Deficit reduction and Debt ceiling are two difficult issues facing the United States presently; however, they must both be dealt with strenuously enough for the country to come out of the present recession.
More than that, they can cause so much economic calamity of extensive proportions that will affect the dollar dramatically. Its value will decline, and that will cause the price of everything to go up. Financial transactions of all kinds will cost more. Business and car loans, credit card and student loans, all seem to be in jeopardy.
The stock market and other financial institutions will all be impacted in all sorts of negative ways, and it will take several months, if not a number of years for them to fully recover.
The economy will be damaged without doubt, as almost all economists are predicting, and the outcome will not be pleasant for every person in the country. Unemployment will remain high or it will even begin to soar higher, as businesses start to close in large numbers. The cost of living will rise and thus plunge the fragile economy that the nation is now experiencing into a tailspin.
The deficit can be reduced by using careful planning, and taking measures that will make the nation capable of living within its means; however, it will take a great number of positive and vibrant steps for that to happen. Yet, America is at a point, where it has to be able to pay its bills and remain a safe haven for investors; their capital is needed to grow the economy once again. The crunch comes, when it must find a way to avoid default; hence, it must raise its debt ceiling.
The two issues are two hard nuts to crack, but if politicians will put their heads together and stop being critical of each other's ideological leanings, they will be able to do so. They are rather fighting among themselves, and that will be pushing America into a state of emergency, whose outcome is extremely terrifying.
A deadline of August 2nd, 2011, has been set for the nations debts to be paid in full; and if an agreement between the Democratic Party government and the Republican Party opposition is not in place before that date, all hell will break lose.
The country's financial woes will become insurmountable from then on; and for what? Because a few intransigent politicians have decided to turn a deaf ear to the pleas of the citizens of the United States; and all they (politicians) are interested in is to score political points and nothing else. Why and again, for what? You may be asking.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
DEBT CEILING AND THE TEA PARTY.
If anyone misunderstood the debt ceiling issue being discussed in Washington D.C. presently, it would be the Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, who did not want the debt ceiling to be raised, no matter what; however, she has a hidden agenda to stop it from happening. Coming very close to her would be the Tea Party people, who were just gullible.
First, they have been made to know what "government spending" was, that it comprised of the overall budget of government expenditure covering from the vast military expenses that the country required for protection all the way through to Medicaid, which supported the poor and the needy.
In between were a myriad of programs that have been put in place, from time immemorial, to support the smooth running of the government; consisting of activities meant for the survival of all citizens, and without which, there would be no country, in the right sense of the word.
Now, they have also been made to know that the raising of the debt ceiling was a monetary device that allowed any government to have ample resources to meet its fiscal responsibility in an adequate manner to avoid financial overburden.
It was used in emergency situations, as it was applied on several occasions during the Bush era, when the 9/11 attacks took place, sparking off two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, simultaneously.
To use the private economic sector for example, when a company needed start up money, it would borrow from any number of financial institutions and used the proceeds to cover its capital expenditure. Then the company's return on its investments, which was its profits, would be used to pay off any outstanding debts.
In the present financial situation of the United States Government, the general analysis by so many economists was that, if the debt ceiling was not raised, it (government) would be in default against its internal and external obligations.
If that became a reality, there would be such an enormous upheaval that could cause a setback for the fragile economy that the nation was experiencing right now, bringing with it difficult times for every single American.
Besides, there would be physical, financial chaos, as the country has never seen before. It would not be able to come out of the fiscal doldrums of the past, created by the same reasons given above (9/11 & two wars).
The Republican Party leadership was aware of the big picture; and that it would bear no goodwill to the American economy; as there would be hardships for the business sector, and Wall Street in particular, to grapple with, and thus creating an economic "Armageddon"; which would bring about so many difficulties for millions of individuals, who were already fighting to make ends meet.
High interest rates would be the order of the day, bringing in its train a new increase in the cost of living; and unemployment would even soar to unpredictable heights.
The outcome would be pretty awful economically for everyone; but the answer to it would be what President Barack Obama has been emphasizing all along, that taxes must be raised on those who have benefited from the economy in the past, on one hand; and he was even ready to skew on some entitlement programs, like Medicare and Social Security, on the other hand, in order to get the Republicans to come to an agreement or a compromise on the debt ceiling.
The Tea Party came about on government spending, which they thought was lavish and extravagant; and all America's financial problems have developed from the irrational way the government has handled its finances. However, there was no evidence of that accusation on the part of the Obama administration. None whatsoever.
