A gentleman with a grasp of the problem.

[Nick]

PS The boat is not mine anyway, it is my sisters, but I get to use it if I can which so far I haven't :worried:

Keith,

When you do get on her don't forget to fly that Jolly Roger.

Livestrong we need you.

 

[domtoni]

Jim,

You and all of your pals who want a tax increase can donate as much money as you want to the government. Have you thought of this?

I am not going to vouch for the accuracy of this figure, but all of those folks who Jim notes should be taxed at a higher rate, not just those over $10M/annum, had a total income of around $1.7 T. Now the average tax rate paid was around 25%. That makes a total of what, $425B. If you up the average rate to 35%, what do you get, $600B. A 41% increase but still no where in addressing the excessive spending. And on top of that, you take that money out of the private economy where it turns faster, and is not consumed by the government.

I found a really great website which shows the debt increase on a Federal, State and local basis, and will try to find it again and then summerize the numbers so you can see just when and how the debt has grown to outlandish proportions.

Al the President pleaded for a tax increase, the Democrats pleaded for a tax increase, the people pleaded for a tax increase the Market pleaded for a tax increase, I pleaded for a tax increase.

So Al tell me why we did not get a tax increase?

 

[domtoni]

Show us where the Republicans have failed Jim. The Democrats controlled Congress for 4 years, put us into the debt we all share.

Well guys,

Mr Boehner and the rest of the Republicans have caused another 600+ pint drop in the Dow!

Do we need any more evidece of their failed economic policy?

 

[domtoni]

Jim,

I will remind you next time you bring W's name into the picture for having caused the problems.

Nick.............................1

Nick, but who will the right blame everything on now.....................oh yea, Obama?

 

[Graham]

This is the Gypsies warning mate. Look after yourself now and live long and prosper... otherwise..........

Nowt to do with gypises mate... That's Vulcan, and you know it :shifty:

 

[domtoni]

I found the website and thought I would give the totals in total debt increase.

From 2000 - 2006, the Republicans increased the debt by $3321T a 59% increase
From 2007 - 2008, the Dems increased the debt by $1036T, 11.6%
From 2008 - 2009, the Dems increased the debt by $1990, 18.9%
From 2009 - 2010, the Dems increased the debt by $1653, 13.9%
From 2010 - 2011, the Dems increased the debt by $1947, 14.4%
From 2011 - 2012, the Republicans increased debt by $1178, 7.6%

Remember that income tax revenues in this period were $1.1 - 1.4T. So, a tax increase to a total rate of 35 - 40% on those on "rich" will bring in an extra $0.44T. And that was calculating at a full 40% on top of the $1.7T in total wages the "rich" made.

As you can see, spending has to be cut. Or the other option is to increase the tax base by having more people working and paying taxes. Oh yea, the bottom 50% of the labour market don't may more than 3% Federal taxes anyway.

Fromm the NYT:
But at the end of 2007, the federal debt was 64.4 percent of the economy. Today, it is estimated at around 100 percent of gross domestic product, a share not seen since the aftermath of World War II, and there is little chance of lawmakers reaching consensus on additional stimulus that would increase the debt.

 

[domtoni]

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP and more familiarly as "the bank bailout'' was hastily put in place in September 2008 as stock markets plunged, credit markets around the globe seized up and the world seemed on the verge of a cataclysmic financial meltdown.

Congress authorized the Treasury Department to use up to $700 billion to stabilize financial markets through the program -- a step that inspired widespread public outrage, helping to fuel what became the Tea Party Movement, and, in the mind of most economists, one that played a crucial role in pulling the global economy back from the brink.

The Treasury never tapped the full $700 billion. By the time its authority to spend the money expired on Oct. 2, 2010, it had committed $470 billion and disbursed $387 billion, mostly to hundreds of banks and later to A.I.G., the car industry — Chrysler, General Motors, the G.M. financing company and suppliers — and to what has been, so far, a failed effort to help homeowners avoid foreclosures.

The stymulus was also Pelosi and Reed with Obama.

Al, don't forget (because I did) the modest Bush Stimulus, where he sent checks to all tax payers. It cost the government some $160B. And the NYT reported the Bush stimulus and "other charges" as $750ishB.

 

[domtoni]

Nick,

This article didn't address the 20% ish unemployed status of the school leavers who may never get jobs. The immigrants who come into the country that get what they want.

While I agree with the subject of those over 55 not finding new work. Unfortunately too many of them have insufficient savings to go forward (but if you are unemployed and have no wealth, benefits are open to you).

Perhaps someone with more direct US experience can comment on the status there.

Did you know cell phones were now available in the USA:
Welfare recipients now eligible to receive cell phones
on top of food stamps, child benefit packages etc. I think the USA offers more welfare than the UK.

