America Weighs in on Washington
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-08-01/america-weighs-washington
Congress held the nation in a state of anxiety for weeks as lawmakers battled over whether to raise the debt ceiling. Yesterday congressional leaders agreed to the outlines of a plan. It calls for cutting more than $2 trillion in federal spending over a decade. It would establish a new congressional committee on deficit reduction. And it would raise the debt ceiling in two steps. A vote on the measure is expected today, but uncertainty still surrounds its passage. Today Diane wants to hear your thoughts on what's going on in Washington. We'll have a brief update on the deal from NPR's Washington editor, then we'll open the phones.
Guests
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
March on Washington?
Why do you think low cost mass transit unavailable for the population ?
Hitchhiking illegal. Coupled with NO MONEY FROM NO JOB makes a charge of vagrancy as well.
If only option breaking laws we are starting with rich corporations, lawyers, and lobbyists... where the money is!
Would gladly accept less than half of cost of prison stay or two jobs again instead. Especially if they include healthcare for my service related uncompenstaed injuries.
Would walk but too far, too hot, and what the Army told me- too old and disabled now.
Used to be rich enough to vote Republican. Never be fooled again. After 32 years of never missing voting(even OCONUS) might miss next election. Would not know where homeless can vote anyway and in jail there is probably a law against it.
On the bright side will probably be dead by then as diet severely restricted(food assistance cut back twice so far).
All that money saved will be outweighed when examined at VA emergency room.
Time up on PC at library.
Libraries, a real education, as formerly smart people go there for the heat/cool nowadays. Even the Americans who cannot read.
Bye, good luck, and God bless.
The caller who said the Democrats did not compromise on health care obviously missed the huge compromise of eliminating the public option. This was a wonderful victory for the right wingers because now they are saying that people are forced to buy insurance from private companies. This would not be true if there was a public option. The right wing is great and setting up false arguments, and they are doing it again with this debt ceiling agreement.
Crisis? Crisis again? and yet another crisis. Washington plays this game over and over and then saves the day at the end. It is like the boy who cries wolf all over again. There are no protesters because most of the American public is not certain if the wolf exists, who the wolf is, or they are just trying to keep their own life in order. I would love to be a fly on the wall during the discussion shedding a light on the wolf. Transparency? That would be nice. Washington needs to do what I try to teach my children all day long, Play Nice!! Thanks for a great show.
Looks to me the "tea party" candidates have compromised plenty, having control of only 1/3 government and less than that if you consider they have to battle old school big government republicans. Calls for compromise that in reality just assure nothing will change is just fool hardy and should be rejected outright by tea party candidates. I am afraid tea party candidate mandates will in effect be put in a box and as time goes by will be ignored for the time being. I do look forward to the 2012 election because it will be a war of words over the size of government, quite frankly I do not think things are bad enough to force change at this time. I do expect a surge in growth of the welfare state and can only hope people will eventually come to the conclusion they are better stewards of their money and reject the notion of handing their wealth over to the government for redistribution. The biggest obstacle for change will be the public/private employee unions (is there a difference) and of course the permanent welfare class, both of which have no problem taking what they want at any cost.
ecgberht wrote:
"my personal experience when attending the first DC Tea Party rally on the mall "
Liberals - KING of the annecdote.
Hey Monique, the attempt to identify the Tea Party as radical, and or astro turf, and or ignorant, has pretty much fallen by the wayside in MSM. Perhaps you didn't get the memo.
Tea Party and the rise of true Constitutional Conservatism is a force to be reconned with in this country. I can't WAIT for November 2012'
Here in SA in front of the Alamo (estimated 10,000) there were many "brown skin" individuals like myself, Mexican Americans that were supporting the Tea Party.
Not Monique, but others in the Liberal Left mentioned that the Tea Party was racist
Here is why the US debt is less worrisome than virtually any oher nation:
Our federal government owns 89% of the land mass of Alaska, 42% of California, 39% of Colorado, 66% of Idaho, 81% of Nevada and 54% of Wyoming.
Do you really think it would be a problem to sell off all of this land and raise a few trillion $?
Obama is either a novice in negotiating (and his team has no clue) or he really planned for this to happen. If he planned for these cuts to happen then he either agrees with them or he wanted to somehow trap the GOP and label them crazies. During his re-election bid he might point to the GOP and say: " Look they are the crazy ones that want to cut your benefits so next time vote for me and give me a majority congress." However, if these are truly his motives then he is playing on the backs of millions of people and the entire country. Either way you see it, it does not look good.
Alex, Ann Arbor MI
Alex-
I couldn't agree more.
'Woody Jones wrote:
WOW!!! I am appalled at Congress. Politics has won out over the business of the American people. We need a recall vote and have all of them replaced. Republicans and Tea Party members hi-jacked the US and World economies. I would not be surprised to see all countries pull back from buying US debt because we have just guaranteed there will be a part II to this debate. Thank you, Congress, for the further diminished of the US global reputation. I do respect the efforts of the President to broker a deal although I feel the deal presented this morning is going to cause more job losses without some type of revenue increases from the 1% that do not create jobs but take our taxpayer non-the-less.'