Therefore, the raising of the debt ceiling was for a good cause; if so, why should the Tea Party hold it as hostage against the president and prevent him from doing what was right for the country? After all it was his duty to do just that; the RIGHT thing.
As for Michele Bachmann, she was opposed to the raising of the debt ceiling; and for a very sinister reason at that too. It was her idea to use the Tea Party, which was also opposed to the issue, only for her own political gains, and nothing else.
First, they have been made to know what "government spending" was, that it comprised of the overall budget of government expenditure covering from the vast military expenses that the country required for protection all the way through to Medicaid, which supported the poor and the needy.
In between were a myriad of programs that have been put in place, from time immemorial, to support the smooth running of the government; consisting of activities meant for the survival of all citizens, and without which, there would be no country, in the right sense of the word.
Now, they have also been made to know that the raising of the debt ceiling was a monetary device that allowed any government to have ample resources to meet its fiscal responsibility in an adequate manner to avoid financial overburden.
It was used in emergency situations, as it was applied on several occasions during the Bush era, when the 9/11 attacks took place, sparking off two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, simultaneously.
To use the private economic sector for example, when a company needed start up money, it would borrow from any number of financial institutions and used the proceeds to cover its capital expenditure. Then the company's return on its investments, which was its profits, would be used to pay off any outstanding debts.
In the present financial situation of the United States Government, the general analysis by so many economists was that, if the debt ceiling was not raised, it (government) would be in default against its internal and external obligations.
If that became a reality, there would be such an enormous upheaval that could cause a setback for the fragile economy that the nation was experiencing right now, bringing with it difficult times for every single American.
Besides, there would be physical, financial chaos, as the country has never seen before. It would not be able to come out of the fiscal doldrums of the past, created by the same reasons given above (9/11 & two wars).
The Republican Party leadership was aware of the big picture; and that it would bear no goodwill to the American economy; as there would be hardships for the business sector, and Wall Street in particular, to grapple with, and thus creating an economic "Armageddon"; which would bring about so many difficulties for millions of individuals, who were already fighting to make ends meet.
High interest rates would be the order of the day, bringing in its train a new increase in the cost of living; and unemployment would even soar to unpredictable heights.
The outcome would be pretty awful economically for everyone; but the answer to it would be what President Barack Obama has been emphasizing all along, that taxes must be raised on those who have benefited from the economy in the past, on one hand; and he was even ready to skew on some entitlement programs, like Medicare and Social Security, on the other hand, in order to get the Republicans to come to an agreement or a compromise on the debt ceiling.
The Tea Party came about on government spending, which they thought was lavish and extravagant; and all America's financial problems have developed from the irrational way the government has handled its finances. However, there was no evidence of that accusation on the part of the Obama administration. None whatsoever.
Therefore, the raising of the debt ceiling was for a good cause; if so, why should the Tea Party hold it as hostage against the president and prevent him from doing what was right for the country? After all it was his duty to do just that; the RIGHT thing.
As for Michele Bachmann, she was opposed to the raising of the debt ceiling; and for a very sinister reason at that too. It was her idea to use the Tea Party, which was also opposed to the issue, only for her own political gains, and nothing else.
Friday, July 15, 2011
A BRIGHTER FUTURE.
It was former Prime Minister Winston Churchill who made the comment below many, many years ago in the White House,
"His words are quoted as “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war,’” in the sub-heading on p. 1 of The New York Times, June 27, 1954, and as “To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war” on p. 3." (http://www.bartleby.com/73/1914.html).
For talks about the debt ceiling was still going on, with both sides in an agreement that there should be no default on the part of the United States government, when the deadline prescribed by all kinds of economic experts was reached.
Tempers were frayed at a previous meeting that caused President Barack Obama to leave abruptly (Wednesday), but then the talks continued until today, when another meeting was in the offing. That alone was a good omen.
Lawmakers have all kinds of plans to deal with the issue at hand; as onlookers have observed lately. Some were good and some were not so pleasant; yet the talks went on. To them (onlookers), the talks should continue until a compromise was accomplished.
Members of Congress were doing the work that the country gave them to do; a duty, unlike any other they have done before, that must be performed to resolve a problem of profound proportions, to get the nation's finances in order, for the good of all Americans. They must therefore be encouraged in their efforts to do all they could to handle it with care and with the seriousness it deserved.
