them are multimillionaires and will feel minimal if any repercussions) while us peasants have safety nets made of tissue paper where they MIGHT hold or they MIGHT rip and we would be thrown into a situation similar to or worse than the Great Depression. I dont appreciate that the "poker chips" of the elite Casino Nite are MINE AND MY FAMILIES LIVES....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24453400
Well then Debbie, those
Well then Debbie, those elites have successfully intimidated you with their rhetoric along with so many others. When your revenue out paces your debt obligation by more than tenfold, you can only default by choosing to pay the wrong bills first. As convoluted as our fiscal system has gotten, that simple concept still remains.
I agree Jeff..20 billion a
I agree Jeff..20 billion a month is the interest on the debt..We would never default on this.As long as we have a 4 trillion budget but only taking in 2.5 trillion we will keep borrowing over a trillion dollars a year,and we will always have to raise the debt ceiling...This is a system that is set up for failure... The goal has to be to balance the budget and pay down of the debt..Some programs need to be cut or ended all together..Get rid of all tax subsidizes for every one.. .
Just like my comment said I
Just like my comment said I dont want to find out...so if that makes me intimidated then grab your Crayolas and color me Coward Yellow right along with the rest of the world. The fact is NO ONE knows what will happen and everyone on either side has basically said so and there are too many people (myself included) living on the edge right now.
The Ruling Class has found that if they move their factories to underdeveloped countries they not only get slave labor and unregulated license to treat humans and our planet in whatever manner they choose so long as it fattens their wallets even more...they also are making themselves new customers....thus we Americans are not important to them anymore in the Henry Ford "my employees must be able to afford to buy my product' sense. They dont care if we have expendable income because THEY DONT NEED US ANYMORE!! That is why it doesnt matter to them that the middle class is disappearing and will soon cease to exist and those directly responsible for this are buying the politicians to make sure NOTHING stands in the way of their amassing billions.
"Yes we are making record profits...but how DARE you ask US to contribute more.....cut Social Security/Medicare to pay for YOUR problem, it is not of MY concern".
FIX THE ECONOMY THEN PLAY YOUR GAMES.
http://issuu.com/bipartisanpo
http://issuu.com/bipartisanpolicycenter/docs/debt_limit_analysis_sept_2…
Make note of charts on Page 23.
Also make note of the COSTS of default starting page 29.
Isn't this why Detroit is
Isn't this why Detroit is bankrupt?....What if the city of Batavia ran the same way?Borrowing 30% of their budget every year.The same with the county or school budget..
Raising the debt ceiling has
Raising the debt ceiling has continuously allowed the Obama Administration to add more debt. Obama voted against Bush's request to raise the debt ceiling and stated, raising the debt ceiling was due to the inabilities of the Bush Administration to budget our finances. Obama recently stated, raising the debt ceiling will not lead to more debt. However, every time the Obama Administration has raised the debt ceiling they add more bills. Obama has handed out money like it grows on trees. So, those who believe the economy will collapse if they do not raise the debt ceiling, where does the buck stop? Obama has threat turmoil before and nothing happen. Obama is full of threats and lies. His Presidential leadership skills are the worst ever.
I am so Bored with monikers
I am so Bored with monikers like the 'Ruling Class'
I am so bored with monikers like the 'Working Class'
But then, that may be just me.
Debbie, you "voted yes and
Debbie, you "voted yes and don't know what would happen either way".
To heck with this poll, lets talk about elections.
With utmost respect, folks that support this type of action blindly are part of the reason we are in the deep doo doo we are. Under-informed folks vote based on what they feel. Informed folks vote for what they know.
No matter what you see on the news, there is no way our nation will default on it's obligations, no matter what obama/reid/pelosi are ranting about.
I'd add to that the further we sink ourselves into debt is literally stealing from future generations. Do you have kids or grand kids?
If you vote, I would applaud you to look at facts - not warm fuzzy feelings.
Bob
I think my comments explained
I think my comments explained my vote on the poll quite clearly. Read them again.
