Deficit Denial?

[Underhill]

But we have been told the recession ended 4 years ago.....

And think about it, for 6 years of Bush things went pretty well, though he spent too much, unemployment was basically around 5%. Then the Democrats took over congress and we dropped straight into the great recession. But they had no part of that, can't blame any of them........

Facts are a real bitch sometimes, and the fact is that under this administration we have had the worst and slowest recovery in history.

So once again, fix it or get out of the way. The deficit must be zero and we have to pay something on the debt, every year...... A good start might even be with having a budget for the first time in 4 years....

The facts are both sides have spent us into this mess. It wasn't just the democrats. Bush was spending like a blond in a bath and body works before the democrats came along.

And of course we have the slowest recovery in history. It's the direct result of the debt. We can't spend our way out like we have in the last 4 recessions because we can't afford it.

I am all for having a budget. I'm just not sure how much good it will do. It's a bill that lays out spending. But it means no more than any other spending bill. They can add to it at will, just as they do in years without a budget.

I can write up a household budget. That does not mean I will stick to it. And the chances of Washington passing a budget and not adding additional spending weekly is essentially zero.

What is happening is simple. The debt is catching up with us and it's too late for easy fixes. If we had stuck with the direction Clinton and the republican congress had us in, we'd be in good shape right now and I suspect the debt would be at least 30-40% lower than it is today...

 

[SFC Ollie]

Maybe, but we still have to find a way to fix it instead of making it worse....

But some refuse to put party aside and get to the hurt that has to happen..... And the sooner the better off we'll be....

 

[Blooper]

But we have been told the recession ended 4 years ago.....

And think about it, for 6 years of Bush things went pretty well, though he spent too much, unemployment was basically around 5%. Then the Democrats took over congress and we dropped straight into the great recession. But they had no part of that, can't blame any of them........

Facts are a real bitch sometimes, and the fact is that under this administration we have had the worst and slowest recovery in history.

So once again, fix it or get out of the way. The deficit must be zero and we have to pay something on the debt, every year...... A good start might even be with having a budget for the first time in 4 years....

Fact is Bush had his veto pen and the GOP senate had their filibuster. There was nothing that the Dems could do without Bush's full and complete approval. If you remember the Dems could not even pass an increase in the minimum wage without giving Bush more tax cuts!! Tax cuts that put us further in debt, but the powerless Bush is not responsible for anything HE did after the Dems were elected, or even before for that matter.

Actually If you were to pay attention you would find that I have stated many times that both sides are to blame..... But i do get so tired of hearing it's Bush's fault......

Bush spent too much and Obama is trying his best to double down on that......

It is past time to stop the wild ass spending and end all deficits........ And i don't give a shit what party does it......

Or we could raise taxes and spending. Private markets create inequality and, within current conditions, strategic use of the government is a good way to solve that.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Fact is Bush had his veto pen and the GOP senate had their filibuster. There was nothing that the Dems could do without Bush's full and complete approval. If you remember the Dems could not even pass an increase in the minimum wage without giving Bush more tax cuts!! Tax cuts that put us further in debt, but the powerless Bush is not responsible for anything HE did after the Dems were elected, or even before for that matter.

Actually If you were to pay attention you would find that I have stated many times that both sides are to blame..... But i do get so tired of hearing it's Bush's fault......

Bush spent too much and Obama is trying his best to double down on that......

It is past time to stop the wild ass spending and end all deficits........ And i don't give a shit what party does it......

Or we could raise taxes and spending. Private markets create inequality and, within current conditions, strategic use of the government is a good way to solve that.

No.....

 

[Blooper]

Actually If you were to pay attention you would find that I have stated many times that both sides are to blame..... But i do get so tired of hearing it's Bush's fault......

Bush spent too much and Obama is trying his best to double down on that......

It is past time to stop the wild ass spending and end all deficits........ And i don't give a shit what party does it......

Or we could raise taxes and spending. Private markets create inequality and, within current conditions, strategic use of the government is a good way to solve that.

No.....

Okay leaving it up to the invisible forces of markets - a.k.a. the very visible forces of the rich - is a way to solve our economic problems. Because if Austrian pseudo-economists paid by the heritage foundation say it, it's a-okay by me!

 

[Underhill]

Maybe, but we still have to find a way to fix it instead of making it worse....

But some refuse to put party aside and get to the hurt that has to happen..... And the sooner the better off we'll be....

I agree for the most part...

 

[midcan5]

The top percent who benefit most from our democratic republic could easily pay down the deficits. That along with a rebuilding of America would reduce the deficit to manageable levels. See the link in my signature for past tax rates. Build here, make here, buy here, seems pretty simple. Do you buy American made? If not go to a mirror and see a deficit cause.