Otherwise, the financial woes of the nation would go from worse to worst; and that would not be in anyone's favor, be he or she a Democrat or a Republican; or for that matter, an independent.
August 2nd. is fast approaching, and the U.S. Congress must have a bill ready, and long before that date, for the president to sign into law; and to put the world on notice that America will never relinquish its responsibility to meet its financial obligations.
When that is done, the economy will bounce back, the budget deficit gap will be at an acceptable point, where it will be near to closing it completely, unemployment will subside, financial markets will be stabilized, cost of living will not soar to unimaginable levels, where ordinary folks, such as Senior Citizens, cannot cope; and everything will almost return to normal.
Americans will then have a sense of assurance that Congress is doing what it is meant to do; and that is, to put the needs of the country first. Its members must not be too partisan and so fail to find a way to bridge their differences. They must always do what they regard as being in the best interest of the country; and when they do, they will always have the backing of a grateful nation.
We must all wish them well in resolving a financial crisis that will spell nothing, but doom to the U.S.; the raising of the debt ceiling will give the economy a fresh start, and Americans can then look forward to a brighter future from now on.
Keep on talking in Washington D.C.
"His words are quoted as “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war,’” in the sub-heading on p. 1 of The New York Times, June 27, 1954, and as “To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war” on p. 3." (http://www.bartleby.com/73/1914.html).
For talks about the debt ceiling was still going on, with both sides in an agreement that there should be no default on the part of the United States government, when the deadline prescribed by all kinds of economic experts was reached.
Tempers were frayed at a previous meeting that caused President Barack Obama to leave abruptly (Wednesday), but then the talks continued until today, when another meeting was in the offing. That alone was a good omen.
Lawmakers have all kinds of plans to deal with the issue at hand; as onlookers have observed lately. Some were good and some were not so pleasant; yet the talks went on. To them (onlookers), the talks should continue until a compromise was accomplished.
Members of Congress were doing the work that the country gave them to do; a duty, unlike any other they have done before, that must be performed to resolve a problem of profound proportions, to get the nation's finances in order, for the good of all Americans. They must therefore be encouraged in their efforts to do all they could to handle it with care and with the seriousness it deserved.
Otherwise, the financial woes of the nation would go from worse to worst; and that would not be in anyone's favor, be he or she a Democrat or a Republican; or for that matter, an independent.
August 2nd. is fast approaching, and the U.S. Congress must have a bill ready, and long before that date, for the president to sign into law; and to put the world on notice that America will never relinquish its responsibility to meet its financial obligations.
When that is done, the economy will bounce back, the budget deficit gap will be at an acceptable point, where it will be near to closing it completely, unemployment will subside, financial markets will be stabilized, cost of living will not soar to unimaginable levels, where ordinary folks, such as Senior Citizens, cannot cope; and everything will almost return to normal.
Americans will then have a sense of assurance that Congress is doing what it is meant to do; and that is, to put the needs of the country first. Its members must not be too partisan and so fail to find a way to bridge their differences. They must always do what they regard as being in the best interest of the country; and when they do, they will always have the backing of a grateful nation.
We must all wish them well in resolving a financial crisis that will spell nothing, but doom to the U.S.; the raising of the debt ceiling will give the economy a fresh start, and Americans can then look forward to a brighter future from now on.
Keep on talking in Washington D.C.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
MEETING CLOSED.
President Barack Obama left the White House meeting abruptly last night, because the Republicans were getting on his nerves with the repetitiveness of their worn out idea that they wanted to reach an agreement in piece meal fashion; thus 60 days, 90 days, 180 days, or any type of periodic authorization by the United States Congress to resolve the debt ceiling crisis.
The president had previously reiterated that such an arrangement would not be possible, with the same issue coming up periodically to interrupt government business. "If things are not working out now, wait till 60 days or 90 days later, when we return to the same talks; they (things) will become worse,", he had said at one point.
Besides, he has made it quite clear that, if any partial agreement was contained in any legislation passed into law by the U.S. Congress, he would veto it.
Obviously, there were two different approaches to reduce the deficit, and to allow the debt ceiling meetings to move forward; one was to cut or to prune (down) the budget through Medicare and Social Security. The other was to impose tax hikes on millionaires and corporate executives to boost the country's revenue, however very little.
The first was a non starter for the president, and particularly, for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It would interfere with programs that were traditionally beneficial to the elderly and the poor. It would even destroy some of those programs, vital in some cases, to the detriment of those they were designed to serve.
