Presidents plan is a joke

[hoyle21]

This is the inconvenient truth so many liberals refuse to accept. Just like the idea that raising rates solves all problems while leaving the biggest cost drivers in place. I swear the democrats can't do a logical thing unless there's more taxes and "fairness" built into it.

No it further proves the point. Rich people will still get out of payin taxes, just like everyone. However the current tax structure allows them to just hoard money. If taxes were raised they would be forced to out their money to work to get out of paying taxes, which would heavily stimulate the economy.

The point isn't to give the government more money, the point is to change the incentive and force them to reinvest in the economy instead of money hoarding.

 

[Zaphod]

No it further proves the point. Rich people will still get out of payin taxes, just like everyone. However the current tax structure allows them to just hoard money. If taxes were raised they would be forced to out their money to work to get out of paying taxes, which would heavily stimulate the economy.

The point isn't to give the government more money, the point is to change the incentive and force them to reinvest in the economy instead of money hoarding.

But that's socialism!

Just thought I'd get that out of the way before anyone else said it.

 

[Swiper]

 

[hoyle21]

But that's socialism!

Just thought I'd get that out of the way before anyone else said it.

I know you're being facetious, damn it

 

[FUZO]

You liberals democrats can piss and moan and think your right but in reality you cant keep creating debt and keep spending and you Liberals will see in 4 years that nothing has changed but we will be worse as a nation

 

[hoyle21]

You liberals democrats can piss and moan and think your right but in reality you cant keep creating debt and keep spending and you Liberals will see in 4 years that nothing has changed but we will be worse as a nation

How'd that last election work out for ya?

 

[Dale Mabry]

You liberals democrats can piss and moan and think your right but in reality you cant keep creating debt and keep spending and you Liberals will see in 4 years that nothing has changed but we will be worse as a nation

Holy crap, something I actually agree with you on, and the wording is very important, "...can't keep creating debt..." Of course, creating debt can mean both increasing expenditures as well as reducing revenue. How on Earth can you use this wording and back any major party with a straight face? Everything the GOP has put forward has been as bad or worse for generating debt than what the Dems have put forward. Romney himself wanted to provide $5 trillion worth of tax cuts and $2 trillion in increased defense spending.

The only reason we will be worse as a nation in 4 years is because you idiots continue to vote on party lines to prevent the other party from getting in while, in reality, both parties are 2 turds from the same butthole. To be honest, I think we will be a little better off in 4 years because the GOP has to cave on taxes or face being blamed for tanking the economy. Personally I would prefer tax reform and basing the corporate rate on the %age of workers in the US, but that'll never happen so any sort of improvement in debt we see over the next 4 years will come from soaking the rich. It's certainly not going to come from any cuts to spending and you can blame both parties for that.

 

[Intense]

U can't fix in four years what was fucked up in 8

You'll be saying that after this next four years.






Oh wait no you wont, you will still blame bush.

 

[LAM]

You liberals democrats can piss and moan and think your right but in reality you cant keep creating debt and keep spending and you Liberals will see in 4 years that nothing has changed but we will be worse as a nation

the majority of the deficit is from the GOP, between GWB and Reagan they account for about 75% of the 16T as a direct result of legislation. supply-side tax cuts are not revenue neutral, nor do they grow the economy all they result in is massive deficits.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/documents/20120229_essentialecon.pdf

 

[Swiper]

the majority of the deficit is from the GOP, between GWB and Reagan they account for about 75% of the 16T as a direct result of legislation. supply-side tax cuts are not revenue neutral, nor do they grow the economy all they result in is massive deficits.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/documents/20120229_essentialecon.pdf

And at the end of obamas 2nd term our national debt will be over 20 trillion. when he took office it was 10 trillion.

 

[LAM]

You'll be saying that after this next four years.

