Two Americas - A US Perspective

[Keith]

I shall be simple as I am a simple person. Everyone should share the tax burden - everyone, individuals, benefit claimants, small business big business everyone. Even if the lowest threshold is a cent on the dollar. That would be an inclusive policy which may even engender a purely "us" philosophy.

Being in a "tax free" band seems to me to attract unfair and unwelcome criticism.

Setting the respective thresholds would not be easy, but nor is living in a divided and increasingly disparate society.

 

[Jim Craik]

Pat,

A couple of other things changed around the 1970's

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Pat,

It appears to me that the average cost of living has increased at a higher rate than the average income. The average income has fallen to the point where (see below)

Now I know that many here on our fourm say these Americans are lazy, not paying any taxes, getting a free ride, these horrable people are whats wrong with America, they should not be allowed to vote.....

So in 1970 just 20% of Americans did not make enough to pay taxes, but today that number is much higher.

During that same time, the amount of wealth of the few has increased substantially.

Is seems to me that this has been extreme "wealth redistribution", but not the kind Fox talks about.

I think all full time working Americans should make enough to pay taxes.

Pat, If all full time, working Americans were paid enough to actually pay taxes, do you think America would be better off or worse off?

If all full time, working Americans were paid enough to buy a car, a computer, maybe even a home, do you think America Would be better off or worse off.

There is much made of the low earners and their tax liabilities but the bottom line is all of their income is shoved back into the tax system merry go round. A high earner that pays tax probably puts the difference away in savings with nil benefits to anyone other than a bank. I bet $20,000 or so spent by a non tax paying citizen would benefit the states tax collectors more than the contents of high earners stagnant bank account.

Bob

Edit. I will see if i can find a Graph to prove it.

 

[Keith]

As long as it isn't spent in the black economy. It's a massive problem in the UK with millions of cash £'s spirited away overseas. No benefit at all to UK inc. and an increasing burden to dwindling tax payers.

Bob, one thing you'll notice on these 'discussions' is that our American friends will rarely respond to our posts. That is because they are still engaged in a 100 year exercise in futility called American Politics. Quite why anyone thought they had abandoned isolationism beats the hell out of me.

 

[Pat]

Pat,

A couple of other things changed around the 1970's

QUOTE]

Yep, when union jobs starting going away and the government started it's spending binge...

How's it going so far?

Federal Spending 1970 $195.6 billion
Poverty rate 1970 13.7%

Federal Spending 2010 $3.5 trillion
Poverty rate 2010 15.0%

 

[Robert May Eng.]

As long as it isn't spent in the black economy. It's a massive problem in the UK with millions of cash £'s spirited away overseas. No benefit at all to UK inc. and an increasing burden to dwindling tax payers.

Bob, one thing you'll notice on these 'discussions' is that our American friends will rarely respond to our posts. That is because they are still engaged in a 100 year exercise in futility called American Politics. Quite why anyone thought they had abandoned isolationism beats the hell out of me.

I have tried adding a few yips and yehas into the post but that does not work either Colonel. I guess I will have to try other means

Bob

 

[Jim Craik]

Pat,

A couple of other things changed around the 1970's

QUOTE]

Yep, when union jobs starting going away and the government started it's spending binge...

How's it going so far?

Federal Spending 1970 $195.6 billion
Poverty rate 1970 13.7%

Federal Spending 2010 $3.5 trillion
Poverty rate 2010 15.0%

Pat, the huge increase in Govenment spending had nothing to do with the decline of unions. The reason that govenmevt spending went through the roof is the other thing that happed right around 1970, Republican Presidents!

From 1968 through 1992 with the exception of four Carter years, we had nothing mut cut taxes, increase spending Republicans.

Pat rather than typing to blame the huge spending increase on unions and the middle class, why not blame those responsible? The blame lies with Reagan, BushI and BushII.


Reagan cut taxes and increased the debt by +186%

BushI increased the debt by +54%

BushII cut taxes and incresed the debt by +101%

 

[Larry L.]

I shall be simple as I am a simple person. Everyone should share the tax burden - everyone, individuals, benefit claimants, small business big business everyone. Even if the lowest threshold is a cent on the dollar. That would be an inclusive policy which may even engender a purely "us" philosophy.

Being in a "tax free" band seems to me to attract unfair and unwelcome criticism.

Setting the respective thresholds would not be easy, but nor is living in a divided and increasingly disparate society.

Nothing else need be said!

Well put!

 

[Jack]

Well guy's. we can't change history. We can change the future.

