Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
ACTUALLY YOU SAID THIS BUBBA
"total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today."
HERE
Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation. Page 22 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
YOUR WELCOME FOR MY TAKING THE TIME TO PROVE YOUR POSIT, WAS BULLSHIT BUBBA
I may not have been totally clear. My comment was aimed at federal income taxes. If you want to talk about total of all taxes, we can do that. Bubba
Good YOU agree, top of the 'job creators' EFFECTIVE FEDERAL tax rates topped 60%-70% Most of the 1950's - 1970's...
horseshit. the actual rate paid during those years was more like 15-20%.
while you are looking that up, look up how much GE paid in federal taxes in 2013--------you know, obama's buddy Imelt who moved thousands of american jobs to china and mexico.
ONCE AGAIN BUBBA
OK, I have looked at this chart several times. What do you think the words "average tax rate" mean?
Do you think it means average actually paid or average per the tax code for that segment of taxpayers?
Do you even understand my question?
I may not have been totally clear. My comment was aimed at federal income taxes. If you want to talk about total of all taxes, we can do that. Bubba
Good YOU agree, top of the 'job creators' EFFECTIVE FEDERAL tax rates topped 60%-70% Most of the 1950's - 1970's...
horseshit. the actual rate paid during those years was more like 15-20%.
while you are looking that up, look up how much GE paid in federal taxes in 2013--------you know, obama's buddy Imelt who moved thousands of american jobs to china and mexico.
ONCE AGAIN BUBBA
OK, I have looked at this chart several times. What do you think the words "average tax rate" mean?
Do you think it means average actually paid or average per the tax code for that segment of taxpayers?
Do you even understand my question?
"Do you think it means average actually paid"
YES, THAT'S CALLED EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. IF IT WERE MARGINAL RATES IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS
AGAIN, EFFECTIVE TAX RATES (ACTUALLY PAID ACCORDING TO CBO)
Good YOU agree, top of the 'job creators' EFFECTIVE FEDERAL tax rates topped 60%-70% Most of the 1950's - 1970's...
horseshit. the actual rate paid during those years was more like 15-20%.
while you are looking that up, look up how much GE paid in federal taxes in 2013--------you know, obama's buddy Imelt who moved thousands of american jobs to china and mexico.
ONCE AGAIN BUBBA
OK, I have looked at this chart several times. What do you think the words "average tax rate" mean?
Do you think it means average actually paid or average per the tax code for that segment of taxpayers?
Do you even understand my question?
"Do you think it means average actually paid"
YES, THAT'S CALLED EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. IF IT WERE MARGINAL RATES IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS
AGAIN, EFFECTIVE TAX RATES (ACTUALLY PAID ACCORDING TO CBO)
so you, and your chart, are claiming that the average guy making 1 million in 1960 paid 700K in federal taxes---after deductions, exemptions, etc? is that your claim?
because if it is, then you are even dumber than I thought.
horseshit. the actual rate paid during those years was more like 15-20%.
while you are looking that up, look up how much GE paid in federal taxes in 2013--------you know, obama's buddy Imelt who moved thousands of american jobs to china and mexico.
ONCE AGAIN BUBBA
OK, I have looked at this chart several times. What do you think the words "average tax rate" mean?
Do you think it means average actually paid or average per the tax code for that segment of taxpayers?
Do you even understand my question?
"Do you think it means average actually paid"
YES, THAT'S CALLED EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. IF IT WERE MARGINAL RATES IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS
AGAIN, EFFECTIVE TAX RATES (ACTUALLY PAID ACCORDING TO CBO)
so you, and your chart, are claiming that the average guy making 1 million in 1960 paid 700K in federal taxes---after deductions, exemptions, etc? is that your claim?
because if it is, then you are even dumber than I thought.
I'm claiming NO SUCH THING BUBBA. What I'm claiming is when you add up ALL income of the top 1/10th of 1% of US during that period they paid a VERY high effective rate, in the neighborhood of 60%-70%
But thanks for sticking with opinions and ad hominems, it really boosts your position, lol
DEFINITION of 'Effective Tax Rate'
The average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. The effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their earned income is taxed.
The effective tax rate is often a more accurate representation of a taxpayer's tax liability than its marginal tax rate.
