Whoops

[diverdog]

All the righties screaming they pay to much in taxes...well it ain't true!


The U.S. Government Is One of the Best Bargains Around
By Rick Newman | U.S.News & World Report LP*–*Wed, Jul 25, 2012 11:10 AM EDT


If you could buy a Toyota Camry or an Apple iPad for 20 percent off the regular price, you'd probably consider it a great deal. Savvy buyers haggle for much smaller discounts on quality merchandise.
Few consumers have noticed, but the federal government has essentially been on sale, with taxpayers paying about 20 percent less than they used to for what Washington does. Yet unlike satisfied customers, taxpayers are increasingly fed up with the government they finance. This could make them downright surly when the price of government goes back up, which is a near certainty over the next few years.
[Slideshow: Obama's crackdown on corporate America]
The price we pay for government, of course, is taxes, and despite what inflammatory political rhetoric might suggest, they are at modern lows. A new report published by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the average household paid 17.4 percent of its income to the federal government in the form of taxes in 2009, the latest data available. Today's rate is probably comparable.
That's the lowest tax burden on record. It's about 20 percent lower than the federal tax burden in 1979, when the CBO's data series began. It's lower than the tax burden all throughout the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president. The federal tax bite drifted even higher in the 1990s (when the economy, notably, was booming), then plunged in the 2000s following across-the-board income-tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and more targeted cuts meant to ease the sting of the recession, starting in 2008.
[See what will happen to your taxes in 2013.]
Government services, instead of falling in proportion to the amount of revenue Washington takes in, have instead expanded. The military budget ballooned after the 2001 terror attacks, and is still far higher, in real terms, that it was during the Cold War. During the recession, Washington spent more on jobs programs and aid for the unemployed. Spending on Medicare and Social Security has been rising consistently.
Over the last few years, in fact, taxpayers have been getting the best deal in modern times, in terms of what they get from the government, and what they pay for it. Critics of government tend to focus on swelling regulatory bureaucracies or wayward projects like the loans that went to bankrupt energy company Solyndra, but the vast majority of federal spending goes toward defense or subsidies for the elderly, poor, or disabled. Even if taxpayers who fund those programs don't benefit directly from them, somebody in their family probably does.
The CBO report and others like it provide lots of fodder for activists all along the political spectrum. The wealthiest earners have enjoyed the biggest gains in income, for instance, which might fuel calls for higher taxes on the wealthy. Yet the wealthy also pay a disproportionately larger share of all taxes, while some low-income families pay no taxes at all. That might justify broadening the tax base, so everybody at least pays something.
[See why government will shrink, even if Obama wins re-election.]
The bigger point, however, is that the federal tax burden has been falling at every income level. This matters now because within a few months, we will embark on a huge battle over the future of tax and spending policy in Washington. Something dramatic will have to change. The mismatch between falling tax revenue and ballooning spending has been financed by borrowed money, which means that 20 percent discount on government services needs to be paid back somehow.
Pushing federal taxes back up to historical averages seems unlikely, since we've gotten rather used to lower taxes, plus it's an economically vulnerable time and many families couldn't absorb such a tax hike. Yet Washington can't keep spending money it doesn't have, and cutbacks will come out of somebody's pocket. For as much as we dislike government today, it's been quite a bargain. That's going to seem more and more evident as the cost goes back up.
Rick Newman is the author of Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback To Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

[soonercruiser]

Media appearances: Newman appears regularly on many major networks, including CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. He is also a monthly commentator on the PBS program Nightly Business Report. In addition, he has been interviewed on numerous national and major market radio programs.

Not impressed with any objectivity.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/pr/experts/business/rnewman.htm

[pphilfran]

Between 2007 and 2008 cap gains revenue was nearly cut in half...137 billion in taxes paid to 69 billion http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Max LTCGtax rate went from 15.7% to 15.35%

2 million less returns in 2009 vs 2008 http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html

It ain't the tax rate...it is the economy that stinks...

As long as we have GDP growth at 2% we will not see revenue grow...the only thing that will grow is the number of unemployed...

The focus should be on growing the economy and not the damn tax rate...

[pphilfran]

2.3 million more returns with an earned income credit...http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html

[pphilfran]

2006 and 2007 Corp income taxes as a % of GDP were at the highest rate since the late 1970's...nearly 3%...the recession took that down to 1% in 2009...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=263

[pphilfran]

Net federal debt has grown from 34.7% of GDP in 2000 to 36.8 in 2004 to 36.2 in 2007 to 72% in 2011

3.4 trillion dollars in 2000 to 5.8 trillion in 2008 to 10.8 trillion in 2011

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=199&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=23

[pphilfran]

We ain't gonna tax our way out of this chit...

[SicEmBaylor]

They're selling a product I don't want. Being forced to purchase a product, even if it's 20% off, is no bargain if I have no desire to purchase those goods.

[olevetonahill]

Ive noticed More people Right AND Left bitching about the Government WASTING Those taxes, rather than having to Pay em

[diverdog]

We ain't gonna tax our way out of this chit...

Phil:

The point is that most Americans do not pay a lot of taxes. I see people on here complaining that they do and by and large they don't.

[KABOOKIE]

Phil:

The point is that most Americans do not pay a lot of taxes. I see people on here complaining that they do and by and large they don't.

Yes, a lot of people in America don't even pay taxes.

[OU_Sooners75]

Diverdog...pay scale wise I don't pay taxes. I should be able to get them back at the end of the year.

But guess what I don't. I haven't seen a tax return in nearly 6 years. Not because I make too much, but because the government keeps it for childsupport rearage....which has actually been caught up since 2009. Yet they still keep it.

To be honest I don't care. I have grown not counting on it. So yes, this guy does pay taxes like the rich man does....just at a much lower rate.

That said, taxes is not going to bale us out on this. The government needs to drastically cut its spending. And a good place to start is some of the social programs, mainly food stamps and tanf crap.

