De-Mystifying the Budget Debate

[Skull Pilot]

You could tax the rich at 100% over 250K and not balance this year's budget never mind get rid of the 14 trillion dollar debt.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Let's see Ryan's plan - cutting sharply?
For his Medicare - changing over to vouchers for Medicare in 2022 is sharp? That is 12 years in my book.

Retired husband and wife would be getting 16,000.00 to chose health care plan.

....And, the retired husband-&-wife average medical-expenses are how much??

You 'Baggers always manage to forget to include any-and-all details.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending...

They're not unsustainable.

We probably agree that governments are like other human activities and are subject to limits of growth, and that a nation's tax/spending is limited by the size of the economy that supports it. As our economy shrinks so do the limits to tax/spending.

...or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.

We agree that the spending stimuli didn't work.

....Until (of course), REPUBLICANS' names were on the checks!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w894xqReOdo]YouTube - Rachel Maddow Exposes Republican Hypocrisy For What It Is......BS.flv[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We also have to get rid of the regulations and laws that are costing us all to much money.
Companies are paying out so much money to meet the regulations that they don't have the money to hire people or the money to give raises to the workers they already have.
Example the EPA requires so much testing of water companies even when it has been proven that there are many water sources that don't have the same problems. The East coast has some problems and they need those tests but in the west those problems do not exist. It brings up the cost of water for every single test that they deem needs to be done. It has gotten to the point that too many regulations are strangling us to be productive.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

...get rid of the regulations and laws that are costing us all to much money. Companies are paying out so much money to meet the regulations that they don't have the money to hire people...

Agreed. In fact, I've heard right-wingers say they'd accept higher tax rates along with reduced regulation.

.....And, we all know WHICH regulations....

....they're talking-about.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.

The point of the recent succubus was to payola to prop up state bureaucrat unions....Period.

That's what Porky Limbaugh said, huh??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

...Returning taxes back to the levels under Clinton and the phasing out of the stimulus package (it's done what it could) IMO, will solve this problem.

Clinton era tax levels weren't sustainable, they left us with falling revenue--

....And, a Panamanian-website told you that, huh??

I guess they don't get satellite, down that way......​

""Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

Cleanin'-UP After Daddy Bu$h​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

Nobody is hiring fucking hiring the poor, get that through your head, the companies have made good money the last few years and have offshored it, fuck that, if they're not going to hire they shouldn't get jack shit, fuck that trickle bullshit, it has never worked.

Actually we just opened a new shop and gave 3 people full time jobs paying well above minimum wage. If the taxes weren't so high here we would hire a 4th person part time as an office person but alas that is my job, in addition to my normal job, for now.

....So....you only have ONE person doing the job of two??!!!



You're already over-staffed, compared to most places.

You'd probably be gettin' a lot-more done, if you weren't spending so much time whining.​

 

[LordBrownTrout]

From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

No. You solve everyone's problem by taxing the rich at the rates that were present during Clinton's administration. That takes care of the poor, relieves the burden on the middle class, and provides the money the feds need to balance the budget, and begin paying off the debt. If you don't restore the tax rates for the wealthy, you're dooming this country financially. There is NO WAY to pay off the debt with the tax rates in the Ryan plan.

Bingo!!!​

August 5, 1996​

"Some columnists claim that tax receipts are now a bigger share of the economy than ever before, presumably the result of tax increases enacted in 1993. As a result, they say, federal taxes and especially federal income taxes should be cut. But the claim is false.

The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers.

Because taxes paid by wealthy taxpayers increased significantly, average tax burdens climbed. But this tells nothing about the taxes paid by the typical taxpayer. Consider four middle-class families with taxable incomes of $30,000 and one wealthy family with a taxable income of $500,000. The four hypothetical middle-income families in the middle of the income spectrum each paid $6,000 — or 20 percent of income — in federal taxes both before and after the 1993 tax code changes. The wealthy family paid $140,000 — or 28 percent of income — before the tax code changes, and $160,000 — or 32 percent of income — after the changes. The average tax increase paid by all five families was $4,000. But all of this increase was borne by the one wealthy family.

As this example illustrates, using the increase in average tax payments produces a misleading picture of what has happened to the typical family tax burden. In this example, the typical family — the family that falls in the middle of the income distribution, with half of families earning more income and half earning less — pays no more in federal income taxes before the 1993 tax code changes than after."

Taxes: The Highest in History?

(1%er bullshit-as-usual.)​

....mmmmm, not so fast. We had a 4T dollar deficit when Clinton left, not necessarily balancing the budget. However, I'd take him in a millisecond over what we have in office right now.

 

[auditor0007]

Let's see Ryan's plan - cutting sharply?
For his Medicare - changing over to vouchers for Medicare in 2022 is sharp? That is 12 years in my book.
Retired husband and wife would be getting 16,000.00 to chose health care plan.
Keeping it the way it is for people who are 55 and up, it gives plenty of time for people who are 54 and under to plan for the change.
Keeping it for low income families (poor) and for those that have autism or greater disabilities. This is helping the poor.
His plan saves money. Right now we are paying 808 billion for this program. His plan would save us around 240 billion dollars. Maybe even more because in the future we will not have the large baby boomer generation. We will have a much smaller amount of retirees,the ones who are 54 now, in 2022 is not going to be a large amount.
Everybody should start going to Thomas.gov and start reading these bills and stop listening to News Media and blogs.

