Taxes, Spending, the Fiscal Cliff, and Austerity

[Foxfyre]

[What are 10 Facts on the Fiscal Cliff, Debt, and Spending?

Budget policy in 2012 was characterized by deficit spending, major increases in the national debt, and a heated debate over the “fiscal cliff.”

With just days left for President Obama and lawmakers in Congress to avert a major tax hike, sequestration, and other major policy changes, today we bring you a list of the top 10 facts on federal spending in 2012:

1. Four years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. Fiscal year 2012 concluded with a $1.1 trillion deficit, marking the fourth year of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. . .at 23 percent of GDP in 2012 and on track to rise further, federal spending is growing at a dangerous pace.

2. National debt hit $16 trillion. On September 4. . . we owe more on the national debt than the entire U.S. economy produced in goods and services in all of 2012. . . .

3. The debt limit was raised by $1.2 trillion. On January 30, the federal government raised its debt limit from a staggering $15.194 trillion to an even bigger $16.394 trillion. (We will hit that in a matter of weeks)

4. The $650 billion fiscal cliff distracted from the $48 trillion looming fiscal crisis. . . .As large and as major a concern as federal budget deficits are today, they stand in the shadow of $48 trillion in long-term unfunded obligations in Social Security and Medicare ($7.7 trillion more added to the debt in the next 10 years for those programs alone.)

5. Social Security ran a deficit for the second year in a row. According to the 2012 trustees report, Social Security spent $45 billion more in benefits in 2011 than it took in from its payroll tax. . . After adjusting for inflation, annual deficits will reach $95 billion in 2020 and $318.7 billion in 2030 before the trust fund runs out in 2033 and a 25 percent across-the-board benefit cut occurs.

6. Three years of spend-as-you-go policies without a federal budget. Last budget passed was on April 29, 2009. . . .and has been on a spend whatever they want basis ever since. The House passed budget resolutions each of the past two years . . .(The Senate has refused to vote on them.)

7. The government spent nearly $30,000 per American household in 2012. . . (while collecting $20,293 per household in taxes.)

8. Obamacare will spend $1.7 trillion over 10 years. . . .(based on an updated CBO scoring). . . .Obamacare will spend $1.7 trillion over 10 years on its coverage expansion provisions alone, including a massive expansion of Medicaid and federal subsidies for the new health insurance exchanges. This means that Obamacare will increase federal health spending by 15 percent.

9. Social Security was the biggest federal spending program. In 1993, Social Security surpassed national defense as the largest federal spending category, and it remains first today. The top five biggest spending programs, in order, are 1) Social Security; 2) national defense; 3) Medicare; 4) Medicaid, CHIP, and other government health care; and 5) interest on the debt.

10. More than 40 percent of Americans are on some government program. According to Census Bureau data and Heritage Foundation calculations, 128.8 million people in America depend on a government program for basic (or not so basic) needs, such as rent, prescription drugs, and higher education.
What are 10 Facts on the Fiscal Cliff, Debt, and Spending? - AskHeritage

Do you really think President Obama's ONLY suggestion to raise $80 billion or so by taxing the rich is going to make a difference? Most especially if it does cost the predicted job loss and more people will then look to the government for support?

 

[catatomic]

the 20s were good because the 30s were bad

 

[arKangel]

Real solutions:
End the Fed!
End the international bankster's wars!
End all "foreign aid"

Supposedly, if democracy works, these items should be easy to accomplish.

Why not discuss those items?

Then we maybe could move on to the root of economic evil?

 

[LibertyLemming]

How's this for a take. Since we went all print money happy , really before that too, our forced taxation has been managed into debt.

See the quote in my signature. Disarm government and reduce the FUCK out of it.

 

[midcan5]

The Roaring 20s economy was good because two repub presidents cut the tax rates after Wilson left office. When the recession hit, Hoover raised taxes from 25% to 63%, and look what happened. Roosevelt raised taxes during his 2nd term and the depression deepened. The Clinton surpluses in his 2nd term didn't happen until the Gingrich-led repub Congress cut taxes in 1997. And the Bush tax cuts in 2003 ushered in a strong period of growth up until the recession came along. And of course my all-time fav, when Reagan cut taxes in his 1st term and fostered a 25 year period of economic boom....