Mark I will tell you what I am bored with....people assuming that people who disagree with them are brainless morons.
Debbie, Never did I say,
Debbie, Never did I say, insinuate or imply that you were a Brainless Moron, nor do I believe such.
It is however, the second time that you have so commented something similar and attached my name without basis.
I always assumed that you simply disagreed with me and others. I thank you not to imply that I think otherwise.
In fact on one particular post I welcomed your opinion despite being in opposition to mine.
In case you don't remember
"On a side note, thank you for becoming active here, it is refreshing to have another to debate that doesn't consider name calling a premise to begin a discussion. Although we are obviously miles apart politically, I for one am glad that you are throwing your 2 cents in."
Didnt mean you....."People"
Didnt mean you....."People" in the general sense. You know ones who think I drink kool-aid and when I take my fuzzy uninformed self down to the town hall to carry out my constitutional right to vote and blindly color in those dots thus destroying my country. SMH
What you have just described
What you have just described Debbie is what is in fact wrong with politics today.
Since around 2006 especially, politics has become the politics of personal identity rather than the politics of idea exchange.
In 2006 the congressional races were all about tying republican congressional candidates to a wacko who preyed on young congressional pages from Florida
2008 brought us name calling on both sides that totally distracted from the issues and the issues then were more than serious.
2010, brought the demonization of the Tea Party, the fact is the TEA Party is just several groups of people most of them over fifty that are frightened of big government, Even many who actually preach the same concept the Tea Party promotes to this day belittle them at times because the constant name calling caught on.
2012 brought out right lies about Mitt Romney, like he directly caused the death of a woman because a plant closed in Kansas, when the FACT was she was insured for years and employed by another company at the time of her death. Paul Ryan was characterized as wanting to end Medicare when in FACT his plan called for no such thing and was CO WRITTEN by a champion of Medicare and a VERY LIBERAL Senator Ron Wyden.
I have seen on more than one occasion people berate others on here for using talking points while at the same time using the other parties TALKING POINTS to counter their argument.
It isn't one party, it is both parties, it isn't one philosophy it is all philosophies of late that seem to feel the need to denigrate their opposition.
Sean Penn is one of the most liberal and radically liberal out there, Kidd Rock one of the most vocal conservative performers yet they produced this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQJ2ULuhb8
There are few on here that I honestly can say I agree with and disagree with politically, and a few that even though I agree with, I also wish would choose a little more cordial wording expressing their views, Likewise some I oppose that I wish would as well. Unfortunately, the free flow of ideas is at times polluted with anger and venom on both sides, and that is most unfortunate.
Good God... Hitting that date
Good God...
Hitting that date with a NO vote, would be the start of the BEST thing that could happen to this Republic! (America is absolutely NOT a "democracy", no matter how badly the socialist pundits want you to believe that it is, as evidenced by the incredibly frequent and specific (tho incorrect) labeling US as such in interviews, 'news' reports, conversations, and MANY TV shows and movies... OK, off of my soap-box...)
Not raising the debt limit simply means no new debt... The government, at that moment, begins to live exactly the same way that you or I do (or should, anyways.)
There is plenty of revenue to take care of the "Minimum Payment" required by the creditor, and also to fund the operation of the Federal government, though that government entity would, of necessity, not really much resemble the one we knew just a week ago... it would have to have totally ELIMINATED a significant number of unnecessary (Really!) Federal agencies. This also allows for those dependent upon government for their very survival, to survive. There CANNOT be any other way if this representative Republic is to survive.
YES, it will hurt like HELL! The nation's biggest employer will become 5% of it's current size almost overnight. (Government could preemptively start purchasing (cheaply) bulk sustaining foods (rice and beans at the same time provides a complete protein) in order to keep the newly unemployed alive.) Cut all taxes on EVERYBODY/EVERYTHING by 50% for the next 12 months, but enforce that portion by all corporations. Quadruple the tariff on the import of ANY/ ALL services/goods from outside the U.S., thus forcing American based corporations to hire here. Eliminate the Federal Reserve at the end of the next 12 months, and re-establish the gold-standard on that date. Finally, watch a leaner and meaner USA to climb out of the pOOp it placed itself nostril-deep in...!
