9cents tax of a dollar whos fault.

[Cheaper2buyit]

I must say that atl. Ga is the most smart state. In atl the gov spends money on a alot of redevelopment of land like old factories or railroad depotes or old apts. They do every thing they can to get people to build places that people can own & pay taxes think if you own it then you pay taxes on the place & car & income. They have more live & work & play condos or lofts then here & the taxes on food is almost 0%, dont rasies taxes add more growth. Plus i have to pay about 2000 for my kid to go to public school k grade plus a 100 to rent the books wtf is that. My little rant

[Longermonger]

I was hinting at the difference in accounting. But I guess the biggest difference is that Obama has to pay for the Iraq War, but Bush & Co STARTED the Iraq war. That's estimated by former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics to cost the United States THREE TRILLION DOLLARS when all is said and done.

Why three trillion dollars? Because we have to pay interest on the money they borrowed for the Iraq War. Instead of paying for the war, they cut tax rates for their rich buddies. Now YOU get the bill!

[john_galt]

Of course we all know what a Nobel prize is worth nowadays...

Of course by your logic Bill Clinton (and Jimmy Carter) neglected the military that protects our country and Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush had to pay to rebuild it. Ask me how since I was in it both times.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

Yeah, forget about those ongoing land wars in Asia that weren't on the books. And forget about the wealthy not being asked to pay their share like they were during WWII. Instead of being asked to pay for their defense, the rich were given tax cuts.

They may have been given tax cuts, but the wealthiest 2% of Americans still paid 39% of all taxes; the richest 10% paid 70% of all taxes; and the richest 25% of Americans paid 86% of all taxes. I guess this is paying their fair share, even over and above it.

This information was collected from IRS data through 2005 - and, according to the "conservative" Wall Street Journal:

"Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

[lacrew_2000]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

LA, you and I have discussed surpluses/deficits on another thread, but I wanted to let you know the link you provided shows 4 years of surplus under the Clinton years. 1998-2001. So... do you use this tax reference when it suits your interest here, but then use another tax reference when it suits your interest in other areas? My simple peanut brain thinks I already know the answer.

From the link I posted in the other thread (from the treasury department), intragovernmental transfers are as follows:

1998 - 166.5 billion
1999 - 222.9 billion
2000 - 247.0 billion

Compared with the so called surplus:

1998 - $69 bil less $166 bil = deficit $97 billion
1999 - $223 bil less $125 bil = deficit $98 billion
2000 - $247 bil less $236 bil = deficti $11 billion

I'm not sure how this could be any clearer. These tranfers are counted as reciepts, but not as public debt.

The total debt of this country includes 4.5 trillion in intragovernmental transfers. Its common knowledge, easy to look up, I've looked it up left right and sideways. I know you are afraid of somehow losing face, and keep harping on it....but just watch the news in the upcoming weeks. The SS fund went in the red for the first time ever last month, and the empty IOU's will be front and center in the news again.

So, to get it straight:

During the Clinton years, there was a surplus in the PUBLIC DEBT. There was a deficit in the GOVERNMENT DEBT, which brough a deficit to the TOTAL DEBT.

Again, from the treasury department, the total debt outstanding. Notice it grows every year, even during Clinton's term:

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

How can I say it any other way.

[Longermonger]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/169608/nbc...x-cuts-economy

Originally Posted by john_galt

Of course we all know what a Nobel prize is worth nowadays...

Of course by your logic Bill Clinton (and Jimmy Carter) neglected the military that protects our country and Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush had to BORROW to rebuild it. Ask me how since I was in it both times.

Fixed.

Take a good look at your leader dodge the question about whether tax cuts are paid for or not. They don't pay for themselves and they aren't paid for by the budget. Gregory nailed him.

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

They may have been given tax cuts, but the wealthiest 2% of Americans still paid 39% of all taxes; the richest 10% paid 70% of all taxes; and the richest 25% of Americans paid 86% of all taxes. I guess this is paying their fair share, even over and above it.

My guess is that you're down there on one of those flat lines on the bottom of my graph, but you're argument is for those folks way up there on the top of the graph!?!?! I couldn't find a graph that overlays household incomes with the tax brackets, but I think you get the idea.

Question #1) What is the percentage increase in income that the upper 2% have enjoyed since before and during the Bush Tax Cuts?

