I’m afraid you don’t seem to understand the most basic precept of government operations: without funding in hand, there is no obligation on the part of the government.
All those future budget projections about spending and debt or whatnot are not binding upon the United States, with the exception of guaranteeing the debt that is authorized by law. Other than the validity of that debt, everything can be changed because it is the prerogative of the government to do so.
Something does not become an obligation of the government until the funding is in hand to turn a commitment (which is an idea that the government would like to do something) into an obligation (which is the legal requirement to do it).
Right. Today’s Republicans with their compassionate policies are the true patriots, especially insightful bring-us-together intellectuals like Bachmann. It’s the dastardly Democrats who are bringing the country to its knees with tax-and-spend, foolish wars, Wall St. bailouts and obstinance in Congress. When will voters come to their senses?
Words can and do have multiple meanings depending on the context. The US government has obligations in the sense that promises have been made. It is correct there is not an “obligation of funds”. If those promises don’t mean anything, why is anyone talking about the debt ceiling. The issue is what happens if the US government is seen to not be trustworthy regarding promises (obligations) despite there not being an actual issuance of debt.
US veterans see an obligation to get their pensions, SS recipients see an obligation to get their checks, current holders of US debt see an obligation to be repaid with interest, etc.
I fully understand the difference between legal debt obligations and obligations of promise but I also fully understand that there will dire consequences for defaulting on either.
The “carried interest” loophole is a biggie and a loophole any way you slice it.
For corporations you have them do “transfer pricing” to move profits overseas so they pay no taxes on that money at all. Then you lobby Congress for a “tax holiday” to repatriate that money at substantially lower tax rates (e.g. at 5%).
Those would be loopholes. I am betting there are more.
Point is, you are not raising the tax rate. You are merely asking people and corporations to pay the taxes they are supposed to pay. Taxes you and I (or at least I do) pay as a matter of course.
That is a new tax. It’s an additional tax on monies which were not previously taxed. Any way you slice it, closing loopholes or introducing new taxes are functionally indistinguishable.
Sure, but Obama has focused on corporate jets, oil company subsidies, and hedge funds. The depreciation schedule for corporate jets is not a loophole. Oil companies do not receive subsidies. Hedge funds I agree with.
Agreed.
I have not studied up on this enough to speak on it in a detailed way. I will say that in general, if a multinational company legitimately earns profits overseas and pays taxes on those dollars according to that foreign country’s laws, I do not see any legitimate reason why they should also pay taxes to the U.S. government. The fact is that when a foreign company, say Kia for example, makes products here in the U.S. and sells them here in the U.S., we expect them to pay U.S. taxes. It runs both ways. As long as companies are handling things on an arm’s length basis with their foreign subsidiaries then I am okay with it. If they are not handled on an arm’s length basis then that seems like a job for the IRS enforcement agents to me.
Here is a hypothetical. Every single company in the country gets to deduct overhead expenses in determining their taxable income. Congress writes a law saying that everyone can do it except Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon. They then come out and say that they are ending subsidies for Big Internet. Big Internet makes enough money, and they should be paying their fair share. They talk about how they are closing loopholes that Big Internet has enjoyed for years.
What do we call that? Is it ending a subsidy or closing a loophole like congress has said?
Strange that the Fed’s federal government web site makes no mention they are a non-government entity. Also, a .gov TLD web site is restricted to agencies and entities of the US Government. A private entity cannot hold a .gov web address.
We need to maintain current spending levels, increase deficit spending while we can borrow so cheaply and grow our way out of deficits. Do what worked before when we had higher dwebt levels.
Grover Nordquist say letting the Bush tax cuts end would not be a tax raise. Perhaps he sees the damage his philosophy has brought and knows what the correct fix is.
HAHAHAHahahahaha! You mean like when Mitch McConnell went on TV and told everybody that if the GOP caved on tax increases they were handing Obama a victory in 2012? That is them “putting country before party”?
And this, my friends, is the craziest f’ing thing I’ve ever heard. I assume that Mr. Norquist had one of those worms from Star Trek II attached to his brain when he said that.
You know, all the wasteful stuff! That’s got its own column on all the accounting sheet. See, it’s SS, defense, blah blah, then wasteful spending. Just cut that one right out. See how easy that was?