Effective Tax Rate Definition Investopedia
As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009
Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP UPDATE
ONCE AGAIN BUBBA
OK, I have looked at this chart several times. What do you think the words "average tax rate" mean?
Do you think it means average actually paid or average per the tax code for that segment of taxpayers?
Do you even understand my question?
"Do you think it means average actually paid"
YES, THAT'S CALLED EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. IF IT WERE MARGINAL RATES IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS
AGAIN, EFFECTIVE TAX RATES (ACTUALLY PAID ACCORDING TO CBO)
so you, and your chart, are claiming that the average guy making 1 million in 1960 paid 700K in federal taxes---after deductions, exemptions, etc? is that your claim?
because if it is, then you are even dumber than I thought.
I'm claiming NO SUCH THING BUBBA. What I'm claiming is when you add up ALL income of the top 1/10th of 1% of US during that period they paid a VERY high effective rate, in the neighborhood of 60%-70%
But thanks for sticking with opinions and ad hominems, it really boosts your position, lol
DEFINITION of 'Effective Tax Rate'
The average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. The effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their earned income is taxed.
The effective tax rate is often a more accurate representation of a taxpayer's tax liability than its marginal tax rate.
Effective Tax Rate Definition Investopedia
As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009
Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP UPDATE
you just keep repeating what I said. You are claiming that "on average" a person making 1 million in 1960 paid 600-700K in federal income tax, then paid more in state, local, sales, property, and other taxes. So you are saying that a person making 1 million in 1960 lived on 100-200K. You cannot be that ignorant.
That is total bullshit. Your chart is a massive LIE.
ONCE AGAIN BUBBA
OK, I have looked at this chart several times. What do you think the words "average tax rate" mean?
Do you think it means average actually paid or average per the tax code for that segment of taxpayers?
Do you even understand my question?
"Do you think it means average actually paid"
YES, THAT'S CALLED EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. IF IT WERE MARGINAL RATES IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS
AGAIN, EFFECTIVE TAX RATES (ACTUALLY PAID ACCORDING TO CBO)
so you, and your chart, are claiming that the average guy making 1 million in 1960 paid 700K in federal taxes---after deductions, exemptions, etc? is that your claim?
because if it is, then you are even dumber than I thought.
I'm claiming NO SUCH THING BUBBA. What I'm claiming is when you add up ALL income of the top 1/10th of 1% of US during that period they paid a VERY high effective rate, in the neighborhood of 60%-70%
But thanks for sticking with opinions and ad hominems, it really boosts your position, lol
DEFINITION of 'Effective Tax Rate'
The average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. The effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their earned income is taxed.
The effective tax rate is often a more accurate representation of a taxpayer's tax liability than its marginal tax rate.
Effective Tax Rate Definition Investopedia
As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009
Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP UPDATE
you just keep repeating what I said. You are claiming that "on average" a person making 1 million in 1960 paid 600-700K in federal income tax, then paid more in state, local, sales, property, and other taxes. So you are saying that a person making 1 million in 1960 lived on 100-200K. You cannot be that ignorant.
That is total bullshit. Your chart is a massive LIE.
OK, I have looked at this chart several times. What do you think the words "average tax rate" mean?
Do you think it means average actually paid or average per the tax code for that segment of taxpayers?
Do you even understand my question?
"Do you think it means average actually paid"
YES, THAT'S CALLED EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. IF IT WERE MARGINAL RATES IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS
AGAIN, EFFECTIVE TAX RATES (ACTUALLY PAID ACCORDING TO CBO)
so you, and your chart, are claiming that the average guy making 1 million in 1960 paid 700K in federal taxes---after deductions, exemptions, etc? is that your claim?
because if it is, then you are even dumber than I thought.
I'm claiming NO SUCH THING BUBBA. What I'm claiming is when you add up ALL income of the top 1/10th of 1% of US during that period they paid a VERY high effective rate, in the neighborhood of 60%-70%
But thanks for sticking with opinions and ad hominems, it really boosts your position, lol
DEFINITION of 'Effective Tax Rate'
The average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. The effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their earned income is taxed.
The effective tax rate is often a more accurate representation of a taxpayer's tax liability than its marginal tax rate.