"This is when the Republican Party set its trap. Meeting in closed sessions at the beginning of the Obama regime, the party of tax cuts for the rich, unfunded wars, and the largest deficit in the history of the country redefined itself. It suddenly became the party of deficit reduction through lean government joined to supreme confidence in unregulated financial and corporate markets. It even opposed the bail out of General Motors and Chrysler, though these actions stopped unemployment from reaching a dangerous tipping point, allowed the two companies time to reconstruct themselves, and enabled them to pay back the loans within two years–-creating one of the most successful bailouts in the history of Euro-American economic life." The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine


"The GOP dreams of a world in which the very rich arrogate to themselves the vast wealth a capitalist economy produces, an outcome made possible by rules, regulations, and practices they devise; given the force of law thanks to “representatives” they usher into office courtesy of a political system they have bought; and sanctified by an activist Supreme Court they have installed. It’s a vicious economic-political noose that threatens to tighten the grip on democracy and make it yield to the slightest pressure from its masters. Republicans must rule the country they profit from, even pillage, while the rest are to be marginalized and dismissed, essentially foreigners in their own land. Those who think Romney and the GOP live in the 1950s may need to reset their calendars. They’re not nearly so modern." Steven Johnston The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Imperium

 

[Underhill]

Or we could raise taxes and spending. Private markets create inequality and, within current conditions, strategic use of the government is a good way to solve that.

No.....

Okay leaving it up to the invisible forces of markets - a.k.a. the very visible forces of the rich - is a way to solve our economic problems. Because if Austrian pseudo-economists paid by the heritage foundation say it, it's a-okay by me!

I don't deny there is a problem there as well. And I'm all for either raising the rate or getting rid of loopholes for the wealthy who are paying less, as a percentage, than I am.

But big new spending plans are a bad idea right now.

If I had my way (and I won't) we need to move our economy away from the military biased approach it's built on now and towards a more equitable manufacturing base. But that is a long road and damn near impossible to take with all the money behind the MIC.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Really, we've got 16,000 billionaires we can take a Billion a piece from?

 

[Underhill]

Really, we've got 16,000 billionaires we can take a Billion a piece from?

I think he means they can pay enough to balance the budget and even pay down the debt a bit. And he's right.

But it won't happen so it's pissing into the wind.

 

[eflatminor]

Really, we've got 16,000 billionaires we can take a Billion a piece from?

I think he means they can pay enough to balance the budget and even pay down the debt a bit. And he's right.

Actually, he's wrong.

The net worth of America's billionaires is about $1.7 trillion (just over 400 billionaires with an average net worth of $4.2 billion). You'd have to CONFISCATE their assets to balance the deficit, with little left over to address the skyrocketing debt. In other words, you could tax their income at 100% (and assume they'd keep working) and you couldn't come close to covering this year's deficit.

 

[Blooper]

Really, we've got 16,000 billionaires we can take a Billion a piece from?

I think he means they can pay enough to balance the budget and even pay down the debt a bit. And he's right.

Actually, he's wrong.

The net worth of America's billionaires is about $1.7 trillion (just over 400 billionaires with an average net worth of $4.2 billion). You'd have to CONFISCATE their assets to balance the deficit, with little left over to address the skyrocketing debt. In other words, you could tax their income at 100% (and assume they'd keep working) and you couldn't come close to covering this year's deficit.

Actually, what I'm saying is this.

Raise taxes and funding to services - while using more progressive tax brackets. Everyone pays more into the government and everyone gets more out of it. Provided we stop wasteful spending on things like military and traditional fuel subsidies, there's little need for austerity.

 

[eflatminor]

The top percent who benefit most from our democratic republic could easily pay down the deficits.

Due respect, someone's pants are on fire...

The top 1% of income earners in America collectively have an adjusted gross income of about $1.3 trillion. Therefore, you'd have to tax them at nearly a 100% rate in order to cover one year's deficit, while making the massively optimistic assumption they'd keep working for nearly no pay. Hardly easy.

 

[edthecynic]

Really, we've got 16,000 billionaires we can take a Billion a piece from?

I think he means they can pay enough to balance the budget and even pay down the debt a bit. And he's right.

Actually, he's wrong.

The net worth of America's billionaires is about $1.7 trillion (just over 400 billionaires with an average net worth of $4.2 billion). You'd have to CONFISCATE their assets to balance the deficit, with little left over to address the skyrocketing debt. In other words, you could tax their income at 100% (and assume they'd keep working) and you couldn't come close to covering this year's deficit.

There are plenty of other wealthy people besides billionaires. The top 1% of wealth have a net worth of over 20 trillion. if you "CONFISCATE" that you could pay off the entire GOP National Debt and still have enough left over to throw one hell of a party.

 

[eflatminor]

I think he means they can pay enough to balance the budget and even pay down the debt a bit. And he's right.

Actually, he's wrong.

