As promised and what perfect timing. BOHICA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022100911.html?hpid=topnews
Announcing you are going to raise taxes on businesses during a recession is not very bright.
quote:
Originally posted by unreliablesource
Announcing you are going to raise taxes on businesses during a recession is not very bright.
Yeah, it probably wouldn't be that smart. Fortunately, that's not what he's doing. It's clear from the article that he's simply letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, expire.
quote:
Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011.
Oh, and he proposes to cut the deficit in half over his first term. That's a good thing.
...but wasnt it a Democrat who famously said, "Deficits dont matter"???......... oh, wait.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by unreliablesource
Announcing you are going to raise taxes on businesses during a recession is not very bright.
Yeah, it probably wouldn't be that smart. Fortunately, that's not what he's doing. It's clear from the article that he's simply letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, expire.
quote:
Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011.
Oh, and he proposes to cut the deficit in half over his first term. That's a good thing.
Two thoughts. First, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase. Taxes not just on the "wealthy" (you know, those people that work hard, get educated, or otherwise have the audacity to be successful) but on businesses will go up. Second, cutting the deficit is a good thing; but how does Obama plan to do that? He just signed a bill saddling my children with a trillion dollars to pay back and is contemplating another auto bailout and mortgage bailout. Oh, I know, let's impose a "green" tax on business.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/politics/22budget.html?ref=business
yeah, the Clinton tax code was sooooooo awful and oppressive... nobody will ever want to be successful ever again..... the Welfare Queens and the working poor didnt create this mess... the Republicans only care about deficits when theyre not in power... so, your taxea are going up by three percent... yeah, cry me a handful of tears.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
yeah, the Clinton tax code was sooooooo awful and oppressive... nobody will ever want to be successful ever again..... the Welfare Queens and the working poor didnt create this mess... the Republicans only care about deficits when theyre not in power... so, your taxea are going up by three percent... yeah, cry me a handful of tears.
The Obama spooner speaketh. It's not just deficits you. I do not know what your 401k looks like, but mine is down 40% in the last year. The Dow is down 2500 since Obama was elected. It's about taxing those "wealthy" folks that have lost much of their retirement to subsidize the UAW and state employee retirees retirement plans. It's about increasing capital gains taxes when investors are already jittery over investment. It's about people who are fiscally responsible being forced to pay the mortgages of those who are not. It's about throwing billions at corporate faiilure such as the Big 3. In the face of these realities, you spew BS daily kos talking points? Thanks for going full retard.
I've always had a problem with that reasoning Guido. This year my son turned 24 so he no longer can be a deduction for me even though economics forced him to reside with us this year. Lots of families have had the same experience.
So, did the government just raise my taxes because he timed out? That and other similar extensions of your logic become really strained.
The fact that there was a tax in the first place, implies that the tax was owed, but abated until a future time. That abatement has timed out. Otherwise the tax would simply disappear. Is that what happened here? It seems a semantics argument. The taxes could just as easily be described as "the low tax holiday has ended".
The other argument is also sketchy. When government most needs help to accomplish the rebuilding of its infrastructure, the emminent retirement of the largest tax paying class in history, and a possible further collapse of the economy, those most able to pay taxes rebell at paying any more, even though it eventually strengthens their financial condition? What good will all those tax savings do you when the bridges are out, the fuel is short, the police force unable to cope with crime and villagers are roaming the streets looking for BMW's to steal? Sounds just as lame as raising taxes on the wealthy during a recession does to you. In fact, it reminds me of the logic of bloodletting in the 18th century. Both hold no water by themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
those most able to pay taxes rebell at paying any more,
Ah yes, the ole ability to pay routine. I think no one should require more that $100,000. per year of income (more than my income) to live. Let's tax everything above $100,000 at 90%. That will prevent a cap on income but still require those most able to pay taxes support those who cannot.
I've had enough of working for a living but I cannot afford to retire. Since it's all the Republicans' fault, I think I'll change political affiliation to become a Democrat. I will need some help learning how to hold my hand out in the correct place for a handout.
H2O:
I do not want to engage in a semantics debate with you. The fact is that my family will be paying close to an ADDITIONAL $20K in taxes under Obama's plan. To me, that's a tax increase. Your example that because you cannot claim your child as a deduction any longer is tantamount to a tax increase is an imprecise comparison. This tax increase is not applicable to all taxpayers (only those earning more than $250k) as is the rule governing tax deductions. Furthermore, following your logic, not making charitable contributions or not having depreciating assets would be a tax increase because there would be a loss of a deduction.
Incidentally, your helping out your child is admirable and what family is supposed to do in times of turmoil. Far too often people believe that its government's job to take care of you when you fall on hard times.
Finally, your contention that the great unwashed (h/t Boortz) will take to the streets and physically take from the wealthy if the wealthy do not pony up more money is abject fear mongering. If anything, I would not be surprised that these wealthy folks that are not only employing the "working class" but give most to charities that assist the "working class" and the needy start cutting them off. As I have previously stated, I have already significantly reduced my charitable giving and several people in the circle I run in have likewise done so. Welcome to class warfare.
you guys are NUTZ... Obama has been in office ONE MONTH... guess he hasnt kissed enuff wall street butt... red arrow, pancakes are you talking about? nobody denies others their opportunities to make money... $100,000 per year?... those people arent paying more taxes... who benefitted most from the Bush tax cuts over the last eight years? what did the children of Sam Walton actually do to earn that extra money?... and how did that money benefit the general economy... ???
I remain unconvinced. My comparison seems accurate enough. The deduction is only for those who have children who are less than 24 yrs old and don't take themselves as a deduction. Its a subset of the population just like those who make over $250,000. And that deduction has varied over the years. Just like deductions for interest on vacation homes. When they disappear it isn't an increase in taxes because it really served as an incentive to sell real estate. When that incentive is determined to be uneccessary it is eliminated. A tax increase is when your home is appraised at a higher value, even when you haven't sold it, can't sell it and probably wouldn't get what they appraise it for...yet your tax increases.
I truly regret that you will pay $20,000 more this year but I'm happy you have done that well. Too bad it couldn't have happened during the Bush reign.[;)] I missed out on some opportunities during that 8 years as well. How could you have thought it was going to be permanent anyway? Tax rates on the top levels has decreased substantially during my lifetime. Now they are in need of readjustment.
I only spoke of the danger of mayhem because of history repeating itself so often. I don't expect it, but it would be stupid not to consider history. We seem to think our time is immune to stuff like the Bolshevik revolution and the French Revolution. When people are hungry, unemployed and angry they punish those who are not, whether they deserve it or not. It could get ugly.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I remain unconvinced. My comparison seems accurate enough. The deduction is only for those who have children who are less than 24 yrs old and don't take themselves as a deduction. Its a subset of the population just like those who make over $250,000. And that deduction has varied over the years. Just like deductions for interest on vacation homes. When they disappear it isn't an increase in taxes because it really served as an incentive to sell real estate. When that incentive is determined to be uneccessary it is eliminated. A tax increase is when your home is appraised at a higher value, even when you haven't sold it, can't sell it and probably wouldn't get what they appraise it for...yet your tax increases.
I truly regret that you will pay $20,000 more this year but I'm happy you have done that well. Too bad it couldn't have happened during the Bush reign.[;)] I missed out on some opportunities during that 8 years as well. How could you have thought it was going to be permanent anyway? Tax rates on the top levels has decreased substantially during my lifetime. Now they are in need of readjustment.
I only spoke of the danger of mayhem because of history repeating itself so often. I don't expect it, but it would be stupid not to consider history. We seem to think our time is immune to stuff like the Bolshevik revolution and the French Revolution. When people are hungry, unemployed and angry they punish those who are not, whether they deserve it or not. It could get ugly.
I get your point. Can we agree to disagree on this? [:)] Good debate though.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
those most able to pay taxes rebell at paying any more,
Ah yes, the ole ability to pay routine. I think no one should require more that $100,000. per year of income (more than my income) to live. Let's tax everything above $100,000 at 90%. That will prevent a cap on income but still require those most able to pay taxes support those who cannot.
I've had enough of working for a living but I cannot afford to retire. Since it's all the Republicans' fault, I think I'll change political affiliation to become a Democrat. I will need some help learning how to hold my hand out in the correct place for a handout.
You chose that one line to object too? Lets not exaggerate so much Red. How do you explain the 90's? You know, back before that great tax cut that Bush gave folks in Guido's bracket. Somehow the economy was strong, people prospered at many levels and the deficit shrunk. Even if you give all credit to a republican congress, which true repubs do, the increased tax burden did not hurt the country.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I remain unconvinced. My comparison seems accurate enough. The deduction is only for those who have children who are less than 24 yrs old and don't take themselves as a deduction. Its a subset of the population just like those who make over $250,000. And that deduction has varied over the years. Just like deductions for interest on vacation homes. When they disappear it isn't an increase in taxes because it really served as an incentive to sell real estate. When that incentive is determined to be uneccessary it is eliminated. A tax increase is when your home is appraised at a higher value, even when you haven't sold it, can't sell it and probably wouldn't get what they appraise it for...yet your tax increases.
I truly regret that you will pay $20,000 more this year but I'm happy you have done that well. Too bad it couldn't have happened during the Bush reign.[;)] I missed out on some opportunities during that 8 years as well. How could you have thought it was going to be permanent anyway? Tax rates on the top levels has decreased substantially during my lifetime. Now they are in need of readjustment.
I only spoke of the danger of mayhem because of history repeating itself so often. I don't expect it, but it would be stupid not to consider history. We seem to think our time is immune to stuff like the Bolshevik revolution and the French Revolution. When people are hungry, unemployed and angry they punish those who are not, whether they deserve it or not. It could get ugly.
I get your point. Can we agree to disagree on this? [:)] Good debate though.
Absolutely. [8D]
USRufnex, H2O Boy,
OK, I got your attention.
Marginal rates in the 1950s were in the 90% range for the top $ makers. Using Waterboy's logic, returning to 90% is not a tax increase, just a return to what once existed. The place were the top rate starts is an arbitrary number. Then it was $400,000. Today it may be $250,000. Tomorrow it may be $100,000. I read in the paper (or maybe MSNBC on line) that the tax rebate will start to be tapered off for single taxpayers at incomes above $80,000. Hardly $250,000. JFK had the top marginal rates cut to 70%. Explain the prosperity of the 60s. We can obviously afford to sock it to the rich. Rich is relative. Today's USA "Bolsheviks and French Revolutionaries" working 2 jobs to make $50,000 will see no sympathy for anyone making a 6 figure (left of the decimal point) income. That's pancakes I'm talking about.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
I just used this site as a reference for the top marginal rates.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
what did the children of Sam Walton actually do to earn that extra money?... and how did that money benefit the general economy... ???
I'm sure they stuck the money under their mattress or buried it in the back yard so no one else could benefit from their good fortune. Who really cares what they did to earn it? It's what they do with it that counts.
I guess you are in the group of people that advocate a 100% inheritance tax. I disagree.
A little off topic, but here is a total a## ripping of an ACORN rep over her perceived "right" to taxpayer money to prevent banks from foreclosing on deadbeat homeowners:
http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=388
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
what did the children of Sam Walton actually do to earn that extra money?... and how did that money benefit the general economy... ???