Effective Tax Rate Definition Investopedia
As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009
Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP UPDATE
you just keep repeating what I said. You are claiming that "on average" a person making 1 million in 1960 paid 600-700K in federal income tax, then paid more in state, local, sales, property, and other taxes. So you are saying that a person making 1 million in 1960 lived on 100-200K. You cannot be that ignorant.
That is total bullshit. Your chart is a massive LIE.
No that's not what the chart says. Your ability to read this chart is in question.
Republican campaign strategists may lie, but the numbers don’t. Government spending, when adjusted for inflation, has increased during his administration (to date) by 1.4%. Under George W. Bush, the increases were 7.3% (first term) and 8.1% (second term). Bill Clinton, in his two terms, comes in at 3.2% and 3.9%. George H. W. Bush increased government spending by 5.4%, while Ronald Reagan added 8.7% and 4.9% in his two terms.
Not only does Obama turn out to be the most thrifty president in recent memory, but the evidence shows that Republican administrations consistently increased government spending significantly more than any Democratic administration. Go figure.
Republican campaign strategists may lie, but the numbers don’t. Government spending, when adjusted for inflation, has increased during his administration (to date) by 1.4%. Under George W. Bush, the increases were 7.3% (first term) and 8.1% (second term). Bill Clinton, in his two terms, comes in at 3.2% and 3.9%. George H. W. Bush increased government spending by 5.4%, while Ronald Reagan added 8.7% and 4.9% in his two terms.
Not only does Obama turn out to be the most thrifty president in recent memory, but the evidence shows that Republican administrations consistently increased government spending significantly more than any Democratic administration. Go figure.
NOT ONE comment about what happened in the years 2001 through 2008 THAT HAVE NEVER HAPPENED before and most likely will never happen again!
ONCE again I've got to remind people of the history!
What in the hell is wrong with you biased totally ignorant people that have NO obviously historical perspective?
1) Do YOU agree a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months
2) Do YOU agree that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion 8211 Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs
3) Hard to believe but people forget that 9/11 cost $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
4) $1 trillion in written off losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. Andrew slammed into South Florida in 1992 as a Category 5. It caused 40 deaths and $30 billion in property damage. More than 250,000 people were left homeless and 82,000 businesses were destroyed or damaged.
Hurricane Katrina ALONE! Year 2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as a strong Category 3 or low Category 4 storm. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of
a) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:
AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts
How in god's creation CAN YOU idiots forgot ALL the above had a direct financial hit to the Federal Government?
But you idiots don't take in account that OBAMA has had NO SHIT to contend with! NOTHING!
Every problem that Bush had come up, recession, dot.com, 9/11 hurricanes/ housing collapse HE FACED which NO other president ever faced AND
he solved the problem going into the 2008 with declining DEFICITS!
OBAMA??? this dumb shit with NO cataclysmic events i.e. NO dot.com, no 9/11, NO hurricanes SEASONS NOTHING like these events!
AND Obama has created the largest DEFICITS and DEBT ever!
FACTS not fiction! Deficits of Presidents Obama/Bush
Federal deficit falling to lowest in Obama presidency
Total deficits Obama will have left DEFICITS totaling $6,356,000,000,000 ($6.3 trillion)
Total Deficits BUSH $3.294 trillion! Obama will have increased DEFICITS by 207%!!!
FY 2017 - $458 billion
FY 2016 - $531 billion
FY 2015 - $564 billion
FY 2014 - $649 billion
FY 2013 - $680 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.299 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.546 ($1.293 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.294 trillion.
FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.416 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
FY 2008 - $458 billion.
FY 2007 - $161 billion.
FY 2006 - $248 billion.
FY 2005 - $318 billion.
FY 2004 - $413 billion.
FY 2003 - $378 billion.
FY 2002 - $158 billion.
If it weren't for false premises, distortions and LIES, what else would right wingers EVER have???
Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate.
Now that has reversed, and he says in the SOTU that we should raise taxes on the rich. That's what State of the Union addresses are for; empty political gestures to appease your base. Unfortunately, political theater is highly effective.
"Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate."
