I say again: "So, the additional >borrowed money< generated by raising the debt ceiling is coming to us >interest free< then???"
More USA political questions
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
I say again: "So, the additional >borrowed money< generated by raising the debt ceiling is coming to us >interest free< then???"
Pat
Supporter
Jim, the Bush tax cuts had sunset provisions that made them expire at the end of 2010. Mr. Obama signed a two-year extension that was part of a larger tax and economic package, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. In 2012, during the fiscal cliff, the tax cuts were made permanent for single people making less than $400,000 per year and couples making less than $450,000 per year, and eliminated for everyone else, under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.
Before the tax cuts, the highest marginal income tax rate was 39.6 percent. After the cuts, the highest rate was 35 percent. Once the cuts were eliminated for high income levels (single people making $400,000+ per year and couples making $450,000+ per year), the top income tax rate returned to 39.6 percent. Given the history of the past week, it's pretty clear that Mr. Obama has control of congress and effectively neutered the opposition party. He certainly demonstrated he doesn't have to go along with anything he wishes not to.
I will certainly agree that Mr. Bush was a profligate spender but Mr. Obama took your complaints and seems to have doubled down on them. Your chart shows that.
For the record, other taxes Mr. Obama increased largely in the “fiscal cliff” deal allowed:
1. Payroll Tax: increase in the Social Security portion of the payroll tax from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent for workers. This hits all Americans earning a paycheck—not just the “wealthy.” For example, The Wall Street Journal calculated that the “typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year” will lose “an annual income boost of $1,000.”
2. Top marginal tax rate: increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).
3. Phase out of personal exemptions for adjusted gross income (AGI) over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).
4. Phase down of itemized deductions for AGI over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).
5. Tax rates on investment: increase in the rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).
6. Death tax: increase in the rate (on estates larger than $5 million) from 35 percent to 40 percent.
7. Taxes on business investment: expiration of full expensing—the immediate deduction of capital purchases by businesses.
ACA (Obamacare) tax increases that took effect:
8. Another investment tax increase: 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for taxpayers with taxable income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles).
9. Another payroll tax hike: 0.9 percent increase in the Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax for incomes over $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers).
10. Medical device tax: 2.3 percent excise tax paid by medical device manufacturers and importers on all their sales.
11. Reducing the income tax deduction for individuals’ medical expenses.
12. Elimination of the corporate income tax deduction for expenses related to the Medicare Part D subsidy.
13. Limitation of the corporate income tax deduction for compensation that health insurance companies pay to their executives.
As for the military budget, the Pentagon is forced to slash more than $50 billion from the 2014 budget and half a trillion over 10 years as a result of congressionally mandated cuts.
The reductions would come on top of $487 billion that President Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to in August 2011.
The well is running dry.
Here is an illustrative example that some may find more entertaining than chart curves...
The video is a bit dated but it makes the point...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE]DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. - YouTube[/ame]
Before the tax cuts, the highest marginal income tax rate was 39.6 percent. After the cuts, the highest rate was 35 percent. Once the cuts were eliminated for high income levels (single people making $400,000+ per year and couples making $450,000+ per year), the top income tax rate returned to 39.6 percent. Given the history of the past week, it's pretty clear that Mr. Obama has control of congress and effectively neutered the opposition party. He certainly demonstrated he doesn't have to go along with anything he wishes not to.
I will certainly agree that Mr. Bush was a profligate spender but Mr. Obama took your complaints and seems to have doubled down on them. Your chart shows that.
For the record, other taxes Mr. Obama increased largely in the “fiscal cliff” deal allowed:
1. Payroll Tax: increase in the Social Security portion of the payroll tax from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent for workers. This hits all Americans earning a paycheck—not just the “wealthy.” For example, The Wall Street Journal calculated that the “typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year” will lose “an annual income boost of $1,000.”
2. Top marginal tax rate: increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).
3. Phase out of personal exemptions for adjusted gross income (AGI) over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).
4. Phase down of itemized deductions for AGI over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).
5. Tax rates on investment: increase in the rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).
6. Death tax: increase in the rate (on estates larger than $5 million) from 35 percent to 40 percent.
7. Taxes on business investment: expiration of full expensing—the immediate deduction of capital purchases by businesses.
ACA (Obamacare) tax increases that took effect:
8. Another investment tax increase: 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for taxpayers with taxable income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles).