See what I mean: [ http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...iscal-cliff-and-austerity-16.html#post6563484 ]

The twenties were the same as George W. Bush's term, wild speculation, little or no regulation, and unleashed corporate power. Bubble economies don't work. It was only FDR's spending on America and the enormous spending on war that broke the depression caused by market speculation. That my friend is history and it has repeated itself. One fantastic change today is that medicare and social security kept most Americans from depths of despair Harding Coolidge and Hoover once gave America. FDR is number one for a reason.

For the historically interested see these links:

Timeline of the Great Depression
Summary

Oh, and Reagan raised taxes eleven or thirteen times dependent on who you read. Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes | Firedoglake

 

[Foxfyre]

It is important to distinguish between different forms of taxation, however, and understand that all taxes are not equal. It is true that Reagan did increase taxes/fees on various government services and processes, and nobody has much problem with that. Usage fees and consumption taxes are a fair and equitable way to raise revenues and are also a very conservative way to raise revenue because only those who benefit from the services pay the taxes/fees. Taxes on fuel, for instance, are a fair and equitable way to raise funds for highway construction and repair. Those taxes affect only those who are using those highways or benefit from the use of the highways and are more like paying for benefits received.

Taxes applied with no other criteria than a person's success, however, or applied for no better reason than intercepting a transfer of wealth, are the most regressive of all taxes and provide the most drag on the economy in a way that negatively affects many or all.

 

[boedicca]

It is important to distinguish between different forms of taxation, however, and understand that all taxes are not equal. It is true that Reagan did increase taxes/fees on various government services and processes, and nobody has much problem with that. Usage fees and consumption taxes are a fair and equitable way to raise revenues and are also a very conservative way to raise revenue because only those who benefit from the services pay the taxes/fees. Taxes on fuel, for instance, are a fair and equitable way to raise funds for highway construction and repair. Those taxes affect only those who are using those highways or benefit from the use of the highways and are more like paying for benefits received.

Taxes applied with no other criteria than a person's success, however, or applied for no better reason than intercepting a transfer of wealth, are the most regressive of all taxes and provide the most drag on the economy in a way that negatively affects many or all.

The purpose of taxation is to fund the basic functions of government. Instead, we have a byzantine system whose purpose is now to engage in transfer payments from the middle class to large corporate cronies, the permanent and expanding regulatory bureaucracy, unions, and the dependent class (who provide the votes to keep the rest in play)...with career politicians using the scheme to greatly enrich themselves.

It's a violation of RICO, imo.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is important to distinguish between different forms of taxation, however, and understand that all taxes are not equal. It is true that Reagan did increase taxes/fees on various government services and processes, and nobody has much problem with that. Usage fees and consumption taxes are a fair and equitable way to raise revenues and are also a very conservative way to raise revenue because only those who benefit from the services pay the taxes/fees. Taxes on fuel, for instance, are a fair and equitable way to raise funds for highway construction and repair. Those taxes affect only those who are using those highways or benefit from the use of the highways and are more like paying for benefits received.

Taxes applied with no other criteria than a person's success, however, or applied for no better reason than intercepting a transfer of wealth, are the most regressive of all taxes and provide the most drag on the economy in a way that negatively affects many or all.

The purpose of taxation is to fund the basic functions of government. Instead, we have a byzantine system whose purpose is now to engage in transfer payments from the middle class to large corporate cronies, the permanent and expanding regulatory bureaucracy, unions, and the dependent class (who provide the votes to keep the rest in play)...with career politicians using the scheme to greatly enrich themselves.

It's a violation of RICO, imo.

Or if it isn't, it should be. It should never be the function or within the power of government to forcibly take property belonging to one citizen who lawfully earned it and give it to another citizen who didn't. Once we accept such as the normal function of government, none of us own anything or earn anything. We have only what the government deems appropriate for us to have for the time being.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well the Senate cut a deal in the wee hours of the morning with Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden being the adults in the room and Harry Reid going along with it probably because he just wanted to go to bed. So what did we get? The can was kicked down the road a bit for the most serious tax issues and spending cuts that would have been affected by going over the fiscal cliff. Taxes will be raised on those earning $400k or more. And, in the Senate version, we taxpayers will see a (delayed) $1 in spending cuts in return for every $41 in immediate new taxes imposed. They just ignored the issue of us hitting the debt ceiling again and they didn't deal with that.