The second was what the Congressional Republicans were defending, that taxes must not or could not be imposed on the rich in the middle of a recession. Instead, tax breaks must be given to businesses in order for them to create jobs.
There was a third element, which could be used to eliminate the tax loopholes in the present tax system to enable the government to collect more revenues, and thus close the budget gap considerably.
That was supposed to be the common ground being sought by the president and a great majority of the nation; but the Republicans would not have anything to do with that.
They were now seeking a constitutional budget amendment to be factored into any arrangement in the present talks for them to agree on a final piece of legislation that would pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
That was where the impasse came to life, because to many Democrats, a budget reform did not need a constitutional amendment, which would take several years for the 50 States to ratify.
Moreover, there was a "clear and present danger" of the Obama government defaulting on August 2nd., if its debt dealings were not met, both within and outside the country, on that date.
Thus, there was an urgent need to resolve the issue of raising the debt ceiling by a specific deadline, in order for the government to physically cover some elements in the overall debt crisis before too late; and then other plans could be worked out to tackle the huge deficit hole, brought about by two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember?); plus other financial obligations that the U.S. government had both at home and abroad.
The U.S. has the responsibility to put its financial house in order, of course; however, in the interim, it must be able to get certain payments out of the way, to avoid an imminent internal fiscal catastrophe being forecast by almost all eminent economists in America. Also it must be able to maintain its high AAA rating in the International monetary world; and if that was amiss, it would cause even a greater havoc around the world; hence, the purpose of raising the debt ceiling.
It (raising of the debt ceiling) has never been in question; and it has never been denied by any U.S. legislature before; so why should it be denied to the Obama government?
That alone could compel President Barack Obama to walk out on any meeting of stubborn political ideologues, who did not want him to succeed. So, he had every right and every good reason to close the meeting abruptly.
In all the goings on in the country, many people felt sorry for the Tea Party movement, because most of its members did not understand the issue of government spending. They thought that the government was wasting tax payer money on trivial things.
They now should learn more about how the Obama government spent the country's money; for it did so very wisely. They (Tea-partiers) have been fooled by other politicians.
The president had previously reiterated that such an arrangement would not be possible, with the same issue coming up periodically to interrupt government business. "If things are not working out now, wait till 60 days or 90 days later, when we return to the same talks; they (things) will become worse,", he had said at one point.
Besides, he has made it quite clear that, if any partial agreement was contained in any legislation passed into law by the U.S. Congress, he would veto it.
Obviously, there were two different approaches to reduce the deficit, and to allow the debt ceiling meetings to move forward; one was to cut or to prune (down) the budget through Medicare and Social Security. The other was to impose tax hikes on millionaires and corporate executives to boost the country's revenue, however very little.
The first was a non starter for the president, and particularly, for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It would interfere with programs that were traditionally beneficial to the elderly and the poor. It would even destroy some of those programs, vital in some cases, to the detriment of those they were designed to serve.
The second was what the Congressional Republicans were defending, that taxes must not or could not be imposed on the rich in the middle of a recession. Instead, tax breaks must be given to businesses in order for them to create jobs.
There was a third element, which could be used to eliminate the tax loopholes in the present tax system to enable the government to collect more revenues, and thus close the budget gap considerably.
That was supposed to be the common ground being sought by the president and a great majority of the nation; but the Republicans would not have anything to do with that.
They were now seeking a constitutional budget amendment to be factored into any arrangement in the present talks for them to agree on a final piece of legislation that would pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
That was where the impasse came to life, because to many Democrats, a budget reform did not need a constitutional amendment, which would take several years for the 50 States to ratify.
Moreover, there was a "clear and present danger" of the Obama government defaulting on August 2nd., if its debt dealings were not met, both within and outside the country, on that date.
Thus, there was an urgent need to resolve the issue of raising the debt ceiling by a specific deadline, in order for the government to physically cover some elements in the overall debt crisis before too late; and then other plans could be worked out to tackle the huge deficit hole, brought about by two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember?); plus other financial obligations that the U.S. government had both at home and abroad.
The U.S. has the responsibility to put its financial house in order, of course; however, in the interim, it must be able to get certain payments out of the way, to avoid an imminent internal fiscal catastrophe being forecast by almost all eminent economists in America. Also it must be able to maintain its high AAA rating in the International monetary world; and if that was amiss, it would cause even a greater havoc around the world; hence, the purpose of raising the debt ceiling.