Until the government stops giving people free money without those people actually paying into them, then the problem will neverget fixed.



Note: not calling, or hoping, for a revolt or violence, just real and drasti spending reform!

Tax the republic to death and the republic will revolt in some manner.

[cleller]

Yes, a lot of people in America don't even pay taxes.

And they're the ones screaming for more benefits.

[diverdog]

Diverdog...pay scale wise I don't pay taxes. I should be able to get them back at the end of the year.

But guess what I don't. I haven't seen a tax return in nearly 6 years. Not because I make too much, but because the government keeps it for childsupport rearage....which has actually been caught up since 2009. Yet they still keep it.

To be honest I don't care. I have grown not counting on it. So yes, this guy does pay taxes like the rich man does....just at a much lower rate.

That said, taxes is not going to bale us out on this. The government needs to drastically cut its spending. And a good place to start is some of the social programs, mainly food stamps and tanf crap.

Until the government stops giving people free money without those people actually paying into them, then the problem will neverget fixed.



Note: not calling, or hoping, for a revolt or violence, just real and drasti spending reform!

Tax the republic to death and the republic will revolt in some manner.

75:

We need some tax increases, some spending cuts and a lot of growth in the economy. The thing that upsets me is that the Republicans have completely back themselves into a corner
with the signing of a no new tax pledge that they cannot responsibily address our debt problems.

[cleller]

75:

We need some tax increases, some spending cuts and a lot of growth in the economy. The thing that upsets me is that the Republicans have completely back themselves into a corner
with the signing of a no new tax pledge that they cannot responsibily address our debt problems.

As a lifelong Republican, this irritates me, too. I don't like taxes, but signing a pledge about anything before taking office is stupid. How can you predict the future. Now, the pledge is held over their heads like a scarlet letter; blackmail.

[OU_Sooners75]

75:

We need some tax increases, some spending cuts and a lot of growth in the economy. The thing that upsets me is that the Republicans have completely back themselves into a corner
with the signing of a no new tax pledge that they cannot responsibily address our debt problems.

Yes it is irritating. But lets look at it this way too. (this is not really meant to be a lib vs con argument here just pointing fault on the other side too).

Since Obama took his pledge as the POTUS, the national debt everyone keeps talking about has reached an all time high, and continues to reach an all time high every second of every day.

Anyway....

Since going back to Kennedy, President Obama has operated at a -8.3% budget deficit. Meaning he has almost ran a budget deficit doubled that of Bush I and Regan.

Please note, not one president in this time frame (Kennedy to Obama) has ever ran in the black in their budget. All Presidents, including Clinton ran negative (in the red). Clinton was the lowest at -0.1%.

The President is the one that submits a budget. He is also the one that can veto any legislation, including government spending.

I want any and all democrats or far left liberals to name any and all things that President Obama has decided to stop spending money on that has actually made a dent in the budget and national debt?

Face it. President Obama is the most fiscally irresponsible president this nation as ever seen. And until the American public gets tired of putting up with the irresponsible spending, then nothing is going to change.

Want to change the economy? Give the economy something to get excited about. Want something the economy can get excited about? How about a balanced budget? Or a Budget that shows real progress to curb the spending of the federal government?

I agree, there is more that needs to be done than just taxes, but raising taxes should be the final straw.

[REDREX]

Phil:

The point is that most Americans do not pay a lot of taxes. I see people on here complaining that they do and by and large they don't.----What is your point?-----If the Clinton era tax rate on the top 1% comes back $40 Billion more per year will be collected----We have a $1.2 Trillion debt this year-----Do we have a spending problem or a tax problem?-------------And yes I do pay a lot of taxes

[badger]

What's the most fair comparison:

A credit card: We pay less in taxes than government should cost, because we are borrowing money from other countries (like China) to make up the difference.

Public schools: You pay what you can afford into the system but get the same service as everyone else per-person.

Social security: The old farts get everything today so that future generations can pay for it all later, likely getting little themselves.

Health care: An incredibly broken system for a basic necessity where a lot of money is tossed around, service is sometimes great and sometimes unavailable when urgently needed, it's affordable for some, free for others and horribly overpriced for many. Nobody has a perfect solution with how to fix the problem.

[pphilfran]

What's the most fair comparison:

A credit card: We pay less in taxes than government should cost, because we are borrowing money from other countries (like China) to make up the difference.

Public schools: You pay what you can afford into the system but get the same service as everyone else per-person.

Social security: The old farts get everything today so that future generations can pay for it all later, likely getting little themselves.

Health care: An incredibly broken system for a basic necessity where a lot of money is tossed around, service is sometimes great and sometimes unavailable when urgently needed, it's affordable for some, free for others and horribly overpriced for many. Nobody has a perfect solution with how to fix the problem.

Who you calling an old fart....

[pphilfran]

Phil:

The point is that most Americans do not pay a lot of taxes. I see people on here complaining that they do and by and large they don't.

I agree but if we don't get the economy up and running the tax rates won't do chit...we would have to raise taxes across the board by 25% to get where we need to be...and a 25% tax increase would devastate today's economy...

[diverdog]

Yes it is irritating. But lets look at it this way too. (this is not really meant to be a lib vs con argument here just pointing fault on the other side too).

Since Obama took his pledge as the POTUS, the national debt everyone keeps talking about has reached an all time high, and continues to reach an all time high every second of every day.

Anyway....

Since going back to Kennedy, President Obama has operated at a -8.3% budget deficit. Meaning he has almost ran a budget deficit doubled that of Bush I and Regan.

Please note, not one president in this time frame (Kennedy to Obama) has ever ran in the black in their budget. All Presidents, including Clinton ran negative (in the red). Clinton was the lowest at -0.1%.

The President is the one that submits a budget. He is also the one that can veto any legislation, including government spending.

I want any and all democrats or far left liberals to name any and all things that President Obama has decided to stop spending money on that has actually made a dent in the budget and national debt?