So who won? President Obama. He says he didn't get everything he wanted, but will agree to the Senate deal. Democrats, however, are saying that the objective was to crush the GOP resolve to stand firm on taxes, however, and therefore this was a Democrat/Obama victory in a major way. The GOP now has to face its constituents/supporters/contributors to whom it pledged no income tax increases. Will there be hell to pay? Too soon to say.

And how will the House deal with it today?

 

[Rozman]

A fair deal...get it Libs fair would have been for what we did on revenue and if we got some sort of
cuts in spending.

So taxes are raised and the Democrats don't give up anything?.....

It always seems to be raise taxes and sometime we will get spending cuts...

This is a disgrace.

 

[Foxfyre]

A fair deal...get it Libs fair would have been for what we did on revenue and if we got some sort of
cuts in spending.

So taxes are raised and the Democrats don't give up anything?.....

It always seems to be raise taxes and sometime we will get spending cuts...

This is a disgrace.

Of course it is, but they don't care. They got what they wanted. They can claim victory that they raised taxes on those eeeeeeevil, greedy, selfish rich people and therefore they did their job. And as long as folks get their government goodies, why should they worry their little empty heads about national solvency? They figure we'll survive long enough that they will get all of theirs. And they've been brainwashed that all those who get hurt deserve that.

It's a win-win-win for the Democrats. If the House nixes the deal, its the terrible, selfish, all-for-the-rich Republicans who get the blame for any government failure. If the House agrees to the deal, they are the ones who caved and backstabbed the people who elected them.

Yep. Win-win-win for the Democrats any way you look at it.

 

[Wiseacre]

One would hope that with the fiscal cliff deal behind us, the democrats will stop whining about more taxes, and instead focus on spending cuts. Yeah, right.

 

[Trajan]

The Roaring 20s economy was good because two repub presidents cut the tax rates after Wilson left office. When the recession hit, Hoover raised taxes from 25% to 63%, and look what happened. Roosevelt raised taxes during his 2nd term and the depression deepened. The Clinton surpluses in his 2nd term didn't happen until the Gingrich-led repub Congress cut taxes in 1997. And the Bush tax cuts in 2003 ushered in a strong period of growth up until the recession came along. And of course my all-time fav, when Reagan cut taxes in his 1st term and fostered a 25 year period of economic boom....

See what I mean: [ http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...iscal-cliff-and-austerity-16.html#post6563484 ]

The twenties were the same as George W. Bush's term, wild speculation, little or no regulation, and unleashed corporate power. Bubble economies don't work. It was only FDR's spending on America and the enormous spending on war that broke the depression caused by market speculation. That my friend is history and it has repeated itself. One fantastic change today is that medicare and social security kept most Americans from depths of despair Harding Coolidge and Hoover once gave America. FDR is number one for a reason.

For the historically interested see these links:

Timeline of the Great Depression
Summary

Oh, and Reagan raised taxes eleven or thirteen times dependent on who you read. Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes | Firedoglake

It was only FDR's spending on America and the enormous spending on war ..

For the historically interested see this-


“No, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. .."We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work....After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot! I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.” – U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr.


U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., in a private meeting at the Treasury Department, May 9, 1939. Morgenthau was lamenting the fact that government deficit spending didn't have the intended effect (reducing unemployment).

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[Trajan]

One would hope that with the fiscal cliff deal behind us, the democrats will stop whining about more taxes, and instead focus on spending cuts. Yeah, right.

that $60 Bn or so they will yield from this deal ala the 450k benchmark, will be vaporized anyway for the year, in the pork laden Sandy bill. In addition they will get less than that $60Bn next year and there after, as those folks getting hit change their investment behavior etc.

Maryland tried it, Illinois tried it, Great Britain, its a road to no where.

I know Boehner was behind the 8-ball, but there is no net spending drop, therefore its a travesty imho.

 

[Wiseacre]

One would hope that with the fiscal cliff deal behind us, the democrats will stop whining about more taxes, and instead focus on spending cuts. Yeah, right.

that $60 Bn or so they will yield from this deal ala the 450k benchmark, will be vaporized anyway for the year, in the pork laden Sandy bill. In addition they will get less than that $60Bn next year and there after, as those folks getting hit change their investment behavior etc.