It (raising of the debt ceiling) has never been in question; and it has never been denied by any U.S. legislature before; so why should it be denied to the Obama government?
That alone could compel President Barack Obama to walk out on any meeting of stubborn political ideologues, who did not want him to succeed. So, he had every right and every good reason to close the meeting abruptly.
In all the goings on in the country, many people felt sorry for the Tea Party movement, because most of its members did not understand the issue of government spending. They thought that the government was wasting tax payer money on trivial things.
They now should learn more about how the Obama government spent the country's money; for it did so very wisely. They (Tea-partiers) have been fooled by other politicians.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
DEBT CEILING TALKS.
Now, we all know that, if the debt ceiling is not raised in time to avoid default, the whole country will suffer.
Therefore, it is not a joke that negotiators on both sides of the issue are still pussyfooting and calling the talks to be moved from day to day. Every second that goes by brings uneasiness to many Americans. They are urging Democrats and Republicans to agree on a compromise that will not push the economy into a way that will be more destructive beyond repair.
That is, if the debt ceiling controversy is not dealt with sufficiently enough, the mighty dollar will decline, interest rates will go up, unemployment will stay high, if not increase. The uncertainty surrounding the whole thing will drive investors away, causing the stock market and other financial institutions to falter and become disoriented and unmanageable. The deficit will become enlarged in the end, and that will make matters even worse for the United States.
However, the effects will not stop at its borders, but they will impact the larger global economy in so many negative ways, and thus finally destroy America's reputation as a reliant trading concern and partner.
The omens are pretty awful to compel business associations to send a letter to negotiators, asking them to put aside "hard-line partisan positions" and come to a compromise.
"Our political leaders must agree to a plan to substantially reduce our long-term budget deficits with a goal of at least stabilizing our nation's debt as a percentage of GDP (gross domestic product) -- which will entail difficult choices," said the letter from the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Financial Services Forum, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Partnership for New York City. (CNN Report, 7/13/11).
Indications from every angle point to the fact that the country is headed for more financial backlog that will take many years to dissipate or to be cleared up; and it will have left the already fragile economy in a bad state than before the beginning of the negotiations.
All because of the obstinate pride of a handful of politicians, who do not want the Obama administration to succeed.
Some media pundits are also playing a foolish game on the sidelines, calling President Barack Obama's position a bluff; and that there is enough money to meet all important government obligations, but just a few that can wait. What?
Fox News Special Report is guilty of presenting folks, who think that they are smarter and more conversant with the government's dealings than the government itself. That must stop instantly, as the negotiations have reached a point where the stakes are high; and as a result, tensions are also very high. Any such stupid comments on the part of these pundits and News Contributors will not help at all.
The stalemate must be broken to allow the nation to breathe freely once again. Besides, the talks have nothing to do with "dancing", as a senior Republican participant is quoted to say. Suggesting anything as trivial is unrealistic; they (talks) are more serious than that.
"Senator Graham said if the debt ceiling is not raised, it would be “a disaster.”". (ABC News, 7/13/11).
People must put that in their pipes and smoke it.
Therefore, it is not a joke that negotiators on both sides of the issue are still pussyfooting and calling the talks to be moved from day to day. Every second that goes by brings uneasiness to many Americans. They are urging Democrats and Republicans to agree on a compromise that will not push the economy into a way that will be more destructive beyond repair.
That is, if the debt ceiling controversy is not dealt with sufficiently enough, the mighty dollar will decline, interest rates will go up, unemployment will stay high, if not increase. The uncertainty surrounding the whole thing will drive investors away, causing the stock market and other financial institutions to falter and become disoriented and unmanageable. The deficit will become enlarged in the end, and that will make matters even worse for the United States.
However, the effects will not stop at its borders, but they will impact the larger global economy in so many negative ways, and thus finally destroy America's reputation as a reliant trading concern and partner.
The omens are pretty awful to compel business associations to send a letter to negotiators, asking them to put aside "hard-line partisan positions" and come to a compromise.
"Our political leaders must agree to a plan to substantially reduce our long-term budget deficits with a goal of at least stabilizing our nation's debt as a percentage of GDP (gross domestic product) -- which will entail difficult choices," said the letter from the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Financial Services Forum, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Partnership for New York City. (CNN Report, 7/13/11).