9. Another payroll tax hike: 0.9 percent increase in the Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax for incomes over $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers).
10. Medical device tax: 2.3 percent excise tax paid by medical device manufacturers and importers on all their sales.
11. Reducing the income tax deduction for individuals’ medical expenses.
12. Elimination of the corporate income tax deduction for expenses related to the Medicare Part D subsidy.
13. Limitation of the corporate income tax deduction for compensation that health insurance companies pay to their executives.
As for the military budget, the Pentagon is forced to slash more than $50 billion from the 2014 budget and half a trillion over 10 years as a result of congressionally mandated cuts.
The reductions would come on top of $487 billion that President Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to in August 2011.
The well is running dry.
Here is an illustrative example that some may find more entertaining than chart curves...
The video is a bit dated but it makes the point...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE]DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. - YouTube[/ame]
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Pat,
This chart seems to show they we are paying considerable more for the military than in 1997-1999, even without the (red) spending on the two usless wars, why do you suppose that is?
Pat are we really spending as much in adjusted dollars on the military as we were at the height of the Cold War? Thats not including what we are spending on the wars (in red).
WHY?
This chart seems to show they we are paying considerable more for the military than in 1997-1999, even without the (red) spending on the two usless wars, why do you suppose that is?
Pat are we really spending as much in adjusted dollars on the military as we were at the height of the Cold War? Thats not including what we are spending on the wars (in red).
WHY?
Last edited:
They sure have. Its theirs, you know, they printed it.
Hey lonesomebob and other teabaggers- what did you gain from the shutdown and taking us to the edge of default?? Going to go this route again in Jan.? My solution is let the South secede. You guys can have your country and we can have ours. Don't think this is another Civil War? Look at where the vast majority of Tea Party Representatives come from.
Pat
Supporter
Pat
Supporter
Pat,
This chart seems to show they we are paying considerable more for the military than in 1997-1999, even without the (red) spending on the two usless wars, why do you suppose that is?
Pat are we really spending as much in adjusted dollars on the military as we were at the height of the Cold War? Thats not including what we are spending on the wars (in red).
WHY?
Have a look at the government spending site at the bottom, it paints a slightly different picture but defense has gotten geometrically more expensive on a per item basis. But while the size of the force is certainly much smaller and a fraction of WWII or Vietnam Era, acquisition expense has skyrocketed. Consider the price of a F35 (in my opinion a massive redundancy with the F22) at $159 million versus a P51 @ $51,900 in 1945 or even an F-4 @ $14.1 million. I'm told "Stealth" alone has increased the cost by a factor of 25. Please understand, I've seen first hand gross excesses in DOD spending and I believe a meat cleaver not a scalpel ought to be applied to their expenses, especially in acquisitions. Here's an example:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ng-brand-new-c-27j-spartans-article-1.1479580
Here's the spending site I mentioned.
Charts of Defense Spending - UsGovernmentSpending.com
Last edited:
How do you communicate with someone who is so invested in the Regime's dogma?
Give 'em a few buzzwords and they're set.
Good luck, Dave.
"Dave's not here."~ Who said that, Cheech or Chong?
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
It cannot survive without cutting spending and reducing debt. America is bankrupt, if a business was run the same way the directors would be jailed.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
It's not going to happen Pete (IMO) there are too many people getting too many hand outs and payments for a change of play ever to take place
Ian
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
You are assuming that government should operate as a business, and the answer is "no."
Most economists, including "conservative" ones, believe that a government operating on a yearly deficit basis is just fine (and in fact a boost to the economy via the multiplier effect on its spending) so long as creditors continue to believe they will be repaid.
It's that last part that is key, not the deficit/debt itself per se. ON that last part, things like threatening a default even though the deficit is falling is the problem.
We will survive just fine. Our debt to GDP ratio was significantly higher in 1945 and we worked it down. Went back up again in the 80s when we had to spend to deal with the Soviets, and then again in 2008 to prevent the collapse of the world economy (which admittedly we played a large role in causing).
The overstated "handout" mantra really only applies to Medicare and end of life stuff. We have far fewer folks on unemployment or the "dole" than in Europe and our systems are set up to stay that way.