I'm sure they stuck the money under their mattress or buried it in the back yard so no one else could benefit from their good fortune. Who really cares what they did to earn it? It's what they do with it that counts.
I guess you are in the group of people that advocate a 100% inheritance tax. I disagree.
Red- a lot of people suffer with a certain myopia that doesn't allow them to realize that wealthy investors do as much for the economy as the guy running a tire molding machine at Goodyear.
People who tolerate the most risk and put up the money for corporate expansion (which equates to jobs) earn their money as an investor.
I dare say a good percentage of us posting on this board have jobs because of investors like the Walton heirs.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
what did the children of Sam Walton actually do to earn that extra money?... and how did that money benefit the general economy... ???
I'm sure they stuck the money under their mattress or buried it in the back yard so no one else could benefit from their good fortune. Who really cares what they did to earn it? It's what they do with it that counts.
I guess you are in the group of people that advocate a 100% inheritance tax. I disagree.
Red- a lot of people suffer with a certain myopia that doesn't allow them to realize that wealthy investors do as much for the economy as the guy running a tire molding machine at Goodyear.
Red- a lot of people suffer with a certain
myopia wealth envy that doesn't allow them to realize that wealthy investors do as much for the economy as the guy running a tire molding machine at Goodyear.
FIFY
RA, quit playing hyperbole games... nobody has proposed a 100% tax on ANYONE... to argue otherwise is dishonest... boy, eliminating the inheritance and estate taxes sure made the banks solvent over the last eight years... not... but you guys do what you always do... blame unions and workers... I find it bizarre that folks on this site consistently defend people who have far more money and unrestricted power than they know what to do with... and scapegoat the hardworking people I get to talk to EVERY DAY who have had to cut their budgets and would highly value the paltry $13 per week coming back to them in the form of tax cuts... geez.
Conan, it isn't wealthy individuals who drive the economy, it's the funds and the banks that they contribute their capital to that do all the heavy lifting
Warren Buffet, for instance, doesn't give his own money to startups. He puts Berkshire's to work, instead. Name any similarly successful investor, and you'll find that their personal fortunes aren't anywhere near the front lines of capital funding. They use their company's instead.
And even though that's a relatively small semantic difference, it's crucial to tax policy. If the primary economic driver in terms of investment isn't individual capital but corporate capital, then the grease should be on the latter, not the former.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Conan, it isn't wealthy individuals who drive the economy, it's the funds and the banks that they contribute their capital to that do all the heavy lifting
Warren Buffet, for instance, doesn't give his own money to startups. He puts Berkshire's to work, instead. Name any similarly successful investor, and you'll find that their personal fortunes aren't anywhere near the front lines of capital funding. They use their company's instead.
And even though that's a relatively small semantic difference, it's crucial to tax policy. If the primary economic driver in terms of investment isn't individual capital but corporate capital, then the grease should be on the latter, not the former.
I don't really see the point in creating a chicken v. egg issue here, but if you must...
Ruf:
I don't understand the logic of "they have enough, so it is OK to take it from them." I really don't. If someone has $1,000,000,000,000 because their grandfather invented the cure for cancer or TNT, who cares? Why does that give the government more of a right to take their property than to take your property?
Could you take $50 Billion of Bill Gates' fortune without really effecting him? Sure. But the more important question is: does that violate fundamental property rights?
Wealth is created and owned by the individual. Wealth does not belong to the State. The State exercises it's authority to take wealth from individuals. I believe the taking of wealth because a bureaucrat or public opinion determines a person "has enough" is a violation of that persons property rights. In America, I should be able to be as wealthy as I please without being punished.
By the same token, EFFECTIVE tax rates on wealthy Americans are disproportionate to middle income Americans (don't bother mentioning the "working poor" who are effectively a net loss to the government. Taking more from the system than they pay in. Hence, their effective tax rate is negative). Middle income Americans see real tax rates in the 30-45% range after deductions, local and state taxes. The wealthiest of Americans have effective tax rates on their income below 20%.
Raise the income tax rate to 110% on people "earning" over $1mil. Hell, put it to 600%. It wouldn't matter. Because the compensation packages would simply change to avoid making the compensation "income." Either that or the best and the brightest would simply leave the United States - starting with sports stars and quickly moving into business, banking, and industry. Very frankly, the best are hired guns. They will go where the money is.
Now, I don't think the USA will gain anything scaring off the top 1% of talent in the planet. Even if we scare off just 50% of the top earners. What good has that produce for the rest of us?
So from both a property rights and a practical economic standpoint, I don't see ultra high tax brackets helping us.
And what good does an inheritance tax do? The "ultra rich" you are so worried about taking wealth away from again don't pay this tax. They transfer assets well ahead of time. Set up a non revocable trust. Set up a charitable foundation and pay the kid $10,000,000 a year to run it.
The common effect of an inheritance tax is to destroy a small business. When dad starts Tulsa Manufacturing and eventually builds it to be of some value he is contributing to the Tulsa economy, lets say he employs 25 people, builds parts using materials from a few local contractors, occupies some structures and pays taxes on them, exports on the trucking companies around town or from the port. Dad dies, the company is worth $10,000,000. Now Child gets to come up with $4,000,000 to pay to uncle Sam or he can just fold the shop, send Sam his check and walk away with his $6mil.
Uncle Sam gained $4 mil, Tulsa lost 25 direct jobs and probably a few ancillary positions. All in all a net loss. Sure he can take a bank loan, take on partners, or otherwise try to avoid it (say transferring shares annually or otherwise avoiding the tax) ... but anyone who does any small business or tax planning will tell you the above is the most common result of an estate tax. Without taking steps to avoid the tax, the business will probably die.
Why make people go through the motions to continue contributing to the economy? How will the workers gain from Uncle Sam taking the $4mil and closing down the shop?
- - -
Removal of tax breaks, deductions, or the expiration of cuts = tax increase. Just like additional tax deductions, credits, or reducing the brackets = tax decrease.
- - -
No, I am not anti tax. I think we should have a balanced budget at the Federal level. If we want to fight a war, we need a war tax (national sales tax at .5% of whatever is needed to fund it).
If we want meaningful national retirement they need to dictate nationwide contributions at a reasonable (read: sustainable) rate. If everyone contributed 10% of their income and the formula was setup to pay at least 75% of contributions to each wage earner it would leave 25% for more liberal wealth redistribution programs (may as well be honest with it). Social security is not a "safety blanket" it is a subsistence retirement plan - treat it like one.
The Federal Government should be granting proportional loans for road work or other earmark favorite, not overt handouts based on how powerful your Senate contingent is. If Alaska wanted a bridge to nowhere, they should be willing to pay off at least 50% of it in tolls over 20 years. If Tulsa thinks the Gilcrease needs to be finished we should be willing to pay for at least a portion of it over a time period. Suddenly half the pet projects wouldn't be so needed.
Bah!
I'm not trying to be a jerk. I really don't understand the mindset of "they have enough, I can take it from them." I'm damn glad no one has decided that a nice home, a couple of decent cars, and cable TV is enough that they can start taking things from me.
- - -
Lets talk about a national sales tax. Something that would set the real tax bracket for people at or below the poverty level to absolute zero (no FICA even) and have the highest tax bracket for wealthy Americans actually near that 30% mark. Most of us, those making 50-100K a year would see an actually tax rate of around 18% (around what the rich pay now).
- - -
WEVUS:
Buffet is worth $60 BILLION.
Where do you think that money is? That money is mostly held by Berkshire Hathaway as you allude to. When Berkshire makes an investment in a start up (they generally invest in existing businesses to revive them on a value investing model, but...) his wealth is on the line. If they lose, his shares lose a proportional value and his wealth dissipates. When they win, the corporation pays taxes on the profits and he pays taxes on capital gains when those profits are exchanged.
The effective tax rate on corporate profits + capital gains tax > income tax.
Clearly it is more complex than that, but you see what I cam getting at.
/monster ramble.
CF, progressive taxation has been with us forever... how do you think wars get paid for?... 2% of small business owners will pay more taxes under Obamas plans... I have no problems paying a substantially higher tax rate than a single mom who waits tables... or a higher rate than a struggling small business owner... btw, I^d rather see the federal govt spending money paying off the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than the $10mil paid by the Channels geniuses to design three islands in the middle of the Arkansas...
What about the $900M to Gaza residents that Obama is pledging?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090223/pl_nm/us_palestinians_clinton_4
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
RA, quit playing hyperbole games... nobody has proposed a 100% tax on ANYONE... to argue otherwise is dishonest... boy, eliminating the inheritance and estate taxes sure made the banks solvent over the last eight years... not... but you guys do what you always do... blame unions and workers... I find it bizarre that folks on this site consistently defend people who have far more money and unrestricted power than they know what to do with... and scapegoat the hardworking people I get to talk to EVERY DAY who have had to cut their budgets and would highly value the paltry $13 per week coming back to them in the form of tax cuts... geez.
Rufnex:
I didn't see any posts from you for a while. Your first couple of posts recently seemed like maybe you had been ill. I hope not. Now that you are back in form...
Who said anything about unions and workers in this thread? I have called out unions in other threads but I have also called out bad management and golden parachutes for "leaders" that led their companies to ruin. "and scapegoat the hardworking people I get to talk to EVERY DAY ". Wow does that sound condescending? Have some "best friends" of other races or religions too?
Inheritance. I am of the group that believes that someone should be able to pass their estate on to whoever they want without taxes. In most cases, that money has already been taxed. Probably several times. I might make an exception for estate funds that grew tax free but that would only add more complexity to the already burdensome tax code. I agree with C-F's analysis of families transferring a business.
Someone (in addition to Reagan taking away your Pell Grant to give it to someone more needy) must have really rained on your parade sometime in your life. Perhaps you, as some others, believe there is a finite amount of wealth and the only way for you to get some is to take it from someone else. I don't believe that way.
gee RA, if you decided to try to hit below the belt, you have succeeded... one of my favorite Obama speeches is the one he gives to colleges about the Empathy Deficit... good read, hint hint... I think congress should be replaced by a consortium of Oklahoma Democrats and Massachusetts Republicans... Oklahoma Republicans and Massachusetts Democrats need not apply...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
gee RA, if you decided to try to hit below the belt, you have succeeded... one of my favorite Obama speeches is the one he gives to colleges about the Empathy Deficit... good read, hint hint... I think congress should be replaced by a consortium of Oklahoma Democrats and Massachusetts Republicans... Oklahoma Republicans and Massachusetts Democrats need not apply...
In other states, they call those Moderates.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
gee RA, if you decided to try to hit below the belt, you have succeeded...
Not my intention. I apologize if you took it that way. I've been hit with a sucker punch (real one, black eye and all) so I'll be watching.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Two thoughts. First, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase.
No, that's letting an ill-advised temporary tax cut expire.
quote:
Taxes not just on the "wealthy" (you know, those people that work hard, get educated, or otherwise have the audacity to be successful) but on businesses will go up.
