Black Shirt, it's not the infrastructure or the war spending, run the numbers, it's the ENTITLEMENT spending and the entitlement mentality.
Printable View
Black Shirt, it's not the infrastructure or the war spending, run the numbers, it's the ENTITLEMENT spending and the entitlement mentality.
You are talking about irrelevant things. My issue is the seemingly wrong notion that there will be no default w / o raising debt ceiling. Secondly, bunch of disconnected and contradictory sentences you wrote do not make sense to any English speakers. Please retake Econ 101 and Eng101.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418673]No Matt you have it wrong. We have a spending problem and by not increasing the Debt Limit the government will have to live with what it brings in which means, gasp, a whole lot of government programs will have to be terminated. It will be interesting to see what Obama considers "necessary" programs which should be funded. You might note that none of the legislation passed in either the House or Senate address CURRENT spending programs! Get a grip, no one in Washington seems to have a clue execpt the newest member of the House and Senate.
Perry did it here in Texas and guess what, the state did not implode, we are still here and doing fine. Of course some demoncratic oxes got gored.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;418679]You are talking about irrelevant things. My issue is the seemingly wrong notion that there will be no default w / o raising debt ceiling. Secondly, bunch of disconnected and contradictory sentences you wrote do not make sense to any English speakers. Please retake Econ 101 and Eng101.[/QUOTE]Econ 101:
The US Government's failure to raise our own borrowing limit will [u]NOT[/u] result in a "default".
A "default" is defined as a situation wherein a borrower fails to pay the payments on their debt.
The US Government enjoys revenues of approximately $200 billion per month.
The payments on the US Government debt is approximately $40 billion per month.
Thus the US Government has and will continue to have plenty of money to service our debts, and you fear mongers should be ashamed of yourselves for so disingenuously describing any failure to raise the US Government's credit limit as a "default".
I hope this makes "[i]sense to any English speakers[/i]".
Thanks,
Jax
You are indicating that the Fed Gov can avoid default simply because the debt interest payment and partial repayment account for 20% of govtl revenue. I would like to remind you that the two things-default and the size of debt payment, are unrelated. The 2011 fiscal budget was enacted, that is, determined, at the end of September 2010. The great portion of the "monthly revenues" you mentioned had been already spent or assigned for various appropiated/authorized items. Regardless of the revenue / debt payment ratio, the govt will have no sufficient amount of money by Aug. 2 (Aug 10 accrding to Bipartisan Policy research Committee) to meet its obligations to pay for the debt. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 418682]Econ 101:
The US Government's failure to raise our own borrowing limit will [u]NOT[/u] Result in a "default".
A "default" is defined as a situation wherein a borrower fails to pay the payments on their debt.
The US Government enjoys revenues of approximately $200 billion per month.
The payments on the US Government debt is approximately $40 billion per month.
Thus the US Government has and will continue to have plenty of money to service our debts, and you fear mongers should be ashamed of yourselves for so disingenuously describing any failure to raise the US Government's credit limit as a "default".
I hope this makes "[i]sense to any English speakers[/i]".
Thanks,
Jax[/QUOTE]
Matt, check your translation program, it must be malfunctioning if you were unable to understand my post you highlighted.
Let me see if I can reduce it to its essence.
1. The debt ceiling is not increased resulting in the Federal Government not being able to borrow funds to pay for projects currently authorized.
2. The Federal Government will then have to prioritize which payments will be made; therefore Obama will have to select those programs he believes should be funded and those which will not be funded.
3. Since there will no longer be adequate funds available for all Federal Programs, some programs will be terminated for lack of funding.
4. The State of Texas faced a severe gap between expenditures and income. Despite liberal warnings of a catastrophic collapse of the state if the reductions in spending were enacted none of these dire warnings come to pass. Texas is doing fine, is experiencing greater growth in both business and employment than any other state in the nation.
Obama's experiment in Keynesian economic theory has been a complete failure.
I think I still have my old econ book, will be happy to send it to you. Send me a PM with your address. I'm pretty sure NASA is going to Mars pretty soon.
Sounds like a good plan. The nation will keep AAA credit, many people will buy the USA bonds, and Wall street will soar. Ciao.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418685]Matt, check your translation program, it must be malfunctioning if you were unable to understand my post you highlighted.
Let me see if I can reduce it to its essence.
1. The debt ceiling is not increased resulting in the Federal Government not being able to borrow funds to pay for projects currently authorized.
2. The Federal Government will then have to prioritize which payments will be made; therefore Obama will have to select those programs he believes should be funded and those which will not be funded.
3. Since there will no longer be adequate funds available for all Federal Programs, some programs will be terminated for lack of funding.
4. The State of Texas faced a severe gap between expenditures and income. Despite liberal warnings of a catastrophic collapse of the state if the reductions in spending were enacted none of these dire warnings come to pass. Texas is doing fine, is experiencing greater growth in both business and employment than any other state in the nation.
Obama's experiment in Keynesian economic theory has been a complete failure.
I think I still have my old econ book, will be happy to send it to you. Send me a PM with your address. I'm pretty sure NASA is going to Mars pretty soon.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;418688]Sounds like a good plan. The nation will keep AAA credit, many people will buy the USA bonds, and Wall street will soar. Ciao.[/QUOTE]Matt. Let me chime in here. There was no Federal budget enacted in 2010. In fact, there has been no Federal budget passed over the past 842 days.