Face it. President Obama is the most fiscally irresponsible president this nation as ever seen. And until the American public gets tired of putting up with the irresponsible spending, then nothing is going to change.

Want to change the economy? Give the economy something to get excited about. Want something the economy can get excited about? How about a balanced budget? Or a Budget that shows real progress to curb the spending of the federal government?

I agree, there is more that needs to be done than just taxes, but raising taxes should be the final straw.

Saw this on another board:


. Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

[REDREX]

Great----Please show us how Barack did on the national debt

[diverdog]

----What is your point?-----If the Clinton era tax rate on the top 1% comes back $40 Billion more per year will be collected----We have a $1.2 Trillion debt this year-----Do we have a spending problem or a tax problem?-------------And yes I do pay a lot of taxes

I do not buy the $40 billion figure. The Bush tax cuts cost, by most estimates, $1.5 trillion dollars. So my guess is that if we get out of these wars, cut defense and raise taxes we get the deficit below $800 billion. That leaves us to figurout a way to grow the economy at 3% which sadly seems lost on Obama.

[diverdog]

Great----Please show us how Barack did on the national debt

Seeing how Bush left him a trillion plus dollar deficit he has not done any worse. For some reason you guys are totally blind to the fact that in Bush's last budget the deficit exploded.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

[OU_Sooners75]

Obama budget deficit = -8.3%
GW Bush budget deficit = -3.2%

In fact since JFK, Obama has resided over the largest bu.dget deficit, by damn near double. The next highest deficit came from both Reagan and GHW Bush at -4.3%.

You can now stop blaming Bush for everything. Especially for Obamas failure to curb his spending!

[REDREX]

I do not buy the $40 billion figure. The Bush tax cuts cost, by most estimates, $1.5 trillion dollars. So my guess is that if we get out of these wars, cut defense and raise taxes we get the deficit below $800 billion. That leaves us to figurout a way to grow the economy at 3% which sadly seems lost on Obama.---- Go look it up the tax increase on the wealthy will pay less than 2% of the yearly deficit------ I ask again ---Do we have a spending problem or a tax problem ?

[sappstuf]

Saw this on another board:


In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

False from the very beginning. Nancy and Harry hid the 2009 budget from Bush and he never signed it. Obama signed it after coming into office when the Dems could cram every bit of spending possible into the budget.

[Position Limit]

those of you bitching about paying taxes sound poor. you should love big tax bills. yalls bluff is showing.

[jkjsooner]

2006 and 2007 Corp income taxes as a % of GDP were at the highest rate since the late 1970's...nearly 3%...the recession took that down to 1% in 2009...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=263

Let's also be honest and admit this whenever we're talking about the deficit as well.

Other than one time stimulus packages under both Bush and Obama, this is a major reason why the deficits have been so high over the last few years. Conservatives want to imply that Obama is spending like a drunken sailor but the falling of revenue has been the main contributor.

Blame Obama for the economy and the decrease in revenue all you want but let's at least admit the role that it plays in the current deficit.

This is just a general comment not specifically addressed to the quoted post.

[olevetonahill]

those of you bitching about paying taxes sound poor. you should love big tax bills. yalls bluff is showing.
And again you Libs Miss the Point, I havnt heard anyone Bitch about Paying, I have heard a bunch bitch about the Gov. wasting what is paid in tho.

[badger]

And again you Libs Miss the Point, I havnt heard anyone Bitch about Paying, I have heard a bunch bitch about the Gov. wasting what is paid in tho.

Meh, the government is always going to waste the moneys. Just bend over and be screwed.

[LiveLaughLove]

I do not buy the $40 billion figure. The Bush tax cuts cost, by most estimates, $1.5 trillion dollars. So my guess is that if we get out of these wars, cut defense and raise taxes we get the deficit below $800 billion. That leaves us to figurout a way to grow the economy at 3% which sadly seems lost on Obama.

Once more, the only cut you guys propose is to defense. The ONE thing the Constitution says pay for.

No other cuts DD?

Defense is a big portion of the budget but it is not the monster. The monster in the future is entitlement spending, but no mention of cuts to it. I wonder why?

As has said before, we could give you guys every tax increase you want, and it would not fix the problem.

[olevetonahill]

Meh, the government is always going to waste the moneys. Just bend over and be screwed.
You might enjoy being screwed But I dont :glee:

[diverdog]

Once more, the only cut you guys propose is to defense. The ONE thing the Constitution says pay for.

No other cuts DD?

Defense is a big portion of the budget but it is not the monster. The monster in the future is entitlement spending, but no mention of cuts to it. I wonder why?

As has said before, we could give you guys every tax increase you want, andI it would not fix the problem.

No I would cut a lot of things like farm subsidies, some TANF, and some other departments. I would also freeze all spe
nding at current levels for 10 years and let inflation help.

SS would remain untouched because people pay for it. It needs to be taken off budget.

[rock on sooner]

Once more, the only cut you guys propose is to defense. The ONE thing the Constitution says pay for.

No other cuts DD?

Defense is a big portion of the budget but it is not the monster. The monster in the future is entitlement spending, but no mention of cuts to it. I wonder why?

As has said before, we could give you guys every tax increase you want, and it would not fix the problem.

Triple L, here's an argument I put in front of the RNC...bear with the
length...
1. Lift the cap on SS up to $1m..SS solved. (Gov't leave it alone)
2. Full 50 state scrub on fraud in Medicare & Medicaid..that plus
waste and abuse would recover MANY billions of dollars.
3. Create some sort of WPA for the nation's transportation infrastructure.
(Lots and lots of jobs).
4. Top down review of pork, uh, earmarks on both sides.
5. Freeze gov't employment for three years, it will downsize itself.
6. Freeze non military salaries for all gov't for up to 3 years.
7. Cut gov't spending 3 1/2% the first year, increasing 1/2% per
year til it reaches a 10% a year...all non military.
8. Military cuts as follows: consolidate overseas installations 2 and 3
into one (crosstrain redundancies) A lot of missions can be handled
remotely (see the drone program). Use military knowledge, personnel
to bolster domestic projects. Battlegroups...11 down to 9 or even 8.
9. Eliminate oil tax breaks, close corporate loopholes. Give "amnesty"
to overseas cash stashes to allow corporations to bring it home and
plow into manufacturing, hiring, etc. Lower corporate tax rates to
25% (very few pay the 35% rate anyhow).
10. Leave the ACA alone because in the long run it will help the deficits
as participation increases.