Domtoni,

Some salient points from a left wing article entitled "The Myth of Welfare Dependency"

The myth of welfare dependency

Frank Field might argue that, whatever the causes of the expansion of welfare spending, it is unrealistic to expect taxpayers to foot the bill. He claims that the welfare budget (approximately £90 billion a year) costs the average taxpayer £15 a day out of their wage packet. But Field's figures are bogus.24 The welfare state is usually portrayed as a sort of Robin Hood, redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Welfare economists have constructed a computer simulation model ('LIFEMOD') to investigate the effect of the welfare state over the life times of 4,000 statistically representative individuals. After all, the same person will be a net gainer from and net contributor to the welfare state at different times of their life. This model allows us to estimate how much the welfare state actually redistributes wealth between people, rather than between different periods of the same person's life. In fact 'nearly three-quarters of what the welfare state does looked at in this way [ie over a lifetime] is like a "savings bank"; only a quarter is "Robin Hood" redistribution between different people'.25 This means that the taxes which go towards welfare are,

Not a payment from workers to the grasping poor. It is mainly people paying into a 'social insurance' for the future. So almost £30 billion, a third of total social security spending, goes on pension.26
Six out of ten people take out of the system roughly what they pay in, while only the richest 15 percent pay in significantly more than they get back. And the model also suggests that the welfare system redistributes less than it did a decade ago.27

The findings generated by such computer models show how little the welfare state actually redistributes, and demolish a central reform suggested by welfare dependency theorists. The main way the welfare state already works is like the 'savings bank over a lifetime' which they say would get rid of dependency. The main effect of creating a formal 'lifetime savings bank' would be massive administrative costs


Those who talk of welfare dependency paint a picture of an underclass of long term unemployed and single parents cut off from the rest of society and demoralised by having to depend on the state. But nearly one third of the poorest 20 percent of the population are in work or self employed.37 Contrary to the media image, self employed workers have not risen out of the ranks of the working class. They lose out on sick pay, holiday pay, and other in-work benefits. Even in terms of their income, many self employed workers are worse off. Of all those people on below average income (two thirds of the population), the self employed have lower average incomes than those on income support. 'Other things being equal, self employment raises the chance of an individual being in the bottom tenth of earners by a factor of 3.7',38 while a study conducted in Luton showed that 'over 25 percent of the town's owner-occupiers had lost their jobs between 1989 and 1993'39, and according to the Rowntree Housing Review, a quarter of unskilled manual workers are servicing mortgages.

Within the welfare budget, one of the areas which has grown most under the Tories is spending on Housing Benefit. Government spending on housing has increased massively at the same time as the quality of housing has generally declined and rents have risen above the rate of inflation. The people who have benefited from this policy are private landlords. Today there are nearly half a million homeless people in Britain, and over 1 million live in homes officially unfit for habitation. At the same time, 800,000 homes lie empty,23 and the government will not allow local councils to use receipts from council house sales to build new council housing to replenish housing stocks.

Due to a combination of unemployment and enforced early retirement (finding a job when you have been made redundant at 55 is almost impossible), one in four men of working age in Britain are economically inactive.14 In 1977, 8 percent of 55 to 64 year old men were out of employment. By 1994 this had risen to 59 percent15--given the high levels of poverty among pensioners, few have opted for this out of a taste for the good life.

Despite all this, all the reports come out in favour of some form of private pension provision as a way round the 'massive' increase in the number of pensioners. Faced with the declining level of the state pension many people are already turning to private pension schemes. This has proved a disaster because the high administrative charges and commissions eat into private pension scheme contributions. Consequently millions of low paid workers end up worse off. Incredibly '2 million people have been persuaded to opt out of the state pension and into private pensions when their earnings were too low for them to achieve a comparable income in retirement' to that which they would have received had they remained in the state system.16 Life insurance companies estimate that 8 million people are earning too little for it to be worth their while getting private pensions. According to John Hills, there is little gain from having an occupational pension which involves contributions of less than £55 per week--putting it out of reach for most people.17

Insurance company representatives also told the Social Justice Commission that they are not prepared to offer any adequate schemes for insurance against unemployment. Levels of burglaries, fires and deaths can be roughly predicted and insurance premiums worked out accordingly. If private unemployment insurance existed, the 1991 recession would have wiped out any company that had set its premiums the year before.18 All such insurance schemes, whether for pensions or unemployment, face the same difficulty--the most vulnerable are the least able to pay.

Two thirds of pensioners live on less than £80 a week, and half of these are living below the poverty line.19 These people have paid into the social security system all their lives, through national insurance, income tax and indirect taxes such as VAT. The problem they face is not welfare dependency, but low pensions. While pensioners are failed by the current welfare system, the vast majority would be even worse off under the private pension schemes proposed in order to save the ruling class money

 

[Keith]

Did you know cell phones were now available in the USA:
Welfare recipients now eligible to receive cell phones
on top of food stamps, child benefit packages etc. I think the USA offers more welfare than the UK.