Realistically, the only other thing that is even POSSIBLE, is the fact that your grand-children WILL live in China's newest acquisition, with all the concomitant "joys" of being a 'citizen' of Communist China...
Other than maybe some minor changes in the first choice, you WILL get one or the other. Short of an armed revolution (which would have the unfortunate benefit of having fewer mouths to feed) there really aren't any other alternatives. Either way, the lifestyles that Americans are used to ARE going to change drastically...
Interesting that I get
Interesting that I get comments about "talking points", yet Jeff comes back with the "those elites have successfully intimidated you" drivel.....
My interpretation of that sort of answer has always been "you do not agree with me therefore you must be a brainless drone listening to those who do not agree with me..."
Thanks, Debbie, for the links.. unfortunately one keeps returning "that document is not available."
Here's a link for you Tim.
Here's a link for you Tim. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=15&page=transcript
Particularly this passage: "As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."
There is no doubt that Washington could see the eventual traps we would fall into if we were not vigilant.
And we were not.
The Framers of the
The Framers of the Constitution provided a specific method to extinguish anticipated deficits through an emergency direct tax. Hamilton, in No. 36 of The Federalist Papers, reminds us:
"Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is
not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but
is to be determined by the number of each State, as described in
the second section of first article [United States Constitution].
An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish a rule,
a circumstance which effectively shuts the door to partiality or
oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have
been provided against with guarded circumspection." (EMPHASIS
ADDED)
The rule of apportionment was written into our constitution to remedy a major defect associated with "democracies", which Madison points out in No. 10 of The Federalist Papers:
"... have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have
ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights
of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as
they have been violent in their deaths."
And so, the Founding Fathers formed a Constitutional Republic to avoid
the predictable disastrous consequences of democracy.
The intended use of the emergency direct taxing power to extinguish
deficits is not only far superior to any of the proposed balanced budget
amendments being offered . . . it is already part of our Constitution. The
method in text form is as follows:
The Fair Share Balanced Budget Method
"A R T I C L E (?)"
"SECTION 1. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
"SECTION 2. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, Congress shall immediately calculate each State's apportioned share of the tax based upon its number of Representatives as allotted by the Constitution, and then notify the Executive of each State of its apportioned share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."
"SECTION 3. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by the final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of such property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."
http://usafoundingfathers.blogspot.com/2006/03/founding-fathers-origina…
That would surely limit
That would surely limit government, Debbie. Which would be a good thing. I still think going to a consumption-based tax system and eliminating income and property taxes is the right way to do it, though. With it collected locally and then budgets submitted by the county for approval by municipalities, state submitted to the counties, and the fed submitted to the states for funding as opposed to the top down income tax method, which has resulted in a bloated federal government and the current debt limit standoff.
This was changed by the 16th
This was changed by the 16th amendment which should, along with the 17th, be repealed.
Tim, I'm not quite sure why
Tim, I'm not quite sure why you refer to my response to Debbie as drivel when I was directly responding to her "ruling class" moniker not reiterating any talking point.
If I am reading correctly Mr.
If I am reading correctly Mr. Jefferson advocated increasing taxes til debt is paid off along with cuts (defense?) to pay off debts....