What you see driving the forecasted increasing deficits of post 2016 are almost all increased Medicare costs. And on that, Europeans do things much better. If you are 80, you don't get an immediate hip replacement. If you are 85, you don't get experimental cancer treatment. You do in the US. Something like 90% of all our health care costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and THAT believe it or not is what will drive the US defficit and debt to unsustainable levels (as those costs are funded primarily by Medicare) in the 2030s.
Unless we adopt the European model and ration. As we should.
Most economists, including "conservative" ones, believe that a government operating on a yearly deficit basis is just fine (and in fact a boost to the economy via the multiplier effect on its spending) so long as creditors continue to believe they will be repaid.
It's that last part that is key, not the deficit/debt itself per se. ON that last part, things like threatening a default even though the deficit is falling is the problem.
We will survive just fine. Our debt to GDP ratio was significantly higher in 1945 and we worked it down. Went back up again in the 80s when we had to spend to deal with the Soviets, and then again in 2008 to prevent the collapse of the world economy (which admittedly we played a large role in causing).
The overstated "handout" mantra really only applies to Medicare and end of life stuff. We have far fewer folks on unemployment or the "dole" than in Europe and our systems are set up to stay that way.
What you see driving the forecasted increasing deficits of post 2016 are almost all increased Medicare costs. And on that, Europeans do things much better. If you are 80, you don't get an immediate hip replacement. If you are 85, you don't get experimental cancer treatment. You do in the US. Something like 90% of all our health care costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and THAT believe it or not is what will drive the US defficit and debt to unsustainable levels (as those costs are funded primarily by Medicare) in the 2030s.
Unless we adopt the European model and ration. As we should.
"Most economists, including "conservative" ones, believe that a government operating on a yearly deficit basis is just fine (and in fact a boost to the economy via the multiplier effect on its spending) so long as creditors continue to believe they will be repaid."
^^^ Pure liberal hogwash (along with 99% of the other info). The same kind of liberal 'happy face' economics says FOOD STAMPS are a money maker for the taxpayer.
If any of that anti "balanced budget" argument/spin is actually true, then, why are STATES required - by law - to run on balanced budgets (setting slick 'accounting' gimmicks that would put you and me in prison aside)?
"Unless we adopt the European model and ration. As we should."
MORE bull feathers! The U.S. wasn't set up to BE a socialist state. If you want to live under a European-style socialist govt system, there are planes departing daily that are headed in that direction.
'Unbelievable...
^^^ Pure liberal hogwash (along with 99% of the other info). The same kind of liberal 'happy face' economics says FOOD STAMPS are a money maker for the taxpayer.
If any of that anti "balanced budget" argument/spin is actually true, then, why are STATES required - by law - to run on balanced budgets (setting slick 'accounting' gimmicks that would put you and me in prison aside)?
"Unless we adopt the European model and ration. As we should."
MORE bull feathers! The U.S. wasn't set up to BE a socialist state. If you want to live under a European-style socialist govt system, there are planes departing daily that are headed in that direction.
'Unbelievable...
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Yes, most economists of both political "persuasions" think a balanced budget amendment is hooey, and it hamstrings the government from putting money into the economy when necessary. Dick Cheney: Deficits don't matter. Dick Cheney: Liberal "hogwash?"
And yes, when 90% of your health care costs that the government is paying for occur end of life, and that is the primary cause of your deficits, personal and fiscal responsbility require you to ration.
Oh yeah. And FUCK YOU for telling me I need to leave my country, where I'm pretty damn sure I pay far more in taxes than you do in order to fund your retirement and your health care in retirement. You say that shit to my face and you have a BIG problem internet tough guy.
It's ignorant folk like yourself who breed the hate and distrust of others in this country that is rending us apart. If you can't have a reasonable conversation with another American about our country then go fucking live in a cabin in Montana by yourself.
And yes, when 90% of your health care costs that the government is paying for occur end of life, and that is the primary cause of your deficits, personal and fiscal responsbility require you to ration.
Oh yeah. And FUCK YOU for telling me I need to leave my country, where I'm pretty damn sure I pay far more in taxes than you do in order to fund your retirement and your health care in retirement. You say that shit to my face and you have a BIG problem internet tough guy.
It's ignorant folk like yourself who breed the hate and distrust of others in this country that is rending us apart. If you can't have a reasonable conversation with another American about our country then go fucking live in a cabin in Montana by yourself.
"And F--- YOU for telling me I need to leave my country"
"It's >IGNORANT< (all conservatives are ignorant, stupid, etc., etc.) folk like yourself who BREED THE HATE and distrust of others in this country that is rending us apart.
