Biden’s Treasury to borrow $776 billion in the final three months of the year

[Nostra]

The surge in illegal aliens is due to the success of Conservative U.S. foreign policy in Central America during the 1980s.

Holy shit you are geopolitically illiterate.

 

[sartre play]

Democrats are financially irresponsible. There's your summary. MAGA

Both partys are financially irresponsible, JUST IN DIFFRENT ways. That is reality.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Punish the 'successful' thieves, reward the people that create the wealth thru productive labor!

Yeah, take every fucking Democrap in government and hang their sorry asses. That would stop the theft of America.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The entire banking and financial industries are blatant thieves. Democrats at least created the SEC, the IRS and banking regulations.

Has the GOP ever done anything besides deregulating them?

I guess you forgot about this, didnt you?

$8 trillion bailout: Where Obama's stimulus plan fits in - Jan. 6, 2009

There was $29 billion for Bear Stearns, $345 billion for Citigroup. The Federal Reserve put up $600 billion to guarantee money market deposits and has aggressively driven down interest rates to essentially zero.
The list goes on and on. All told, Congress, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and other agencies have taken dozens of steps to prop up the economy.
Total price tag so far: $7.2 trillion in investment and loans. That puts a lot of taxpayer money at risk. Now comes President-elect Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan, some details of which were made public on Monday. The tally is getting awfully close to $8 trillion.

 

[g5000]

Dishonest graph... covid shutdown and sill the economy was better back then... gas was cheap food was affordable... look what your boy Biden did to the people of America....

Gas was cheap.

See if you can figure out why without sounding stupid.

 

[g5000]

No it didnt. It was basically the same. What numbers are you looking at?

2015	$442	$327	2.4%
2016	$585	$1,423	3.1%
2017	$665	$671	3.4%
2018	$779	$1,271	3.8%
2019	$984	$1,203	4.6%

Obama's last 3, and Trump's first 2 prior to COVID. Where's the "explosion"?

A $984 billion deficit is the same as a $442 billion deficit!?!?!

Wow. You have some serious willful blindness.

US budget deficit balloons to nearly $1 trillion for fiscal 2019​

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Gas was cheap.

See if you can figure out why without sounding stupid.

Did Biden Set US 'Back 50 Years' on Energy Independence Progress?

Fact Check

Did Biden Set US 'Back 50 Years' on Energy Independence Progress?​

It is true that 2019 was the first year since 1957 in which the U.S. was energy independent.​

​

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

A $984 billion deficit is the same as a $442 billion deficit!?!?!

Wow. You have some serious willful blindness.

US budget deficit balloons to nearly $1 trillion for fiscal 2019​

In 2019, Nancy Piglosi was in charge of the purse strings.....

 

[sartre play]

They didnt earn it? I'm sure all the people making 150k or more a year who are paying 75% of the income tax would beg to differ with you. I know I earn the money Im making. Where can I get one of these jobs where they just hand over money that you dont have to work for? I'd love to have one.


And what would that "productive labor" be without all the business owners who are creating jobs for that labor? Standing around with their thumb up their ass producing nothing. It's the owners/investors who take all the risk. Labor gets it's payment up front, and has security. It's why they get less of the profit than the owner/investor who trades that upfront payment and security for greater benefit on the back end. Labor isnt forking over their savings to cover the owner/investor if the business fails so why should the owner/investor hand over a greater portion of the profits when it succeeds?

Reality is that large corporations are buying up the smaller competitors, and making market controlling monopoly's.

 

[Couchpotato]

A $984 billion deficit is the same as a $442 billion deficit!?!?!

Wow. You have some serious willful blindness.

US budget deficit balloons to nearly $1 trillion for fiscal 2019​

Was that Obamas last budget? You want to cherry pick his lowest budget. Why not the highest? Or the last?

Im not defending Trump's spending or saying it was good. Just typical.

 

[Couchpotato]

Reality is that large corporations are buying up the smaller competitors, and making market controlling monopoly's.

Ok.

 

[Nostra]

A $984 billion deficit is the same as a $442 billion deficit!?!?!

Wow. You have some serious willful blindness.

US budget deficit balloons to nearly $1 trillion for fiscal 2019​

Barry’s last deficit was $665 billion, Stupid.

 

[Richard-H]

Let's take it all from the "successful" so that they can't hire anyone.

Brilliant plan, Gomer.

Guess again, fool.

When the top tax bracket was 91% the economy boomed.

Historical Income Tax Rates

Wolters Kluwer takes a historical look at the top marginal income tax rates in the United States.

www.wolterskluwer.com

 

[Richard-H]

Holy shit you are geopolitically illiterate.