And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers..... – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 1
“I hope a tax will be preferred [to a loan which threatens to saddle us with a perpetual debt], because it will awaken the attention of the people and make reformation and economy the principle of the next election. The frequent recurrence of this chastening operation can alone restrain the propensity of governments to enlarge expense beyond income.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Albert Gallatin, December 26, 1820; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 12
“I, however, place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Governor William Plumer, July 21, 1816; “The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia,” edited by John P. Foley (1900), Section 2049, p. 234
“The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the constitution which authorizes Congress ‘to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,’ was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Albert Gallatin, June 16, 1817; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 12
“I hope a tax will be preferred [to a loan which threatens to saddle us with a perpetual debt], because it will awaken the attention of the people and make reformation and economy the principle of the next election. The frequent recurrence of this chastening operation can alone restrain the propensity of governments to enlarge expense beyond income.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Albert Gallatin, December 26, 1820; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 12
“It is incumbent on every Generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save One-half the wars of the world; and justifies, I think our present circumspection.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy, December 26, 1820; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 10
“The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife; and I doubt not it will be employed; good principles being as yet prevalent enough for that.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, March 9, 1821; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 12
“There [is a measure] which if not taken we are undone…[It is] to cease borrowing money and to pay off the national debt. If this cannot be done without dismissing the army and putting the ships out of commission, haul them up high and dry and reduce the army to the lowest point at which it was ever established. There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to House Speaker Nathaniel Macon, Monticello, August 19, 1821; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 12
Interesting stats re: federal
Interesting stats re: federal dollars
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/.
It is so hard to reconcile
It is so hard to reconcile his thoughts with TODAY'S times though....because we are so far removed from how things actually were back then.
"It must be observed that our revenues are raised almost wholly on imported goods." --Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1793. ME 9:198
Revenues almost wholly on imported goods? Is ANYTHING we import even taxed at all now?
=====
Seems they were fine with progressive taxes and with the rich paying the bulk of the taxes back then...
"Revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts... These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the government, to fulfil contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts, as places at a short day their final redemption. And that redemption once effected, the revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition among the states and a corresponding amendment of the Constitution, be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each state. In time of war, if injustice by ourselves or others must sometimes produce war, increased as the same revenue will be increased by population and consumption and aided by other resources reserved for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses of the year without encroaching on the rights of future generations by burdening them with the debts of the past. War will then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement." -Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805. ME 3:376
"Instead of taxes for the whole year's expenses [of a war], which the people cannot pay, a tax to the amount of the interest and a reasonable portion of the principal will command the whole sum, and throw a part of the burdens of war on times of peace and prosperity." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1814. ME 14:217
"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790. ME 8:110
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41
"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:423
"We are all the more reconciled to the tax on importations, because it falls exclusively on the rich, and with the equal partition of intestate's estates, constitutes the best agrarian law. In fact, the poor man in this country who uses nothing but what is made within his own farm or family, or within the United States, pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture as we ought to do, he will pay not one cent." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1811. ME 13:39
"I rejoice, as a moralist, at the prospect of a reduction of the duties on wine by our national legislature. It is an error to view a tax on that liquor as merely a tax on the rich. It is a prohibition of its use to the middling class of our citizens, and a condemnation of them to the poison of whiskey, which is desolating their houses. No nation is drunken where wine is cheap; and none sober, where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits as the common beverage. It is, in truth, the only antidote to the bane of whiskey. Fix but the duty at the rate of other merchandise, and we can drink wine here as cheap as we do grog; and who will not prefer it? Its extended use will carry health and comfort to a much enlarged circle. Everyone in easy circumstances (as the bulk of our citizens are) will prefer it to the poison to which they are now driven by their government. And the treasury itself will find that a penny apiece from a dozen, is more than a groat from a single one." --Thomas Jefferson to Jean Guillaume Hyde de Neuville, 1818. ME 15:178
"A tax on whiskey is to discourage its consumption; a tax on foreign spirits encourages whiskey by removing its rival from competition... Foreign spirits, wines, teas, coffee, segars, salt, are articles of as innocent consumption as broadcloths and silks; and ought, like them, to pay but the average ad valorem duty of other imported comforts. All of them are ingredients in our happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823. ME 15:432
"The excise law is an infernal one. The first error was to admit it by the Constitution; the second, to act on that admission; the third and last will be, to make it the instrument of dismembering the Union, and setting us all afloat to choose what part of it we will adhere to." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1794. ME 9:295
History of public
History of public debt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
The only "drivel" I see is
The only "drivel" I see is people whining about the "moniker" I used in my posts.