They're not called cellphones here anymore, they are called "Looting Organisers"

 

[domtoni]

See changes below.

From 2000 - 2006, the Republicans increased the debt by $3.321T a 59% increase
From 2007 - 2008, the Dems increased the debt by $1.036T, 11.6%
From 2008 - 2009, the Dems increased the debt by $1.990, 18.9%
From 2009 - 2010, the Dems increased the debt by $1.653, 13.9%
From 2010 - 2011, the Dems increased the debt by $1.947, 14.4%
From 2011 - 2012, the Republicans increased debt by $1.178, 7.6%
Total Democratic increases from 2007 - 2011 $6.626T

Remember that income tax revenues in this period were $1.1 - 1.4T. So, a tax increase to a total rate of 35 - 40% on those on "rich" will bring in an extra $0.44T. And that was calculating at a full 40% on top of the $1.7T in total wages the "rich" made.

As you can see, spending has to be cut. Or the other option is to increase the tax base by having more people working and paying taxes. Oh yea, the bottom 50% of the labour market don't may more than 3% Federal taxes anyway.

Fromm the NYT:
But at the end of 2007, the federal debt was 64.4 percent of the economy. Today, it is estimated at around 100 percent of gross domestic product, a share not seen since the aftermath of World War II, and there is little chance of lawmakers reaching consensus on additional stimulus that would increase the debt.

Nick, I will go through the numbers on the spending increase for "entitlements" and post them for your information.

 

[domtoni]

Nick,

You can now compare the two US budgets from 2000 and 2010. You can see how entitlements and defense have grown. Don't forget to see how debt has grown.

 

[Jeff Young]

Here's a pretty basic statistic. We had a balanced budget in 2000. By 2008 we had huge deficits and mounting debt, right when we needed money to spend on stimulus and the bailouts.

We got to that place, in 2008, primarily through an economic policy of tax cutting without commensurate cuts in spending. The two biggest spending increases were the Medicare prescription supplement (pushed by Bush and adopted wholeheartedly by the Democrats in Cnogress) and fighting two wars.

I don't care WHO was responsible. I know WHAT was. And what not to do again. Taxes need to go up, and spending down.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jeff..............................+1

 

[Pat]

You understand the difference between teh Federal Reserve taking action on monetary policy to stimulate the economy (by attempting to keep interest rates low, which they already are) and the federal government attempting to stimulate the economy via stimulus/deficit spending right?

Yep, and how are they working so far???
Unemployment won't go over 8% right? We have "shovel ready" infrastructure projects and so we have lots of new roads and bridges and prosperity, right?? And the Treasury Secretary guarantees the US will never lose its AAA rating (Ahem… isn’t he the same fellow that headed the New York FED when it oversaw all the subprime shenanigans played by Wall Street and was caught “underpaying” his taxes?) And now the economic policy that belonged to George Bush when he was president now belongs solely to the Republicans in the House of Representatives. The president must now be so weak he is powerless. It’s Boehner’s fault, no wait, the Tea Party’s fault, the Japanese tsunami’s fault, the Europeans fault, Kaddafi’s fault, the gridlock’s fault, Sarah Palin’s fault, global warming fault, people who won’t buy VOLT’s fault, Boeings trying to move operations to South Carolina’s fault, the Supreme Court’s fault, the S&P’s fault, corporate jet owners fault, fat cat millionaires and billionaires fault, oil companies fault, insurance companies fault, greedy doctors that perform unnecessary treatments so get more money’s fault, Wall Street’s fault, the stupid electorate who voted in conservatives fault. I guess I could add to the list every time the President makes a speech but that might get tiresome.

 

[Doug S.]

I don't care WHO was responsible. I know WHAT was. And what not to do again. Taxes need to go up, and spending down.

I care WHO was responsible, Jeff.

Keep in mind that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

The Repubs have been pressuring all the noobs in congress to follow the "party line"....threatening to cut off party funds for advertising and other election related costs if they don't. To my eyes, the Republican party, with only a few exceptions, like Ron Paul, has acted like ONE entity in the recent partisan gridlock.

They've been very consistent with that action, and I have no reason to believe that their behavior will change in the future.

Nor do I believe that the TEA party contingent will cease and desist in their bullying tactics within the party; quite the opposite, I think they will get even worse.

I agree with you re: WHAT needs to be done, I just don't have any confidence that the Republican party can do it, given their current legislative posture.

We really need moderation in these times, compromise to the center rather than movement toward the philosophy demonstrated by the radical fringe elements. IMHO, the Republican party has demonstrated that they are unable to make that change and the TEA party, whose rather surprising "addition" to the numbers gave the Republican party their majority in the House, is unwilling to move to the center at all; rather, they seem to be making every effort to drag the Republican party to the far right with them.