THE ACTUAL FACTS:
Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts
Allies say president 'blackmailed' into extending tax cut for wealthier Americans which may cost $4tn in lost revenue
In a bruising political battle that appears to set the tone for Obama's dealings with the Republicans in Congress following their victories in last month's midterm elections, the president had sought to extend a tax cut for middle-class Americans introduced by the Bush administration seven years ago which expires at the end of this month. But he wanted to see a return to pre-cut rates for households with an income above $250,000 a year, on the grounds that wealthier Americans could afford to pay more. The move would generate trillions of dollars for the financially-strapped treasury over the next decade.\
But Republicans blocked the legislation in the Senate at the weekend and said they would rather see everyone's taxes rise than agree to scrapping the cuts for the wealthy. Some Democrats called on Obama to stand firm and let the Republicans carry the blame for the inevitable middle-class backlash.
Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts US news The Guardian
Different parties spew different rhetoric. In my opinion, the outcomes are scripted. Politicians are just bad B grade actors cavorting on a stage. It's like pro wrestling where someone Hulk Hogan wins and Andre the Giant loses, but the outcome is scripted and they both get paid by McMahon at the end of the day.
You can quote a politician saying he wanted this or he wanted that. Reagan said in his speeches he wanted Congress to reduce spending, giving partisan Reps ammo to blame Dems.
The system is set up for deficits to continue, to build One Nation Under Surveillance, and for endless war. The differences in the parties are purely rhetorical and cosmetic.
I agree with a lot of the points you've been making, but I don't think it's at all accurate to say that the two parties are equivalent, or that their public scuffles are mere kabuki theater. I hear this a lot from people who dislike politics in general - engineers, often enough, for instance. And yeah, a lot of it is pretty cynical. But if Republicans had had more control over Congress in the last half-decade, we certainly would not have the Affordable Care Act, which is a pretty substantial policy difference.
Sure, those trends you've noted are real, but it's the deficit will continue, because as you noted there is swell of Baby Boomers retiring. That's not exactly something the system could engineer on its own. I'm not saying that there ISN'T a lot of shadow-puppetry going on in politics (it's something opponents of a political party can point out endlessly), but that doesn't mean those parties aren't working toward opposite goals.
@Paperman ,
You mention the ACA, that it wouldn't exist without a Democratic majority.
Let me attempt to respond.
First of all, our system is set up in a way, sort of like the ebb and flow of the tides, that Dems come into power cyclically. They come in and go out with the political tides.
So, Dems come into power and none of them (except Kucinich, briefly) champion single payer or the public option. Obama never gives one of his rousing speeches about single-payer or a public insurance option. The patent excuse is given... "We'd never get the votes for that." Whatever you think about single-payer or a public option, hate that or love it, at least they logistically have a chance to lower the cost of healthcare.
Instead, we get the ACA. The Republican minority sees Gruber's writing on the wall, and they can save face by not voting for it, knowing that it will pass anyway. No harm done to their insurance-lobby backers.
Now, Republicans are beginning to get on board with the ACA (ie Gov Kasich of Ohio), if not in words then in actions. And, we're stuck with a program that does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare. What it does is work to get everyone on insurance (having insurance is not necessarily having good healthcare). Subsidies are paid from the government, with money created by debt. Where does that money go? Straight to the insurance industry which supports the campaigns of both parties. You see the racket? This is a tennis game between government and an industry that finances elections.
When the FED 'buys' bonds from the Treasury, it receives securities from one of its member banks. In turn, it electronically creates an inflated balance in that member bank, and that new money goes to the Treasury. Now that money can be used to pay for subsidies, errr, be given to the insurance industry. So, the created money really doesn't enter a wide circulation , which would cause massive inflation. It stays in a tight circle of elites.
The nation's leading health insurance industry group gave more than $100 million to help fuel the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 2009 and 2010 efforts to defeat President Obama's signature health care reform law, National Journal's Influence Alley has learned.
During the final push to kill the bill before its March 2010 passage, America's Health Insurance Plans gave the chamber $16.2 million. With the $86.2 million the insurers funneled to the business lobbying powerhouse in 2009, AHIP sent the chamber a total of $102.4 million during the health care reform debate, a number that has not been reported before now.