Indications from every angle point to the fact that the country is headed for more financial backlog that will take many years to dissipate or to be cleared up; and it will have left the already fragile economy in a bad state than before the beginning of the negotiations.
All because of the obstinate pride of a handful of politicians, who do not want the Obama administration to succeed.
Some media pundits are also playing a foolish game on the sidelines, calling President Barack Obama's position a bluff; and that there is enough money to meet all important government obligations, but just a few that can wait. What?
Fox News Special Report is guilty of presenting folks, who think that they are smarter and more conversant with the government's dealings than the government itself. That must stop instantly, as the negotiations have reached a point where the stakes are high; and as a result, tensions are also very high. Any such stupid comments on the part of these pundits and News Contributors will not help at all.
The stalemate must be broken to allow the nation to breathe freely once again. Besides, the talks have nothing to do with "dancing", as a senior Republican participant is quoted to say. Suggesting anything as trivial is unrealistic; they (talks) are more serious than that.
"Senator Graham said if the debt ceiling is not raised, it would be “a disaster.”". (ABC News, 7/13/11).
People must put that in their pipes and smoke it.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
CALLOUSNESS.
The debt negotiations bring out the callousness of many people on Capitol Hill, where all of them have no direct connection with entitlement programs, because there is no way that they will ever be recipients.
They will never receive Social Security benefit checks, for it is below their dignity to do so; and they also have better insurance plans that make a mockery of Medicare.
Those first class insurance plans are there for themselves and their families, and they will always have them (plans), come rain or shine.
Very little do they know about some Senior Citizens fighting so hard to stay alive on their meager benefits, whose part becomes co-payment expenses for prescription drugs and other services. They even starve to get their medications refilled, if it comes to that.
To focus on Social Security and Medicare as being part of government spending, and therefore their costs are to be slashed to fill the nation's deficit gap, shows how wicked some people are, when it comes to deciding as to what happens to others, if they have no means to live on.
Supposing the Obama government agrees for those entitlement programs to be cut, there will be some Seniors, who will have no money for anything at all. No food, no clothing, no shoes; and of course paying for services like electricity and telephone will become an enormous problem.
There might be other subsidies that they can apply to help in their daily living expenses, but most of them (subsidies) do not factor in the rising cost of living; and so these seniors have no where else to turn.
Benefits have had a big reduction only a year or so ago, and those that were receiving, for example, $1000 dollars a month, were now getting about 3/4th of that amount. They would suffer drastically if a new wave of reduction came their way. If Social Security was cut once more, they would not know what to do.
The word "dying" does not cross the minds of those lawmakers who are insisting that Social Security is part of the problem, and therefore it has to be farther cut to make up for the deficit.
However, when that happens, it will be like passing the death sentence on those seniors, who will not be able to cope with their own financial crises that will come about as a result.
So, why does it have to matter so much to those politicians, who want Social Security to be completely terminated? Because they do not get many votes from Senior Citizens; and that is the main or sole reason for them to foster the idea of Social Security being placed on the chopping block, instead of, for example, Payroll tax reduction that will be good for workers.
Also to them, tax increase for the wealthy is a misnomer; and the closing of the loopholes in the present tax system does not occur to them at all as something they need to seriously consider. If they decide to look into them (loopholes), they will offend other citizens who are rich; and who happen to be their campaign contributors.
In all their dealings, they forget that the human factor is the most important thing of all. Even in physical wars, there are rules to protect the elderly, the very young and the invalid; but here in America, where monetary problems have become almost physical, there is no defense for the old, the very young and the sick.
How callous; how stoic can some people become.
They will never receive Social Security benefit checks, for it is below their dignity to do so; and they also have better insurance plans that make a mockery of Medicare.
Those first class insurance plans are there for themselves and their families, and they will always have them (plans), come rain or shine.
Very little do they know about some Senior Citizens fighting so hard to stay alive on their meager benefits, whose part becomes co-payment expenses for prescription drugs and other services. They even starve to get their medications refilled, if it comes to that.
To focus on Social Security and Medicare as being part of government spending, and therefore their costs are to be slashed to fill the nation's deficit gap, shows how wicked some people are, when it comes to deciding as to what happens to others, if they have no means to live on.
Supposing the Obama government agrees for those entitlement programs to be cut, there will be some Seniors, who will have no money for anything at all. No food, no clothing, no shoes; and of course paying for services like electricity and telephone will become an enormous problem.