No confidence in the Republican party, no viable 3rd party...all that's left is the Democrats, IMHO.

Agreed, though, that a combination of spending cuts and increased revenue is the ONLY way out of this mess...but I agree with a bumper sticker I plan to put on the car one of my "radical conservative" friends drives..."The needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few" :laugh: .

IMHO, that's the problem with the current Republican party, they are so aligned with the "greedy few" that they have lost all sight of what the country needs.

So, on second thought, perhaps I DO agree with you....WHO put us where we are now is history, we can't change that, so perhaps it's non-productive to care WHO put us there.

However, I DO care about who will get us out of this mess....and IMHO we can't afford more Republican-engineered gridlock, we need action!

Cheers, Doug!!

 

[Doug S.]

Yep, and how are they working so far???
Unemployment won't go over 8% right? We have "shovel ready" infrastructure projects and so we have lots of new roads and bridges and prosperity, right?? And the Treasury Secretary guarantees the US will never lose its AAA rating (Ahem… isn’t he the same fellow that headed the New York FED when it oversaw all the subprime shenanigans played by Wall Street and was caught “underpaying” his taxes?) And now the economic policy that belonged to George Bush when he was president now belongs solely to the Republicans in the House of Representatives. The president must now be so weak he is powerless. It’s Boehner’s fault, no wait, the Tea Party’s fault, the Japanese tsunami’s fault, the Europeans fault, Kaddafi’s fault, the gridlock’s fault, Sarah Palin’s fault, global warming fault, people who won’t buy VOLT’s fault, Boeings trying to move operations to South Carolina’s fault, the Supreme Court’s fault, the S&P’s fault, corporate jet owners fault, fat cat millionaires and billionaires fault, oil companies fault, insurance companies fault, greedy doctors that perform unnecessary treatments so get more money’s fault, Wall Street’s fault, the stupid electorate who voted in conservatives fault. I guess I could add to the list every time the President makes a speech but that might get tiresome.

Veek, I have to tell you, I really like many of your posts.....your sense of sarcasm can be quite endearing and humorous!

....not particularly persuasive, but humorous, to be sure :thumbsup: .

Thanks for the belly-laugh!!!!

Cheers, Doug!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

The balanced budget in 2000 was due to a republican house and senate, Clinton was a lame duck, just like GWB 2007-2009 with a democrat house and senate.

 

[Pat]

Veek, I have to tell you, I really like many of your posts.....your sense of sarcasm can be quite endearing and humorous!

....not particularly persuasive, but humorous, to be sure :thumbsup: .

Thanks for the belly-laugh!!!!

Cheers, Doug!

Thanks Doug, I try...

 

[Pat]

The balanced budget in 2000 was due to a republican house and senate, Clinton was a lame duck, just like GWB 2007-2009 with a democrat house and senate.

In fairness they also had three guys (among others) named Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Michael Dell creating a trillion dollar industry that created thousands of jobs, poured tax money into the treasury and created massive wealth for millions. Timing was perfect for the YTK panic and massive corporate technology spending.
Unfortunately, we seem to have gotten addicted to that level of tax revenue stream and keep spending like we still have it.

 

[Jeff Young]

It's not that complicated. This last round of foolishness was the fault of some very simple minded folk in Congress who refused to raise taxes at all costs, even when their party leadership had a deal worked out with the President that would have resulted in spending cuts and tax increases sufficient to keep our AAA rating.

So it goes.

Cost us a trillion dollars in value on the stock market.

Yep, and how are they working so far???
Unemployment won't go over 8% right? We have "shovel ready" infrastructure projects and so we have lots of new roads and bridges and prosperity, right?? And the Treasury Secretary guarantees the US will never lose its AAA rating (Ahem… isn’t he the same fellow that headed the New York FED when it oversaw all the subprime shenanigans played by Wall Street and was caught “underpaying” his taxes?) And now the economic policy that belonged to George Bush when he was president now belongs solely to the Republicans in the House of Representatives. The president must now be so weak he is powerless. It’s Boehner’s fault, no wait, the Tea Party’s fault, the Japanese tsunami’s fault, the Europeans fault, Kaddafi’s fault, the gridlock’s fault, Sarah Palin’s fault, global warming fault, people who won’t buy VOLT’s fault, Boeings trying to move operations to South Carolina’s fault, the Supreme Court’s fault, the S&P’s fault, corporate jet owners fault, fat cat millionaires and billionaires fault, oil companies fault, insurance companies fault, greedy doctors that perform unnecessary treatments so get more money’s fault, Wall Street’s fault, the stupid electorate who voted in conservatives fault. I guess I could add to the list every time the President makes a speech but that might get tiresome.