The backchannel spending allowed insurers to publicly stake out a pro-reform position while privately funding the leading anti-reform lobbying group in Washington. The chamber spent tens of millions of dollars bankrolling efforts to kill health care reform.
dumbto3 is actually so dumb he doesn't know that JS MIl was a conservative and libertarian!! He wrote "On Liberty"! He didn't mean on liberty from the Girls Scouts but rather on liberty from govt.
I have asked him 134 times if he is a communist.
Republican campaign strategists may lie, but the numbers don’t. Government spending, when adjusted for inflation, has increased during his administration (to date) by 1.4%. Under George W. Bush, the increases were 7.3% (first term) and 8.1% (second term). Bill Clinton, in his two terms, comes in at 3.2% and 3.9%. George H. W. Bush increased government spending by 5.4%, while Ronald Reagan added 8.7% and 4.9% in his two terms.
Not only does Obama turn out to be the most thrifty president in recent memory, but the evidence shows that Republican administrations consistently increased government spending significantly more than any Democratic administration. Go figure.
NOT ONE comment about what happened in the years 2001 through 2008 THAT HAVE NEVER HAPPENED before and most likely will never happen again!
ONCE again I've got to remind people of the history!
What in the hell is wrong with you biased totally ignorant people that have NO obviously historical perspective?
1) Do YOU agree a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months
2) Do YOU agree that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion 8211 Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs
3) Hard to believe but people forget that 9/11 cost $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
4) $1 trillion in written off losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. Andrew slammed into South Florida in 1992 as a Category 5. It caused 40 deaths and $30 billion in property damage. More than 250,000 people were left homeless and 82,000 businesses were destroyed or damaged.
Hurricane Katrina ALONE! Year 2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as a strong Category 3 or low Category 4 storm. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of
a) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:
AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts
How in god's creation CAN YOU idiots forgot ALL the above had a direct financial hit to the Federal Government?
But you idiots don't take in account that OBAMA has had NO SHIT to contend with! NOTHING!
Every problem that Bush had come up, recession, dot.com, 9/11 hurricanes/ housing collapse HE FACED which NO other president ever faced AND
he solved the problem going into the 2008 with declining DEFICITS!
OBAMA??? this dumb shit with NO cataclysmic events i.e. NO dot.com, no 9/11, NO hurricanes SEASONS NOTHING like these events!
AND Obama has created the largest DEFICITS and DEBT ever!
FACTS not fiction! Deficits of Presidents Obama/Bush
Federal deficit falling to lowest in Obama presidency
Total deficits Obama will have left DEFICITS totaling $6,356,000,000,000 ($6.3 trillion)
Total Deficits BUSH $3.294 trillion! Obama will have increased DEFICITS by 207%!!!
FY 2017 - $458 billion
FY 2016 - $531 billion
FY 2015 - $564 billion
FY 2014 - $649 billion
FY 2013 - $680 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.299 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.546 ($1.293 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.294 trillion.
FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.416 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
FY 2008 - $458 billion.
FY 2007 - $161 billion.
FY 2006 - $248 billion.
FY 2005 - $318 billion.
FY 2004 - $413 billion.
FY 2003 - $378 billion.
FY 2002 - $158 billion.
Wait that entire scred you blame stuff on Clintons recession,9/11 (which Dubya ignored warnings on), Katrina, and THEN CLAIM RECEIPTS INCREASED UNDER DUBYA'S TAX CUTS? SERIOUSLY? lol
Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."
Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."
Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
NICE TALKING POINTS NOT BASED IN REALITY THOUGH BUBBA
Obama INHERITED POLICIES from Dubya that CAUSED the deficits under him, by and large. Grove me ONE policy (or as many as you like) that created even $1 trillion of debt since Obama came into office he is responsible for? lol
BTW THE US ECONOMY DIPPED 9%+ THE LAST 3 MONTHS OF 2008...
Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate.
Now that has reversed, and he says in the SOTU that we should raise taxes on the rich. That's what State of the Union addresses are for; empty political gestures to appease your base. Unfortunately, political theater is highly effective.
"Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate."