I can't find any details on business taxes. The meme that WaPo is pushing is that small business owners who show all business gains as personal profit of over $250,000 will have their tax breaks expire. Most people don't do that because it's stupid. Instead, they incorporate. So letting this tax break expire will effect two percent (2% of small business owners). That's documented.
quote:
Second, cutting the deficit is a good thing; but how does Obama plan to do that?
As the article said, by letting the ill-advised tax cuts that Bush passed, expire. And by "winding down" the wars...it's in there. If you recall, Bubba had a budget surplus. Bush turned it into a deficit with wars and tax cuts for the rich.
quote:
He just signed a bill saddling my children with a trillion dollars to pay back and is contemplating another auto bailout and mortgage bailout. Oh, I know, let's impose a "green" tax on business.
Bush took a $550 billion Clinton budget surplus and turned it into a $170 billion deficit. How? With ill-advised tax cuts and wars.
Clinton's surplus never materialize. The rose glasses from Clinton still amazes me. The world was peaceful and great and the economic never had an issue, until Bush came along (or there were 6 terrorist attacks on American assets with no real response and both the stock market and the housing market were set for massive collapses at the end of the Clinton years and the buck was passed)...
YEAR/Year Ending/ Nat. Debt / Budget Deficit
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
1950-1999
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
1999-current
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
(FWIW, I don't embed the links so the source is more readily ascertainable)
Where are those massive surpluses? The actually data seems to indicate the national deficit went up every year. If we had billions in budget surpluses it would go down.
Now, for the love of god, I'm not arguing GW did a good job handling the budget or securing the economy. But the pretty glasses looking back are not entire accurate either. There was never actually a budget surplus, in spite of what the fuzzy governmental math may have told you the raw numbers don't lie (debt grew = no budget surplus).
(Also, if you want to see a daily balance sheet of the US Treasury you can:
http://fms.treas.gov/webservices/show/?ciURL=/dts/09022000.txt
As of yesterday, we had $38 Billion in our national checking account.)
Whoops. I got the numbers flipped, sorry.
quote:
When President Clinton left office, the federal budget was showing a $127-billion surplus.
The books are closed on fiscal 2008. The surplus the current President Bush inherited has turned into a record deficit: $455 billion.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/budget-deficit.html
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
QuoteHe just signed a bill saddling my children with a trillion dollars to pay back and is contemplating another auto bailout and mortgage bailout. Oh, I know, let's impose a "green" tax on business.
Bush took a $550 billion Clinton budget surplus and turned it into a $170 billion deficit. How? With ill-advised tax cuts and wars.
This is what really irked me about the Bush Administration. They tried to fight two wars and do tax cuts at the same time, which is sheer insanity. Wars are expensive (especially when you wage them poorly), and chopping down your revenue source in such a time is unbelievably stupid.
And, worse, you had folks like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh and apparently the whole GOP-led Congress saying in the early part of the decade that "deficits don't matter." (And, yes, I actually heard Rush say this on his show about seven years ago. Cheney's comment is well-documented.)
Now, with the economy needing help of any kind, they're suddenly deficit hawks.
Why in the hell should we listen to them at all? Their sense of priorities and timing are all screwed up. How the hell do they have any credibility?
Okay, RW, I'll agree, tax cuts in light of war and multiple unprecidented natural disasters don't seem to make sense.
In four or eight years, what are we going to say the wisdom was in ramping up government spending on social programs and economic porkulus whilst "cutting taxes on 95% of Americans"?
Finally today, the markets seem to be responding positively to what the Obama team seems to be doing. Either that, or the shorts are covering. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, RW, I'll agree, tax cuts in light of war and multiple unprecidented natural disasters don't seem to make sense.
In four or eight years, what are we going to say the wisdom was in ramping up government spending on social programs and economic porkulus whilst "cutting taxes on 95% of Americans"?
Finally today, the markets seem to be responding positively to what the Obama team seems to be doing. Either that, or the shorts are covering. [;)]
As dumb as it is to cut taxes and run two wars at the same time, it's just as dumb to reel in government spending at a time when the economy is hurting for cash. That's the mistake Hoover made.
I'm a pretty significant deficit hawk, but not when you have an economy that's as bad as this one. I'm far more of a pragmatist than an idealogue.
And I agree that the shorts are covering. [;)] My money manager says to buy anytime the Dow is at or below 7,500, and I concur. He calls that level "bottom-testing."
Whoops. I got the numbers flipped, sorry.
quote:
When President Clinton left office, the federal budget was showing a $127-billion surplus.
The books are closed on fiscal 2008. The surplus the current President Bush inherited has turned into a record deficit: $455 billion.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/budget-deficit.html
Well this is great news. The tax increase on the wealthy will not raise enough money to fund Obama's plans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Well this is great news. The tax increase on the wealthy will not raise enough money to fund Obama's plans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Yes, the previous budgets were covering the country's expenditures very well...
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Well this is great news. The tax increase on the wealthy will not raise enough money to fund Obama's plans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Yes, the previous budgets were covering the country's expenditures very well...
Brilliant response. This is the era of hope and change; remember?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Well this is great news. The tax increase on the wealthy will not raise enough money to fund Obama's plans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Yes, the previous budgets were covering the country's expenditures very well...
Brilliant response. This is the era of hope and change; remember?
Thanks. You're posting from an opinion page (brilliant).
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Well this is great news. The tax increase on the wealthy will not raise enough money to fund Obama's plans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Yes, the previous budgets were covering the country's expenditures very well...
Brilliant response. This is the era of hope and change; remember?
Thanks. You're posting from an opinion page (brilliant).
CNN and Faux News are reporting the same thing as this "opinion".
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Well this is great news. The tax increase on the wealthy will not raise enough money to fund Obama's plans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
I don't think anyone expected the stimulus not to be deficit spending. I don't recall Obama ever saying it wouldn't be, for that matter.
It is funny that depending on which party's guy is in office, either deficits don't matter or deficits are going to run the country into the ground.
I'm generally anti-deficit, but when we need to pump money into the economy during uncertain economic times, the only reliable way of doing that is to have the government spend it. Tax cuts just end up being saved and certainly don't help our crumbling infrastructure.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Well this is great news. The tax increase on the wealthy will not raise enough money to fund Obama's plans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
I don't think anyone expected the stimulus not to be deficit spending. I don't recall Obama ever saying it wouldn't be, for that matter.
It is funny that depending on which party's guy is in office, either deficits don't matter or deficits are going to run the country into the ground.
I'm generally anti-deficit, but when we need to pump money into the economy during uncertain economic times, the only reliable way of doing that is to have the government spend it. Tax cuts just end up being saved and certainly don't help our crumbling infrastructure.
I hear you. We will never agree on this though.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
gee RA, if you decided to try to hit below the belt, you have succeeded...
Not my intention. I apologize if you took it that way. I've been hit with a sucker punch (real one, black eye and all) so I'll be watching.
huh, no bar fights here, but I figure its only a matter of time..... unless I move over to the Peoples Republic of Cherry Street..... heard today at my local watering hole, "that Linda Carter was hotter than Georgia asphault on an August afternoon"... best chuckle I^ve had since I heard a hot looking middle aged woman at a bar in Elgin, IL sing "Redneck Woman".... with a Mike Ditka accent... lmao.
E-mail I received today:
I'm just saying . . .
Just something to cheer you up~
* If you had purchased $1,000 of AIG tock one year ago, you would have $42 left.
* With Lehman, you would have $6.60 left.
* With Fannie or Freddie, you would have less than $5 left.
* But if you had purchased $1,000 worth of beer one year ago,drank all of the beer, then turned in the bottles or cans for the recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.
Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.It's called the 401-Keg...
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
E-mail I received today:
I'm just saying . . .
Just something to cheer you up~
* If you had purchased $1,000 of AIG tock one year ago, you would have $42 left.
* With Lehman, you would have $6.60 left.
* With Fannie or Freddie, you would have less than $5 left.
* But if you had purchased $1,000 worth of beer one year ago,drank all of the beer, then turned in the bottles or cans for the recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.
Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.It's called the 401-Keg...
This is how it works in real-life:
I invest in Marshall's Beer in 22oz. bottles. I save the bottles for a friend of mine who home brews and I get some home-brew in exchange. Now that's a GREAT investment!
Far better than I would have gotten out of ING.
Saw this email in 1998, 2002, and again in 2007. Glad to see it's making another comeback. Beer is always worth the price of admission.
I find is disappointing that so many people believe the only stimulus out there is where the government (that would be you and me by the way) spends tons of money. Stimulating the economy can be done in other ways that leaves more money with the people who will spent it, thus making the economy go.
While going over Obama's budget, I found some propaganda (imagine that):
1. "... using the tax code to lessen increasing wage disparities..." That simply means income re-distribution.
2. During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month. So 8.3M new jobs is bad? Really?
Can anyone name one federal program they are proud to say is doing some good? Now we want to turn over even more programs to them?
I have read nothing (yet) in this budget that promotes hard work. It simply rewards failure on several fronts.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I find is disappointing that so many people believe the only stimulus out there is where the government (that would be you and me by the way) spends tons of money. Stimulating the economy can be done in other ways that leaves more money with the people who will spent it, thus making the economy go.
While going over Obama's budget, I found some propaganda (imagine that):
1. "... using the tax code to lessen increasing wage disparities..." That simply means income re-distribution.
2. During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month. So 8.3M new jobs is bad? Really?
Can anyone name one federal program they are proud to say is doing some good? Now we want to turn over even more programs to them?
I have read nothing (yet) in this budget that promotes hard work. It simply rewards failure on several fronts.
I'm curious as to exactly who you think should stimulate the economy, if not the federal gov't. Investment houses? Banks? Other governments?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I find is disappointing that so many people believe the only stimulus out there is where the government (that would be you and me by the way) spends tons of money. Stimulating the economy can be done in other ways that leaves more money with the people who will spent it, thus making the economy go.
While going over Obama's budget, I found some propaganda (imagine that):
1. "... using the tax code to lessen increasing wage disparities..." That simply means income re-distribution.
2. During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month. So 8.3M new jobs is bad? Really?
Can anyone name one federal program they are proud to say is doing some good? Now we want to turn over even more programs to them?
I have read nothing (yet) in this budget that promotes hard work. It simply rewards failure on several fronts.
I'm curious as to exactly who you think should stimulate the economy, if not the federal gov't. Investment houses? Banks? Other governments?
You and me ARE the economy. Not the government. Socialists and communists will tell you the government can't be the economy.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I find is disappointing that so many people believe the only stimulus out there is where the government (that would be you and me by the way) spends tons of money. Stimulating the economy can be done in other ways that leaves more money with the people who will spent it, thus making the economy go.
While going over Obama's budget, I found some propaganda (imagine that):
1. "... using the tax code to lessen increasing wage disparities..." That simply means income re-distribution.
2. During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month. So 8.3M new jobs is bad? Really?
Can anyone name one federal program they are proud to say is doing some good? Now we want to turn over even more programs to them?
I have read nothing (yet) in this budget that promotes hard work. It simply rewards failure on several fronts.
I'm curious as to exactly who you think should stimulate the economy, if not the federal gov't. Investment houses? Banks? Other governments?