Woody your been playing to much with your woody. Obama never had a plan. The last plan he submitted back in April was voted down 97 to 0.
The biggest mistake the American people made was electing this guy to office. No experience, no knowlege on how to run a government or private sector is his demise.
"Alex from Ann Arbor
his re-election bid he might point to the GOP and say: " Look they are the crazy ones that want to cut your benefits so next time vote for me and give me a majority congress"
Alex
He had a majority in Congress last year but he still fumbled by passing off the budget before the November elections.
I was unable to hear the entire August 1 broadcast, but I was amazed at all the callers who think that the country's wealthiest people pay no income taxes. The top 1% make about 20% of the country's income and pay about 29% of the income taxes. The bottom 60% make about 25% of the country's income and pay about 13% of the country's taxes. As of 2009, 51% of all the country's adults pay NO income taxes. The top 10% of earners in the US pay a higher percentage of their relative income (tax system is more progressive) to taxes than in Canada, UK, France, Germany, or Japan. It is really easy to target the top 2% of the income earners because they will be outvoted 98-2 every time there is a motion to tax them higher. However, when was the last time that a person in the bottom 10% of the income bracket hired someone? Most of the country's wealthy people got that way by taking a financial risk and HIRING other people. That is how the capitalist system works. People hire other people when the employer thinks they will make money from their employee's labor. Both sides win that way. When the employer does not make money on their employees' labor, they will lose the money that they put at risk and go out of business and all the employees will lose their jobs. If the government takes 60% or 90% of the employer's profit as some commenters here have proposed, that means fewer such businesses will be profitable and fewer will remain in business, with a corresponding fewer people who are employed. John McKinnon recently wrote a nice article in the Wall Street Journal about how the high-earning households are paying an increasingly higher proportion of the country's taxes. It is complete with FACTS, not opinions or innuendo or party politics. Anyone who is interested in forming their own opinion based on FACTS rather than hearing OPINIONS of people who have vested interests on either side of the argument would be encouraged to check out his articles at wsj.com.
sane wrote:
Taxes are lowest they have been in 60 years. The top 1% of taxpayers pay average 16%. If you pay more than that you should be mad. 74 people of top make as much as 19 million people on bottom. This is just transfer of wealth to the wealthiest people.
The "let them eat cake" expression comes to mind.
During Eisenhower era the highest tax bracket was 91%."
Insane:
Let have a source when you say 1% pays 16% of all taxes. Hertiages states 1% pays %38 of all taxes.
"
HVACMAN - brilliantly laid out, thanks.
But here is the nub of the problem in what you have written, my opinion though it be.
"That is how the capitalist system works. "
You are explaining all this to people who don't agree with this way of doing things.
A few more statistics for the fans of entitlement cuts:
The median family net worth is approximately $60,000.
The median family income is a little less than that.
Most Medicare payments go to those over 65. A small amount goes to disabled people under the age of 65.
Medicare does not cover any nursing home expenses.
80% of Medicaid payments go to nursing homes.
A nursing home costs about $50,000 per year.
You can't qualify for Medicaid until you have used up all of your assets so the $60,000 net worth of the nursing home patient is gone before Medicaid starts to pay.
You can't give your money away to qualify for Medicaid, the look-back period delays Medicaid payments until the amount of any gifts have been paid toward the nursing home costs.
You can cut Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements only so much. After that, the payments are born by the individual.
The easiest way to cut Medicaid costs is to consider the net worth of the extended families of nursing home patients and have them contribute to the first year of nursing home costs or for the family to keep the patient at home for the first year.
So prepare to be extra nice to your children so you can move in with them when the time comes.
Kudos HVACMAN:
That is the main reason Clinton elimanated the 1% wealth tax in 1993. That helped him get reelected in 96.
"The easiest way to cut Medicaid costs is to consider the net worth of the extended families of nursing home patients and have them contribute to the first year of nursing home costs."
Great idea accountant! Seriously, we agree on this one. This will "forcibly" replace what used to happen when parents lived with their children or other relatives when they could no longer take care of themselves. At least it's more fair than taxing me to pay for someone else's Grandma's nursing home care.
HVACMan-
As wealth becomes more and morec concentrated, one would expect the the wealthy to pay a greater percentage of the income tax.
It is untrue that most of the country's wealthy people got there by taking a financial risk. The two best indicators of of a person's likelihood to become rich are 1) having parents who are already rich and 2) having parents whose income is very high. While it is true that some people rise from ordinary means to wealth, they are by far the minority.