THE ACTUAL FACTS:
Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts
Allies say president 'blackmailed' into extending tax cut for wealthier Americans which may cost $4tn in lost revenue
In a bruising political battle that appears to set the tone for Obama's dealings with the Republicans in Congress following their victories in last month's midterm elections, the president had sought to extend a tax cut for middle-class Americans introduced by the Bush administration seven years ago which expires at the end of this month. But he wanted to see a return to pre-cut rates for households with an income above $250,000 a year, on the grounds that wealthier Americans could afford to pay more. The move would generate trillions of dollars for the financially-strapped treasury over the next decade.\
But Republicans blocked the legislation in the Senate at the weekend and said they would rather see everyone's taxes rise than agree to scrapping the cuts for the wealthy. Some Democrats called on Obama to stand firm and let the Republicans carry the blame for the inevitable middle-class backlash.
Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts US news The Guardian
Different parties spew different rhetoric. In my opinion, the outcomes are scripted. Politicians are just bad B grade actors cavorting on a stage. It's like pro wrestling where someone Hulk Hogan wins and Andre the Giant loses, but the outcome is scripted and they both get paid by McMahon at the end of the day.
You can quote a politician saying he wanted this or he wanted that. Reagan said in his speeches he wanted Congress to reduce spending, giving partisan Reps ammo to blame Dems.
The system is set up for deficits to continue, to build One Nation Under Surveillance, and for endless war. The differences in the parties are purely rhetorical and cosmetic.
I agree with a lot of the points you've been making, but I don't think it's at all accurate to say that the two parties are equivalent, or that their public scuffles are mere kabuki theater. I hear this a lot from people who dislike politics in general - engineers, often enough, for instance. And yeah, a lot of it is pretty cynical. But if Republicans had had more control over Congress in the last half-decade, we certainly would not have the Affordable Care Act, which is a pretty substantial policy difference.
Sure, those trends you've noted are real, but it's the deficit will continue, because as you noted there is swell of Baby Boomers retiring. That's not exactly something the system could engineer on its own. I'm not saying that there ISN'T a lot of shadow-puppetry going on in politics (it's something opponents of a political party can point out endlessly), but that doesn't mean those parties aren't working toward opposite goals.
@Paperman ,
You mention the ACA, that it wouldn't exist without a Democratic majority.
Let me attempt to respond.
First of all, our system is set up in a way, sort of like the ebb and flow of the tides, that Dems come into power cyclically. They come in and go out with the political tides.
So, Dems come into power and none of them (except Kucinich, briefly) champion single payer or the public option. Obama never gives one of his rousing speeches about single-payer or a public insurance option. The patent excuse is given... "We'd never get the votes for that." Whatever you think about single-payer or a public option, hate that or love it, at least they logistically have a chance to lower the cost of healthcare.
Instead, we get the ACA. The Republican minority sees Gruber's writing on the wall, and they can save face by not voting for it, knowing that it will pass anyway. No harm done to their insurance-lobby backers.
Now, Republicans are beginning to get on board with the ACA (ie Gov Kasich of Ohio), if not in words then in actions. And, we're stuck with a program that does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare. What it does is work to get everyone on insurance (having insurance is not necessarily having good healthcare). Subsidies are paid from the government, with money created by debt. Where does that money go? Straight to the insurance industry which supports the campaigns of both parties. You see the racket? This is a tennis game between government and an industry that finances elections.
When the FED 'buys' bonds from the Treasury, it receives securities from one of its member banks. In turn, it electronically creates an inflated balance in that member bank, and that new money goes to the Treasury. Now that money can be used to pay for subsidies, errr, be given to the insurance industry. So, the created money really doesn't enter a wide circulation , which would cause massive inflation. It stays in a tight circle of elites.
First of all, when Democrats say the political will for single-payer isn't there, they are absolutely correct. I don't really feel I need to expand on this, but we can go that direction if you want.
Secondly, you're essentially suggesting that the health insurance industry secretly supported the ACA, believing it would increase their profits. While I can't definitively prove what the health insurance industry collectively wanted, I think you'd agree that how they spent their money is a pretty good indicator. Over about 15 months around 2009, the biggest health insurance lobbying group in the country spent over $100 million trying to defeat the ACA. From Exclusive AHIP Gave More Than 100 Million to Chamber s Efforts to Derail Health Care Reform - NationalJournal.com
The nation's leading health insurance industry group gave more than $100 million to help fuel the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 2009 and 2010 efforts to defeat President Obama's signature health care reform law, National Journal's Influence Alley has learned.