You and me ARE the economy. Not the government.
Au contraire.
The government can be and is very much be part of the economy. You have road builders, teachers, law enforcement and people of other people who work for government.
I trust that you don't want that part of the government to disappear or to become irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I find is disappointing that so many people believe the only stimulus out there is where the government (that would be you and me by the way) spends tons of money. Stimulating the economy can be done in other ways that leaves more money with the people who will spent it, thus making the economy go.
While going over Obama's budget, I found some propaganda (imagine that):
1. "... using the tax code to lessen increasing wage disparities..." That simply means income re-distribution.
2. During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month. So 8.3M new jobs is bad? Really?
Can anyone name one federal program they are proud to say is doing some good? Now we want to turn over even more programs to them?
I have read nothing (yet) in this budget that promotes hard work. It simply rewards failure on several fronts.
I'm curious as to exactly who you think should stimulate the economy, if not the federal gov't. Investment houses? Banks? Other governments?
You and me ARE the economy. Not the government. Socialists and communists will tell you the government can't be the economy.
Actually, the government is a HUGE part of the economy. Government expenditure is one of the primary components of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product).
On a personal note, I work specifically with the government market for my hotel, and I can assure you that many many people in the private sector make their livings through government expenditures. My job, for one, wouldn't be here.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
2. During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month. So 8.3M new jobs is bad? Really?
Yes 8 million jobs in 8 years (I think you aren't counting the 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008) And certainly not counting the several hundred thousand Jan/Feb (Thats all Obama's fault).
Here is population growth from 1982 to 1990 (All the people that turned 18 in Bush's time as Pres)
Date Estimated Pop Pop Change
July 1, 1990 249,438,712 2,619,482
July 1, 1989 246,819,230 2,320,248
July 1, 1988 244,498,982 2,210,064
July 1, 1987 242,288,918 2,156,031
July 1, 1986 240,132,887 2,209,092
July 1, 1985 237,923,795 2,098,893
July 1, 1984 235,824,902 2,032,908
July 1, 1983 233,791,994 2,127,536
July 1, 1982 231,664,458 2,198,744
http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm
In the 8 years that "8 million" which I don't believe is the numbers before the several million job losses in 2008. There was a population of people turning 18 was 19,872,998. Lets assume 15% didn't make it to 18, that would be 16,892,000. We would have to have 8 million people leave the workforce to stay even. We might have broken even on Jobs/People. Now we have a trend of negative job growth + baby boomers not leaving because they don't have any money any more. So not only are we losing jobs we don't have people retiring. And adding about 2 million people a year who will be working age. That isn't good.
cmatt- With all due respect, it's not that simple. Not all 2mm 18 year olds are going into the work-force. A good percentage will go on to post-secondary education and won't enter the job market for four years. A smaller percentage will go on to post-graduate studies. That assumption also assumes there is no exit from the work force due to retirement, disability, and death.
Consider that 8.6mm jobs managed to be created during an era when NAFTA helped create more jobs across the border, not in our borders, China was providing more of our durable goods, and India and the Phillipines were getting American call-center jobs. Bush walked into a recession in progress as well.
So those are all menial jobs shipped overseas, right? Don't we want higher-quality, higher-paying jobs in the U.S.??
How long does everyone need to keep looking back and bashing? Let's not take our eye off the ball of what is going on now and in the near future.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
How long does everyone need to keep looking back and bashing? Let's not take our eye off the ball of what is going on now and in the near future.
Agreed. But it's also dumb to not dissect our recent history and try to learn from it.
Recent lessons:
1) It's dumb to assume real estate prices will go up forever.
2) A laissez-faire attitude with bank regulation is dumb.
3) Starting two wars and cutting taxes at the same time is dumb.
4) Starting a war against a nation that had nothing to do with a deadly terrorist attack at home is dumb.
4) Not having post-war plan of any kind is dumb.
5) If you have someone who was a mediocre student and had a long string of business failures, plus decades of drug and alcohol abuse that inevitably lead to long-term problems, it's dumb to assume he'll suddenly become a great president.
Anything else?
I'd also like to add: in flush conditions, without proper oversight you'll have graft, corruption, and outright theft. cf. Wall Street and the Iraq occupation.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
cmatt- With all due respect, it's not that simple. Not all 2mm 18 year olds are going into the work-force. A good percentage will go on to post-secondary education and won't enter the job market for four years. A smaller percentage will go on to post-graduate studies. That assumption also assumes there is no exit from the work force due to retirement, disability, and death.
Consider that 8.6mm jobs managed to be created during an era when NAFTA helped create more jobs across the border, not in our borders, China was providing more of our durable goods, and India and the Phillipines were getting American call-center jobs. Bush walked into a recession in progress as well.
So those are all menial jobs shipped overseas, right? Don't we want higher-quality, higher-paying jobs in the U.S.??
How long does everyone need to keep looking back and bashing? Let's not take our eye off the ball of what is going on now and in the near future.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
cmatt- With all due respect, it's not that simple. Not all 2mm 18 year olds are going into the work-force. A good percentage will go on to post-secondary education and won't enter the job market for four years. A smaller percentage will go on to post-graduate studies. That assumption also assumes there is no exit from the work force due to retirement, disability, and death.
Consider that 8.6mm jobs managed to be created during an era when NAFTA helped create more jobs across the border, not in our borders, China was providing more of our durable goods, and India and the Phillipines were getting American call-center jobs. Bush walked into a recession in progress as well.
So those are all menial jobs shipped overseas, right? Don't we want higher-quality, higher-paying jobs in the U.S.??
How long does everyone need to keep looking back and bashing? Let's not take our eye off the ball of what is going on now and in the near future.
The number that go onto college and do not enter the workforce in 2-6 years should be fairly consistent and equal out from the # that were deferred the 2-6 years previous.
I said that 8 million seemed like an appropriate number of retirements, deaths, and disabilities over 8 years. AVG death rate in the US is about 8.5 per 1,000. That puts us at about 1.2 million deaths in the work force a year. That is if you take the average death rate. Which obviously will be skewed higher based on age factors, etc. I don't know why everybody wants to disregard the past so much. It has valuable information. Without the past you don't know where you are in the present. Think about where you are sitting reading this.. Now remove EVERYTHING that you know. You now have no idea where you are sitting or even what a computer is :D
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
How long does everyone need to keep looking back and bashing? Let's not take our eye off the ball of what is going on now and in the near future.
Agreed. But it's also dumb to not dissect our recent history and try to learn from it.
Recent lessons:
1) It's dumb to assume real estate prices will go up forever.
2) A laissez-faire attitude with bank regulation is dumb.
3) Starting two wars and cutting taxes at the same time is dumb.
4) Starting a war against a nation that had nothing to do with a deadly terrorist attack at home is dumb.
4) Not having post-war plan of any kind is dumb.
5) If you have someone who was a mediocre student and had a long string of business failures, plus decades of drug and alcohol abuse that inevitably lead to long-term problems, it's dumb to assume he'll suddenly become a great president.
Anything else?
All of those things are not dumb if you ONLY look forward. None of them are dumb if you have no knowledge of anything else that has happened ever. So to you all of it is just happening for the first time. I must admit that (only looking forward) you would have no idea it was stupid until you did it and saw the after effects. Which you would then forget that you did it in the first place. Now you know exactly where the Republicans in congress and senate are coming from.
This is galling. Tax cheat Giethner is pledging to get tough on tax avoiders:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MN08G1&show_article=1
You really just cannot make this stuff up.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 11:25:00 AM
This is galling. Tax cheat Giethner is pledging to get tough on tax avoiders:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MN08G1&show_article=1
You really just cannot make this stuff up.
Sounds like he knows what to look for.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 11:25:00 AM
This is galling. Tax cheat Giethner is pledging to get tough on tax avoiders:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MN08G1&show_article=1
You really just cannot make this stuff up.
So you're all for the ability of the richest Americans and international corporations to take their taxable income offshore?
Is this a vote FOR tax cheats, Guido?
Quote from: we vs us on March 05, 2009, 11:36:26 AM
So you're all for the ability of the richest Americans and international corporations to take their taxable income offshore?
Is this a vote FOR tax cheats, Guido?
You way overthink things. I was merely pointing out the irony, er brass ones of Turbo Tax Geithner to go after tax cheats. In fact, given that Obama has no problem placing persons who do not pay taxes in his administration(Daschle, Killefer, Solis, and now Ron Kirk and possibly Rhambo), he has some nerve as well.
In response to your point, I support all legal tax avoidance (not evasion) practices. After all, its the "richest Americans and international corporations" money--not Obama's or, dare say, yours.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 12:09:02 PM
You way overthink things. I was merely pointing out the irony, er brass ones of Turbo Tax Geithner to go after tax cheats. In fact, given that Obama has no problem placing persons who do not pay taxes in his administration(Daschle, Killefer, Solis, and now Ron Kirk and possibly Rhambo), he has some nerve as well.
In response to your point, I support all legal tax avoidance (not evasion) practices. After all, its the "richest Americans and international corporations" money--not Obama's or, dare say, yours.
I appreciate that you're such an internationalist, but really, why should we let tax money go to Aruba, or the Cayman's, or the Turks and Caicos? We need it right here, and needed it long before the crash happened.
But I do feel your pain about paying taxes to someone distasteful. I REALLY hated sending my tax money to President Bush every year -- going, as it was, to fund a misplaced war and to subsidize the wealthy. But I realized that the link between individual hypocrisy and government policy is pretty tenuous. You're not paying taxes directly to Geithner, and I wasn't paying them to Bush. We pay taxes to the Federal government, and there're other things that the Feds do that I would have hated to defund.
Point being, you take the government as a whole, not as an individual member.
Quote from: we vs us on March 05, 2009, 12:33:53 PM
I appreciate that you're such an internationalist, but really, why should we let tax money go to Aruba, or the Cayman's, or the Turks and Caicos? We need it right here, and needed it long before the crash happened.
It's NOT your money. How the rich spend their money, where they spend their money, or, yes, hide (legally) their money is not anyone's business but theirs. I am not going to fault the rich people for wanting to keep more of their own money. "Rich" people and corporations are responsible for creating jobs so folks like you can have a means to earn a living. Trying thinking about that sometimes rather than how you can take money from them.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 01:32:30 PMTrying thinking about that sometimes rather than how you can take money from them.
Interestingly, the folks who pay me aren't concerned in the least by a return to the previous tax rates. Perhaps they aren't rich enough to care.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 01:32:30 PM
It's NOT your money. How the rich spend their money, where they spend their money, or, yes, hide (legally) their money is not anyone's business but theirs. I am not going to fault the rich people for wanting to keep more of their own money. "Rich" people and corporations are responsible for creating jobs so folks like you can have a means to earn a living. Trying thinking about that sometimes rather than how you can take money from them.
Only rich people start business and create jobs so they should get their tax rate cut to 0% and everybody $150k below should be taxed at 60%. We will luckily be able to still buy things from the company store!
Basically, they have a higher tax bracket, hide their money, pay a lower effective tax rate than a lot of workers already. (I am making a generalization of your statement, not attacking rich people) It is none of our business, but we should cut their taxes more so they have another $4,000 a year to hire a new worker.