Obviously, there would need to be more but this approach is balanced
and would make serious dents in the debt and deficit.

[olevetonahill]

No I would cut a lot of things like farm subsidies, some TANF, and some other departments. I would also freeze all spending at current levels for 10 years and let inflation help.
If ya Freeze all spending at Current levels How can you CUT anything ?:beaten::glee:

[rock on sooner]

You might enjoy being screwed But I dont :glee:

Literally or figuratively?:glee:

[diverdog]

False from the very beginning. Nancy and Harry hid the 2009 budget from Bush and he never signed it. Obama signed it after coming into office when the Dems could cram every bit of spending possible into the budget.

How did they hide it? Secondly the CBO projected a trillion dollar deficit in 09 because of declining tax revenues.

[diverdog]

If ya Freeze all spending at Current levels How can you CUT anything ?:beaten::glee:

Cut the ones I outlined and then freeze all spending.

[diverdog]

Triple L, here's an argument I put in front of the RNC...bear with the
length...
1. Lift the cap on SS up to $1m..SS solved. (Gov't leave it alone)
2. Full 50 state scrub on fraud in Medicare & Medicaid..that plus
waste and abuse would recover MANY billions of dollars.
3. Create some sort of WPA for the nation's transportation infrastructure.
(Lots and lots of jobs).
4. Top down review of pork, uh, earmarks on both sides.
5. Freeze gov't employment for three years, it will downsize itself.
6. Freeze non military salaries for all gov't for up to 3 years.
7. Cut gov't spending 3 1/2% the first year, increasing 1/2% per
year til it reaches a 10% a year...all non military.
8. Military cuts as follows: consolidate overseas installations 2 and 3
into one (crosstrain redundancies) A lot of missions can be handled
remotely (see the drone program). Use military knowledge, personnel
to bolster domestic projects. Battlegroups...11 down to 9 or even 8.
9. Eliminate oil tax breaks, close corporate loopholes. Give "amnesty"
to overseas cash stashes to allow corporations to bring it home and
plow into manufacturing, hiring, etc. Lower corporate tax rates to
25% (very few pay the 35% rate anyhow).
10. Leave the ACA alone because in the long run it will help the deficits
as participation increases.

Obviously, there would need to be more but this approach is balanced
and would make serious dents in the debt and deficit.

Good stuff.

[olevetonahill]

Triple L, here's an argument I put in front of the RNC...bear with the
length...
1. Lift the cap on SS up to $1m..SS solved. (Gov't leave it alone)If the Gov would just leave it alone it will be okay, but agreed there is really no need for a cap at all.
2. Full 50 state scrub on fraud in Medicare & Medicaid..that plus
waste and abuse would recover MANY billions of dollars. Not so sure of Billions But a hell of a lot for sure
3. Create some sort of WPA for the nation's transportation infrastructure.
(Lots and lots of jobs).Good idea except add in that all Public assistance is earned thru working at this
4. Top down review of pork, uh, earmarks on both sides. Line Item Veto should take care of a Lot of this
5. Freeze gov't employment for three years, it will downsize itself. agreed
6. Freeze non military salaries for all gov't for up to 3 years. agreed
7. Cut gov't spending 3 1/2% the first year, increasing 1/2% per
year til it reaches a 10% a year...all non military. Sounds Good
8. Military cuts as follows: consolidate overseas installations 2 and 3
into one (crosstrain redundancies) A lot of missions can be handled
remotely (see the drone program). Use military knowledge, personnel
to bolster domestic projects. Battlegroups...11 down to 9 or even 8.Much as I love the Inter-service rivalry, Not so sure we need 4 different Branch's
9. Eliminate oil tax breaks, close corporate loopholes. Give "amnesty"
to overseas cash stashes to allow corporations to bring it home and
plow into manufacturing, hiring, etc. Lower corporate tax rates to
25% (very few pay the 35% rate anyhow). Sounds reasonable
10. Leave the ACA alone because in the long run it will help the deficits
as participation increases.Here we may part ways, Simply because I dont a soul on earth really understands it

Obviously, there would need to be more but this approach is balanced
and would make serious dents in the debt and deficit.

See You an I aint so far apart bro:couple_inlove:

[olevetonahill]

Literally or figuratively?:glee:
Either way, I got to be the Screwer Not the Screwee

[rock on sooner]

Either way, I got to be the Screwer Not the Screwee

That's reasonable...even desireable:glee:

[olevetonahill]

That's reasonable...even desireable:glee:
Wimmens can bend over , Get screwed and Enjoy it, Men not so much less they be the Ghey

[rock on sooner]

See You an I aint so far apart bro:couple_inlove:

I can see the justification for the four branches AND I can
see the argument for consolidation. The ACA is challenging
to understand, 'cept much of the most helpful isn't in place
til 2014. (Interesting side story, my wife's boss is a big time
Pub whose wife is recovering from a nasty bout of breast
cancer. He confides in my wife on a lot of stuff, kinda like
if she wuz his mom. One day, just a bolt out of the blue,
he says that NOW he likes the ACA 'cause it hits him now,
since his wife can't be denied coverage due to a preexisting
condition (he's thinking about a job change). He really likes
the ACA now (and he even grumbles about Romney from
time to time).