Please enlighten me to what would be a more acceptable term for not only those who "Rule" the country literally but also those who "Rule" in the shadows with their funding meant to steer the "Rules" in THEIR favor and gain?
Trust me Debbie, I have no
Trust me Debbie, I have no objection to your use of the term, it is apt description of our current governmental structure. I simply restated it in different terminology and was confused by it being described as drivel. You're spot on with that description.
Personally what I find very
Personally what I find very obscene is the amount of aid sent to foreign countries. I appreciate that disasters happen but, to be honest before we send $$ to other countries we need to take care of home first. The amount of aid we send away is obscene and could go a long way towards fixing our country's financial situation.
Celebrities and the american people have proven that for emergencies they can handle raising billions of dollars for assistance. As was shown during the 2010 Haitian Earthquake and also the 2004 Indoniesian Tsunami.
Heres what the US spent last year on foreign aid in millions of $....
FY2012
Israel $3,075
Afghanistan $2,327
Pakistan $2,102
Iraq $1,683
Egypt $1,557
Jordan $676
Kenya $652
Nigeria $625
Ethiopia $580
Tanzania $531
Something interesting to note in this list is the fact that this does not include any money from from the defense budget, as this note for the chart states....
"These lists consist of funding only from the 150 International Affairs Function. If funding from the
defense budget were included, Pakistan, for example would rank second for both FY2012 and the FY2013
request. Numbers include Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding."
Thats 13,808 million (or 13 billion if my math is correct) just from the first 10 countries we send money to. Take care of home first before sending this money overseas.
A head of household in almost any american community can tell you, you dont spend money on charitable donations if you arent paying the bills first. Why cant the Govt grasp this.
"Seems they were fine with
<strong>"Seems they were fine with progressive taxes and with the rich paying the bulk of the taxes back then..."</Strong>
On the contrary Debbie it means the exact opposite. Progressive taxes have absolutely NOTHING to do with consumption whether the product is imported or created domestically. What Jefferson was referring to was not wealth or income, rather spending on luxury, there is a huge difference. The 'Progressive Tax Structure did not even exist when the 16th Amendment was passed, it came along later as the resulting INCOME taxes were invoked. Pretty much apples and oranges.
<Strong>"Revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts... "</strong>
This refers totally to a consumption tax, not an income tax. Whether it be from imports as it was back then, or a consumption tax on domestic products I would be totally for it as long as the 16th Amendment was repealed first.
<strong>These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the government, to fulfil contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts </strong>
Again this relates to purchase beyond essentials, not income per se. So I say repeal the 16th amendment, impose a federal consumption tax on everything except food and medicine, and then budget within the receipts of those taxes collected.
But there is NO correlation between what Jefferson said in his inaugural address and the progressive tax structure created in the 20th century, none at all.
What Foreign Aide is Kyle, is
What Foreign Aide is Kyle, is bribery NOT charity (Tsunami and Earthquake relief aside). We have been using foreign aide as a diplomatic tool since the late 1800's. The merits of which would make an entirely different discussion.
As a percentage of GDP Foreign Aide is actually tiny, that is not to say that I advocate more or do not think there is excess there. Just saying it is a mere pittance when compared domestic spending and defense spending.
My list excluded defense
My list excluded defense budget monies tho Mark.... I forgot to post link again so I will try to find it. This was just foreign aid. I do believe that somewhere I read that Egypt had made a statement that they dont need our aid so my question is......why bother, arent the priorities our own people first?
You presuppose again, that
You presuppose again, that foreign aide is charity, in all but a few cases it is not, it is rather paying off countries to cede to our will rather than forcing them to with troops. Again, I do not say that isn't an issue or even right. It just is what it is.
As far as our own people first, I would much rather see charity and state and local government see to our peoples needs first, the needs of someone in Kansas are not the same as someone in New York when it comes to government aide.
The problem with Federal aide is that it tends to be intrusive, burdened by bureaucracy and less likely to address the root of issues.
Oh and your reference to Egypt, I believe that statement was made by them in response to our cutting much of their aide last month, which actually bolsters my point.