Keynes was a socialist douchebag. His theory on fiscal policy is fundamentally flawed. I really hate saying this about a fellow Scottsman. At least we have Adam Smith.
Cheers,
BF
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418678]Black Shirt, it's not the infrastructure or the war spending, run the numbers, it's the ENTITLEMENT spending and the entitlement mentality.[/QUOTE]Are you referring to programs where I can just walk in with my palms out, and I qualify, or something that has to meet some requirements?
Ok, the entitlements are a hugh block of the budget. Personally, I think SS and Medicare / Medicaid is COMPULSORY in a civilized society, and I don't mind paying into the system during my working lifetime. Even at higher rates, if it has to be. And so far, they are solvent. The ongoing problem is because Congress and Obama (and past administrations) have failed to deliver on reforms to make it sustainable.
So we have a dysfunctional government, but then if case you didn't know, we have a dysfunctional society as well. Single parents, a drug culture, poor but expensive educational systems, poor / expensive medicated health (despite people living longer). Nobody wants to talk about these things, only ideology.
Sorry, once again, I repeat, you just can't get on your horse and go shoot a buffalo when you decide to have a Bar-B-Q. But then, maybe, you could!
Black Shirt, I have to agree with you on the dysfunctional government and society. Social Security, Medicare. Should be covered since folks have PAID for them during their working lives in the form of taxes for those programs and their payments have been matched by their employers. Medicare on the other hand is a pure unfunded giveaway program which increased more than 16% last year. Let me give an example of what is wrong with Medicaid.
A Chinese woman who obviously has money secures a visa to come to the US because she is pregnant with her second child; China has a one child policy. She arrives in the US, goes to an Ob / Gyn physician and pays cash up front for her prenatal care and delivery in full. She informs the physician if the child is a girl she will return to China and the government will abort her. If the child is a boy she will stay and have it. Three weeks later she returns for her next appointment and presents a Medicaid card and demands her money back. Now how in the world does a woman who speaks no English, is in the US on a visa, and has funds get on Medicaid? Beats the hell out of me to but it happens all the time with my clients. People with obvious means of support turn up with Medicaid or worse yet they have Private Insurance and get Medicaid as their Secondary insurance.
So instead of cleaning up the fraud in the system by some sort of meaningful testing / investigation, Congress wants to solve the problem by cutting payments to physicians and hospitals. Go figure.
Now don't get me started on government agencies, payrolls, health benefits and retirement systems which we mere taxpayer serfs and not allowed to participate in.
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;418688]Sounds like a good plan. The nation will keep AAA credit, many people will buy the USA bonds, and Wall street will soar. Ciao.[/QUOTE]Yes, that is [u]EXACTLY[/u] what will happen if we can rein in the Obama's administration's insane spending.
Unfortunately, Obama wants the country's credit card limit raised because he needs the money to buy votes.
Thanks,
Jackson
Lots of right-wing misinformation continuing here, not too surprised.
It's a spending problem AND a revenue problem, now moreso the latter. I've posted CBPP charts here before, and here's another look at the sources of our debt. Obama's spending is not the main cause, and no matter how many times Fox-bots repeat it, polls show even most Americans do not rank recent spending as the main cause. The top two contributors are the unfunded wars and the Bush Tax Cuts.
The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/[/url]
Further, the Keynesian model as proven by the Stimulus was a success. No, it did not keep unemployment below 8% as predicted, but that prediction was made before the true depth of private sector job slashing became apparent. The Stimulus saved or created between 1.5-3 Million jobs according to assessments from multiple economists, prevented unemployment from going above 11% and helped restore confidence in the private sector at a critical time. Of course if you listen to right wing politicians they all say it was a failure. But these are politicians. Economists say otherwise.
DEBT DEAL. The debt deal seems good to me. We have more work to do but it's a good start with real cuts. Some on the left are upset that entitlements are now more in play than tax increases, but I see it as part of a broader strategy. Romney is waiting in the wings with his "where are the jobs" campaign, which admittedly will be an uphill slog for Obama (through little fault of his own though). By moving to the right on both tax increases and entitlements, Obama has now ensured these will be focus points in 2012. Americans are going to see entitlements threatened and the rich continuing to get a free pass, which will motivate voters on an emotional level. Dems have data and reason on their side, but these are not enough with the American electorate. Many Dems think Obama has caved or conceded too much, but it's all part of a grand strategy because 2012 is indeed very significant. If Obama wins, PPACA is preserved and we get a big boost in revenue from Bush Tax Cuts expiring and taxes within PPACA. O'Reilly's memo tonight provided a hint that GOP strategists also understand this grand strategy. They know 2012 won't be just about jobs anymore, and they know they can't convince voters that spending cuts alone are the way to go to balance the budget (especially when almost 80% think we need a balanced approach with cuts and revenues). So we are going to hear a lot more now about how Republicans also agree we need more revenues, but the way to do it is with "Tax Reform" such as a Flat Tax. Of course what they won't tell you is that this will shift more tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class and poor. That would be an uphill sell, and Dems will be sure to expose right wing deception along the way.
Obama is shifting the 2012 debate and will harness the strong feelings Americans have about preserving entitlements and having a balanced approach to deficits.
[QUOTE=Esten; 418711]Lots of right-wing misinformation continuing here, not too surprised.