[olevetonahill]

I can see the justification for the four branches AND I can
see the argument for consolidation. The ACA is challenging
to understand, 'cept much of the most helpful isn't in place
til 2014. (Interesting side story, my wife's boss is a big time
Pub whose wife is recovering from a nasty bout of breast
cancer. He confides in my wife on a lot of stuff, kinda like
if she wuz his mom. One day, just a bolt out of the blue,
he says that NOW he likes the ACA 'cause it hits him now,
since his wife can't be denied coverage due to a preexisting
condition (he's thinking about a job change). He really likes
the ACA now (and he even grumbles about Romney from
time to time).
The Marines were an still are a part of the US Navy, The Air Force was once the Army Air Corp

[pphilfran]

A SS limit of a million is far too much...you want someone to pay 100k a year for their defined benefit of something like 20k a year...

Bump the limit to 140k and the cost would be covered...after the baby boomers kick the bucket you could even drop the limit from 140k....

[LiveLaughLove]

Triple L, here's an argument I put in front of the RNC...bear with the
length...
1. Lift the cap on SS up to $1m..SS solved. (Gov't leave it alone)
2. Full 50 state scrub on fraud in Medicare & Medicaid..that plus
waste and abuse would recover MANY billions of dollars.
3. Create some sort of WPA for the nation's transportation infrastructure.
(Lots and lots of jobs).
4. Top down review of pork, uh, earmarks on both sides.
5. Freeze gov't employment for three years, it will downsize itself.
6. Freeze non military salaries for all gov't for up to 3 years.
7. Cut gov't spending 3 1/2% the first year, increasing 1/2% per
year til it reaches a 10% a year...all non military.
8. Military cuts as follows: consolidate overseas installations 2 and 3
into one (crosstrain redundancies) A lot of missions can be handled
remotely (see the drone program). Use military knowledge, personnel
to bolster domestic projects. Battlegroups...11 down to 9 or even 8.
9. Eliminate oil tax breaks, close corporate loopholes. Give "amnesty"
to overseas cash stashes to allow corporations to bring it home and
plow into manufacturing, hiring, etc. Lower corporate tax rates to
25% (very few pay the 35% rate anyhow).
10. Leave the ACA alone because in the long run it will help the deficits
as participation increases.

Obviously, there would need to be more but this approach is balanced
and would make serious dents in the debt and deficit.

Agree or at least would be fine with all of it, except 3. and of course 10.

I'm not completely opposed to 3. especially with the addition Olevet put in.

10. is non-starter for me. I think it's going to singlehandedly bankrupt us, AND as in Britain the government has way too much control over who lives and dies based on costs to the system. But that's an argument for another thread.

Still, as Olevet said, not too far off there. See, I'm not completely unreasonable.

[rock on sooner]

The Marines were an still are a part of the US Navy, The Air Force was once the Army Air Corp

Yup, Marines are the tip of Navy's spear and the rivalry between
Air Force pilots and naval aviators is intense. Air Force came about
'cause it was too big for the Army to do that and ground stuff at the
same time. Air Force does a lot of electronic stuff that the Navy
doesn't want to do, since they gotta go to sea...

[pphilfran]

Also, no need to have such large cuts on fed spending...hell, if you just hold spending at current levels inflation would slowly bring things back in line...Diver, at one time, was a proponent of this point....

If we get the economy moving we can expect to see spending plummet in many areas such as unemployment and Medicaid...

[rock on sooner]

A SS limit of a million is far too much...you want someone to pay 100k a year for their defined benefit of something like 20k a year...

Bump the limit to 140k and the cost would be covered...after the baby boomers kick the bucket you could even drop the limit from 140k....

For brevity's sake I didn't put in the fact that I think it should
be phased in to get to the million. It can be reviewed and held
at any point. One actuary study I saw said that if SS cap was
raised to $180k that would stablize SS for 80 to 85 years out.
As to the boomers, well, WE'RE gonna be around for a LONG
time.:glee:

[pphilfran]

Give me a little time...I am eating an early lunch...and I will present some actual numbers...btw I am a boomer...born in 53

[rock on sooner]

Also, no need to have such large cuts on fed spending...hell, if you just hold spending at current levels inflation would slowly bring things back in line...Diver, at one time, was a proponent of this point....

If we get the economy moving we can expect to see spending plummet in many areas such as unemployment and Medicaid...

The issue that I have here is that if you don't CUT spending then
the 535 monkeys in Washington will spend more and more. I
don't think they're capable of holding spending...

[rock on sooner]

Give me a little time...I am eating an early lunch...and I will present some actual numbers...btw I am a boomer...born in 53

Yer jus a pup!:glee:

[okie52]

Triple L, here's an argument I put in front of the RNC...bear with the
length...
1. Lift the cap on SS up to $1m..SS solved. (Gov't leave it alone)Don't need to go near $1M...He11, I think $170,000 will handle it. Plus, push back retirement benefits to 67-68 as life expectancies have risen by 10 years since the inception of SS
2. Full 50 state scrub on fraud in Medicare & Medicaid..that plus
waste and abuse would recover MANY billions of dollars. Happy to see any fraud/waste removed
3. Create some sort of WPA for the nation's transportation infrastructure. Shovel ready? If it would be for highways and roads then great. High speed rail...not so much.
(Lots and lots of jobs).
4. Top down review of pork, uh, earmarks on both sides. Pork is aggravating but it amounts to less than 1% of the budget. The line item veto was overruled by the SC.
5. Freeze gov't employment for three years, it will downsize itself. Agreed
6. Freeze non military salaries for all gov't for up to 3 years. Agreed
7. Cut gov't spending 3 1/2% the first year, increasing 1/2% per
year til it reaches a 10% a year...all non military. Not bad.
8. Military cuts as follows: consolidate overseas installations 2 and 3
into one (crosstrain redundancies) A lot of missions can be handled
remotely (see the drone program). Use military knowledge, personnel
to bolster domestic projects. Battlegroups...11 down to 9 or even 8. Reduce military spending by up to 50% over 25 years or by enough to spend 5 times what the
next largest military spends.
9. Eliminate oil tax breaks, close corporate loopholes. Give "amnesty"
to overseas cash stashes to allow corporations to bring it home and
plow into manufacturing, hiring, etc. Lower corporate tax rates to
25% (very few pay the 35% rate anyhow). Eliminate what oil and gas tax breaks? The same ones enjoyed by every other manufacturer? Are you suggesting they
shouldn't be allowed to deduct actual expenses for their operations? Are you wanting to tax manufacturers that have plants overseas and are already taxed there by the local
governments? Global economies and global competition mean that companies have to seek the most profitable places to produce their products. Having a company locate here and then
go bankrupt doesn't really help our situation.
10. Leave the ACA alone because in the long run it will help the deficits
as participation increases. I'm not against universal healthcare but I would much prefer a system like the Swiss have that provides a base coverage with the option
of buying better coverage/service/convenience. The ACA didn't embrace many of the cost containment features that are present in Europe and Canada and I don't see it reducing costs
...certainly not anywhere close to what they have in Europe or Canada. Get rid of ACA and do it right.