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but based on our completely consumer driven economy. Average people who work create jobs too. That is how people in the US get "Rich" in the first place. However I must admit that when we through "Rich" around there are very different meanings. $50,000 is rich to some, $100,000 to others, $200k, $300k, etc. There is obviously a major difference between $250k a year and 1 billion in earnings a year. Should I pay a higher % of income in taxes than somebody who makes 1,000x than I do? Probably not, should I pay the same? Probably... Am I? I do not have enough information to figure that out because I don't know how much $$$ is hiding :D
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 01:32:30 PM
It's NOT your money. How the rich spend their money, where they spend their money, or, yes, hide (legally) their money is not anyone's business but theirs. I am not going to fault the rich people for wanting to keep more of their own money. "Rich" people and corporations are responsible for creating jobs so folks like you can have a means to earn a living. Trying thinking about that sometimes rather than how you can take money from them.
I'm with you, brother. Except, how are we going to get the roads built that their limos drive on? How are we going to build the airports for their private jets? How about water and sewer to their mansions? How will we train people to work in their factories and in their office parks? We have to fund that somehow, don't we?
Quote from: guido911 on February 22, 2009, 07:20:51 PM
H2O:
I do not want to engage in a semantics debate with you. The fact is that my family will be paying close to an ADDITIONAL $20K in taxes under Obama's plan. To me, that's a tax increase. Your example that because you cannot claim your child as a deduction any longer is tantamount to a tax increase is an imprecise comparison. This tax increase is not applicable to all taxpayers (only those earning more than $250k) as is the rule governing tax deductions. Furthermore, following your logic, not making charitable contributions or not having depreciating assets would be a tax increase because there would be a loss of a deduction.
Incidentally, your helping out your child is admirable and what family is supposed to do in times of turmoil. Far too often people believe that its government's job to take care of you when you fall on hard times.
Finally, your contention that the great unwashed (h/t Boortz) will take to the streets and physically take from the wealthy if the wealthy do not pony up more money is abject fear mongering. If anything, I would not be surprised that these wealthy folks that are not only employing the "working class" but give most to charities that assist the "working class" and the needy start cutting them off. As I have previously stated, I have already significantly reduced my charitable giving and several people in the circle I run in have likewise done so. Welcome to class warfare.
An extra $20,000 in taxes?
You are the class warrior here. This country has given you much, the ability to earn a great living. But you just don't want to give back. Let's look at these numbers if you are going to pay another $20,000 in taxes due to Obama.
The top tax rate is going to "increase" from 35% to 39.6%, if your taxes are going up $20k from a 4.6% increase that pegs your taxable income at about $435k a year with real income a probably a lot higher than that. Your monthly take home after federal taxes at 35% is 23,550.72. That will sadly go down to $21,884.06. A month.
Boo friggin' hoo.
not to be rude, but you are a lawyer, which means you don't actually produce anything and you add almost nothing of value to society through your work. And despite you large income you employ almost no one. Your income comes from the complexity and inertia of our legal system and has nearly nothing to with capitalism. Your income is leached off the work and income of entities and people that do actually produce things of value but that have found themselves involved in the quagmire that is our legal system.
If we were to fix the legal system, you certainly wouldn't make enough money to be in the top 1/2 of 1% of wage earners (which is where people that make over half a million a year are). There is no sensible reason for a lawyer to make that kind of money. Income potential like that is what is what has destroyed our legal system.
And if you really make that much money, what in the hell are you doing spending so much time here when you could be getting more billable hours? Or do you bill clients for your TulsaNow posts?
I have zero sympathy over your rediscovered tax burden.
Quote from: swake on March 05, 2009, 02:07:33 PM
not to be rude, but you are a lawyer, which means you don't actually produce anything and you add almost nothing of value to society through your work. And despite you large income you employ almost no one. Your income comes from the complexity and inertia of our legal system and has nearly nothing to with capitalism. Your income is leached off the work and income of entities and people that do actually produce things of value but that have found themselves involved in the quagmire that is our legal system.
I do not think a more true thing has been said in the history of web forums. This is why I hate the "Rich" and "Jobs" used over and over again. Entrepreneurs create jobs not the "Rich".
Quote from: Trogdor on March 05, 2009, 02:19:38 PM
I do not think a more true thing has been said in the history of web forums. This is why I hate the "Rich" and "Jobs" used over and over again. Entrepreneurs create jobs not the "Rich".
Lawyers, doctors, and evil CEOs, they are all worthless, until we have to go to court, get sick, or need a job.
We all make our place in society based on the skills we choose to cultivate and talents we develop. When we try to make villains out of those who are more successful than we are, we show our disappointment and disdain, not for others, but for our own choices.
Wealth comes from successful individual efforts to please one's fellow man ... that's what competition is all about: "outpleasing" your competitors to win over the consumers. – Walter Williams
The standard of living of the common man is higher in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs. – Ludwig von Mises
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2009, 03:00:24 PM
Lawyers, doctors, and evil CEOs, they are all worthless, until we have to go to court, get sick, or need a job.
We all make our place in society based on the skills we choose to cultivate and talents we develop. When we try to make villains out of those who are more successful than we are, we show our disappointment and disdain, not for others, but for our own choices.
Wealth comes from successful individual efforts to please one's fellow man ... that's what competition is all about: "outpleasing" your competitors to win over the consumers. – Walter Williams
The standard of living of the common man is higher in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs. – Ludwig von Mises
Doctors are properly paid.
CEOs are worth millions of dollars if their decisions create millions of dollars for the company.
A CEO is not worth millions of dollars and then bought out at millions of dollars for running a profitible company into the ground through poor business decisions. Shareholders should approve all CEO wages and their golden parachutes.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2009, 03:00:24 PM
Lawyers, doctors, and evil CEOs, they are all worthless, until we have to go to court, get sick, or need a job.
We all make our place in society based on the skills we choose to cultivate and talents we develop. When we try to make villains out of those who are more successful than we are, we show our disappointment and disdain, not for others, but for our own choices.
Wealth comes from successful individual efforts to please one's fellow man ... that's what competition is all about: "outpleasing" your competitors to win over the consumers. – Walter Williams
The standard of living of the common man is higher in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs. – Ludwig von Mises
I'm not demonizing anyone. But you have to understand the gap in income between the rich and the middle and the overall decline in the middle class is a huge problem for our nation. Doctors and Lawyers are service industry workers, certainly well educated service industry workers, but the idea that they somehow deserve half a million to a million to many millions a year for their work is idiotic.
As for CEOs, the gap between the average workers wage and a CEOs compensation is at an all time high. CEOs do not (usually) own the companies they work for. They also do not somehow "deserve" 50-100 million a year. That is money that is coming out of the pockets of shareholders, who are the actual owners and who should be gaining the greatest benefit of a profitable company. But CEOs often aren't really working for the shareholders interests anymore.
And I know most lawyers don't make anywhere near that kind of money but a lot do and almost none should. This isn't class warfare, a huge gap in income like what we are developing is more like what you see in third world countries. It isn't healthy economically.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2009, 03:00:24 PM
We all make our place in society based on the skills we choose to cultivate and talents we develop. When we try to make villains out of those who are more successful than we are, we show our disappointment and disdain, not for others, but for our own choices.
I don't think that pointing out that it's disingenuous for someone making $450,000 a year to complain about their $20,000 tax increase so as to make it seem larger than it really is in proportion to the total income or to take note of the ever-widening gap between rich and poor in this country is what you think it is. It is disappointment that government policy and the market (which is run by the rich) discourages long term investment and job creation in favor of short term profit and outsourcing.
The more you make, the more you benefit from the infrastructure (both physical and virtual) provided by the government.
And it stands to reason that lawyers are not the best job creation engines out there. Most need a paralegal and perhaps a clerk and/or runner if they've got a lot of work. Pretty weak sauce, really. Distribution, hospitality, or even aircraft rental and leasing end up creating more jobs. Yet Guido constantly drones on about his contribution to society and how the gub'mint is taking it away from him.
Understood and understood. But I keep hearing the term "Class Warfare". By expressing anger, envy, or dismay at someone based on their income IS class warfare.
Correct, the proposed tax increase on the top earners will not affect wealthy people too much. You are exactly right about that.
Businesses that operate under S-Corp or LLC will suffer the most. If you work for a small business that makes $1,000,000 a year and employs 40 or 50 people, you will lose about $50,000 dollars out of your bottom line. Now of course you will try to recoup that through deductions, and you can reduce your exposure that way, but now there's talk of reducing the number of deductions too.
So businesses that rely on a lean income model will have some hard choices to make when it comes to which middle-income employee to let go or which two low income administrative positions to eliminate.
If they make $1,000,000 or $950,000 they will keep the employees (If they are smart) if they return more money than they are costing. I really don't understand this concept that companies hire or keep people just because they like having people to pay.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2009, 03:39:40 PM
Understood and understood. But I keep hearing the term "Class Warfare". By expressing anger, envy, or dismay at someone based on their income IS class warfare.
Correct, the proposed tax increase on the top earners will not affect wealthy people too much. You are exactly right about that.
Businesses that operate under S-Corp or LLC will suffer the most. If you work for a small business that makes $1,000,000 a year and employs 40 or 50 people, you will lose about $50,000 dollars out of your bottom line. Now of course you will try to recoup that through deductions, and you can reduce your exposure that way, but now there's talk of reducing the number of deductions too.
So businesses that rely on a lean income model will have some hard choices to make when it comes to which middle-income employee to let go or which two low income administrative positions to eliminate.
Eh, a single low income admin position costs at least $50k yearly unless you offer zero benefits.
And said LLC can choose to be taxed as a C corp if they prefer. Of course, then the principal(s) will get double taxed on distributions, but they can make the choice to invest the money in expansion or to keep it in the business as reserves and just take a fair market salary, which is an expense, and thus not taxable to the LLC.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 04:56:28 PM
Yes they are.
Sort of. The market is distorted by the artificially low number of med school admissions. A person can find an inexpensive attorney these days, thanks to the bar not restricting admissions anymore. Perhaps the medical profession could take a cue from the lawyers.
Also complicating things are the ridiculous medical malpractice premiums that are far out of proportion to what is actuarially necessary.
Quote from: swake on March 05, 2009, 02:07:33 PM
An extra $20,000 in taxes?
You are the class warrior here. This country has given you much, the ability to earn a great living. But you just don't want to give back. Let's look at these numbers if you are going to pay another $20,000 in taxes due to Obama.
The top tax rate is going to "increase" from 35% to 39.6%, if your taxes are going up $20k from a 4.6% increase that pegs your taxable income at about $435k a year with real income a probably a lot higher than that. Your monthly take home after federal taxes at 35% is 23,550.72. That will sadly go down to $21,884.06. A month.
Boo friggin' hoo.
not to be rude, but you are a lawyer, which means you don't actually produce anything and you add almost nothing of value to society through your work. And despite you large income you employ almost no one. Your income comes from the complexity and inertia of our legal system and has nearly nothing to with capitalism. Your income is leached off the work and income of entities and people that do actually produce things of value but that have found themselves involved in the quagmire that is our legal system.