There might be other subsidies that they can apply to help in their daily living expenses, but most of them (subsidies) do not factor in the rising cost of living; and so these seniors have no where else to turn.
Benefits have had a big reduction only a year or so ago, and those that were receiving, for example, $1000 dollars a month, were now getting about 3/4th of that amount. They would suffer drastically if a new wave of reduction came their way. If Social Security was cut once more, they would not know what to do.
The word "dying" does not cross the minds of those lawmakers who are insisting that Social Security is part of the problem, and therefore it has to be farther cut to make up for the deficit.
However, when that happens, it will be like passing the death sentence on those seniors, who will not be able to cope with their own financial crises that will come about as a result.
So, why does it have to matter so much to those politicians, who want Social Security to be completely terminated? Because they do not get many votes from Senior Citizens; and that is the main or sole reason for them to foster the idea of Social Security being placed on the chopping block, instead of, for example, Payroll tax reduction that will be good for workers.
Also to them, tax increase for the wealthy is a misnomer; and the closing of the loopholes in the present tax system does not occur to them at all as something they need to seriously consider. If they decide to look into them (loopholes), they will offend other citizens who are rich; and who happen to be their campaign contributors.
In all their dealings, they forget that the human factor is the most important thing of all. Even in physical wars, there are rules to protect the elderly, the very young and the invalid; but here in America, where monetary problems have become almost physical, there is no defense for the old, the very young and the sick.
How callous; how stoic can some people become.
Monday, July 11, 2011
A CLASS WARFARE.
It would not be a mistake to indicate that the huge economic deficit confronting the Obama administration has sparked off a class war in American politics, if not in America itself.
The administration has made it quite clear that entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, must not have any significant reductions, because they were there to protect Senior Citizens, who were in the main poor. A great majority of the Democratic Party members in Congress agreed wholeheartedly with that idea.
Senior Citizens and the weak in society, comprising of families of working class and middle class people, were being pitted against the wealthy and powerful individuals, as well as businesses, companies and corporations, who would hold against any tax burdens meted out to them to close the budget gap. They have the backing of most Congressional Republicans, who have made "no tax increases" their battle cry.
If that scenario, of Democrats clashing with Republicans, over how the nation's fiscal problems should be resolved, did not suggest that a class warfare was taking place in America today, then no one could ever be convinced that anything else would. It was as clear as daylight that there were acute differences among the political leadership in this country.
However, let us assume that, on the one hand, the solution could come from cutting entitlement programs, which would leave a whole lot of people to suffer for lack if medical attention, and that could result in death, in some cases, or insufficient amount of food, in the form of three meals, that would not last through the day; while on the other hand, taxes were raised on those who could afford them, as well as other tax loopholes, which needed to be closed were closed, for those who took advantage of them (loopholes), to pay their fair share to bring about a healthy economy the country deserved; which would be better?
Which side would the average American prefer to be on, or would want to support, in terms of using any one of those two methods to fix the present financial crisis? Most would choose the latter rather than the former.
It takes David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN, to give the impression that the die is cast; and to make fun of the serious negotiations going on in Washington, as he predicts, "that Obama will cajole his party into big-time compromises."; as he will agree to any deals that will bring the issue to an amicable conclusion, just to avoid a lengthy controversy.
From his tone of voice, (and everybody knows where he belongs); it is within his purview that a class warfare is evolving, as if it has not already started to evolve as we all know, where the Republicans are siding with the rich, (of which he is one, remember), and the Obama administration is caving in to their demands; to create a situation that will leave a large number of Senior Citizens in the cold, so to speak.
He goes on to say; "But that possibility is exactly why so many liberal Democrats are angry. They worry Obama is once again surrendering before he has even begun to fight." (CNN report, Sunday, July 10th, 2011).
He was obviously referring to another set of talks that took place in previous months, when Obama allowed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to gain the upper hand. However, that should be an old story.
President Barack Obama has recently said that if the debt ceiling was raised for the U.S. to meet its financial obligations both at home and abroad, business confidence would return for investors to start investing in America again, and that would go a long way to bring the high unemployment level of 9.2% down.
That would be an ideal occurrence. The economy would be taken care of, and more companies would begin to hire more workers again. The financial markets would become more stable than they have ever been in a long time for a change. That should be what people must look forward to. A brighter future for all Americans.
Yet, some politicians were making the budget talks to slash the deficit and bring the overall spending down, a barrier for that to happen. They were inadvertently waging a class warfare, which would probably stop or farther slow down the already fragile economic growth many Americans were experiencing lately in its tracks; and that would not be in the best interest of the nation.