It's a spending problem AND a revenue problem, now moreso the latter. I've posted CBPP charts here before, and here's another look at the sources of our debt. Obama's spending is not the main cause, and no matter how many times Fox-bots repeat it, polls show even most Americans do not rank recent spending as the main cause. The top two contributors are the unfunded wars and the Bush Tax Cuts.
The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling.
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/[/url]
Further, the Keynesian model as proven by the Stimulus was a success. No, it did not keep unemployment below 8% as predicted, but that prediction was made before the true depth of private sector job slashing became apparent. The Stimulus saved or created between 1. 5-3 Million jobs according to assessments from multiple economists, prevented unemployment from going above 11% and helped restore confidence in the private sector at a critical time. Of course if you listen to right wing politicians they all say it was a failure. But these are politicians. Economists say otherwise.
DEBT DEAL. The debt deal seems good to me. We have more work to do but it's a good start with real cuts. Some on the left are upset that entitlements are now more in play than tax increases, but I see it as part of a broader strategy. Romney is waiting in the wings with his "where are the jobs" campaign, which admittedly will be an uphill slog for Obama (through little fault of his own though). By moving to the right on both tax increases and entitlements, Obama has now ensured these will be focus points in 2012. Americans are going to see entitlements threatened and the rich continuing to get a free pass, which will motivate voters on an emotional level. Dems have data and reason on their side, but these are not enough with the American electorate. Many Dems think Obama has caved or conceded too much, but it's all part of a grand strategy because 2012 is indeed very significant. If Obama wins, PPACA is preserved and we get a big boost in revenue from Bush Tax Cuts expiring and taxes within PPACA. O'Reilly's memo tonight provided a hint that GOP strategists also understand this grand strategy. They know 2012 won't be just about jobs anymore, and they know they can't convince voters that spending cuts alone are the way to go to balance the budget (especially when almost 80% think we need a balanced approach with cuts and revenues). So we are going to hear a lot more now about how Republicans also agree we need more revenues, but the way to do it is with "Tax Reform" such as a Flat Tax. Of course what they won't tell you is that this will shift more tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class and poor. That would be an uphill sell, and Dems will be sure to expose right wing deception along the way.
Obama is shifting the 2012 debate and will harness the strong feelings Americans have about preserving entitlements and having a balanced approach to deficits.[/QUOTE]So, federal politicians spent like drunken sailors both when Bush was president and when Obama was president. What's your point? I didn't vote for either one of them, and I'd venture to say that's true of the majority of others posting here as well.
The charts are a load of crap. They describe tax cuts as costs or government spending. That is bull shit. Apparently when government forces me to pay 35% of what I make instead of 39. 6, the difference is spending. The government is spending money on me. Subsidizing me, because I don't pay enough. That 35% when added to a 10% state income tax and a sales tax and property taxes and, some day, a death tax, that just isn't enough. I'm evil. I'm a burden on society. As you say below, I'm getting a free pass.
We're experiencing European levels of unemployment for an extended period, and you view that as a vindication of Keynsian economics?
There is too much standard rhetoric from both the extreme right and left. I guess if you repeat it often enough, they must be true. Didn't Warren Buffett mentioned that he was paying less percentage of tax than his office administrator. Ah, all those loopholes! Taxation never stopped me from working OT or accepting 2nd jobs. Meanwhile, there is alot of people who would rather go home early and take it easy, but use the excuse that Uncle Sam is the culprit. Then we find out that the "nerdy & stupid" immigrants who never turned down a chance to make more money, are paying cash for their cars.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418713]There is too much standard rhetoric from both the extreme right and left. I guess if you repeat it often enough, they must be true. Didn't Warren Buffett mentioned that he was paying less percentage of tax than his office administrator. Ah, all those loopholes! Taxation never stopped me from working OT or accepting 2nd jobs. Meanwhile, there is alot of people who would rather go home early and take it easy, but use the excuse that Uncle Sam is the culprit. Then we find out that the "nerdy & stupid" immigrants who never turned down a chance to make more money, are paying cash for their cars.[/QUOTE]Buffet's views are self serving.
He's for the death tax. Berkshire Hathaway bought a number of family owned businesses, because the families couldn't pay the death tax and so had to sell out.
Buffet believes that dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate. Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay a dividend. And if memory serves me correctly, Berkshire receives an 85% tax deduction for any dividends it receives. So he doesn't indirectly pay a very high % tax on dividends by virtue of his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway.
Finally, he doesn't sell Berkshire Hathaway stock, which is where practically all his wealth is held. So he doesn't pay much tax. Hell, it's possible his secretary not only pays a higher % of her income in tax, it's possible she pays more tax.
Many wealthy Democrats and some Republicans support higher tax rates because, like Buffet, they profit more from an inefficient system with higher tax rates and loopholes, or, like certain attorneys, they otherwise benefit from their party's policies.
It's a fact that a lot of people are going home early and taking it easy because of taxes, although more so in Western Europe than the USA. It's not just an excuse.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 418716]Buffet's views are self serving.
He's for the death tax. Berkshire Hathaway bought a number of family owned businesses, because the families couldn't pay the death tax and so had to sell out.
Buffet believes that dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate. Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay a dividend. And if memory serves me correctly, Berkshire receives an 85% tax deduction for any dividends it receives. So he doesn't indirectly pay a very high % tax on dividends by virtue of his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway.
Finally, he doesn't sell Berkshire Hathaway stock, which is where practically all his wealth is held. So he doesn't pay much tax. Hell, it's possible his secretary not only pays a higher % of her income in tax, it's possible she pays more tax.