Question #2) What is the tax rate (%) that they paid during that time?

Question #3) What is the percentage increase in tax rate that they will have to pay if the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the upper 2% (only)?

[BiggestBest]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

I can't imagine why you left off the rest of the estimated rates (5.1, 4.2, 3.9, 3.9).

I left out 2012 and beyond because those are estimated. Translation: Political BS. By the time we actually get there who knows what they will be. It is much harder to argue with the accounting of money that's ALREADY been collected and spent.

And after WW II, several presidents have had to deal with wars. Some much larger in relative dollars than the current ones. And much longer. Korea, Vietnam, etc.

But only the Obama Administration has double-digit deficits. EVEN IN CONSTANT DOLLARS AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP.

[john_galt]

I have never understood that misleading phrase about "paying for tax cuts". Taxes take money away from people period. So if you don't take the money (tax cut) then it DOES NOT have to be paid for by anyone. Now if you can't control your spending then I guess you have to make up something to take the heat of yourself.
So few of our elected turds don't seem to understand that this is OUR money and not theirs. GOP and democrats both. Even something simple is bastardized. Ronald Reagan raised taxes at the behest of the dems in congress. They PROMISED to cut spending two dollars for every dollar of tax increase. They forgot their promise once Reagan signed off on the increase. Think about what that was all about. The dems were playing politics with our money and our welfare (no, not that welfare). They did the same thing to Bush 41 and he didn't recover. Another thing that always amazes me is some fairly smart people can look at this and see the con but then they go along with the con just the same. Why is that LM?

[nsafun05]

The phrase 'paying for tax cuts' is something the libs say to make the uneducated believe that tax cuts reduce the amount of money in the treasury. What the fiscal conservatives should do is repeat the saying 'pay for tax increase' and maybe someday it will sink in....but I doubt it as our society is getting dumbed down.

[CuteOldGuy]

What bothers me is that every dime of deficit spending has to be borrowed. Yes, much of it is from pension funds and other domestic sources, but a larger and larger share is being borrowed from China. China is now using that leverage to debase the dollar on the international market. It's really scarier than the BP disaster, North Korea and Iran combined.

Say what you will about Reagan, but he was right on one point. "The problem isn't that the people are taxed too little, but rather that Congress spends too much."

[lacrew_2000]

There is a saying..."If you swing at the rich, you hit the middle class every time".

I'm not sure what the graph above has to do with tax policy...is it supposed to make us upset that the rich are making more money?

The uber rich will always find creative ways to dodge taxes...like moving out of California for example. They take their money elsewhere, and it hurts everybody else (once again, I'm looking at California's example).

The discussion is about the sales tax in Kansas...and yes, businesses that have offices on both sides of the border will purchase and tag all of their vehicles on the MO side (the one I work for does this already). I also have talked to several people who drove all the way from Topeka to purchase sales tax free school supplies on the MO side...so it is not outlandish to presume that many people in the metro area will do grocery shopping, buy gas, buy business supplies, etc. on the MO side.

[Cheaper2buyit]

I just read somewhere we spend 700bill on the total military every year since 2001. maybe thats right or not but if its close then why can't we afford a heath carebill. but as always instead of tring to think of what can be done everyone is running left or right & stating a bunch of facts that don't help.

[john_galt]

Oops, there it is! The number one responsibility of the government is protecting the country with the military. Number one! When you start taking away dollars you start killing soldiers. (I shouldn't have to say this but...) That does not mean I'm in favor of wasting dollars but a lot of those abuses were caused by the procurement system set up by Congress. Yes, Congress makes the regulations that military follows to buy things. The same Congress that make up the rules of engagement that is getting soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan...and even in Beruit in 1983. We spend a lot of money on defense but less by a percentage than nations like China and Russia. With that money we have worked to keep the peace in Europe for half a century, interdicted arms and drugs in South America, and saved the lives of people around the world. It comes down to this; have you served your country in anyway, shape, or form? Have you been so wrapped up in the wonderful thing that is you to give a rodents behind about someone else?

[Cheaper2buyit]

John my freind at last you still don't understand. We have been atack twice here pearl habor & some dick heads on planes. One big war ships & guns can stop. One learning what we have here & minding our biz can stop. Now just because I didn't strap some boots on dose not mean i don't do my part. Nor dose it mean I am some treehugger. More people get rich off militery spending then lives get saved.