The statement that "People hire other people when the employer thinks they will make money from their employee's labor" is true for small businesses, those not run by MBAs. Big businesses start their hiring when it meets their metrics for hiring: Will the gross profit be high enough? Will the net profit on this hiring be high enough? Will the revenue per employee increase enough? Will the return on investment of hiring this individual be realized fast enough that it doesn't put a drag on next quarter's earnings?
As our business economy becomes more and more concentrated, the likelihood of hiring by businesses decreases while each business waits for the other to hire so they can meet their quarterly targets to keep their stock price up today.
"The two best indicators of of a person's likelihood to become rich are 1) having parents who are already rich and 2) having parents whose income is very high."
Ergo, the Government has the right to take their money?
"Will the gross profit be high enough? Will the net profit on this hiring be high enough? Will the revenue per employee increase enough? Will the return on investment of hiring this individual be realized fast enough that it doesn't put a drag on next quarter's earnings?"
So you are an accountant and not a business man. What questions would you have them ask?
Oh, and btw, you left out, "Will the net profit on this hiring be high enough after I pay for his unemployment insurance and health insurance"?
ecgberht:
It nice to be so furtunate that you can afford medical and nursing home care for you and your parents.
The point is that for more than one half of the families in the US, the combined net worth of the parents and children is about $120,000, enough for only two and a half years in a nursing home for the four of them.
"It nice to be so furtunate that you can afford medical and nursing home care for you and your parents."
Hey, I just AGREED with what you posted!!!
"the combined net worth of the parents and children is about $120,000"
I'm sure you have documentation on that statistic?
That's not a lot of money, but it's enough to have been buying long term care insurance from early on. But, "what the hell do I need LTC insurance for? When I get old, the gubmint will take care of me". As I have said here before, we're now into a second genration where people expect the government to "do for" them when they could have and should have been doing for themselves.
ecgberht
I am a businessman. I base my hiring on whether I can turn a profit on the individual I hire. Big businesses no longer look at just the bottom line. For instance, if I owned a family restaurant I would base my hiring decision on whether a new server would increase my net profit. A chain restaurant would base that same decision on whether a new server met a number of requirements such as generating a profit of say 20%, revenue of 4 times employment cost, would the training period cut too much into this quarter's profit or should I give up some profit now and wait until next quarter to do the hiring so I look better this quarter?
Unempoyment is typically a very modest cost for most employers. Here in Indiana, I pay about $330 per employee per year for both federal and Indiana unemployment.
Re the democrats... does anyone remember the King Solomon story about the two mothers and the baby they both claimed? Who was it that gave in?
Re the democrats... does anyone remember the King Solomon story about the two mothers and the baby they both claimed? Who was it that gave in?
Sadly, I get the show on delay living in Tucson AZ. However, I just heard a comment on the Monday debt show that went something like this: "the reason we don't have a march on Washington is that no one can afford to go there." So what if we could organize a virtual march in Washington. I have no idea how to do that, but I am sure it is possible, and just as sure that there are people out there who could pull it off.
Stewart McDonald
Tucson AZ
KUAZ Member
Sadly, I get the show on delay living in Tucson AZ. However, I just heard a comment on the Monday debt show that went something like this: "the reason we don't have a march on Washington is that no one can afford to go there." So what if we could organize a virtual march in Washington. I have no idea how to do that, but I am sure it is possible, and just as sure that there are people out there who could pull it off.
Stewart McDonald
Tucson AZ
KUAZ Member
Sadly, I get the show on delay living in Tucson AZ. However, I just heard a comment on the Monday debt show that went something like this: "the reason we don't have a march on Washington is that no one can afford to go there." So what if we could organize a virtual march in Washington. I have no idea how to do that, but I am sure it is possible, and just as sure that there are people out there who could pull it off.
Stewart McDonald
Tucson AZ
KUAZ Member
accountant:
Sorry, I don't see the point, unless you are saying that different individuals run their businesses in different ways. There is no right and wrong in that. There IS only the bottom line, however an employer frames that.
What I suspect you are saying is that "small business hires the right way, big business does not". That's just your opinion. You have no stockholders to whom you are responsible. A larger company does, assuming they are public or have private investors. They have many more factors to consider including, yes, profit margins and the effect of training new employees on the bottom line.
Reposted from a tweet I sent: This is NO DEAL on debt. Without Revenue i.e. TAXES, the entire deal is paid for by middle class and poor. THE RICH MUST PAY TOO!
The Income gap keeps expanding and no one seems to care. Sooner or later politicians will realize that we may be broke but we can still vote.
I don't think Tea Party supporters are very well up on history, or they would not have chosen the original Boston Tea Party as their inspiration. The oft-told history is that the BTP was a revolt against taxes, period. Not quite so simple. It was actually a revolt against preferential tax treatment given to the British East India Company (an ancestor of today's trans-national companies) in order to preserve its monopoly on the tea trade. In other words, the Bostonians were not against taxes, only against unfair taxes. If the TPers were sincere, they would want corporations and the top 2% to pay their fair share.