If we were to fix the legal system, you certainly wouldn't make enough money to be in the top 1/2 of 1% of wage earners (which is where people that make over half a million a year are). There is no sensible reason for a lawyer to make that kind of money. Income potential like that is what is what has destroyed our legal system.
And if you really make that much money, what in the hell are you doing spending so much time here when you could be getting more billable hours? Or do you bill clients for your TulsaNow posts?
I have zero sympathy over your rediscovered tax burden.
Nice anti-lawyer rant, except, um, whoever said I was the one bringing in the most money for our family? I guess you don't think a woman can become a professional and earn more than a man. But hey, nice to know gender bigotry is alive and well, at least as far as you are concerned. Exposed.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 05:04:25 PM
Nice anti-lawyer rant, except, um, whoever said I was the one bringing in the most money for our family? I guess you don't think a woman can become a professional and earn more than a man. But hey, nice to know gender bigotry is alive and well, at least as far as you are concerned. Exposed.
Wow, way to read what you want to read rather than the words on the page.
Quote from: nathanm on March 05, 2009, 05:09:52 PM
Wow, way to read what you want to read rather than the words on the page.
I have written often about my wife's military service (six years) and my military service (11 years) we gave to this country, that when someone busts out with the "look what your country has given you" crap I just pass over it. The funny thing about it is that the people who run with that line have done little or nothing to protect/preserve this country. I call those folks "sex trophy citizens."
As for the subsance, it's not just the tax increase that will impact my family. It's the loss of certain deductions that will hurt as well. As for those figures, he has no idea what he is talking about. I KNOW what we bring in each month after taxes and those numbers are nowhere close. That's another reason why I did not respond.
His rant was based upon all sorts of assumptions (one of them that I believe is bigoted) making it nothing but pure, unadulterated BS. So, why should I bother giving it the attention it needs.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 05:29:31 PM
I have written often about my wife's military service (six years) and my military service (11 years) we gave to this country, that when someone busts out with the "look what your country has given you" crap I just pass over it. The funny thing about it is that the people who run with that line have done little or nothing to protect/preserve this country. I call those folks "sex trophy citizens."
Just because you write about her doesn't mean we remember that. ;)
Regardless, his point isn't changed by the distribution of income between the two of you.
That said, his math is vaguely correct, although the tax code makes it more difficult than that. (20,000 over 4.6% is indeed 430,000ish)
And last I checked, military service doesn't exempt you from future taxes. You benefit the same from the programs funded by our taxes as everybody else. Not that I don't appreciate it, I'm just saying. :)
Overall, we have to pay for things somehow. I believe in a balanced budget and cutting tax after we reduce spending. Not before we reduce spending. Cut the budget by 80 billion, cut 80 billion in taxes. Unfortunately sometime republicans in the whitehouse, house and senate decided that didn't matter.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 05:04:25 PM
Nice anti-lawyer rant, except, um, whoever said I was the one bringing in the most money for our family? I guess you don't think a woman can become a professional and earn more than a man. But hey, nice to know gender bigotry is alive and well, at least as far as you are concerned. Exposed.
Um, let's start with I had no idea you were married.
Second, I am not anti-lawyer, my brother is a lawyer. Nor anti-doctor or anti-CEO. I am anti the imbalance that exists with regards to incomes in this country. When the average neurologist makes quadruple what the president makes or a ball player makes 50 times the president's salary or a CEO makes 200 times we have a problem and things are out of whack.
Quote from: swake on March 05, 2009, 07:51:17 PM
Um, let's start with I had no idea you were married.
Second, I am not anti-lawyer, my brother is a lawyer. Nor anti-doctor or anti-CEO. I am anti the imbalance that exists with regards to incomes in this country. When the average neurologist makes quadruple what the president makes or a ball player makes 50 times the president's salary or a CEO makes 200 times we have a problem and things are out of whack.
Fair enough. Chalk this dust up to miscommunication? I do agree with you that salaries are "out of whack", although the market presently dictates why ball players and CEO are paid so damned much.
Still, I do believe it was unfair of you to "boo hoo" me on the $20K increase in taxes. There was a time not too long ago (1996) when I was
earning $20,000 as a full time, low level hospital supervisor, I was a full time college student, and wrapping up my military service in the guard. My better half was on the same schedule, except she was earning far
less. We worked hard to get educated (7 years of post high school for me, and a pant load more for my wife) and our reward? We get hammered in taxes so those that do not work hard/strive can receive their damned entitlements as well as lectures about what this country has done for us and that we somehow owe this country something even more. I'll be honest, I have been seriously thinking about decreasing my income by working part-time. Seriously, what's the point in continuing to work hard if the result is providing for those that don't?
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 08:36:39 PM
Fair enough. Chalk this dust up to miscommunication? I do agree with you that salaries are "out of whack", although the market presently dictates why ball players and CEO are paid so damned much.
Still, I do believe it was unfair of you to "boo hoo" me on the $20K increase in taxes. There was a time not too long ago (1996) when I was earning $20,000 as a full time, low level hospital supervisor, I was a full time college student, and wrapping up my military service in the guard. My better half was on the same schedule, except she was earning far less. We worked hard to get educated (7 years of post high school for me, and a pant load more for my wife) and our reward? We get hammered in taxes so those that do not work hard/strive can receive their damned entitlements as well as lectures about what this country has done for us and that we somehow owe this country something even more. I'll be honest, I have been seriously thinking about decreasing my income by working part-time. Seriously, what's the point in continuing to work hard if the result is providing for those that don't?
I SERIOUSLY doubt that you are going to go part time because of a 4.6% increase in income taxes.
new money. having a hissy fit over going back to the Clinton tax code.... most wealthy people I^ve met over the years had a certain humility about their success... go figure... favorite bumper sticker these days.... Democrats think the glass is half full, Republicans think the glass is theirs...
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 08:36:39 PM
I'll be honest, I have been seriously thinking about decreasing my income by working part-time. Seriously, what's the point in continuing to work hard if the result is providing for those that don't?
If the top tax rate was still somewhere around 90%, I'd understand. Why work that much when you only get to keep 10%? But even at 40%, there's still plenty of incentive to increase your income.
That said, we as a society place far too much emphasis on work and not enough on leisure. It's one reason why we're largely a nation of obese diabetic heart attack survivors. If a tax increase gets people to spend a few more hours a week reading a book or spending time with their kids or whatever, that's a good thing in my book. It's not going to happen, though.
Edited to add: It is interesting to note that as time has gone on, while the top marginal rate has decreased, the amount you have to make to be taxed at that rate has also decreased (generally speaking). Rather precipitously, actually. In 1942, when the top marginal rate was raised from 81% to 88%, only earnings over $200,000 a year were taxed at that rate. That's the equivalent of over 2.2 million 2003 dollars. At the time of the Bush tax cuts, the top marginal rate was in effect for people who made over about 27,000 1942 dollars.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2009, 08:36:39 PM
Fair enough. Chalk this dust up to miscommunication? I do agree with you that salaries are "out of whack", although the market presently dictates why ball players and CEO are paid so damned much.
Still, I do believe it was unfair of you to "boo hoo" me on the $20K increase in taxes. There was a time not too long ago (1996) when I was earning $20,000 as a full time, low level hospital supervisor, I was a full time college student, and wrapping up my military service in the guard. My better half was on the same schedule, except she was earning far less. We worked hard to get educated (7 years of post high school for me, and a pant load more for my wife) and our reward? We get hammered in taxes so those that do not work hard/strive can receive their damned entitlements as well as lectures about what this country has done for us and that we somehow owe this country something even more. I'll be honest, I have been seriously thinking about decreasing my income by working part-time. Seriously, what's the point in continuing to work hard if the result is providing for those that don't?
I find it ironic that someone who used to be in the military and is estimated to make well above six figures is prone to so much victimhood.
Quote from: nathanm on March 05, 2009, 10:05:10 PM
But even at 40%, there's still plenty of incentive to increase your income.
Yeah there is. There's providing for folks like these deadbeat, racist losers:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/22/the-shut-up-white-boy-woman-is-the-slum-dweller-with-a-60-inch-tv/
Quote from: guido911 on March 06, 2009, 10:51:49 AM
Yeah there is. There's providing for folks like these deadbeat, racist losers:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/22/the-shut-up-white-boy-woman-is-the-slum-dweller-with-a-60-inch-tv/
Oh, yay, more BS welfare queen stories. That's a pretty crappy TV, actually. :o
Besides, do you or Ms. Malkin know where she got it? For all she knows it could have been a gifted hand-me-down.
Quote from: guido911 on March 06, 2009, 10:51:49 AM
Yeah there is. There's providing for folks like these deadbeat, racist losers:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/22/the-shut-up-white-boy-woman-is-the-slum-dweller-with-a-60-inch-tv/
So, who is fighting the class war now? Should we have links about Madoff as a retort? There are bad poor people and bad rich people. Your post means nothing.
With this kind of attitude, vilifying and painting the poor as evil leaches, I highly doubt you've ever donated much to any charity that wasn't church related.
Maybe you should reread the New Testament and it's direction regarding the poor.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/187933
Quote from: swake on March 06, 2009, 11:53:31 AM
So, who is fighting the class war now? Should we have links about Madoff as a retort? There are bad poor people and bad rich people. Your post means nothing.
With this kind of attitude, vilifying and painting the poor as evil leaches, I highly doubt you've ever donated much to any charity that wasn't church related.
Maybe you should reread the New Testament and it's direction regarding the poor.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/187933
Some woman has a 60" T.V. which is obviously ridiculous if purchased while receiving Government assistance. The dead beats need to get kicked off the system. The issue with these (beat the dead horse thread) arguments is the use of these links like this is 100% of people that get assistance. The system should be rebooted and people that are happy living on welfare and not working (that can) should be kicked off. There is a place to assist those that mental and physical disabilities and those that are trying but get laid off, etc.
(BTW, I am disappointed guido that you haven't posted the Malkin front page story about Obama having dinners with Wagyu-beef, with a side emphasis on the fact he hasn't lowered his thermostat)
Quote from: Trogdor on March 06, 2009, 12:52:53 PM
Some woman has a 60" T.V. which is obviously ridiculous if purchased while receiving Government assistance. The dead beats need to get kicked off the system. The issue with these (beat the dead horse thread) arguments is the use of these links like this is 100% of people that get assistance. The system should be rebooted and people that are happy living on welfare and not working (that can) should be kicked off. There is a place to assist those that mental and physical disabilities and those that are trying but get laid off, etc.
(BTW, I am disappointed guido that you haven't posted the Malkin front page story about Obama having dinners with Wagyu-beef, with a side emphasis on the fact he hasn't lowered his thermostat)
Uh, single people essentially can't get any cash assistance aside from unemployment benefits, except for disaster victims and such, and what benefits are available are extremely time limited already. IMO, we've already gone too far in that direction, despite the occasional cry about the mythical welfare queen. (The real "welfare queen" fraudulently obtained benefits under nearly a hundred names in various locales, it wasn't some person on the dole living the high life like the Reaganites still claim)
New Orleans is a special case and shouldn't be generalized to the whole nation. Katrina destroyed a large part of the rental stock, so what rentals are available are extremely expensive (like NYC expensive), thus necessitating rent subsidies for most anybody who isn't very well off.