Maryland tried it, Illinois tried it, Great Britain, its a road to no where.

I know Boehner was behind the 8-ball, but there is no net spending drop, therefore its a travesty imho.

The way I look at it, the Bush Tax Cuts already expired on 31 Dec. What the House did was restore the tax cuts for as many people as possible; they just weren't going to get more than what they got on the tax side. IMHO, it's just as well to get the tax issue off the table and get to the debt ceiling where they can work for real spending cuts. That's where they have more leverage, polls show more than half the public wants less gov't spending. I don't think the GOP will fold on this, but we'll see. And if the country goes into a recession this year or next, the repubs can put the blame on the dems and their tax and spend policies.

 

[saveliberty]

The Democrat's out on this are accounting tricks which will show huge spending cuts post 2016.

 

[Foxfyre]

One would hope that with the fiscal cliff deal behind us, the democrats will stop whining about more taxes, and instead focus on spending cuts. Yeah, right.

that $60 Bn or so they will yield from this deal ala the 450k benchmark, will be vaporized anyway for the year, in the pork laden Sandy bill. In addition they will get less than that $60Bn next year and there after, as those folks getting hit change their investment behavior etc.

Maryland tried it, Illinois tried it, Great Britain, its a road to no where.

I know Boehner was behind the 8-ball, but there is no net spending drop, therefore its a travesty imho.

The way I look at it, the Bush Tax Cuts already expired on 31 Dec. What the House did was restore the tax cuts for as many people as possible; they just weren't going to get more than what they got on the tax side. IMHO, it's just as well to get the tax issue off the table and get to the debt ceiling where they can work for real spending cuts. That's where they have more leverage, polls show more than half the public wants less gov't spending. I don't think the GOP will fold on this, but we'll see. And if the country goes into a recession this year or next, the repubs can put the blame on the dems and their tax and spend policies.

You really think the Democrats will get the blame? So far they haven't gotten the blame for anything in the last six years though they have held most of the cards for that period. The media is not going to tell it like it is.

Some important things happened this past weekend and little or nothing of that is being prominently reported in the mainstream media. A lot of important things that should have happened and didn't are also not being prominently reported by the mainstream media.

What is leading the headlines, the photo ops, the lead paragraphs? It is Boehner saying "F*** you" (twice) to Harry Reid. You have to really dig to find out that this was in response to Reid calling Boehner a dictator and other uncomplimentary terms.

And such is the intellect of today's media and apparently most of those voting for our elected leadership these days.

 

[Wiseacre]

that $60 Bn or so they will yield from this deal ala the 450k benchmark, will be vaporized anyway for the year, in the pork laden Sandy bill. In addition they will get less than that $60Bn next year and there after, as those folks getting hit change their investment behavior etc.

Maryland tried it, Illinois tried it, Great Britain, its a road to no where.

I know Boehner was behind the 8-ball, but there is no net spending drop, therefore its a travesty imho.

The way I look at it, the Bush Tax Cuts already expired on 31 Dec. What the House did was restore the tax cuts for as many people as possible; they just weren't going to get more than what they got on the tax side. IMHO, it's just as well to get the tax issue off the table and get to the debt ceiling where they can work for real spending cuts. That's where they have more leverage, polls show more than half the public wants less gov't spending. I don't think the GOP will fold on this, but we'll see. And if the country goes into a recession this year or next, the repubs can put the blame on the dems and their tax and spend policies.

You really think the Democrats will get the blame? So far they haven't gotten the blame for anything in the last six years though they have held most of the cards for that period. The media is not going to tell it like it is.

Some important things happened this past weekend and little or nothing of that is being prominently reported in the mainstream media. A lot of important things that should have happened and didn't are also not being prominently reported by the mainstream media.

What is leading the headlines, the photo ops, the lead paragraphs? It is Boehner saying "F*** you" (twice) to Harry Reid. You have to really dig to find out that this was in response to Reid calling Boehner a dictator and other uncomplimentary terms.

And such is the intellect of today's media and apparently most of those voting for our elected leadership these days.