During the final push to kill the bill before its March 2010 passage, America's Health Insurance Plans gave the chamber $16.2 million. With the $86.2 million the insurers funneled to the business lobbying powerhouse in 2009, AHIP sent the chamber a total of $102.4 million during the health care reform debate, a number that has not been reported before now.
The backchannel spending allowed insurers to publicly stake out a pro-reform position while privately funding the leading anti-reform lobbying group in Washington. The chamber spent tens of millions of dollars bankrolling efforts to kill health care reform.
The Chamber of Commerce, I'll add, is group whose aims generally align with (/influence) the aims of the Republican party. The fight over healthcare reform was not playacting.
As an aside, I want to make clear I'm not making an argument that America under a Democratic Congress is not a completely different country than an America under a Republican Congress. Generally, the realistic goals of each party are basically politically moderate (despite rhetoric to the contrary).
"Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate."
THE ACTUAL FACTS:
Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts
Allies say president 'blackmailed' into extending tax cut for wealthier Americans which may cost $4tn in lost revenue
In a bruising political battle that appears to set the tone for Obama's dealings with the Republicans in Congress following their victories in last month's midterm elections, the president had sought to extend a tax cut for middle-class Americans introduced by the Bush administration seven years ago which expires at the end of this month. But he wanted to see a return to pre-cut rates for households with an income above $250,000 a year, on the grounds that wealthier Americans could afford to pay more. The move would generate trillions of dollars for the financially-strapped treasury over the next decade.\
But Republicans blocked the legislation in the Senate at the weekend and said they would rather see everyone's taxes rise than agree to scrapping the cuts for the wealthy. Some Democrats called on Obama to stand firm and let the Republicans carry the blame for the inevitable middle-class backlash.
Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts US news The Guardian
Different parties spew different rhetoric. In my opinion, the outcomes are scripted. Politicians are just bad B grade actors cavorting on a stage. It's like pro wrestling where someone Hulk Hogan wins and Andre the Giant loses, but the outcome is scripted and they both get paid by McMahon at the end of the day.
You can quote a politician saying he wanted this or he wanted that. Reagan said in his speeches he wanted Congress to reduce spending, giving partisan Reps ammo to blame Dems.
The system is set up for deficits to continue, to build One Nation Under Surveillance, and for endless war. The differences in the parties are purely rhetorical and cosmetic.
I agree with a lot of the points you've been making, but I don't think it's at all accurate to say that the two parties are equivalent, or that their public scuffles are mere kabuki theater. I hear this a lot from people who dislike politics in general - engineers, often enough, for instance. And yeah, a lot of it is pretty cynical. But if Republicans had had more control over Congress in the last half-decade, we certainly would not have the Affordable Care Act, which is a pretty substantial policy difference.
Sure, those trends you've noted are real, but it's the deficit will continue, because as you noted there is swell of Baby Boomers retiring. That's not exactly something the system could engineer on its own. I'm not saying that there ISN'T a lot of shadow-puppetry going on in politics (it's something opponents of a political party can point out endlessly), but that doesn't mean those parties aren't working toward opposite goals.
@Paperman ,
You mention the ACA, that it wouldn't exist without a Democratic majority.
Let me attempt to respond.
First of all, our system is set up in a way, sort of like the ebb and flow of the tides, that Dems come into power cyclically. They come in and go out with the political tides.
So, Dems come into power and none of them (except Kucinich, briefly) champion single payer or the public option. Obama never gives one of his rousing speeches about single-payer or a public insurance option. The patent excuse is given... "We'd never get the votes for that." Whatever you think about single-payer or a public option, hate that or love it, at least they logistically have a chance to lower the cost of healthcare.
Instead, we get the ACA. The Republican minority sees Gruber's writing on the wall, and they can save face by not voting for it, knowing that it will pass anyway. No harm done to their insurance-lobby backers.
