Actually, Obama hasn't added anything to the debt, it's congress that spends the money and sets the tax rates, and most of that debt is the result of policies put in place by the Republican party. So rather than try to foist the blame off on Obama, I mean really, which of his policies added to the Debt? The debt is the result of taxes being too low, which has been the case since the Reagan tax cuts, and was further exacerbated by the Bush Tax cuts. I won't say that spending is too high, because if there is a sufficient majority to cut taxes, then there is a sufficient majority to cut spending, and since the same congresses that lowered taxes raised spending those congresses clearly considered the spending levels as vital to the survival of the Republic.
One can withdraw consent. Staying under a regime does not imply consent to what the regime does. When you say "your nation" you mean "your government. " I am not my government, despite your attempts to claim the contrary. I do not ask for exemption, I simply claim that whatever is done is not according to my consent. Does it make you feel better to patronize?
Is there something magical about democracy that 50%+1 of those who participate create what is morally right and what is morally wrong? If that is the case, then we can assume that the law of numbers, plus might is right, creates moral truth. If a democracy decides to make war on another nation, it can't be a moral wrong for any reason, especially if it wins that war. Similarly, if it decides to purge citizens, or immigrants, or commit any other atrocity. Democracy is not a god, yet you imbue it with godlike powers and make of it an idol.
That is only correct when spending has to come from tax income. What we have is a government that is acting like a teenager with their first credit card. They are buying 50% more than they make. What are they buying? Friendship (votes). They are stuck between continuing to buy gifts for their friends, or losing their friends (and office, and their job). But, government can't even count on their friends to stay in office, so they sell themselves to those with money. Of course, those with money want gifts as well, gifts the consumer (and voter) pays for. But, these aren't taxes, they are regulations. That is why the cost of healthcare and education, and the incomes of the top 1%, have far exceeded inflation.
No, you claimed more than that. I disagree with a lot that my government does without my explicit consent but then again I never expected that it would ask me personally for my consent before it embarked on some harebrained adventure. It is just the nature of living in a nation of some hundreds of millions electing a few hundred to make all the decisions. That said, I do not disassociate myself from my government because as a citizen of the nation I am not separate from it and cannot be separated from it. To think otherwise is schizophrenia, solipsism or some kind of harebrained anti-politics.
No, not at all. I do not expect my government to be a God or something else that is improbable. I accept it for what it is, a flawed and complex reflection of its people, complete with the indecisive morality and ethics of its legislation. I will not impose my moral views on the nation or divorce myself from it because of them, to do either would be to betray the principles upon which it was founded and under which I choose to live.
In the long run deficits=surpluses, it may look like it won't happen, but the debt isn't the problem, if it was a problem, we would address it. The problem right now is unemployment, caused by a shortfall of demand. Only the Federal government can address that shortfall, so I would see a much larger deficit as a rational response to the current situation. But we don't have rational government, we have a struggle for power for power's sake, and in that struggle it's perfectly rational for a party to force the country into a financial crisis, if one believes that that financial crisis will shift the balance of power to the favor of that party.
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps ObamaCare. And his "stimulus" spending, based upon Keynesian economic theory... And herein lies the fundamental fallacy: i.e. the (apparently sincere) belief that higher tax rates automatically translate into greater government revenues, and that lower tax rates translate into reduced revenues...
Except the deficit is lower now than the day he took office, before all those things you are claiming caused it... Only because higher tax rates do generate higher revenues in the real world, I'm basing my belief on facts, not dogma. The fact is the real problem this country faces right now is unemployment, it's what is destroying peoples lives, and it's lowering the long term performance of the nation as a whole. Deal with unemployment now, worry about the deficit later, because the deficit isn't a problem now, it's just an excuse to maneuver politically.
We've had the worst recession in 80 years and Tea Party obstructionists controlling the House who refuse to compromise on a tax increase to cut the deficit even though tax revenues are proportionately the lowest in 60 years. Vote the Republicans out of the House if you are really concerned about the debt. - - - Updated - - - You are if your an American citizen. - - - Updated - - - Tax cuts run amok.
Americans are responsible for their government. You can thank Ronnie, George and George for the present. - - - Updated - - - Sure you do, as a US citizen. With all the privileges and benefits that entails. And obligations.
Yet they will come after us with cops and courts if we don't pay them a large portion of the money we earn from working. How annoying is that?
I don't get how people think that tax increases could really offset that kind of spending. It just won't happen, but you may manage to destroy what's left of the economy. It's the spending, not the taxes, that is in need of serious adjustment.
You realize a good chunk of that are the iraq and afghanistan wars that were previously "off the books" right while at the same time cutting income with tax cuts? Just keeping it honest here.
I know what you mean. A guy like Mitt Romney had to pay a 14% tax on his $20 million or so in income. Which means he had to get by with only $17,200,000 that year. Can you imagine how annoying that must be? I'm glad our Govt is running up trillions in debt so that guys like Romney don't have to get so annoyed. Though it's too bad the Romney wasn't elected so that he could reduce his own annoyance even more! - - - Updated - - - Those costs are reflected in the debt figures, which are the total debt obligation of the US govt.
Well lets see. In 2000, the govt collected 20.4% of GDP in tax revenues. If it had done that in the last 3 years, annual revenues would have been about $750 billion per year higher. That offsets a pretty big chunk of it. And I don't recall the economy being too destroyed when those Clinton taxes were in effect. We've made a serious adjustment. Relative to GDP, we have reduced spending faster in the past three years than anytime in modern history. The Govt is now spending proportionately less than it did in some of the Reagan years.
You'll want to be careful about hypotheticals. More taxes doesn't necessarily mean more revenue, since people have ways - legal or otherwise - of getting around higher taxes.
There are always tax cheats. If we were talking about tax rates in the 90+% range like we had in the '40s, '50s and early '60s, I'd agree that would be a concern. But here we are talking about the Clinton tax rates. i don't recall there being a particular problem with tax cheats at that time, and if there was, it sure wasn't reflected in revenues, which blew thru the roof.
Plus there are economic concerns to consider - more money taken away in taxes, presumably to be wasted on repaying a non-existent debt to the central bank, would give nothing back to the economy. It becomes a huge net loss to us.
(1) Yes, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had previously been kept "off the books." (2) What evidence do you have to help sustain the proposition that lower (federal) tax rates lead inevitably (or even usually) to decreased revenues for the federal government? (If you truly wish to be "honest," this might be a really good place to start...)
Repayment of Govt debt held by the Fed actually doesn't cost us much if anything. Interest payments the Fed receives are remitted to the Treasury every year net of costs.
You can not give every individual what they want. If i read your comment it seems you have a problem with the democracy. And i do agree that the democracy in the US doesn't work properly. Politicians can not always do what they promised they would because you have to make concessions to other parties. So you are responsible for your governments actions even thought your government doesn't work as promised. But that's an other problem the US and every democracy has.
How do you figure? We are only paying interest on the debt ($200B on $15T owed), and then borrow another $1T.