Many wealthy Democrats and some Republicans support higher tax rates because, like Buffet, they profit more from an inefficient system with higher tax rates and loopholes, or, like certain attorneys, they otherwise benefit from their party's policies.
It's a fact that a lot of people are going home early and taking it easy because of taxes, although more so in Western Europe than the USA. It's not just an excuse.[/QUOTE]So Buffett and other CEOs received mega payouts in the form of shares / dividends that are either tax exempted or taxed at a lower percentage. In any case, let's just say that the super rich whilst contributing a major share of tax revenues are paying at a lower percentage of their income than the average joe. On the other hand, the percentage of people not paying income taxes is ridiculous. Payroll and sales taxes are not income taxes. Tax reform is needed, I think we can all agree .
"I see the enemy, and it is us". What I was trying to allude earlier is that as a country, our values have decline. It is a cultural thing and it is driven by spending. We don't really have to live in Las Vegas or Washington to get addicted to spending money that we don't have. Instead of casinos, we have malls. To make it even easier, online. Our meals are getting bigger all the time, and our closets & garages are full of things that we got tired of. Savings, yeah, right. Paycheck to paycheck is the norm. Congress is just a reflection of us.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418719]"I see the enemy, and it is us". What I was trying to allude earlier is that as a country, our values have decline. It is a cultural thing and it is driven by spending. We don't really have to live in Las Vegas or Washington to get addicted to spending money that we don't have. Instead of casinos, we have malls. To make it even easier, online. Our meals are getting bigger all the time, and our closets & garages are full of things that we got tired of. Savings, yeah, right. Paycheck to paycheck is the norm. Congress is just a reflection of us.[/QUOTE]Great post. You've expressed similar thoughts before but not as eloquently. I'd stress the last sentence. Both the American public and the federal government have spent like there's no tomorrow.
Black Shirt,"Payroll Taxes" for employees are comprised of three parts, Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax. While you can make the argument the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid and matched by the employer are to pay for future benefits there can be no argument the Federal Income Tax deducted from the employee's pay check is anything but INCOME TAX.
If you look at past posts, WW, Jackson, myself and many more agree with your statement the US is going down hill. You can blame this on the liberals and their idea that anything goes. No honor, no duty above to one's self, no self respect or respect for others, nothing that made the generation that fought WWII and become known as the greatest generation.
[QUOTE=Esten; 418711]Lots of right-wing misinformation continuing here, not too surprised.
It's a spending problem AND a revenue problem, now moreso the latter. I've posted CBPP charts here before, and here's another look at the sources of our debt. Obama's spending is not the main cause, and no matter how many times Fox-bots repeat it, polls show even most Americans do not rank recent spending as the main cause. The top two contributors are the unfunded wars and the Bush Tax Cuts.
The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling.
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/[/url]
Further, the Keynesian model as proven by the Stimulus was a success. No, it did not keep unemployment below 8% as predicted, but that prediction was made before the true depth of private sector job slashing became apparent. The Stimulus saved or created between 1. 5-3 Million jobs according to assessments from multiple economists, prevented unemployment from going above 11% and helped restore confidence in the private sector at a critical time. Of course if you listen to right wing politicians they all say it was a failure. But these are politicians. Economists say otherwise.
DEBT DEAL. The debt deal seems good to me. We have more work to do but it's a good start with real cuts. Some on the left are upset that entitlements are now more in play than tax increases, but I see it as part of a broader strategy. Romney is waiting in the wings with his "where are the jobs" campaign, which admittedly will be an uphill slog for Obama (through little fault of his own though). By moving to the right on both tax increases and entitlements, Obama has now ensured these will be focus points in 2012. Americans are going to see entitlements threatened and the rich continuing to get a free pass, which will motivate voters on an emotional level. Dems have data and reason on their side, but these are not enough with the American electorate. Many Dems think Obama has caved or conceded too much, but it's all part of a grand strategy because 2012 is indeed very significant. If Obama wins, PPACA is preserved and we get a big boost in revenue from Bush Tax Cuts expiring and taxes within PPACA. O'Reilly's memo tonight provided a hint that GOP strategists also understand this grand strategy. They know 2012 won't be just about jobs anymore, and they know they can't convince voters that spending cuts alone are the way to go to balance the budget (especially when almost 80% think we need a balanced approach with cuts and revenues). So we are going to hear a lot more now about how Republicans also agree we need more revenues, but the way to do it is with "Tax Reform" such as a Flat Tax. Of course what they won't tell you is that this will shift more tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class and poor. That would be an uphill sell, and Dems will be sure to expose right wing deception along the way.
Obama is shifting the 2012 debate and will harness the strong feelings Americans have about preserving entitlements and having a balanced approach to deficits.[/QUOTE]If John Keynes is your economic God, or if you think Arthur Lifer had it right, it makes no difference. These models are valid when the car is running down the road between the lines, not when you're driving in the ditch. Putting more gas in the car won't get you out of the ditch, nor will trying to draft the lead vehicle get you up that hill.
Of each dollar we spend. 42 cents is borrowed. We spend more than we get. Others have discussed this in these forums. We all know the numbers. Some of us actually understand them.