Now, Republicans are beginning to get on board with the ACA (ie Gov Kasich of Ohio), if not in words then in actions. And, we're stuck with a program that does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare. What it does is work to get everyone on insurance (having insurance is not necessarily having good healthcare). Subsidies are paid from the government, with money created by debt. Where does that money go? Straight to the insurance industry which supports the campaigns of both parties. You see the racket? This is a tennis game between government and an industry that finances elections.
When the FED 'buys' bonds from the Treasury, it receives securities from one of its member banks. In turn, it electronically creates an inflated balance in that member bank, and that new money goes to the Treasury. Now that money can be used to pay for subsidies, errr, be given to the insurance industry. So, the created money really doesn't enter a wide circulation , which would cause massive inflation. It stays in a tight circle of elites.
First of all, when Democrats say the political will for single-payer isn't there, they are absolutely correct. I don't really feel I need to expand on this, but we can go that direction if you want.
Secondly, you're essentially suggesting that the health insurance industry secretly supported the ACA, believing it would increase their profits. While I can't definitively prove what the health insurance industry collectively wanted, I think you'd agree that how they spent their money is a pretty good indicator. Over about 15 months around 2009, the biggest health insurance lobbying group in the country spent over $100 million trying to defeat the ACA. From Exclusive AHIP Gave More Than 100 Million to Chamber s Efforts to Derail Health Care Reform - NationalJournal.com
The nation's leading health insurance industry group gave more than $100 million to help fuel the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 2009 and 2010 efforts to defeat President Obama's signature health care reform law, National Journal's Influence Alley has learned.
During the final push to kill the bill before its March 2010 passage, America's Health Insurance Plans gave the chamber $16.2 million. With the $86.2 million the insurers funneled to the business lobbying powerhouse in 2009, AHIP sent the chamber a total of $102.4 million during the health care reform debate, a number that has not been reported before now.
The backchannel spending allowed insurers to publicly stake out a pro-reform position while privately funding the leading anti-reform lobbying group in Washington. The chamber spent tens of millions of dollars bankrolling efforts to kill health care reform.
The Chamber of Commerce, I'll add, is group whose aims generally align with (/influence) the aims of the Republican party. The fight over healthcare reform was not playacting.
As an aside, I want to make clear I'm not making an argument that America under a Democratic Congress is not a completely different country than an America under a Republican Congress. Generally, the realistic goals of each party are basically politically moderate (despite rhetoric to the contrary).
Health insurance companies base premiums on claims! That's it!
So how do we reduce the amount of claims?
A) 90% of physicians agree that $850 billion a year is spent on duplicate tests,etc. i.e. defensive medicine!
Proof tort reform works is the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 because while 90% of non-federal contracted physicians say they practice
defensive medicine less the 48% of Federally contracted physicians said they do! Why? because they are protected by the 1946 ACT!
I always provide the source: SOURCE: http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media/8968/defensivemedicine_ebook_final.pdf
B) EMTALA
1986 EMTALA...Enacted by the federal government in 1986, requires that hospital emergency departments treat emergency conditions of all patients regardless of their ability to pay and is considered a critical element in the "safety net" for the uninsured, but established no direct payment mechanism for such care. Indirect payments and reimbursements through federal and state government programs have never fully compensated public and private hospitals for the full cost of care mandated by EMTALA. [/I]Health care in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
As a result we have hospitals recouping their costs as this CEO admits:
A hospital CEO when asked: "How do hospitals deal with the cost of the uninsured?
Like any business, we pass it on to the paying customers.
From PAGE 1 of this document: http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/wp-content/uploads/NCMJ/mar-apr-05/Yarbrough.pdf
C) Idiocy of the American public bent on skateboarding,rock climbing, etc. any of these sports that have caused injuries that have caused medical services that cause CLAIMS! Billions of dollars paid out by insurance claims for stupid idiotic behavior and as a result higher claims means higher premiums!
Who pays for these idiots? Insurance companies! Who jacks up premiums because of claims filed by these idiots? Insurance companies!
And it's not just skateboarders!
View attachment 36426
Rock climbing!!!
View attachment 36427
Snowmobiles accidents... again this is just stupidity on the part of people that have too much time on their hands!
View attachment 36428
Nutters are very find of pretending that liberals don't know the difference between the deficit and the debt. That's silly of course.
What isn't silly....is that nutters don't know the relationship between the two.