Oh wait no you wont, you will still blame bush.

do you think the negative effects of bad economic policy simply just "go away" because the date on the calendar changes? if so you truly understand very little about economics and the cause and effect of policy.

events such as those that took place in 2008 have permanent negative effects on the economy of the US and the globe. reports out of the FSB and BIS have stated that global GDP permanently lost between 60-200T dollars.

the US economy never recovered from the 2001 recession. the entire increase in real GDP growth in 2001-2007 was from mortgage debt. the economy that was designed and put into place in the 80's based on finance and capital is totally unsustainable as it is all fake wealth.

the 40% of home wealth that was lost when the housing market crashed in 2008 is gone, never to return. another permanent negative effect the direct result of policy. the US housing market will never be the same as it was prior to 2008 and will never generate the long term wealth that it did for earlier generations. 50% of the US workforce works part-time with low wages. exactly the opposite of what is required to maintain a mortgage on a home.

income > wealth > consumption

those with low incomes have little wealth and can not consume beyond the basics. and it's why the unemployment rate is still so high. 8% is the new "normal" in the US. and things will get worst after the next recession, and the one after that, etc..etc..etc..

 

[Swiper]

Obama?s Now Borrowed More Than All Other Presidents Combined

By Terence P. Jeffrey
November 30, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - The federal government has now borrowed more money during Barack Obama?s time as president than it did in the period lasting from the time President George Washington took the oath office until July 2, 2001, more than five months into the first term of President George W. Bush.
At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury. At the close of business this Thursday, it stood at $16,323,083,449,604.98.
That means the debt has increased $5,696,206,400,691.90 during Obama?s presidency.
On July 2, 2001, more than five months after President George W. Bush entered office, the national debt was $5,693,220,327,798.14, according to the Treasury. By the close of business on July 3, 2001, it had risen to 5,698,195,769,465.40. Since then, the debt has never again dropped below $5,696,206,400,691.90?the amount it has increased in less than one full term of Obama.
(Between late 1999 and the middle of 2001, as federal revenues sometimes exceeded expenditures, the debt fluctuated back and forth over the $5.696 trillion mark--only to finally pass that threshold, without retrenching, between July 2 and 3, 2001.)
On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner suggested that Congress give President Obama the unilateral authority to lift the limit on the national debt.
The Census Bureau estimated in September that there were 114,916,000 households in the United States. That means that the $5,696,206,400,691.90 the Obama administration has borrowed in the name of U.S. taxpayers now equals about $49,568 per household.
Obama

 

[LAM]

That was on taxable income not earned income which has no relevance to today's rates.

earned income is taxable income and in the US earnings (wages and salary and self-employment income) account for 85% of total aggregate income.

from 1979 those in the lowest income quintile (poorest 20%) have seen their after-tax income increase by 9% while the 1%'ers saw an after-tax income of 125% alone, not counting increases in unearned income at about another good 150%.

 

[troubador]

earned income is taxable income

Nope. Taxable or Non-Taxable Income?

We also have these things called tax deductions. Taxable income was different in 1946 than it is today.

 

[LAM]

Nope. Taxable or Non-Taxable Income?

We also have these things called tax deductions. Taxable income was different in 1946 than it is today.

not for the majority of the population, labor has always derived almost all of it's income from earned income via wages. you posted a link to examples of un-earned income which is not taxable. the entire point of tax deductions for low to moderate income (LMI) wage workers is to give them more disposable income while the "debt" falls onto the responsibility of the fed government.

the US has had a poverty problem for the past 100 years except back in the early 1900's social protections where far less as was the availability of credit. during the 1930's the poverty rate for the elderly over 65 was almost 90%, that's down to about 10% now. but since words are subjective and open to interpretation you have to look at what the standard for poverty was then and now and adjust.

the document below from the CBO in 2007 it shows the different income quintiles and where their income is derived from. as income increases the amounts of cash transfers, etc. from the gov decreases as would be expected. and if you look at the top rates, they are the only ones that derive any income from capital gains a form of "un-earned" income or interest payments, etc.. you can also look and see how as the income of the top earners at 1% derive 30% of their income from capital gains. the fight for lower rates/total elimination of taxes on capital gains is nothing more than another ploy by the suck-ups to increase the ability for the 1%'ers to create even more wealth, so obvious why those tax cuts never have a positive effect on the economy.