I think it will be very easy for the repubs to say we gave them their tax hikes on the rich but they wouldn't cut spending. That is a winner in the red states, and maybe also in some purple states if the economy isn't any better.

 

[Foxfyre]

The way I look at it, the Bush Tax Cuts already expired on 31 Dec. What the House did was restore the tax cuts for as many people as possible; they just weren't going to get more than what they got on the tax side. IMHO, it's just as well to get the tax issue off the table and get to the debt ceiling where they can work for real spending cuts. That's where they have more leverage, polls show more than half the public wants less gov't spending. I don't think the GOP will fold on this, but we'll see. And if the country goes into a recession this year or next, the repubs can put the blame on the dems and their tax and spend policies.

You really think the Democrats will get the blame? So far they haven't gotten the blame for anything in the last six years though they have held most of the cards for that period. The media is not going to tell it like it is.

Some important things happened this past weekend and little or nothing of that is being prominently reported in the mainstream media. A lot of important things that should have happened and didn't are also not being prominently reported by the mainstream media.

What is leading the headlines, the photo ops, the lead paragraphs? It is Boehner saying "F*** you" (twice) to Harry Reid. You have to really dig to find out that this was in response to Reid calling Boehner a dictator and other uncomplimentary terms.

And such is the intellect of today's media and apparently most of those voting for our elected leadership these days.

I think it will be very easy for the repubs to say we gave them their tax hikes on the rich but they wouldn't cut spending. That is a winner in the red states, and maybe also in some purple states if the economy isn't any better.

Yes, well I hope you're right. I really do. But I lost a bet on a good steak dinner that Obama could not be re-elected in the crappy economy we have endured for four years. But I was wrong. And I am now convinced the media can convince the gullible and willing of anything in the world it wants to convince them of.

Do you really think that all those people who voted for Obama want a crappy economy? 8+% unemployment into perpetuity? Want the nation to be financially insolvent? Want an unimiginable number of mortgages to be underwater? Want trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see? Want more than 50% of the population on some kind of government dole?

I don't believe that most of them want that.

But the media was able to convince them that it was the Republicans fault that things are as bad as they are and that the Republicans would continue the misery plus take away what government benefits those same people are receiving.

So I'm not holding my breath that reality and honest assessment of the facts will prevail in the next two years either.

 

[derk]

You really think the Democrats will get the blame? So far they haven't gotten the blame for anything in the last six years though they have held most of the cards for that period. The media is not going to tell it like it is.

Some important things happened this past weekend and little or nothing of that is being prominently reported in the mainstream media. A lot of important things that should have happened and didn't are also not being prominently reported by the mainstream media.

What is leading the headlines, the photo ops, the lead paragraphs? It is Boehner saying "F*** you" (twice) to Harry Reid. You have to really dig to find out that this was in response to Reid calling Boehner a dictator and other uncomplimentary terms.

And such is the intellect of today's media and apparently most of those voting for our elected leadership these days.

I think it will be very easy for the repubs to say we gave them their tax hikes on the rich but they wouldn't cut spending. That is a winner in the red states, and maybe also in some purple states if the economy isn't any better.

Yes, well I hope you're right. I really do. But I lost a bet on a good steak dinner that Obama could not be re-elected in the crappy economy we have endured for four years. But I was wrong. And I am now convinced the media can convince the gullible and willing of anything in the world it wants to convince them of.

Do you really think that all those people who voted for Obama want a crappy economy? 8+% unemployment into perpetuity? Want the nation to be financially insolvent? Want an unimiginable number of mortgages to be underwater? Want trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see? Want more than 50% of the population on some kind of government dole?

I don't believe that most of them want that.

But the media was able to convince them that it was the Republicans fault that things are as bad as they are and that the Republicans would continue the misery plus take away what government benefits those same people are receiving.

So I'm not holding my breath that reality and honest assessment of the facts will prevail in the next two years either.

What has happened is that people keep enabling the two partys. Essentially they are different sides of the same coin. Even when the Republicans win they fail to give us less government. They are exactly like the democrats, growing government and protecting their party. Most people have become disillusioned, because they never seem able to enact reforms and STOP the Behemoth from devouring our liberty's.

The issue most of us see now is that its the political system thats needing changed, not just the two partying politickers