Obviously, there would need to be more but this approach is balanced
and would make serious dents in the debt and deficit.

11. Energy independence would create thousands of high paying jobs, provide the government with oil and gas royalties, tax revenues and lease bonuses that would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Add to that the reduction by 2/3 of our trade deficit and having $300,000,000,000 a year remain in the country
should be sufficient to reopen our coasts to oil and gas exploration.

12. Get a new president.

.

[diverdog]

LOL at number 12. Can't say Okie ain't predictable.

[pphilfran]

I can't find my detailed report that I put together a year or so ago...so I will cobble together a simple, but less accurate metric

Over the next 10 years SS expects to see a shortfall somewhere around 50 billion a year...

In 2009 (latest data from the IRS http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html ) there were 17 million returns that reported an AGI above 100k...

We bump SS to 140k and we would see an additional 4 grand from each of those 17 million filers...

4k times 17 million...68 billion...

Even with my thumbnail numbers I am positive that I am not so far off that my final totals are unusable...

Now, Medicare is a whole different animal...

[pphilfran]

The issue that I have here is that if you don't CUT spending then
the 535 monkeys in Washington will spend more and more. I
don't think they're capable of holding spending...

You would be actually be cutting spending....freeze spending at current levels and you would be cutting spending..what you bought this year for a dollar will cost you a dollar and two cents next year...you will have to cut 2% of something to pay for the 2% increase....

Come on DD...support me here...it was you damn idea...

[Position Limit]

LOL at number 12. Can't say Okie ain't predictable.

discussing economics and politics with okie52 is like explaining football to girls.

[okie52]

LOL at number 12. Can't say Okie ain't predictable.

Umm...that's consistent DD.

Since item 11 won't begin to happen without item 12 not much choice.

[okie52]

discussing economics and politics with okie52 is like explaining football to girls.

I'll bet you've had football explained to you often. How was your vacation?

Never did see your response on Obama's oil disaster...but then you were on vacation.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

All the righties screaming they pay to much in taxes...well it ain't true!


The U.S. Government Is One of the Best Bargains Around
By Rick Newman | U.S.News & World Report LP*–*Wed, Jul 25, 2012 11:10 AM EDT


If you could buy a Toyota Camry or an Apple iPad for 20 percent off the regular price, you'd probably consider it a great deal. Savvy buyers haggle for much smaller discounts on quality merchandise.
Few consumers have noticed, but the federal government has essentially been on sale, with taxpayers paying about 20 percent less than they used to for what Washington does. Yet unlike satisfied customers, taxpayers are increasingly fed up with the government they finance. This could make them downright surly when the price of government goes back up, which is a near certainty over the next few years.
[Slideshow: Obama's crackdown on corporate America]
The price we pay for government, of course, is taxes, and despite what inflammatory political rhetoric might suggest, they are at modern lows. A new report published by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the average household paid 17.4 percent of its income to the federal government in the form of taxes in 2009, the latest data available. Today's rate is probably comparable.
That's the lowest tax burden on record. It's about 20 percent lower than the federal tax burden in 1979, when the CBO's data series began. It's lower than the tax burden all throughout the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president. The federal tax bite drifted even higher in the 1990s (when the economy, notably, was booming), then plunged in the 2000s following across-the-board income-tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and more targeted cuts meant to ease the sting of the recession, starting in 2008.
[See what will happen to your taxes in 2013.]
Government services, instead of falling in proportion to the amount of revenue Washington takes in, have instead expanded. The military budget ballooned after the 2001 terror attacks, and is still far higher, in real terms, that it was during the Cold War. During the recession, Washington spent more on jobs programs and aid for the unemployed. Spending on Medicare and Social Security has been rising consistently.
Over the last few years, in fact, taxpayers have been getting the best deal in modern times, in terms of what they get from the government, and what they pay for it. Critics of government tend to focus on swelling regulatory bureaucracies or wayward projects like the loans that went to bankrupt energy company Solyndra, but the vast majority of federal spending goes toward defense or subsidies for the elderly, poor, or disabled. Even if taxpayers who fund those programs don't benefit directly from them, somebody in their family probably does.
The CBO report and others like it provide lots of fodder for activists all along the political spectrum. The wealthiest earners have enjoyed the biggest gains in income, for instance, which might fuel calls for higher taxes on the wealthy. Yet the wealthy also pay a disproportionately larger share of all taxes, while some low-income families pay no taxes at all. That might justify broadening the tax base, so everybody at least pays something.
[See why government will shrink, even if Obama wins re-election.]
The bigger point, however, is that the federal tax burden has been falling at every income level. This matters now because within a few months, we will embark on a huge battle over the future of tax and spending policy in Washington. Something dramatic will have to change. The mismatch between falling tax revenue and ballooning spending has been financed by borrowed money, which means that 20 percent discount on government services needs to be paid back somehow.
Pushing federal taxes back up to historical averages seems unlikely, since we've gotten rather used to lower taxes, plus it's an economically vulnerable time and many families couldn't absorb such a tax hike. Yet Washington can't keep spending money it doesn't have, and cutbacks will come out of somebody's pocket. For as much as we dislike government today, it's been quite a bargain. That's going to seem more and more evident as the cost goes back up.
Rick Newman is the author of Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback To Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

Ask Greece if borrowing out your *** is a bargain? The premise behind the headline is so intellectually bankrupt that it's laughable that a major publication would print this ****. Of course, then there's the person that reposted it.