As I said Mark it is hard to
As I said Mark it is hard to use his words in context to what his thoughts on present day laws would be as things are so very different now compared to his time.
However, seeing the only taxes back then were on imports and ONLY the rich had the means to purchase the imports wouldnt one assume he was fine with the rich bearing the brunt?
"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790. ME 8:110
However one interprets that I would not rule out that he might have supported a progressive INCOME tax base on other words spoken by him....
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html
...... This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one.
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
-------
"The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards"
Sounds AWFULLY familiar...
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf
Re Foreign Aid... This
Re Foreign Aid...
This article cites no sources but he claims this....
Overseas assistance in the federal budget is actually American assistance in disguise. Poor countries receive money from our government under the condition that some of the money (about 50 percent) be used to acquire goods and services from American companies. By doing this, Congress ensures that aid money stimulates the American economy, not fragile ones in need of help. Other self-serving tactics include showering aid on strategically important countries like Egypt, while geopolitical twerps like Malawi — where I lived as a Peace Corps volunteer — get squeezed; and conditioning aid upon the adoption of Western ideals like multiparty democracy and free-market capitalism. In short, we finance them to enrich our companies and import our culture. Score: Congress 1, poor countries 0.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-04-21/news/bs-ed-foreign-aid-2011…
And the story gets better for Americans. When desperate countries face a food crisis, their markets are flooded with excess grain from American farms, purchased and shipped overseas by our government. Procuring food within recipient countries (yes, starving countries have food) would save money and jump-start development, but it wouldn't help the American taxpayer. Similarly, thanks to Congress' generous domestic farm subsidies, impoverished farmers in Africa struggle to compete with U.S. farmers on international markets. Score: Congress 2, poor countries 0.
Mark and Debbie.... Here is
Mark and Debbie....
Here is the link to my comments made in post # 35
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42621.pdf
I got it from a Huffington Post Article which was here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/us-foreign-aid-by-country_n_18…
Total Projected US Budget
Total Projected US Budget Outlay Fiscal Year 2013
BUDGET :$3,803,000,000,000.00 ($3.803 TRILLION)
% of budget State Department & Foreign Aide combined <strong>1.6%</Strong>
% of budget Defense <strong>17.7%</Strong>
% Medicare and Medicaid <strong>24.7%</Strong>
% Social Security <strong>23.2%</Strong>
% Treasury Department (IRS/Secret Service) <strong>3%</Strong>
% Department of Agriculture <strong>4.1%</Strong>
Like I said, a pittance, and while issues can be corrected and cuts made across the board, it doesn't amount to much by itself. And remember, 75% of the Department of Agriculture budget are programs like WIC, Food stamps and School Nutrition
The fact is the only place to cut that would make a significant difference is in social spending, and that is much easier said then done.
Anyone need more Kool-Aid?
Anyone need more Kool-Aid? Take money out of politics then maybe we can budget our spending.
"To take from one, because it
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
----- Thomas Jefferson
Then taxes should be equal
Then taxes should be equal across the board Mark.... The percentage taken from anyone's income should be exactly the same. No tax shelters or credits or exemptions and so on...
If the rate is say 10% Then the guy making 10,000 pays 1,000 and the guy making 350,000 pays 35,000. That a fair tax structure for income tax.
I think the unfairness comes from all the exemptions, nuances and little loopholes and such. The more money you make the more you can afford to pay lawyers to discover all this minutae in the tax code.
It should be combined with a consumption tax, or have the consumption tax alone. I admire Thomas Jefferson but in today's culture this quote has lost it's meaning due to the modern way of business.
The unfairness I believe
The unfairness I believe comes from the progressive tax system, itself, you and I agree there. The attempts to change the tax system in the 90's gave us people getting returns that exceeded what they actually paid, and in some cases didn't pay at all.
I DO NOT agree with combining a consumption tax and income tax at all, rather repeal the 16th amendment, and do away with the income tax all together. Make it ALL consumption tax. The only thing combining does is sets you up for higher taxes in the end.