My friend Esten's New York progressive outlook is irrelevant; as are my conservative friends on this board for we won't do anything but talk. We join the talking, arguing, and cajoling like those in Congress, in the Administration, on Fox, MSNBC, and forums throughout the Internet. It won't get us out of the ditch. We are destined to get to a point where the gas gauge is near zero, the yellow light is on, and we can't get up the hill. Only then will we act. Only then will we make the right choice. However, it will be too late. The deal signed today is a joke. The Dow fell 265 points as an exclamation point. I've read this story before. It has an ugly ending. When we do make the right choice, stop spending, adjust the tax code, it will be too late. We then will divide the remaining pie, fighting for a piece like jackals. We will all move lower on Maslow's pyramid, progressive and conservative alike will fight for that scrap of meat to survive.
We are like the scorpion and the frog. It's our nature. For you see, we only make the right choice, when it's the only choice.
I forecast that your heros, be they Obama, Boener, Reid, Ryan, etc., will be recorded as fools by future historians.
Where is John Galt to save us?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418723]Black Shirt,"Payroll Taxes" for employees are comprised of three parts, Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax. While you can make the argument the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid and matched by the employer are to pay for future benefits there can be no argument the Federal Income Tax deducted from the employee's pay check is anything but INCOME TAX.
If you look at past posts, WW, Jackson, myself and many more agree with your statement the US is going down hill. You can blame this on the liberals and their idea that anything goes. No honor, no duty above to one's self, no self respect or respect for others, nothing that made the generation that fought WWII and become known as the greatest generation.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the clarification in regard to payroll / income tax.
I have to agree with you again Black Shirt, the deal passed on Monday in the House and Tuesday in the Senate is a joke and only kicks the can down the road one more time. The markets voted with a 265 point drop in the DOW. The markets were looking for significant cuts in spending; one rating firm even quantified it as being $4 Trillion. The only members of both houses being serious about cuts are the freshman and for their efforts they are now called 'terrorists'.
I think the car being in the ditch is not really an accurate metaphor for what is going on. Perhaps a more appropriate metaphor would be the country is in a boat with a leak which is slowly sinking, the true conservative crew is trying to bail water out of the boat to keep it afloat (ie smaller government and less spending) while the liberal crew is bailing water back into the boat (more spending and more government) and the passengers just stand around watching.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418730]The only members of both houses being serious about cuts are the freshman and for their efforts they are now called 'terrorists'.[/QUOTE]And they're being called "[i]terrorists[/i]" by liberal Democrats who won't even call the real terrorists "[i]terrorists[/i]".
Hi all:
I'm just back from eight days in Brazil, and even a couple days in Buenos Aires. Still not enough time. The debt wrangling was impossible to escape even down there.
I know there are many who are unhappy with the outcome. But, it all depends on your perspective. This is a huge win when compared with the absurd notion of handing Obama a blank check "clean" debt limit increase, or even a silly "balanced approach" that he later advocated. Remember "Don't call my bluff, Eric." Well, they called his bluff, and that was all it was. What a surprise. The guy couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.
It may not seem like much. $92 billion in reduced spending a year or, more accurately, a decrease in the increase in spending, isn't much. But, I think it needs to be placed in context. This is the start. There will be another debt limit fight in 2013. The terrain will have shifted dramatically by then, and there likely will be a much greater opportunity to put the country back on the right path at that time. This version was simply a rebuke to Obama and the Keynesian fools he's been listening to. Doing much more was not possible.
These are some big "IFs" but here goes: IF future Congress sticks to these cuts, IF the second round of cuts is put into place and is not illusory, and IF we can make more progress in 2013, then this all will have been worth it.
Obama's goal here was purely selfish and political. He wanted to put the matter off until after the election because he believed it would enhance his reelection prospects. Instead, the matter will begin heating up again during the election, and it will be a campaign theme. He's predictable. He'll argue for a "balanced approach" and "tax increases on millionaires, billionaires and corporate jet owners." The electorate already grew very tired of this windbag with each subsequent TV appearance the past few weeks. His job approval ratings declined from 55% to 40% during that time frame. Some was attributable to the bin Laden bounce he got, but not all. Most of the country is back to disliking him. Heck, if you reason like Esten, this insta-poll process means Obama ought to simply resign right now. Why wait for the election? The polls show he sucks at being President.
Obama's words will not rally his base. He's digging his own grave with the economy, his misplaced focus on healthcare, and his class warfare. Once he's out of office, then the adults can start to fix things, including with a balanced budget amendment. Until then, not much more than what was accomplished was possible.
Just my two cents.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;418716]Buffet believes that dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate.[/QUOTE]This is hugely important. We need to eliminate the 15% capital gains scam giveaway to the wealthy. Capital gains should be taxed at one's personal federal income tax rate.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;418712]So, federal politicians spent like drunken sailors both when Bush was president and when Obama was president. What's your point?[/QUOTE]That it's not just spending, but also revenue. And that most of our debt is due to conservative policies under Bush:
Huge Tax Cuts
Unfunded Wars
Loss of revenues due to Great Recession (a result of reckless free-market capitalism)
[QUOTE]The charts are a load of crap. They describe tax cuts as costs or government spending. That is bull shit.[/QUOTE]Wrong. Nowhere in that article are Bush Tax Cuts listed, described or portrayed as spending.