The why are the majority of illegal immigrants coming from those countries?

 

[Nostra]

Guess again, fool.

When the top tax bracket was 91% the economy boomed.

Historical Income Tax Rates

Wolters Kluwer takes a historical look at the top marginal income tax rates in the United States.

www.wolterskluwer.com

You are an economically illiterate moron.

While the average rates for total taxes on the top 0.1 percent have fallen 10.8 percentage points from the 1950s, average income tax rates have remained relatively stable. In the 1950s, the top 0.1 percent of households faced average effective income tax rates of 21.0 percent, versus 20.7 percent as of 2014.

How could it be that a top marginal income tax rate of 91 percent resulted in an average income tax rate (including state and local income taxes!) of only 21.0 percent for the top 0.1 percent during the 1950s? A previous Tax Foundation analysis explains:

• The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket—fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal.
• Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
• Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. Many studies show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the wealthy.

Income Taxes on the Top 0.1 Percent Weren’t Much Higher in the 1950s

High marginal income tax rates on the rich were recently proposed. But how much have effective tax rates on the wealthy changed since 1950s?

taxfoundation.org

 

[Richard-H]

I guess you forgot about this, didnt you?

$8 trillion bailout: Where Obama's stimulus plan fits in - Jan. 6, 2009

No. Nor is it pertinent to this discussion.

Perhaps you meant GW Bush's bailout:

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rambunctious]

Gas was cheap.

See if you can figure out why without sounding stupid.

I've explained it to you a dozen times... so lets try this... it was lower under Trump and almost outrageously unaffordable under Biden so you explain that.....

 

[Richard-H]

You are an economically illiterate moron.

While the average rates for total taxes on the top 0.1 percent have fallen 10.8 percentage points from the 1950s, average income tax rates have remained relatively stable. In the 1950s, the top 0.1 percent of households faced average effective income tax rates of 21.0 percent, versus 20.7 percent as of 2014.

How could it be that a top marginal income tax rate of 91 percent resulted in an average income tax rate (including state and local income taxes!) of only 21.0 percent for the top 0.1 percent during the 1950s? A previous Tax Foundation analysis explains:

• The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket—fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal.
• Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
• Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. Many studies show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the wealthy.

Income Taxes on the Top 0.1 Percent Weren’t Much Higher in the 1950s

High marginal income tax rates on the rich were recently proposed. But how much have effective tax rates on the wealthy changed since 1950s?

taxfoundation.org

Thanks for another LAME response!

What you & who's nonsense you are regurgitating are forgetting is that when there was a 91% income tax bracket, there were a lot of other lessor income tax brackets below the top rate.

That means that there were a whole lot of taxes paid based on income below the top tax brackets:

1946 had tax brackets for:

20.00%
22.00%
26.00%
30.00%
34.00%
38.00%
43.00%
47.00%
50.00%
53.00%
56.00%
59.00%
62.00%
65.00%
69.00%
72.00%
75.00%
78.00%
81.00%
84.00%
87.00%
89.00%
90.00%
91.00%


Thanks for playing, dumbass!

Historical Federal Individual Income Tax Rates & Brackets, 1862-2021

How do current federal individual income tax rates and brackets compare historically?

taxfoundation.org

 

[Nostra]

Thanks for another LAME response!

What you & who's nonsense you are regurgitating are forgetting is that when there was a 91% income tax bracket, there were a lot of other lessor income tax brackets below the top rate.

That means that there were a whole lot of taxes paid based on income below the top tax brackets:

1946 had tax brackets for:

20.00%
22.00%
26.00%
30.00%
34.00%
38.00%
43.00%
47.00%
50.00%
53.00%
56.00%
59.00%
62.00%
65.00%
69.00%
72.00%
75.00%
78.00%
81.00%
84.00%
87.00%
89.00%
90.00%
91.00%


Thanks for playing, dumbass!

Historical Federal Individual Income Tax Rates & Brackets, 1862-2021

How do current federal individual income tax rates and brackets compare historically?

taxfoundation.org

Ok stupid, let's go back to those rates. Let's also go back to spending from 1946: $55 billion.

I can live with that.

 

[g5000]

I've explained it to you a dozen times... so lets try this... it was lower under Trump and almost outrageously unaffordable under Biden so you explain that.....

During Covid, the price of oil went negative. So, yes, gas was very cheap. Golly!

The US is producing far more oil today than was produced at any period under Trump. We are more energy independent than we have ever been.

But Obama, Trump, and the Federal Reserve left us a legacy of high inflation.

We also have the OPEC+ nations lowering their production to counterbalance our increases, which is beyond the control of any president.

In order for Putin's economy to keep going, he needs oil to be above $60.