[Position Limit]

I'll bet you've had football explained to you often. How was your vacation?

Never did see your response on Obama's oil disaster...but then you were on vacation.

i dont remember my vacation. so it must have been good. what's drastically unchanged about the price of oil? lets start there. all i really understand are prices. and markets. the rest is just conversation.

[pphilfran]

I'll bet you've had football explained to you often. How was your vacation?

Never did see your response on Obama's oil disaster...but then you were on vacation.

Give him another day or two and he will be on another vacation...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Saw this on another board:

I'm not getting into the Bush vs Obama thing because they both suck monkey balls.

What strikes me, assuming those statistics are correct, is that the 18% increase in Bush's last year was the financial bailouts. But wasn't that supposed to be one time spending? The bailouts never went away. No wonder we're still running $1.5 trillion deficits.

[okie52]

i dont remember my vacation. so it must have been good. what's drastically unchanged about the price of oil? lets start there. all i really understand are prices. and markets. the rest is just conversation.

Well lets see...oil is about $88 a barrel and NG is around $3.20. Is that it?

You don't understand trade deficits, jobs, royalties, tax revenues, reserves, etc...well your not alone...neither does Obama.

[okie52]

Give him another day or two and he will be on another vacation...

LOL...its hard to educate someone when he is always absent from class.

[Position Limit]

Well lets see...oil is about $88 a barrel and NG is around $3.20. Is that it?

You don't understand trade deficits, jobs, royalties, tax revenues, reserves, etc...well your not alone...neither does Obama.

it's doesnt matter whether you or i understand it. the market does and it's priced the light sweet at $88. efficient market theory. get envolved. my oil buddies at the petroleum club have never been happier. my wife has gas in her new bmw and has never been happier. please explain to me how obama has put these horible set of events into play. if the market is extremely wrong, you could be on your way to sizzler. convince me please. i like money.

[pphilfran]

I'm not getting into the Bush vs Obama thing because they both suck monkey balls.

What strikes me, assuming those statistics are correct, is that the 18% increase in Bush's last year was the financial bailouts. But wasn't that supposed to be one time spending? The bailouts never went away. No wonder we're still running $1.5 trillion deficits.

Yep...that is the deal...

Last year I made 100k and spend 150k...I then realized I had to cut back or go broke so I only spent 145k this year on my 100k salary...I am doing damn good

[olevetonahill]

it's doesnt matter whether you or i understand it. the market does and it's priced the light sweet at $88. efficient market theory. get envolved. my oil buddies at the petroleum club have never been happier. my wife has gas in her new bmw and has never been happier. please explain to me how obama has put these horible set of events into play. if the market is extremely wrong, you could be on your way to sizzler. convince me please. i like money.

Bruce?

[okie52]

it's doesnt matter whether you or i understand it. the market does and it's priced the light sweet at $88. efficient market theory. get envolved. my oil buddies at the petroleum club have never been happier. my wife has gas in her new bmw and has never been happier. please explain to me how obama has put these horible set of events into play. if the market is extremely wrong, you could be on your way to sizzler. convince me please. i like money.

Price isn't the issue unless its too low to sustain exploration. We've already seen that happen with NG. Obama has almost no impact on price.

If we are importing 10,000,000 barrels a day at $88 a barrel the country will spend over $300,000,000,000 a year for imported oil. That's over 2/3 of our trade deficit...money that is leaving thecountry to enrich someone else. The US has the reserves to keep a large part of that money here...maybe all of it. But Obama shut down the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to exploration where the US has great potential reserves. Obama has also shut down the Chukchi and Beaufort seas surrounding Alaska. Now most oil jobs are high paying and would generate substantial tax revenues for the US. The US government would also receive the oil and gas royalties from federal leases and Lease Bonus money from oil and gas lease sales. This could amount to hundreds of Billions of dollars for the US.

Of course Obama has also done little or nothing to help incorporate NG into our transportation sector. He did pass a harmful unilateral cap and trade policy in the house that would have punished oil and ng but fortunately the senate didn't pass the bill. But, hey, he did say he was an NG guy in his state of the union address 6 months ago.

There are also the political/foreign policy aspects of being energy independent. Foreign policy not being dictated by protecting our oil supply lines and oil sources in the ME.

[REDREX]

it's doesnt matter whether you or i understand it. the market does and it's priced the light sweet at $88. efficient market theory. get envolved. my oil buddies at the petroleum club have never been happier. my wife has gas in her new bmw and has never been happier. please explain to me how obama has put these horible set of events into play. if the market is extremely wrong, you could be on your way to sizzler. convince me please. i like money.---The Tulsa Petroleum Club?

[olevetonahill]

---The Tulsa Petroleum Club?
Naw Goober runs it for him
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110507104815/mayberry/images/f/ff/Wallys_service_station_1024.jpg

[rock on sooner]

Naw Goober runs it for him
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110507104815/mayberry/images/f/ff/Wallys_service_station_1024.jpg

Heh!

[okie52]

Naw Goober runs it for him
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110507104815/mayberry/images/f/ff/Wallys_service_station_1024.jpg

Heh heh.