[QUOTE]Apparently when government forces me to pay 35% of what I make instead of 39. 6, the difference is spending. The government is spending money on me. Subsidizing me, because I don't pay enough. That 35% when added to a 10% state income tax and a sales tax and property taxes and, some day, a death tax, that just isn't enough. I'm evil. I'm a burden on society. As you say below, I'm getting a free pass.[/QUOTE]If you're upset about a 35% tax rate, you must have been seething when the top rate was 39.6% under Clinton.
Dems do not say the wealthy are evil. What they point out is that since Reagen, it is mainly the wealthy that have prospered the most. Middle class prosperity has been marginal. For example between 1979-2007: after-tax income grew +25% for the middle fifth and +281% for the top 1%. This is largely due to lowered tax rates. Dems say that if we have large debts to pay, there should be a shared sacrifice and that includes spending cuts AND tax increases on those who have prospered the most. That is a reasonable position, and is supported by close to 80% of Americans.
[QUOTE]We're experiencing European levels of unemployment for an extended period and you view that as a vindication of Keynsian economics?[/QUOTE]Like Germany? The success of the Stimulus is evidenced by the fact that it ended the recession quickly and that multiple independant economists estimate it created or saved 1. 5-3 Million jobs. The fact that unemployment is now stuck around 9. 1-9. 2% can be attributed to the winding down of Stimulus spending, reduced bank lending, reduced demand, and Big Business cutting to the bone and hoarding profits. There are many factors in play....
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418685]The State of Texas faced a severe gap between expenditures and income. Despite liberal warnings of a catastrophic collapse of the state if the reductions in spending were enacted none of these dire warnings come to pass. Texas is doing fine, is experiencing greater growth in both business and employment than any other state in the nation.
Obama's experiment in Keynesian economic theory has been a complete failure.[/QUOTE]Funny you mentioned those things together. As it turns out, Perry used billions in federal stimulus money to pay 97% of Texas's budget shortfall in fiscal 2010. Keynes helped Perry.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418723]If you look at past posts, WW, Jackson, myself and many more agree with your statement the US is going down hill. You can blame this on the liberals and their idea that anything goes. No honor, no duty above to one's self, no self respect or respect for others, nothing that made the generation that fought WWII and become known as the greatest generation.[/QUOTE]"Anything goes" is more the philosophy of reckless free-market capitalism, which is the core cause of the Great Recession. Dems passed Dodd-Frank reform in response, which Republicans are now trying to weaken so they can go back to the good 'ol days.
Those with honor and a sense of duty are willing to step up and do something, like pay a little more in taxes to address our deficits. I see no honor in protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor.
The WWII generation had a great president (FDR) , higher tax rates, and an appreciation of the important role of government in society.
Doppel, your arguments are unusually weak lately. Maybe it's time for a vacation.
Esten. Bro. Dividends aren't Capital gains. Dividends are taxed at individual marginal rates. I think we should scrap the whole tax code and have a consumption tax. Let the individual decide, through his own consumption, how much tax he will pay. This would piss off a LOT of accountants and attorneys. Oh well. The "regressiveness" arguement against a consumption tax (The Fair Tax) is BS. It would force everyone (even tourists, dealers and hookers.) to participate, with no loopholes or offshore sanctuaries. Cheers-BF.
[QUOTE=Esten; 418739]This is hugely important. We need to eliminate the 15% capital gains scam giveaway to the wealthy. Capital gains should be taxed at one's personal federal income tax rate.
That it's not just spending, but also revenue. And that most of our debt is due to conservative policies under Bush:
Huge Tax Cuts.
Unfunded Wars.
Loss of revenues due to Great Recession (a result of reckless free-market capitalism)
Wrong. Nowhere in that article are Bush Tax Cuts listed, described or portrayed as spending.
If you're upset about a 35% tax rate, you must have been seething when the top rate was 39. 6% under Clinton.
Dems do not say the wealthy are evil. What they point out is that since Reagen, it is mainly the wealthy that have prospered the most. Middle class prosperity has been marginal. For example between 1979-2007: after-tax income grew +25% for the middle fifth and +281% for the top 1. This is largely due to lowered tax rates. Dems say that if we have large debts to pay, there should be a shared sacrifice and that includes spending cuts AND tax increases on those who have prospered the most. That is a reasonable position, and is supported by close to 80% of Americans.
Like Germany? The success of the Stimulus is evidenced by the fact that it ended the recession quickly and that multiple independant economists estimate it created or saved 1. 5-3 Million jobs. The fact that unemployment is now stuck around 9. 1-9. 2% can be attributed to the winding down of Stimulus spending, reduced bank lending, reduced demand, and Big Business cutting to the bone and hoarding profits. There are many factors in play.[/QUOTE]
I mis-spoke, errrr, mis-wrote, kinda. Long term Cap gains get preferrential tax treatment. Short term Cap gains are taxed at the individual marginal rate. I learned this the hard way during the crash of 2008. Anyway, I think the whole system is FUBAR and needs to be replaced-BF.
[QUOTE=BlueFalcon;418741]Esten. Bro. Dividends aren't Capital gains. Dividends are taxed at individual marginal rates. I think we should scrap the whole tax code and have a consumption tax. Let the individual decide, through his own consumption, how much tax he will pay. This would piss off a LOT of accountants and attorneys. Oh well. The "regressiveness" arguement against a consumption tax (The Fair Tax) is BS. It would force everyone (even tourists, dealers and hookers.) to participate, with no loopholes or offshore sanctuaries. Cheers-BF.[/QUOTE]
Esten not only are you a liar but a damn liar! Perry and the Texas Republicans balanced our budget shortfall in the last legislature with CUTS in spending not 'stimulus' money. Check your posts from several months ago when it was happening, you were gloating over the fact Texas had a budget shortfall and your perceived notion the state could not close it. Also after the fact you were still quoting an out of date articles about the "catastrophe" taking place in Texas – wrong as usual.