So basically Ryan's plan would give each individual $8000 towards their healthcare. While this may sound like a wonderful deal, Medicare is currently paying out $17,000 per individual. So we are going to transfer $9000 to the individual. But it gets worse. By the time the plan goes into effect, total costs will have increased to over $20,000 per person, so it will cost retirees an additional $12,000 per year. And then by 2030, with costs continuing to increase, total costs will be 30,000 per year with the Medicare voucher paying less than $10,000 of that total. Each individual will need to pay a bit over $20,000 per year. For a married couple it works out to around $3450 per month. For the average person, their SS check won't even cover this. Sorry, but all Ryan's plan does is shift the cost to the individual without addressing the out of control cost increases. The vast majority of retirees won't even be able to afford it and will be forced to go with no coverage. This creates an even bigger problem as then we have to decide whether we treat our elderly or just leave them to die. If we choose to treat them, then the costs will be forced down to those who are working through higher premiums. Can you see how this would be an even bigger problem?

Without reducing the costs of healthcare, just shifting the costs away from the federal government is no answer at all. We are going to have to take a different approach.

 

[peach174]

We are bringing in 2.2 trillion dollars in taxes ,it is paid by half of the population.
We need to get rid of 1.5 trillion in programs.
Taxing the rich will only bring in 350 billion if that. That amount is not going to pay down the debt. Knowing congress, it will be spent on something else, like more entitlements,more government.
Whenever government gets more money they spend it. It will not be spent on our credit card.

 

[peach174]

Let's see Ryan's plan - cutting sharply?
For his Medicare - changing over to vouchers for Medicare in 2022 is sharp? That is 12 years in my book.
Retired husband and wife would be getting 16,000.00 to chose health care plan.
Keeping it the way it is for people who are 55 and up, it gives plenty of time for people who are 54 and under to plan for the change.
Keeping it for low income families (poor) and for those that have autism or greater disabilities. This is helping the poor.
His plan saves money. Right now we are paying 808 billion for this program. His plan would save us around 240 billion dollars. Maybe even more because in the future we will not have the large baby boomer generation. We will have a much smaller amount of retirees,the ones who are 54 now, in 2022 is not going to be a large amount.
Everybody should start going to Thomas.gov and start reading these bills and stop listening to News Media and blogs.

So basically Ryan's plan would give each individual $8000 towards their healthcare. While this may sound like a wonderful deal, Medicare is currently paying out $17,000 per individual. So we are going to transfer $9000 to the individual. But it gets worse. By the time the plan goes into effect, total costs will have increased to over $20,000 per person, so it will cost retirees an additional $12,000 per year. And then by 2030, with costs continuing to increase, total costs will be 30,000 per year with the Medicare voucher paying less than $10,000 of that total. Each individual will need to pay a bit over $20,000 per year. For a married couple it works out to around $3450 per month. For the average person, their SS check won't even cover this. Sorry, but all Ryan's plan does is shift the cost to the individual without addressing the out of control cost increases. The vast majority of retirees won't even be able to afford it and will be forced to go with no coverage. This creates an even bigger problem as then we have to decide whether we treat our elderly or just leave them to die. If we choose to treat them, then the costs will be forced down to those who are working through higher premiums. Can you see how this would be an even bigger problem?

Without reducing the costs of healthcare, just shifting the costs away from the federal government is no answer at all. We are going to have to take a different approach.

That is not true - Medicare is not paying out 17,000.00 per individual.
Ryan's plan allows the government health plans to Seniors
Blue Cross Blue Shied is the most costly out of all of the Medicare Plans. They have a standard and basic plan. Standard is the most expensive.
Standard self and family - the government pays 10,503.48 and the individual pays 5,179.20That's 15,682.68 for the whole family not individuals.
Paying 16,000.00 to husband and wife pays for this plan.
All the rest of the plans are much cheaper than this one.
So Medicare is paying 10,503.48 for a family plan.That is the highest paying one. No where near the 17,000.00 per individual that you claim.

The next one is Basic Self and family of which government pays 9,557.76 and the individual pays 3,185.88. That is 12,743.64.
16,000.00 for this one is paid for with 3,256.36 left over.
And I agree the cost of all health care plans must come down.
If we got rid of alot of the totally unnecessary regulations that are keeping the costs up the amount would come down drastically.

 

[expat_panama]

...a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

Nobody is hiring fucking hiring the poor...

So we're choosing to expropriate and sell the factory to feed the poor for a short time, rather than allow the factory to reopen and hire. It's a bad choice that dooms the poor.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

...a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

Nobody is hiring fucking hiring the poor...

So we're choosing to expropriate and sell the factory to feed the poor for a short time, rather than allow the factory to reopen and hire. It's a bad choice that dooms the poor.

Flaylo, my company just hired some poor unemployed people to do work here. We would hire another one or two if our tax burden was smaller but we need to save that money to pay the government instead of giving it to someone else who is unemployed.

Its reality.

 

[Vanquish]

We've got to do both - spend less and tax more. It's just a reality. No other solution will do.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Nobody is hiring fucking hiring the poor...

So we're choosing to expropriate and sell the factory to feed the poor for a short time, rather than allow the factory to reopen and hire. It's a bad choice that dooms the poor.

Flaylo, my company just hired some poor unemployed people to do work here. We would hire another one or two if our tax burden was smaller but we need to save that money to pay the government instead of giving it to someone else who is unemployed.

Its reality.

He'll never understand that. To him, you're just an evil entity. You can do no right.

 

[signelect]

Everybody need to pay taxes including congress. If congress had not stolen the money from medicare and SS to use to pay for their own toys and pay off their election debt this would not be such a problem. If congress was held to the same standard as business a lot of them would be in jail. If a business that the employees pension plan and spends it they are liable. Has anyone heard anything from congress about taking part in the spending cut. I haven't.