 

[Pat]

Pat, the huge increase in Govenment spending had nothing to do with the decline of unions. The reason that govenmevt spending went through the roof is the other thing that happed right around 1970, Republican Presidents!

From 1968 through 1992 with the exception of four Carter years, we had nothing mut cut taxes, increase spending Republicans.

Pat rather than typing to blame the huge spending increase on unions and the middle class, why not blame those responsible? The blame lies with Reagan, BushI and BushII.

Reagan cut taxes and increased the debt by +186%

BushI increased the debt by +54%

BushII cut taxes and incresed the debt by +101%

Jim, first, you missed my point about unions and the government spending. We were talking about income disparity and my point was that in spite of all the efforts and money to poverty programs and union wage concessions (which have killed manufacturing jobs not helped them), the decades of the government's poverty programs, poverty is worse not better today as is income disparity. Government apparently isn't the answer. Both are getting worse.

As far as the debt goes, big government is a big problem, regardless of which party runs it. They are all two sides of the same bureaucratic coin. But perhaps you need to brush up on your civics. The federal budget is originated in the House of representatives and passed by both houses of congress. A president may veto it or sign it into law.
The democrats have controlled the house for 14 of the past 22 years. They have controlled the senate for 8 and the presidency for 9.

I'm not sure where you get your deficit numbers but according to Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesgl...udget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012

As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget.

 

[Jim Craik]

We Pat, you numbers are interesting, but this is from SNOPES:

We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year.

From these records, we gleaned the following information:

Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%

George H.W. Bush:
Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Left office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Percent change in total debt: +55%

Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%

George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%

Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion
Percent change in total debt: +34%

So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported). That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility. In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:

• The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama). Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances) the increase reported for Barack Obama will be considerably higher by the time he leaves office (whether that be in 2013 or 2017).

*********

So Pat, Reagan increased the debt 218%, what per cent did the GDP increase during Reagans Presidency?

I bet it wasn't close to 218%

 

[Robert May Eng.]

We Pat, you numbers are interesting, but this is from SNOPES:

We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year.

From these records, we gleaned the following information:

Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%

George H.W. Bush:
Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Left office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Percent change in total debt: +55%

Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%

George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%

Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion
Percent change in total debt: +34%

So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported). That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility. In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:

• The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama). Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances) the increase reported for Barack Obama will be considerably higher by the time he leaves office (whether that be in 2013 or 2017).

*********

So Pat, Reagan increased the debt 218%, what per cent did the GDP increase during Reagans Presidency?

I bet it wasn't close to 218%

Not that I would expect an answer but on what have they spent all these billions of $. Is there a feasible explanation like massive investment in infrastructure or improvements in public services that would in part be responsible for this overspend?????


Bob

 

[Pat]

We Pat, you numbers are interesting, but this is from SNOPES:



So Pat, Reagan increased the debt 218%, what per cent did the GDP increase during Reagans Presidency?

I bet it wasn't close to 218%

You're right, Forbes has the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past presidents:

Ronald Reagan
1981-88 4.2 %
1982-89 4.2
Average 4.2

Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

Or actuals:
President Ronald Reagan
Jan. 20, 1981*: $934,073,000,000
Jan. 20, 1989*: $2,697,957, 000,000
Days in Office: 2,922
Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 14.18%

President George W. Bush
Jan. 20, 2001: $5,727,776,738,304.64
Jan. 20, 2009: $10,626,877,048,913.08
Days in Office: 2,922
Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 8.03%

President Barack Obama
Jan. 20, 2009: $10,626,877,048,913.08
Jan. 4, 2011: $14,025,215,218,708.52
Days in Office: 715
Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 15.21%

But under any measure, I'm willing to concede ALL the presidents have spent too much money and the debt is unsustainable. Are you?

 

[Jim Craik]

Yes Pat, all Presidents since Kennedy have either spent too much or even worse, cut taxes and spent too much.

Increase in National Debt by President

Kennedy +8%
Johnson +13%

Ford +47%****

Carter +43%

Reagan +186%****

BushI +54%****

Clinton +32%

BushII +101%****

Obama +44%


Since Kennedy the debt increase by Party:

Democrats have raised the debt approx.......................140%
Republicans have raised the debt approx......................422%

The best Republican Ford, in only 3 years still raised the debt a higher per cent than the worst Democrat Obama in 5 years.

Yet these same Republicans are outraged that President Obama after inheriting a crashed economy and huge unemployment raised the debt a measly 44%.

The Consevative Entertainment Complex has convinced the gulible right that 422% debt increase from the Republicans is not really a problem, even good for the economy............

....but a 140% increase from Democrats will destroy America............