Obama has done everything in his power to denigrate Texas since taking office from gutting NASA to denying funds for natural disasters while doling out billions to states which supported him during the 2008 election or states he needs in 2012. Buddy you need to check your facts, but I guess you would rather make this shit up as you go as usual.
Your boy is going down and going down hard in 2012.
I hate to say it but things are not going to get better. Obama has wasted trillions upon trillions of dollars based on the idea that the economy needed more 'community organizers.' Countless make believe government jobs, which did not have the ability to produce a single paper clip, have been added to the economy. That money is gone, we are up to our necks in debt, the economy is in freefall and we have nothing but a trail of wasted money. I think Obama's understanding of a free market economy flat-lined when he cashed his last 'community organizer' check.
By contrast, go back 30 years when Reagan inherited over 10% unemployment. 20% inflation and 20% interest rates. Did Reagan spend 3 years complaining about the mess that idiot Carter left him. No, and although by this time in Reagan's administration (3rd year) unemployemnt was still high, inflation was still high and interest rates were still high the economy was morphing into a runaway train with 8% and 9% growth during the 3rd and fourth quarters of 1983.
I shutter to think how long we would have stayed in Carter's depression had Obama been in charge during the Reagan years.
Esten loves to quote polls but the Market Poll is voting long and loud over the Debt Deal, falling 340 points just today and a total of 1, 170 point since things started looking bad back on July 20th. Nobody is buying the "debt reduction" that was sold in the House and Senate. With our debt now egual to and about to surpass the GDP what makes Obama think taxes are the way to go when he would have to take all the goods and services produced in the US for a year to pay off the debt. It's SPENDING that has to stop, federal and state programs as well as federal and state workers that have to go. We need to be creating REAL jobs not make believe government jobs that produce nothing and consume resources.
[QUOTE=Esten; 418739]This is hugely important. We need to eliminate the 15% capital gains scam giveaway to the wealthy. Capital gains should be taxed at one's personal federal income tax rate.[/quote]Esten,
You have been ripped off. Really gypped, bamboozled, taken. Shit, they saw you coming. Who ever taught you Economics took you for a ride. Demand your money back or least title to the bridge. You know. That bridge in Brooklyn.
You're a great monger, but misled.
You want the capital gains tax repealed so the poor go jobless. Yes, the poor go jobless.
Back in the 80's, I was with a startup company in the computer industry. We were financed by Venture Capital whose investors (rich guys) put up money (versus buying rental apartments or bing cherry farms) to help us grow. Grow we did. [B]We hired thousands of poor people who got good well paying jobs and stock options[/B]. Those people later made a bag full of money from the stock. Those rich people did too. In addition, they claimed capital gains. Would they have invested if there weren't favorable treatment of capital gains? Not in a million years! Money always seeks the best return.
Therefore, when those poor people are out looking for a job, collecting food stamps, and about to run out of unemployment, we will send them to you to explain the benefits of no advantages for capital investment. You can show them your bridge
My Former Name,
Agreed. You start a corporation. It makes profits. The corporation pays income tax, both on earnings that are paid as dividends, and also on earnings that are used to grow the size and value of the business.
Esten has gone on record here that both dividends and capital gains received by individuals should be taxed as ordinary income. And that ordinary income should be taxed at 39.6%, or around 42% after additional taxes for health care go into effect. Add to that state income taxes, inflation imbedded in capital gains, and taxation already paid at the corporate level, and he would indeed tax away the majority or most of the profit from many investments. That's the way the Esten Tax Plan would work. Unless you're in a US business that benefits from loopholes, your ultimate tax rate after being taxed twice, once as a corporation and once as an individual, is going to be perhaps the highest in the world. The incentive to take risk is gone. You're working for the US government. If you suceed, it gets most of the profits. If you fail, it pays none of the costs.
So why invest or start a business and create jobs? But maybe that's what Esten wants -- a country where the private sector plays a distant second fiddle to government.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418743]Esten not only are you a liar but a damn liar! Perry and the Texas Republicans balanced our budget shortfall in the last legislature with CUTS in spending not 'stimulus' money.[/QUOTE]Texas received $12 BILLION in ARRA funds. Are you telling us none of that impacted the state budget?
I know what was done with that money, but I'd like to hear it from you. What did Texas do with that $12 BILLION?
[QUOTE]Check your posts from several months ago when it was happening, you were gloating over the fact Texas had a budget shortfall and your perceived notion the state could not close it. Also after the fact you were still quoting an out of date articles about the "catastrophe" taking place in Texas – wrong as usual.[/QUOTE]That was MoveOn.
[QUOTE]Obama has done everything in his power to denigrate Texas since taking office from gutting NASA to denying funds for natural disasters while doling out billions to states which supported him during the 2008 election or states he needs in 2012. Buddy you need to check your facts, but I guess you would rather make this shit up as you go as usual.[/QUOTE]Look in the mirror buddy. You're just making an ass of yourself.
Try to redeem yourself (somewhat) by admitting your confusion about past posts, and posting an accurate description of what Texas did with the $12 B Stimulus funds.