CBO - Sources of Income for All Households (1979 to 2007)

 

[troubador]

not for the majority of the population, labor has always derived almost all of it's income from earned income via wages.

We were talking about the top tax rate not labor. The top tax rate in 1945 started at incomes of $200,000 which is about $2.5 million today.

I stopped reading after the quoted sentence. I figure if the first sentence isn't on topic the rest isn't either.

 

[FUZO]

how'd that last election work out for ya?

status quo,you liberals can keep blaming the gop but in 4 years all this debt and no jobs and no money will still be on the head of this idiot president then mabey people will wake up..you might of won again but the gop took even more house seats which is very important imo.but ill bet any of you that the next election you wont see 90%+ african americans voting for the democrat president if there white rest assure you on that which will only mean the african american community only came out for a black president so lets see next election what the % will be,any less then 90% my point will be proven correct. And im no racist also for the hispanics they wont come out like they did.

 

[LAM]

status quo,you liberals can keep blaming the gop

liberals aren't blaming the GOP it's documented history. the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were passed via reconciliation. nobel prize winning economists and hundreds of other economists signed a petition against them as they stated they would create deficits as high and far as one could see and guess what happened, exactly that. the negative effects of the GWB presidency and policy that was enacted over those 8 will last many decades.

from 2003 - 'Horrendous': Nobel economist George Akerlof criticizes Bush administration's economic stimulus package
"The petition prominently displayed the names of 10 Nobel Laureates and four world-renowned economic experts, among them three current UC Berkeley faculty members: George Akerlof, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences and the Goldman Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley; Daniel L. McFadden, also a Nobel laureate in economics and the director of UC Berkeley's Econometrics Laboratory; and Janet Yellen, a member of Berkeley's Haas Economic Analysis and Policy Group and an economics professor. More than 450 economists from U.S. universities and tax-policy institutes also signed the petition, including more than 10 from UC Berkeley. "

'Horrendous': Nobel economist George Akerlof criticizes Bush economic stimulus package

Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Large Current Deficits — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

and what does the graph say on page 10 titled "9 Causes of Deficits Since 2001" from the US Treasury?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/documents/20120229_essentialecon.pdf

and the CRS Report on the Bush Tax Cuts
Bush.tax.Cuts.crs 10.27


"Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it
is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the
1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP
increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was
1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive
evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the
top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax
rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top
tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families
increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009
recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with
regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how
the economic pie is sliced."

Taxes and the Economy: An Economic
Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf

* no matter how hard you try you can't change history

 

[jagbender]

 

[heckler7]

democrats and republicans effectively divided the nation with its conservitive and liberal war of words. if a policy or idea makes sense it shouldnt matter who came up with it. But Americans have their earplugs in and wont listen to both sides. I believe the fiscal cliff and economy are two seperate problems. Republicans came up with the Bush tax cuts and wrote into this policy the fiscal cliff. Maybe in hindsight they didnt know we would end up in a recession and thought this wouldnt be a big deal. But if you think taxes have anything to do with the cost of fuel jumping from $1.30 to $5 or the mortgage crisis created by the banks that drove the stock markets to crash than you are drinking the coolaid my friend.

 

[Dale Mabry]

This is the inconvenient truth so many liberals refuse to accept. Just like the idea that raising rates solves all problems while leaving the biggest cost drivers in place. I swear the democrats can't do a logical thing unless there's more taxes and "fairness" built into it.

I agree with this but it's a red herring. Exactly how are we going to increase the tax base with manufacturing moved overseas. Unless you intend on doing it through the tax code it ain't happening. Companies aren't hiring and the goal is to reduce gov't spending, neither of which bodes well for increasing the tax base. Enter raising taxes to encourage companies spending vs saving.