[I Am Right]

Hey, Ive got a bridge I will sell you!

[diverdog]

You would be actually be cutting spending....freeze spending at current levels and you would be cutting spending..what you bought this year for a dollar will cost you a dollar and two cents next year...you will have to cut 2% of something to pay for the 2% increase....

Come on DD...support me here...it was you damn idea...

I think you have it wrong. If you freeze a budget that is $100 billion dollars for ten years the budget will take roughly a 20 percent hit assuming straight line inflation at 2%. So they will be forced to address budget shortfall issues because the dollar won't go as far. So the departments dollars are worth less because their spending is capped. In the meantime you are paying their budget with inflated dollars and hopefully you end up with a 20% surplus. The key is that you have absolutely freeze the budget for this to work.

It is like financing a house over 30 years. In the end the mortgage is easier to pay because you fixed the rate and you are paying it with future inflated dollars.

[SicEmBaylor]

Hey, Ive got a bridge I will sell you!
Will you jump off it first?

[pphilfran]

I think you have it wrong. If you freeze a budget that is $100 billion dollars for ten years the budget will take roughly a 20 percent hit assuming straight line inflation at 2%. So they will be forced to address budget shortfall issues because the dollar won't go as far. So the departments dollars are worth less because their spending is capped. In the meantime you are paying their budget with inflated dollars and hopefully you end up with a 20% surplus. The key is that you have absolutely freeze the budget for this to work.

It is like financing a house over 30 years. In the end the mortgage is easier to pay because you fixed the rate and you are paying it with future inflated dollars.

You have to have a freeze...but you will also have revenue increase due to revenue growth....

[rock on sooner]

You have to have a freeze...but you will also have revenue increase due to revenue growth....

I still say that you guys are overlooking the 535 monkeys that will
spend every dime at least twice over...that's why you GOTTA cut...
jus sayin....

[rock on sooner]

And this is in conjunction with revenue increases, both from
a stimulated economy and taxes....

[diverdog]

You have to have a freeze...but you will also have revenue increase due to revenue growth....

Hopefully that happens because of growth and inflation. This is real pie in the sky stuff because a ten year freeze is a little long. There would have to be allowances for pay increases. Still I think we could do it in some areas like SS payments.

[pphilfran]

I still say that you guys are overlooking the 535 monkeys that will
spend every dime at least twice over...that's why you GOTTA cut...
jus sayin....

I agree that I am braindead believing that a freeze will actually happen...but you are equally braindead thinking that actual cuts are going to happen...

[pphilfran]

Hopefully that happens because of growth and inflation. This is real pie in the sky stuff because a ten year freeze is a little long. There would have to be allowances for pay increases. Still I think we could do it in some areas like SS payments.

It doesn't need to be for 10 years...5 years would cut 15%...then you get 15% (or more) growth in revenue due to GDP growth and things are golden...

[rock on sooner]

I agree that I am braindead believing that a freeze will actually happen...but you are equally braindead thinking that actual cuts are going to happen...

Phil, don't think either of us is braindead..cuts? you're right..
prolly never happen...gonna be interesting to see how the
Monkeys in Congress handle the "mandatory" cuts that are
straight ahead.

[rock on sooner]

11. Energy independence would create thousands of high paying jobs, provide the government with oil and gas royalties, tax revenues and lease bonuses that would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Add to that the reduction by 2/3 of our trade deficit and having $300,000,000,000 a year remain in the country
should be sufficient to reopen our coasts to oil and gas exploration.

12. Get a new president.

.

Okie, the infrastructure I refer to includes highways, bridges, streets,
school buildings and the like. I do NOT put light rail in.

The Environmental Law Institute (non-profit and non-partisan) has a
report that says from 01-08 renewable energy taxpayer help amounted
to $29B and fossil fuels taxpayer help amounted to $72B. Seems to me
that the playing field isn't quite level here. Okie, you're really into the
numbers much more than about anyone I've run across. Does this report
square with your info? If so, would you agree that maybe the fossil fuel
group could get along without so much taxpayer help? This is the sort of
tax break that I was referring to in point #9....

Your point 12...you really don't want to revisit 2000-2008 policies and
approaches to the economy, do you?

[okie52]

Okie, the infrastructure I refer to includes highways, bridges, streets,
school buildings and the like. I do NOT put light rail in.

The Environmental Law Institute (non-profit and non-partisan) has a
report that says from 01-08 renewable energy taxpayer help amounted
to $29B and fossil fuels taxpayer help amounted to $72B. Seems to me
that the playing field isn't quite level here. Okie, you're really into the
numbers much more than about anyone I've run across. Does this report
square with your info? If so, would you agree that maybe the fossil fuel
group could get along without so much taxpayer help? This is the sort of
tax break that I was referring to in point #9....

Your point 12...you really don't want to revisit 2000-2008 policies and
approaches to the economy, do you?

Not familiar with the Environmental Law institutes numbers...just the ones that Obama has been touting. He says he is after $4,000,000,000 a year in oil industry write offs.
I have a breakdown somewhere and I'll try to post it in the next 2 days. Many of the write offs are ones that are given to all manufacturers and are actual business expenses.
I'm not asking for any special breaks for the oil and gas industry that aren't received by other industries.

Now speaking of special breaks Obama gave unions a $60,000,000,000 exemption on Obamacare regardless of income which doesn't quite jive with his screaming about a $4 billion break for Oiland gas. This is the same guy that campaigned for a windfall profits tax on oil and gas.

Point 12 is that there will be no point 11 with Obama in office. And how has Obama changed the 2000-2008 policies of W?

[soonercoop1]

75:

We need some tax increases, some spending cuts and a lot of growth in the economy. The thing that upsets me is that the Republicans have completely back themselves into a corner
with the signing of a no new tax pledge that they cannot responsibily address our debt problems.

Without massive decreases in the size and scope of the federal government nothing else will ever happen...only an idiot would give more money to this federal government...