 

[marc]

Jim,
Whats the real number on Obama debt. By listing only 2 years of debt, you have "misrepresented the facts." Currently we are looking at 17 Trillion debt and has more to go. It is estimated that by the end of the Obama presidency, we are looking at 25 Trillion dollars of debt and not including the Obamacare debacle. This will be what, 150% or more increase of debt by Obama and the Democrat party.

If you considered that in 2006 the Democrat party was in control of the House and Senate that passed legislation to create the debt under BushII, Bush would have been closer to Clinton, even with the war spending. Bush as a lame duck president was more moderate to liberal as he finished his term.

Clinton had a Republican Congress that limited his spending, so I don't see how that was the answer.

Reagan had Democrat Congress and was looking for line item veto powers to kill some of the runaway spending by congress. Reagan also used the defense buying to fake the Russians into ending the Cold War. How much is that worth?

Y'all just want to blame the guy on top, when the whole bunch of them are worthless when it comes to saving money.
I call BS on you, Jim. Don't distort facts that don't tell whole story. Caveats are not going to cut it.

 

[Jim Craik]

Marc, this is from FACTCHECK, the most recent numbers I could find. So from 44% to 56% in three years.........................at that rate he'll never catch the Great Reagan's 186%

These are among the findings in our latest update of “Obama’s Numbers.”

 

[marc]

Per Fact check.
2.5 million jobs - pathetic
7.3% unemployment - the real number (U6) is 17%
S&P up because of 85B per month of pumping by Bernake
58% more debt - That ain't so bad, your kids will have to pay the govt 1m each to get out of debt.
89% more public debt because the public is going broke.
10% more for goods mainly due to oil and gas costs
82% more for gas - wow sell your GT40 and walk (not to mention that 3/4 goes to govt taxes)
-5% Real income, not getting any more welfare checks, thats not good.
+6.7M in poverty - still not looking good for Pres O
no change in earnings, wow
Food Stamps, +49%, more poverty
51% more US oil, I would sell more local oil if I could make billions in profit and not pay tax too.
And let the Arabs make money?
+192% wind and solar - should I mention Solyndra?
Military deaths suck and they are up under O!
and the Big One
People liking us - who cares they liked us before they hated us before.

Fact Check is not working in your favor of liking El Jefe O
In fact (lol) the facts show that his plan is not working for the poor or middle class. The fact check missed the number of 1%ers increased around Washington DC to lead all of the US. Wonder why?

 

[marc]

Silence, not even a whisper. Oh my.

 

[Jim Craik]

Marc,

There is silence because discussing things with you is like listening to Fox news, way too much bullshit.

These is no point in trying to discuss facts when you blatently make post after post say things like Alaska is a Democratic State.........

Just looking at your last round of bullshit.................

You said: "Military deaths suck and they are up under O!"

So you are saying that Military deaths are up under Obama?

You are implying that Obama has been responsible for killing more US Military than BushII?

And you believe this to be true?

That is total bullshit and you know it.

Even if we forget that Republicans Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld and the rest lied us into two unnessisary wars...............

Even if we forget that they failed to win either war and left their horrific mess for President Oabama to clean up, but of course they will blame him for that very mess!

Even if we forget that virtually all the US deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan should be laid at the feet of BushII.

Even if we forget how ridiculous blaming a US Military death on President Obama on his Inauguration Day.

Even if we forget all that, your statement.......

"Military deaths suck and they are up under O!"

Marc that is complete crap, here are the US militry deaths in the two Republican wars (not including all our allies and civilians who also gave their lives)

Iraq:

Total US military deaths...........................4,489 est
Total deaths After Obama took office............256 est

Afghanistan:

Total US military deaths...........................2,144 est
Total deaths after Obama took office.........1,575 est

OK Marc, lets do the Math.....

Total US military deaths in both Bush wars..........................6,633 est

US Military Deaths until the last minute of President Bush...........4,802 est
US Military deaths since the minute Obama took office...............1,831 est

Marc, tell us again about how US military deaths are up under President Obama.

 

[marc]

I'm just reading what you posted on fact check. THEY quoted it. YOU posted it. I did not state anything that you did not post. I know there are deaths in the wars. Just look at what you listed.

This has nothing to do with Fox News. BTW I watch all of the news channels from time to time.

Obama said that he would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. My brother voted for him because he said so. So why do we have deaths in Afghanistan? Obama promised and still after 6 years he has not done so. Therefore Obama has lied. And people(military) are still dying.

BTW How many died from BushI? Most of the BushII deaths are from the police action we have done to prop up Iraq, than during actual confrontation. We should have left that hell hole in ruin. Look at all the money and lives we would have saved.