The net worth of America's billionaires is about $1.7 trillion (just over 400 billionaires with an average net worth of $4.2 billion). You'd have to CONFISCATE their assets to balance the deficit, with little left over to address the skyrocketing debt. In other words, you could tax their income at 100% (and assume they'd keep working) and you couldn't come close to covering this year's deficit.

Actually, what I'm saying is this.

Raise taxes and funding to services - while using more progressive tax brackets.

We already have the most progressive tax structure in the world, meaning our rich pay a higher percentage of the overall tax burden than in any other country.

Everyone pays more into the government

Not likely. Raising tax rates often results in less revenue to government.

and everyone gets more out of it.

More inefficient, costly, and poor performing government programs? Pass. Free people making voluntary choices always produces a superior outcome to central planning. Always.

Provided we stop wasteful spending on things like military and traditional fuel subsidies, there's little need for austerity.

Tell you what, you stop that wasteful spending and see what we actually save. When you've saved about a trillion dollars per year, you might have a point, and THEN we can talk about raising tax rates. Until then, we have a spending problem...a really big spending problem.

 

[eflatminor]

I think he means they can pay enough to balance the budget and even pay down the debt a bit. And he's right.

Actually, he's wrong.

The net worth of America's billionaires is about $1.7 trillion (just over 400 billionaires with an average net worth of $4.2 billion). You'd have to CONFISCATE their assets to balance the deficit, with little left over to address the skyrocketing debt. In other words, you could tax their income at 100% (and assume they'd keep working) and you couldn't come close to covering this year's deficit.

There are plenty of other wealthy people besides billionaires. The top 1% of wealth have a net worth of over 20 trillion. if you "CONFISCATE" that you could pay off the entire GOP National Debt and still have enough left over to throw one hell of a party.

So, is that your plan...to confiscate the personal possessions of everyone earning over $343,000? That ought to go over well, and what a boom to jobs that would be, eh?

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, he's wrong.

The net worth of America's billionaires is about $1.7 trillion (just over 400 billionaires with an average net worth of $4.2 billion). You'd have to CONFISCATE their assets to balance the deficit, with little left over to address the skyrocketing debt. In other words, you could tax their income at 100% (and assume they'd keep working) and you couldn't come close to covering this year's deficit.

There are plenty of other wealthy people besides billionaires. The top 1% of wealth have a net worth of over 20 trillion. if you "CONFISCATE" that you could pay off the entire GOP National Debt and still have enough left over to throw one hell of a party.

So, is that your plan...to confiscate the personal possessions of everyone earning over $343,000? That ought to go over well, and what a boom to jobs that would be, eh?

No, my "plan" was just to point out the flaw in your confiscation plan.

And the top 1% of WEALTH are not the wage earners over $343,000 as you well know. Or do you?

Do you really think that wealth and wages are the same?

 

[Blooper]

Actually, he's wrong.

The net worth of America's billionaires is about $1.7 trillion (just over 400 billionaires with an average net worth of $4.2 billion). You'd have to CONFISCATE their assets to balance the deficit, with little left over to address the skyrocketing debt. In other words, you could tax their income at 100% (and assume they'd keep working) and you couldn't come close to covering this year's deficit.

Actually, what I'm saying is this.

Raise taxes and funding to services - while using more progressive tax brackets.

We already have the most progressive tax structure in the world, meaning our rich pay a higher percentage of the overall tax burden than in any other country.

That's technically true, but misleading. When talking about redistributive taxation(simply, reducing inequality) we're nowhere near the top.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, he's wrong.

The net worth of America's billionaires is about $1.7 trillion (just over 400 billionaires with an average net worth of $4.2 billion). You'd have to CONFISCATE their assets to balance the deficit, with little left over to address the skyrocketing debt. In other words, you could tax their income at 100% (and assume they'd keep working) and you couldn't come close to covering this year's deficit.

Actually, what I'm saying is this.

Raise taxes and funding to services - while using more progressive tax brackets.

We already have the most progressive tax structure in the world, meaning our rich pay a higher percentage of the overall tax burden than in any other country.

Again this depends on how you define "rich." The tax structure is only "progressive" on wage earners. It is quite regressive on the wealthy, so much so even MessiahRushie has to admit it.

January 09, 2013
RUSH: Taxing wages at a higher rate than profits is wealth redistribution.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.
I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

 

[eflatminor]

There are plenty of other wealthy people besides billionaires. The top 1% of wealth have a net worth of over 20 trillion. if you "CONFISCATE" that you could pay off the entire GOP National Debt and still have enough left over to throw one hell of a party.

So, is that your plan...to confiscate the personal possessions of everyone earning over $343,000? That ought to go over well, and what a boom to jobs that would be, eh?

No, my "plan" was just to point out the flaw in your confiscation plan.

Wasn't my plan.

And the top 1% of WEALTH are not the wage earners over $343,000 as you well know. Or do you?

Of course I do. Made that clear in my posts.

Do you really think that wealth and wages are the same?

Of course not. Again, I made that clear.