.
Quote from: swake on March 06, 2009, 11:53:31 AM
So, who is fighting the class war now? Should we have links about Madoff as a retort? There are bad poor people and bad rich people. Your post means nothing.
With this kind of attitude, vilifying and painting the poor as evil leaches, I highly doubt you've ever donated much to any charity that wasn't church related.
Maybe you should reread the New Testament and it's direction regarding the poor.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/187933
Let's see. You seriously doubt that I might go part time in order to not pay higher taxes, you "highly" doubt that I do not give to non-church related charities, you assumed I was the highest earner in my family, and you assume to know what my family's annual income is. Could you tell me the next week's lottery numbers will be, oh knower of everything?
And by the way, what's wrong with giving to church-related charities? At my parish, my donations (which WERE substantial prior to learning my taxes would be increasing) fund: the construction of new homes for those that need shelter; feed the poor and build homes in Jamaica and Haiti; provide food for the hungry in this town, and clothe the homeless at the Day Center and other relief organizations. Oh, let's not forget those donations that help fund those rotten Catholic hospitals throughout the country. One more thing, I do give to private organizations that support child cancer research (St. Baldricks) and that oppose abortion.
As for bad poor people and bad rich people. Fine. I will grant you that point. But know this, taxing the wealthy, just because they have the means to pay, is itself class warfare. I am fighting this class warfare to the extent that I should not be punished for being successful.
And RW, if wanting to keep more of my own money I have earned as a result of hard work and being upset at having to pay more in taxes makes me a "victim", fine.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 06, 2009, 12:52:53 PM
Some woman has a 60" T.V. which is obviously ridiculous if purchased while receiving Government assistance. The dead beats need to get kicked off the system. The issue with these (beat the dead horse thread) arguments is the use of these links like this is 100% of people that get assistance. The system should be rebooted and people that are happy living on welfare and not working (that can) should be kicked off. There is a place to assist those that mental and physical disabilities and those that are trying but get laid off, etc.
(BTW, I am disappointed guido that you haven't posted the Malkin front page story about Obama having dinners with Wagyu-beef, with a side emphasis on the fact he hasn't lowered his thermostat)
Sorry I let you down. Oh, and welcome aboard and I look forward to reading your posts.
Fantastic News! Pelosi open to the idea of a second stimulus plan. I guess she wants to go after our yet unborn great grandchildren's piggy banks.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19835.html
Quote from: guido911 on March 10, 2009, 01:01:51 PM
Fantastic News! Pelosi open to the idea of a second stimulus plan. I guess she wants to go after our yet unborn great grandchildren's piggy banks.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19835.html
Good, we need it, and the public is behind the idea at the moment. They probably won't be in six months when the first stimulus hasn't really done a lot yet. (It takes time to have an effect)
Of course, as long as the media keeps pounding on the banks and claiming they are all insolvent, we won't get anywhere towards a large scale rebound in the private sector, as sentiment will remain rather bearish among most.
Quote from: nathanm on March 10, 2009, 01:45:19 PM
Good, we need it, and the public is behind the idea at the moment. They probably won't be in six months when the first stimulus hasn't really done a lot yet. (It takes time to have an effect)
Of course, as long as the media keeps pounding on the banks and claiming they are all insolvent, we won't get anywhere towards a large scale rebound in the private sector, as sentiment will remain rather bearish among most.
It's not just the media, it's also the exhalted one:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5294HH20090310
Quote from: guido911 on March 10, 2009, 06:28:36 PM
It's not just the media, it's also the exhalted one:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5294HH20090310
That article seems not to say what you think it does.
Mr. Transparency signs Omnibus Bill behind closed doors (and without teleprompter):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_spending
Is his signing a bill with nearly 9K earmarks make him a liar? Yep.
McCain campaigned to eliminate earmarks... Obama campaigned to reduce them... but Obama is the liar?... while Inhofe grabs $53mil?... I think that makes the Michelle Maulkin spooners either hypocrits... or liars... or both... or maybe it just exposes Guido as a POS. ::)
Quote from: USRufnex on March 11, 2009, 08:39:12 PM
McCain campaigned to eliminate earmarks... Obama campaigned to reduce them... but Obama is the liar?... while Inhofe grabs $53mil?... I think that makes the Michelle Maulkin spooners either hypocrits... or liars... or both... or maybe it just exposes Guido as a POS. ::)
What does Inhofe have to do with this discussion? Absolutely nothing. Just another, "HEY LOOK OVER HERE" diversion. As for reducing earmarks; did he? Did he have the chance to reduce earmarks and refuse? Absolutely. Oh, and one more thing, remember how Obama used to bash Bush over "signing statements"? Gee, what did Obama just do when he signed this bill.
I doubt very highly that Obama signed "The Constitution doesn't matter" in his signing statement. That is the issue I (and others) had with them. I am not understanding Guido why you haven't started a thread outraged by the memos about the Bill of Rights being null and void in the United States if the president proclaims a fight against "Terror".
What the hell happened to Republicans
Quote from: Trogdor on March 12, 2009, 08:38:42 AM
I am not understanding Guido why you haven't started a thread outraged by the memos about the Bill of Rights being null and void in the United States if the president proclaims a fight against "Terror".
What, like Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus rights during the Civil War or FDR imprisoning Japanese-Americans during WWII. Oh, I'm sorry, you were referring to Bush and his treatment of terrorists. I apologize.
Jeez, whatever happened to reading a history book.
Quote from: guido911 on March 12, 2009, 08:51:15 AM
What, like Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus rights during the Civil War or FDR imprisoning Japanese-Americans during WWII. Oh, I'm sorry, you were referring to Bush and his treatment of terrorists. I apologize.
Jeez, whatever happened to reading a history book.
Ummm... So you are using the "Everybody else is doing it so it is ok" approach? I am not talking about the treatment of terrorists. I am talking about the treatment of U.S. Citizens. The Constitution also protects all US Citizens, even those that break the law. I am against all of the things listed. There is a reason why these protections were created in the first place. To remove it because we have a "enemy" that is an idea that can never be defeated as long as there are people who are living on the planet opens up the infinite possibility of people who think "somebody else did it so I can too" to do these things to religious people, people with guns, people who protest, people who drive foreign cars, and people who post on TulsaNow to be imprisoned because we are at war.
Knowing that you think that people should be put in camps based on Nationality I will leave any reference to where my Grandparents were from off the board.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 12, 2009, 09:09:03 AM
Knowing that you think that people should be put in camps based on Nationality I will leave any reference to where my Grandparents were from off the board.
Care to explain where you came up with that defamatory comment?
Quote from: guido911 on March 12, 2009, 08:22:52 AM
What does Inhofe have to do with this discussion? Absolutely nothing. Just another, "HEY LOOK OVER HERE" diversion. As for reducing earmarks; did he? Did he have the chance to reduce earmarks and refuse? Absolutely. Oh, and one more thing, remember how Obama used to bash Bush over "signing statements"? Gee, what did Obama just do when he signed this bill.
The problem was that Bush used more signing statements in his two terms than all other presidents since Truman. Combined.
Unlike you'd like to think Gweed, the President said he would use them sparingly. Bush hardly did so. It's like signing statements were his 'crack'.
And as far as the diversions, I was going to say something about a pot and a kettle, but just skip it....
:o
Companies are going to Switzerland to avoid oppressive tax policy in this country. I kinda like the name of one guy in this story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22
Sounded to me like you were supporting that position, that the President should use any conflict to infringe on the rights of United States Citizens.
My comment on "what happened to the Republicans" was trying to make the point you just made. Instead of saying that instances such as those listed were against the former beliefs of limited Government. Instead you made an attempt to protect Bush. I do not believe in putting US Citizens in camps based on nationality EVER. I fail to see how a limited Government crowd can try to say it is ok. It does not follow with the core beliefs of what the Republican Party used to stand for.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 12, 2009, 10:45:40 AM
Sounded to me like you were supporting that position, that the President should use any conflict to infringe on the rights of United States Citizens.
You couldn't figure out that I was demonstrating that prior "great" leaders of this country did oppressive things at a time of war and that whatever "unconstitutional" things Bush allegedly had done was nowhere near the worst in this country's history? Oh, and please do not lecture me on the rights protected by the constitution. I spent the first three years of my practice representing people of this state who believed their civil rights had been violated by government.
Quote from: guido911 on March 12, 2009, 11:00:49 AM
You couldn't figure out that I was demonstrating that prior "great" leaders of this country did oppressive things at a time of war and that whatever "unconstitutional" things Bush allegedly had done was nowhere near the worst in this country's history? Oh, and please do not lecture me on the rights protected by the constitution. I spent the first three years of my practice representing people of this state who believed their civil rights had been violated by government.
They did it worse! That is not a valid argument to me. I was not alive when those things happened. This was happening now, I am saying it is wrong. There is one subtle difference. Those were wars against Countries, not against an idea. The war on terror (like the war on drugs) can be used by any administration until the end of time. Terrorists will always be around because it only takes on person to be a terrorist. So again, is the government infringing on the rights of its Citizens wrong or not?
Quote from: Trogdor on March 12, 2009, 11:13:13 AM
So again, is the government infringing on the rights of its Citizens wrong or not?
What are you talking about? What rights? Are you referring to Gitmo or Abu Ghraib? Are you talking about "illegal" wiretapping? You have been speaking in generalities throughout this argument (which incidentally has gone way off topic, and for which I will take some responsibility).
Obama's lie on signing statements proven:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc&eurl=http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/2042/
I would be speaking of all attacks on our civil liberties. We can start with wiretapping. Legal or illegal depends on which lawyer you are talking to. The idea that it is only "somebody outside the country" or "only when somebody is talking to a terrorist" is absurd. Setting up the ability to listen to any phone call and all internet traffic of every U.S. citizen is not what i want setup to be abused in the future.
Here is what Obama said on the signing statements.
For nearly two centuries, Presidents have issued statements addressing constitutional or other legal questions upon signing bills into law (signing statements). Particularly since omnibus bills have become prevalent, signing statements have often been used to ensure that concerns about the constitutionality of discrete statutory provisions do not require a veto of the entire bill.
In recent years, there has been considerable public discussion and criticism of the use of signing statements to raise constitutional objections to statutory provisions. There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the President will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements. At the same time, such signing statements serve a legitimate function in our system, at least when based on well-founded constitutional objections. In appropriately limited circumstances, they represent an exercise of the President's constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and they promote a healthy dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress.
With these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities. In issuing signing statements, I shall adhere to the following principles:
1. The executive branch will take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable, to inform the Congress of its constitutional concerns about pending legislation. Such communication should facilitate the efforts of the executive branch and the Congress to work together to address these concerns during the legislative process, thus minimizing the number of occasions on which I am presented with an enrolled bill that may require a signing statement.
2. Because legislation enacted by the Congress comes with a presumption of constitutionality, I will strive to avoid the conclusion that any part of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional. In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded.