 

[DOMS]

I agree with this but it's a red herring. Exactly how are we going to increase the tax base with manufacturing moved overseas. Unless you intend on doing it through the tax code it ain't happening. Companies aren't hiring and the goal is to reduce gov't spending, neither of which bodes well for increasing the tax base. Enter raising taxes to encourage companies spending vs saving.

Penalize companies for outsourcing jobs to other countries.

 

[heckler7]

Penalize companies for outsourcing jobs to other countries.

penalize employers who hire in sourced illegals

 

[DOMS]

penalize employers who hire in sourced illegals

Yep. And screw the measly $50,000 fine they have now. Make it $500,000 per illegal. Make it a company-ending event if you get caught willfully employing illegals. If you make it bad enough, they'll stop employing illegals, which is a great first step in getting rid of illegals.

 

[LAM]

This is the inconvenient truth so many liberals refuse to accept. Just like the idea that raising rates solves all problems while leaving the biggest cost drivers in place. I swear the democrats can't do a logical thing unless there's more taxes and "fairness" built into it.

and who has ever stated that raising taxes solves all problems? I don't believe anyone ever has certainly not in writing. raising and lowering various taxes is a basic function of economics.

and those in the top 1% derive the majority of their income and wealth from the "non-market based" financial sector. the fictitious money and wealth that they use and created on computers erodes the value of the money/currency used in the real economy. the record low interest rates out of the FED on savings/checking deposits are a direct result of financial deregulation in the 80's. the low rates in the US are seen no else in the world. I'm earning 10% APR in Sri Lanka while in the US it's .8% when real inflation is closer to 4.5%.

simple cause and effect

 

[LAM]

penalize employers who hire in sourced illegals

any legislation that imposes a serious criminal or fiscal penalty on large firm owners never makes it out of committee. the 1%'er protect each other. punishments for crimes they will most likely never commit are the harshest around (drugs, retail theft, 3 strikes, etc.) but for offenses they themselves could be found guilty of one day, minimal or non-existent.

 

[Big Pimpin]

the majority of the deficit is from the GOP, between GWB and Reagan they account for about 75% of the 16T as a direct result of legislation. supply-side tax cuts are not revenue neutral, nor do they grow the economy all they result in is massive deficits.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/documents/20120229_essentialecon.pdf

There's nothing partisan about that .pdf...not even a hint of partisanship.

 

[Big Pimpin]

Yep. And screw the measly $50,000 fine they have now. Make it $500,000 per illegal. Make it a company-ending event if you get caught willfully employing illegals. If you make it bad enough, they'll stop employing illegals, which is a great first step in getting rid of illegals.

What's bullshit about e-verify is it simply says this a legit SS number (that was sold to you at the local flea market). It doesn't say xxx-xx-xxxx is/belongs to Doms Jones in Bumfuck, Idaho. Lets say you are a legal citizen and you simply changed your last name due to marriage, e-verify won't even verify that.

 

[blergs.]

As far as the welfare thing there ARE people who physically and mentally can not work, like Autistic kids that don't have a family to help them. What I don't like is this, my friend Adrian's parents died when he was 18 and hes 20 now. Him and his brother are on their own, no family. He can't go to school, can't do ANYTHING because he has to work 24/7. They can't get help when they try to go to the welfare places... But he said when he was there he saw a couple of people roll up in a escalade and say to someone they saw they were going to get their check to go to seaside.... Those people should be hung.

Agreed!
some need it, most abuse it!
fkin hate that shit.

 

[LAM]

What's bullshit about e-verify is it simply says this a legit SS number (that was sold to you at the local flea market). It doesn't say xxx-xx-xxxx is/belongs to Doms Jones in Bumfuck, Idaho. Lets say you are a legal citizen and you simply changed your last name due to marriage, e-verify won't even verify that.

the "immigration problem" in the US is only a problem for the working class, which is why it has only been allowed to get worst with time. the weak attempts at controlling it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. history has shown us everything we need to know about the effects of immigration on economy's, etc. and in terms of sociology people generally act the same in 2012 as they did 300-400 years ago.

everything the US gov does or doesn't do is for a reason