According to Gergen's article, the battle lines have been drawn, and there was no going back for both sides; and if that was the case, then it would be for ordinary people to decide on which side they empathized with.
Nevertheless, should there be a necessity for a class warfare; and if so, who really needed it, or who would benefit from it? That should be a moot point; shouldn't it?
When a nation was in a financial crisis, its leaders should set aside their political ideologies and fight together to resolve that problem; and not to fight against each other to make a bad situation even worse. For the sake of peace and unity, they were more likely to show leadership instead. That was what most Americans would like to see happening.
Voters would continue to watch as events unfold themselves in Washington D.C., in order to know how or whom to vote for in the 2012 general election.
The administration has made it quite clear that entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, must not have any significant reductions, because they were there to protect Senior Citizens, who were in the main poor. A great majority of the Democratic Party members in Congress agreed wholeheartedly with that idea.
Senior Citizens and the weak in society, comprising of families of working class and middle class people, were being pitted against the wealthy and powerful individuals, as well as businesses, companies and corporations, who would hold against any tax burdens meted out to them to close the budget gap. They have the backing of most Congressional Republicans, who have made "no tax increases" their battle cry.
If that scenario, of Democrats clashing with Republicans, over how the nation's fiscal problems should be resolved, did not suggest that a class warfare was taking place in America today, then no one could ever be convinced that anything else would. It was as clear as daylight that there were acute differences among the political leadership in this country.
However, let us assume that, on the one hand, the solution could come from cutting entitlement programs, which would leave a whole lot of people to suffer for lack if medical attention, and that could result in death, in some cases, or insufficient amount of food, in the form of three meals, that would not last through the day; while on the other hand, taxes were raised on those who could afford them, as well as other tax loopholes, which needed to be closed were closed, for those who took advantage of them (loopholes), to pay their fair share to bring about a healthy economy the country deserved; which would be better?
Which side would the average American prefer to be on, or would want to support, in terms of using any one of those two methods to fix the present financial crisis? Most would choose the latter rather than the former.
It takes David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN, to give the impression that the die is cast; and to make fun of the serious negotiations going on in Washington, as he predicts, "that Obama will cajole his party into big-time compromises."; as he will agree to any deals that will bring the issue to an amicable conclusion, just to avoid a lengthy controversy.
From his tone of voice, (and everybody knows where he belongs); it is within his purview that a class warfare is evolving, as if it has not already started to evolve as we all know, where the Republicans are siding with the rich, (of which he is one, remember), and the Obama administration is caving in to their demands; to create a situation that will leave a large number of Senior Citizens in the cold, so to speak.
He goes on to say; "But that possibility is exactly why so many liberal Democrats are angry. They worry Obama is once again surrendering before he has even begun to fight." (CNN report, Sunday, July 10th, 2011).
He was obviously referring to another set of talks that took place in previous months, when Obama allowed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to gain the upper hand. However, that should be an old story.
President Barack Obama has recently said that if the debt ceiling was raised for the U.S. to meet its financial obligations both at home and abroad, business confidence would return for investors to start investing in America again, and that would go a long way to bring the high unemployment level of 9.2% down.
That would be an ideal occurrence. The economy would be taken care of, and more companies would begin to hire more workers again. The financial markets would become more stable than they have ever been in a long time for a change. That should be what people must look forward to. A brighter future for all Americans.
Yet, some politicians were making the budget talks to slash the deficit and bring the overall spending down, a barrier for that to happen. They were inadvertently waging a class warfare, which would probably stop or farther slow down the already fragile economic growth many Americans were experiencing lately in its tracks; and that would not be in the best interest of the nation.
According to Gergen's article, the battle lines have been drawn, and there was no going back for both sides; and if that was the case, then it would be for ordinary people to decide on which side they empathized with.
Nevertheless, should there be a necessity for a class warfare; and if so, who really needed it, or who would benefit from it? That should be a moot point; shouldn't it?
When a nation was in a financial crisis, its leaders should set aside their political ideologies and fight together to resolve that problem; and not to fight against each other to make a bad situation even worse. For the sake of peace and unity, they were more likely to show leadership instead. That was what most Americans would like to see happening.
Voters would continue to watch as events unfold themselves in Washington D.C., in order to know how or whom to vote for in the 2012 general election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)