3. To promote transparency and accountability, I will ensure that signing statements identify my constitutional concerns about a statutory provision with sufficient specificity to make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional objection.
4. I will announce in signing statements that I will construe a statutory provision in a manner that avoids a constitutional problem only if that construction is a legitimate one.
To ensure that all signing statements previously issued are followed only when consistent with these principles, executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, any provision of a statute.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-on-Presidential-Signing-Statements/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-on-Presidential-Signing-Statements/)
What's the point with Barack's "signing statement" statement? During the campaign he PROMISED he would not issue them and hammered Bush for doing so. 50+ days into his presidency and he breaks that promise. He lied. Just like on FISA, just like on public financing, just like on earmarks, just like on lobbyists in his cabinet....he lied.
Quote from: guido911 on March 12, 2009, 02:30:21 PM
What's the point with Barack's "signing statement" statement? During the campaign he PROMISED he would not issue them and hammered Bush for doing so. 50+ days into his presidency and he breaks that promise. He lied. Just like on FISA, just like on public financing, just like on earmarks, just like on lobbyists in his cabinet....he lied.
Are you implying that he lied and the economy died?
Tisk. Tisk.
Quote from: guido911 on March 12, 2009, 02:30:21 PM
What's the point with Barack's "signing statement" statement? During the campaign he PROMISED he would not issue them and hammered Bush for doing so. 50+ days into his presidency and he breaks that promise. He lied. Just like on FISA, just like on public financing, just like on earmarks, just like on lobbyists in his cabinet....he lied.
I am implying that Guido is lying
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html)
"The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."
Now you show me where he said he would never use signing statements.
I have been trying to find the specific signing statement to comment on that (which I can't). I would like to however discuss the contents of the signing statement to see in what context it was used. Unfortunately instead of you finding and telling me why Obama used the signing statement and why it was wrong to use.... You claim that he said he would NEVER use signing statements. Then I feel obligated to respond with the facts which helps nothing except to add 2 more posts to the thread. This is exactly why Picard hates the threads.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 12, 2009, 02:50:34 PM
I am implying that Guido is lying
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html)
"The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."
Now you show me where he said he would never use signing statements.
I have been trying to find the specific signing statement to comment on that. Unfortunately I am reduced to replying to your lie that Obama stated he would never use signing statements. I would like to however discuss the contents of the signing statement to see in what context in use. This is exactly why Picard hates the threads.
Did you not watch the video I posted wherein he unequivocally promised he would not use signing statements. Well, here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc&eurl=http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/2042/
Quote from: Trogdor on March 12, 2009, 02:50:34 PM
This is exactly why Picard hates the threads.
I like what you're saying, but . . . who's Picard?
Quote from: guido911 on March 12, 2009, 03:03:47 PM
Did you not watch the video I posted wherein he unequivocally promised he would not use signing statements. Well, here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc&eurl=http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/2042/
Will you not use signing statements to "Get your way"? "No" And he will not "use signing statements to do an end around on congress" as he stated. Cmon man! You are a lawyer! It depends on what the statement was. Which I don't know, maybe the signing statement was an end around on congress and changed the bill. I of course know he made other statements about not using signing statements the same way but he still used them. And he also stated it wasn't signing statements themselves but the way they were being used he had a problem with. I guess if I didn't know anything else was said before the election then I would say that he lied in that statement. Reading the other information from the debates I do not find that this says he would never use signing statements. If the question is, will you never use signing statements and that was the end of it then he lied. The to "get your way" adds a level of interpretation that depending on who you are and what your goal is can be defined a multitude of ways. I can use it to weasel my way out of saying Obama lied and did signing statements.
Quote from: we vs us on March 12, 2009, 03:15:27 PM
I like what you're saying, but . . . who's Picard?
From page 7
Since Obama never promised to never use signing statements, I can't make a blanket condemnation of his use of one here. In fact, according to the AP, part of the cause was regarding Congress attempting to legislate "who performs specific functions in military missions." That seems like a valid use to me.
However, "provisions that Obama said would 'unduly interfere' with his authority in the foreign affairs arena by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments," is more iffy. Without reading the statement and the provisions of law which he objected to, I can't make a determination one way or the other. Congress may well have been overstepping their bounds, but they may not have been.
I do agree that it's generally better to avoid these situations by having Congress write bills that are constitutional on their face rather than an attempt to exercise more authority than they actually have rather than using signing statements, which Obama has said he will do.
And the earmark thing? I think we're already doing better on that front, what with only 1% of the bill being comprised of earmarks. That's a damn sight better than some other bills in the last couple of years. Let's hope that discipline can be maintained or even improved in the future.
On September 12, 2008, who said this:
"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Emphasis added.
Well, for you smokers out there earning under $250K, your taxes went up today:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1
This is one lie I am not too upset about. Make them smokers pay.
Quote from: guido911 on April 01, 2009, 01:49:43 PM
On September 12, 2008, who said this:
"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Emphasis added.
Well, for you smokers out there earning under $250K, your taxes went up today:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1
This is one lie I am not too upset about. Make them smokers pay.
I wouldn't be upset at all. The health-care costs associated with smoking are astronomical. It also makes sense to heavily tax something like that, defray some of the health-care costs, and make smoking more cost-prohibitive.
Remember, he is eliminating the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. This brings up everyone's effective tax rate by 3% to 5%. Eliminating this act will also eliminate many of the tax deferred retirement vehicles within your 401(K) and 403(B) plans, increasing dependence on Social Security.
Yes the President has stated that he would not RAISE taxes, and most of us understand this is a play on words, because we also understand that he intends to do away with the EGTRRA, which, technically, is not raising taxes. So what is the EGTRRA?
We have heard the EGTRRA branded as "Bush's Tax Cuts for The Wealthy." Call it what you like, this was what it is. You decide what it means to you:
The largest break in taxes under the EGTRRA was for people in the 15% bracket at 5%. All other tax payers saw a reduction in taxes of 3% to 4.5%.
Capital gains was reduced from 10% to 8%.
It eliminated dividend taxes on everyone in the 15% bracket and below.
It increased the per-child tax credit, dependent care credit, and phased out limits on itemized deductions.
It increased the exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and allowed individuals and businesses to depreciate taxes payed on property such as vehicles and office equipment.
It allowed employer contributed money from a 401(K) to be rolled over into another 401(K) with a new employer (without a tax hit) if you switch jobs (this is huge).
It allowed you to create a Deemed IRA (Roth IRA) attached to your regular IRA.
It dropped the estate tax from 55% to 50% (to be eliminated completely in 2010, but perhaps never now).
It dropped the gift tax rate from 55% to 35% (not to take effect until 2010, but perhaps never now).
So by eliminating this act in 2010, the code will look like this:
Those who make $6,000 or less will pay no taxes at all (this is the big sale). Clap and faint.
Those in the 10% bracket will be raised to the 15% bracket (a 50% increase in taxes paid, by far the biggest hit)
Those in the 25% bracket will be in the 28% bracket.
Those in the current 28% bracket will now be in the 31% bracket.
If you are in the 33% bracket you will now be at 36%.
And everyone in the 35% bracket will be paying nearly 40%.
The $3,500 child tax credit will be reduced or eliminated altogether (that really sucks).
Those of you who still have IRAs and 401(K)s will be responsible for more tax liability.
If you die, the government gets 55% of your stuff (hide gold now).
If you give grandma a check for $12,000 to help pay for rent, President Obama will want $6,600 of it.
So, while not "technically" increasing taxes, President Obama promises that everyone's taxes will increase. Very clever. But the most important thing is that those evil rich folks (everyone in the 15% to 40% brackets, LOL) will be paying all of the taxes for the poor.
So no matter if you think you pay too much or too little, is beside the point. No matter if you approve or disapprove of the EGTRRA, no matter whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. No matter what you think about politics or taxes, there is no way anyone with reasonable intelligence can view President Obama's "changes" to the tax code as anything except an increase in taxes. No amount of words or explanation recited off a reflected screen can change that.
So unless I am wrong and President Obama does not intend to do away with the "Evil Bush Tax Cuts," or the "Tax Cuts for The Wealthy," or the "Tax Cuts for Murdering Child Molesters," or what ever you would like to brand them. Your taxes will go up, unless you make less than $6,000 a year (in that case please disregard and continue to celebrate, you get one more month of rent next year). End of story.
And Guido, don't worry about what President Obama said, it is inconsequential. Taxes will go up "Because it's the right thing to do."
Quote from: Gaspar on April 01, 2009, 03:51:26 PM
And Guido, don't worry about what President Obama said, it is inconsequential. Taxes will go up "Because it's the right thing to do."
Oh, in that case, nevermind. Raise my taxes even more.
Still think the average American citizen won't see a tax increase? Obama's own people are now saying that his cap and trade policy, if enacted, will cost the average family AT LEAST $800 more per year in energy costs. However, that's with "fuzzy math":
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/412cwueq.asp?pg=2
As the article explains, its more like nearly a $4000/year increase energy costs per family because certain investment factors by homeowners, assuming of course they can be afforded, has been factored in. In any case, I'm sure that huge bump in your paychecks from the stimulus will cover it.
How many of you average citizens earning less than 250K are happy now or is $800 ($67/month; $333/month without fuzzy math) just a drop in the bucket to you? Suckers.
I don't like or agree with it but.....
One way to reduce our Carbon Footprint is to make carbon based energy so expensive that most Americans have no choice but to reduce their energy useage (and standard of living). It would help progress toward the direct goal of reduced carbon dioxide emissions but I don't think I will like the unintended side effects.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 22, 2009, 08:11:36 PM
I don't like or agree with it but.....
One way to reduce our Carbon Footprint is to make carbon based energy so expensive that most Americans have no choice but to reduce their energy useage (and standard of living). It would help progress toward the direct goal of reduced carbon dioxide emissions but I don't think I will like the unintended side effects.
While I do not accept the premise of man-made global warming, I do agree with you that taxing the crap of the energy that causes CO2 emissions will ultimately price it out. I think you and I agree that average Americans of all financial means will be paying more to heat/cool their homes, refrigerate their food, and wash their clothes. I guess the poorer folks could move into caves on a short term basis, then after the carbon emissions are reduced, the folks working in the fossil fuel business can replace them.
Quote from: guido911 on April 22, 2009, 08:29:56 PM
the folks working in the fossil fuel business can replace them.
Oh, the poor poor buggy whip makers.
Quote from: nathanm on April 22, 2009, 08:39:58 PM
Oh, the poor poor buggy whip makers.
Always with the buggy whip makers. The real losers were horse trainers and those that trained horses. Their screams were not heard. Never again, never again.
Quote from: guido911 on April 22, 2009, 08:29:56 PM
While I do not accept the premise of man-made global warming, ... I guess the poorer folks could move into caves on a short term basis, then after the carbon emissions are reduced, the folks working in the fossil fuel business can replace them.
We are about to embark on an expensive program to find out if global warming/climate change is or is not man-made. I don't think any scientific evidence that gw/cc is not man-made will change that now. Economic and standard of living changes to the masses may have some effect.
The fossil fuel business will morph into something else. Blacksmith shops were replaced with gas/service stations etc. Don't know about the buggy whip trade in particular.