Yea Esten let's change the subject from Cutting Spending, which you don't want to talk about, to the funds Texas received in 2009 from ARRA. Yes Texas did receive $14 Billion dollars in ARRA money not $12 Billion in 2009. It was considerably less than the $38 Billion it could have had. Over 65% of the $14 Billion in ARRA funds went to cover the Feds portion of Medicare / Medicaid, Education, and Unemployment payments. Does that answer your question? Yes it did postpone budget cuts for 2009.
But when the money ran out Texas did the same thing many other states did which was cut Sending, something Obama just does not seem to be able to do. The state continues to pay Unemployment and make up the short fall in Medicare / Medicaid while cutting other spending in such areas as Education. The point now just as it was in the first post was Texas cut Spending and is living within its means, something the clowns in Washington don't seem to be able to do.
I did notice you did not address the fact Texas has greater job and business growth than almost all other states, particularly the welfare states like New York and California which are already bankrupt and living on borrowed time.
You can carp all you want to about how much money Bush spent but Obama has spent more in 2 years than Bush did in 8. I know it's all Bush's fault. So tell me Esten, when does Obama start accepting responsibility? Everything is always Bush's fault, or 'headwinds' buffeting the economy, or the Tea Party, or the rich, or 'I didn't mean Change You Can Believe In tomorrow or next week' to quote the Great One. So tell me when exactly will Obama take responsibility for ANYTHING?
Perry and the Texas Legislature took responsibility and did what had to be done to balance the budget, can Obama do better? I think not.
Esten, you are one of many liberls here who constantly makes as ass of themselves. If you find you can not address the issue you just change the subject. You remind me of Bill Clinton: Admit nothing, Deny everything, Make counter accusations.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;418751]Esten has gone on record here that both dividends and capital gains received by individuals should be taxed as ordinary income.[/QUOTE]It's better than that.
Esten is on record a few months ago equating dividends and capital gains as "free money" that is morally equivalent to the "free money" paid to government program beneficiaries.
Thanks,
Jackson
Esten, you still don't get it. Standard and Poor's downgraded the US debt rating from AAA to AA+ citing the failure to reduce spending over 10 years by a minimum of $4 Trillion to address our debt problem. While the other two ratings agencies still have the US on their watch list, they have not YET downgraded our rating. You and the rest of the clowns in Washington don't seem to get the point that it is SPENDING that is the problem. With the debt above 100% of the US's annual GDP no matter how much you raise taxes, even to 100% of income, it won't bring down the debt. Everyone else, ratings agencies, the markets, individual American's understand you can not spend more than you make, but Liberals never seem to get it.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton. ITS SPENDING STUPID!
Jackson, we both know in Liberal Speak, free money = someone else's money you give away
I just don't get why you guys assume that cutting spending will reduce debt better than cutting spending AND raising tax revenues. Intelligent enough, perhaps you started new economics. I admire your confidence that you are smarter than the "clowns in Washington."
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418757]Esten, you still don't get it. Standard and Poor's downgraded the US debt rating from AAA to AA+ citing the failure to reduce spending over 10 years by a minimum of $4 Trillion to address our debt problem. While the other two ratings agencies still have the US on their watch list, they have not YET downgraded our rating. You and the rest of the clowns in Washington don't seem to get the point that it is SPENDING that is the problem. With the debt above 100% of the US's annual GDP no matter how much you raise taxes, even to 100% of income, it won't bring down the debt. Everyone else, ratings agencies, the markets, individual American's understand you can not spend more than you make, but Liberals never seem to get it.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton. ITS SPENDING STUPID![/QUOTE]
Matt- Raising taxes reduces the tax base, therefore reduces revenue. This problem is amplified during deflationary cycles (which has been happening since 1999 in U$ denominated debt) , when folks have a "Hunker in the Bunker" mentality and the aggregate social mood has changed from optimistic to pessimistic. We are way out on the right end of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes would sink this economy faster than a rating agency downgrade-BF.
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;418760]I just don't get why you guys assume that cutting spending will reduce debt better than cutting spending AND raising tax revenues. Intelligent enough, perhaps you started new economics. I admire your confidence that you are smarter than the "clowns in Washington."[/QUOTE]
How did you methodologically and scientifically find that the current tax level is after, but not before or at, the top of Laffer curve? Thanks.
[QUOTE=BlueFalcon;418761]Matt- Raising taxes reduces the tax base, therefore reduces revenue. This problem is amplified during deflationary cycles (which has been happening since 1999 in U$ denominated debt) , when folks have a "Hunker in the Bunker" mentality and the aggregate social mood has changed from optimistic to pessimistic. We are way out on the right end of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes would sink this economy faster than a rating agency downgrade-BF.[/QUOTE]
Matt: Here it is. A nut in an eggshell. If you want something to go away (eventually) , tax it. If you want something to stick around and grow, subsidize it or otherwise incent it. We punish productivity by having the highest corporate tax rates in the world, double taxation of dividends, etc. We would be closer to the Laffer Curve apex, if not to the left, if we would reduce, or "Fundamentally Transform (BHO. 15 January 2009)" our tax code so folks aren't spending butt-loads of $ trying to evade it. Scrap the tax code and implement the Fair Tax, and we'd be off to the races, on a macro level-BF.
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;418762]How did you methodologically and scientifically find that the current tax level is after, but not before or at, the top of Laffer curve? Thanks.[/QUOTE]