"You say that s--- to my face and you have a BIG problem ('should be a coma here) internet tough guy." (Uh...WHO'S the "internet tough guy"?)
Ahum...uh...WHO called WHOM names, threw 4 letter expressions at the other, and then made threats? As a big time lawyer, you REALLY ought to know better than to do the latter, Mr. Young.
"And FUCK YOU for telling me I need to leave my country"
'Did no such thing. I said: "IF YOU WANT to live under a European-style socialist govt system, there are planes departing daily that are headed in that direction." 'Didn't TELL you to do diddley.
You're really amazing. Sheeeeze...
Now, I'm headed for the international car show in Seattle. You can rant on w/o me for at least the next 6 hours...at a minimum.
"It's >IGNORANT< (all conservatives are ignorant, stupid, etc., etc.) folk like yourself who BREED THE HATE and distrust of others in this country that is rending us apart.
"You say that s--- to my face and you have a BIG problem ('should be a coma here) internet tough guy." (Uh...WHO'S the "internet tough guy"?)
Ahum...uh...WHO called WHOM names, threw 4 letter expressions at the other, and then made threats? As a big time lawyer, you REALLY ought to know better than to do the latter, Mr. Young.
"And FUCK YOU for telling me I need to leave my country"
'Did no such thing. I said: "IF YOU WANT to live under a European-style socialist govt system, there are planes departing daily that are headed in that direction." 'Didn't TELL you to do diddley.
You're really amazing. Sheeeeze...
Now, I'm headed for the international car show in Seattle. You can rant on w/o me for at least the next 6 hours...at a minimum.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
It's not a threat Larry, it's the truth. I've absolutely had it with fucktards like yourself saying shit like that on the internet, shit you wouldn't in a million years have the balls to say if you met me in person.
I put up a post politely expressing a point of view and you respond with your typical hateful crapola. No more. If you have any balls, and really aren't a 12 year old posting on your parents' computer, you'll stop with this mess because no adult I know would talk like you do here on this forum to other adults in person.
I put up a post politely expressing a point of view and you respond with your typical hateful crapola. No more. If you have any balls, and really aren't a 12 year old posting on your parents' computer, you'll stop with this mess because no adult I know would talk like you do here on this forum to other adults in person.
The Observer, Saturday 11 May 2013 21.02 BST
Recession is a good time to boost profits, says Cameron aide
Lord Young
The prime minister's adviser on enterprise has told the cabinet that the economic downturn is an excellent time for new businesses to boost profits and grow because labour is cheap, the Observer can reveal.
Lord Young, a cabinet minister under the late Baroness Thatcher, who is the only aide with his own office in Downing Street, told ministers that the low wage levels in a recession made larger financial returns easier to achieve.
And he's right. Although in a 'last in first out' industry I made most gains in recessional times. That is, I doubled the size of my companies an more than doubled the number of employees.
Everything was simpler marginal companies (the competion) had disappeared whilst financial expectations in terms of goods, rents and premiums reverted to sustainable levels.
I suspect you are lingering on the word 'profits' Nick - the big boogabear of socialists. Well, simply put, if you boost revenues, expand companies then it goes without saying that profits will rise and that is a Good Thing surely?
Gosh! Larry must be writing in a new code which I cannot decipher. What did he really say?
Everything was simpler marginal companies (the competion) had disappeared whilst financial expectations in terms of goods, rents and premiums reverted to sustainable levels.
I suspect you are lingering on the word 'profits' Nick - the big boogabear of socialists. Well, simply put, if you boost revenues, expand companies then it goes without saying that profits will rise and that is a Good Thing surely?
Gosh! Larry must be writing in a new code which I cannot decipher. What did he really say?
Er no
Nothing wrong with profit, (I ran a business once as well albeit a very small one), what is wrong is when it is forgotten who helped to make it He said that Jeff's idea that "Most economists, including "conservative" ones, believe that a government operating on a yearly deficit basis is just fine (and in fact a boost to the economy via the multiplier effect on its spending) so long as creditors continue to believe they will be repaid."
Was
Pure liberal hogwash (along with 99% of the other info).
As I would assume that most Governments do not operate at a surplus during a recession, it would appear to me that Conservative adviser Lord Young disagrees with Larry.
Last edited:
