Bush V Obama

[Whirlaway]

Clinton, Bush II and Obama; partners in the decline of America !

[Fastcars1966]

So much rhetoric and we still want to blame someone instead of addressing the issue. We are not better today than we were under Bush. Too many people still out of work, you want to increase your tax base, get people back to work. The policies that have generated this mess goes back prior to Bush senior. Look at all the voting records in an election year, and you will see that most of our candidates avoid voting on the tough issues. Now the Dems are blaming BO if you want to put your trust in polls look at this article.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-poll-jobs-democratic-base-crumbling.html
Open your eyes people politicians are like Wrestlers they only fight in public

[Whirlaway]

The new reality is America needs a constituitonal ammendment that requires a balanced budget each year. Without one, the politicians will continue the spending - tax frenzy and drive us off the cliff.

Originally Posted by Fastcars1966

So much rhetoric and we still want to blame someone instead of addressing the issue. We are not better today than we were under Bush. Too many people still out of work, you want to increase your tax base, get people back to work. The policies that have generated this mess goes back prior to Bush senior. Look at all the voting records in an election year, and you will see that most of our candidates avoid voting on the tough issues. Now the Dems are blaming BO if you want to put your trust in polls look at this article.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-poll-jobs-democratic-base-crumbling.html
Open your eyes people politicians are like Wrestlers they only fight in public

[Fastcars1966]

This is why America is at odds and the tax base is weak. BO stimulus did nothing to generate jobs as he promised. Say what you want about the Bush admin, but at least people were working.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

[Sensia]

More charts.. and facts

[AnHonestJohn]

The Republicans overwhelmingly got booted out after the G.W. Presidency expired - due to a failing economy and excessive government spending. He (Bush) disenfranchised his base of support during his 2nd term in office and it cost all Republicans.

The B.O. administration stimulus package was more of a rewards package to those entities that helped him get elected. It had little effect in getting the economy moving. It was added onto the national debt. The national health care plan is an extremely expensive plan which the nation is imho not able to afford.

A genuine energy plan to get this nation off dependency of foreign oil and is actually in the best interests of average Americans (and not special interest groups) is what is needed. I doubt if it occurs since politicians are for sale and the public interest is usually disregarded for rewards to special interest groups. Is anyone really interested in owning a Nissan Leaf for about $40k which allows you to travel approx 40 miles on one charge and then drives up your electric prices? You can't even go out of town on a Nissan Leaf. The electricity providers probably love it - like coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind technology, solar, etc. Are we making a good solution; or rewarding the electricity providers with higher profits?

We need significant cuts to government spending; however this will also be painful to many Americans - do we have the courage ? I don't know that we do have the commitment to solve our nations problems on either side of the political isle - everybody seems to be for sale... maybe. B.O. proposed that we keep passing it along because the administrations in the past did it - at least for now the other side of the isle is not wanting to keep passing the mess forwards. There is a sense that things can get much worse than an already anemic economy in the near future and in the long term. If this is true then the prices of escort services is going to decrease; because the availability of funding is going to continue to diminish (not increase.) Supply and Demand issue in the market. Many single Moms are doing very well with a combination of welfare benefits and cash profits (unreported income to the IRS). If government spending cuts occur then it is likely going to affect their benefits; and in an anemic economy the availability of funding diminishes causing the prices of such services to decrease. Since many single moms rely upon this as their primary income; it may be in their best interest to consider the future and be preparing for job and income adjustments. The price of gold continues to increase - which is usually a good indicator that many have lost faith in the government and the paper currency it supports.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

More charts.. and facts

Sorry dear, that's nothing but supposition and wishful thinking about "what if" from a socialist propogandist. Tax revenue remains within a very narrow band as a percent of GDP regardless of tax rate, raise taxes, lower GDP, lower taxes, raise GDP, both result in essentially the same revenue to the government. Below is actual, historical data.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmas...-more-revenue/

The plain and simple truth is that there is no way to tax or even tax and confiscate enough money to keep spending at the current rate.
If the government took every penny of income from everyone after the first $250,000, then took 100% of the profits from every company in the Fortune 500, then confiscated (stole) every dime from every billionaire in the US. . . they could afford the current rate of spending for about 8 months.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...hortfalls.html

[Fastcars1966]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Sorry dear, that's nothing but supposition and wishful thinking about "what if" from a socialist propogandist. Tax revenue remains within a very narrow band as a percent of GDP regardless of tax rate, raise taxes, lower GDP, lower taxes, raise GDP, both result in essentially the same revenue to the government. Below is actual, historical data.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmas...-more-revenue/

Thanks for the link. I especially like the Quote by Warren Buffet on one of the other articles. "Smoke, mirrors & spending cuts"

Warren Buffett recently made this point:

I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmas...spending-cuts/

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

The plain and simple truth is that there is no way to tax or even tax and confiscate enough money to keep spending at the current rate.
If the government took every penny of income from everyone after the first $250,000, then took 100% of the profits from every company in the Fortune 500, then confiscated (stole) every dime from every billionaire in the US. . . they could afford the current rate of spending for about 8 months.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...hortfalls.html

How disingenuous can you get? Here's what he says:

"All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year. "

In other words, what he's saying is that if you take $8 Trillion in income, and manage to generate only $1.4 Trillion in revenues, you can only fund the government for 141 days. Well no freakin' shit - given that $1.4 Trillion in revenues on $8 Trillion in income would work out to roughly a 17.5% overall (individual only!) national tax rate.

As far as the billionaires? Here's what he says:

"According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion."

So, the net worth of 400 people can't fund the government? Again, no freakin' shit.

Now, on to the Fortune 500.

"Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits."

$400B wouldn't cover half the defense budget.

So, to recap, your point is that an individual national tax rate of 17.5%, plus the net worth of 400 people, plus $400B in corporate profits wouldn't fund our government?

Tell us something we don't know.

The guy's a shyster, and you're the sucker.

[JONBALLS]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...georgebush.usa

[Jdriller]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein
The plain and simple truth is that there is no way to tax or even tax and confiscate enough money to keep spending at the current rate.
If the government took every penny of income from everyone after the first $250,000, then took 100% of the profits from every company in the Fortune 500, then confiscated (stole) every dime from every billionaire in the US. . . they could afford the current rate of spending for about 8 months.

Dooves’s response:

“How disingenuous can you get? Here's what he says:

"All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year. "

I seriously doubt that 25% of American households make 250,000 and above in annual household income. I do not believe that many households make that much money.
According to the US Census Bureau, the median household income is about $51,425, and median income per person is about $27,041.

America's Household Income Gap in Motion, 1967-2009


By Anthony Calabrese
October 8, 2010


New data show a widening income gap between the richest and poorest Americans -- the largest on record, according to the latest Census release.
Working with household income data, disparities are generally shown by looking at income by percentiles. The 10th percentile would be the 10 percent of people with the least income. The highest income or upper limit in a group is the cutoff point for that percentile. In 2009, the cutoff points for various percentiles, rounded to the nearest thousand, were:

• The bottom 10 percent or 10th percentile: $12,000
• The bottom 20 percent or 20th percentile: $20,000
• The bottom 50 percent or 50th percentile: $50,000
• The top 20 percent or 80th percentile: $100,000
• The top 10 percent or 90th percentile: $138,000
• The top five percent or 95th percentile: $180,000

this would indicate to me that less than 5% of household incomes exceed 250,000 per year!


Doove says
“In other words, what he's saying is that if you take $8 Trillion in income, and manage to generate only $1.4 Trillion in revenues, you can only fund the government for 141 days. Well no freakin' shit - given that $1.4 Trillion in revenues on $8 Trillion in income would work out to roughly a 17.5% overall (individual only!) national tax rate.”

I understood the total of all household income was 8 trillion. According to Source http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a, in 2011 tax revenues will be 4.5 trillion dollars
Even without taxing 100% of the income of those who make 250,000 or more 4.5/8 = 56.25 or a 56.25% overall tax rate (if 8 trillion dollars in total household income is correct). And you want to tax even MORE?

Now I am not claiming the tax rate is overall 56.25%. Just that if the total houshold income is only 8 trillion and tax revenues are 4.5 trillion then the tax rate would be 56.25% But that would be true if the governments estimate of tax revenue is actually correct and only if the total household income is really only 8 trillion. By the way...does the 8 trillion count all the money paid under the table to "undocumented workers" and unreported income that many people (of all economic groups both rich and poor and those criminals in society making money off of drugs and so forth)

[Little Stevie]

FUCKING IDIOT ALERT! The very next moron who blames Barney Frank for the housing bubble collapse and the sub-prime mortgage implosion, I'm gonna offer a ride in the Braillemobile to take a sanity test. The Dems won the House in 2006. Frank Couldn't have been the Chairman much over one year when the thing blew up in mid 2007. Besides, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed under CARTER and yet all of a sudden it comes apart under Obama? WTF? LMAO! Not ONE SINGLE WORD in the CRA forces lenders to lend one single cent to anyone with bad credit or anyone who could not pay it back. Blame the builders, developers, realtors, mortgage bankers who gamed the system with credit defaults swaps that skirted insurance and derivative regulation so they could lure in people who they could exploit and then sell the loans with "foolproof" derivative "insurance". Your ignorance of the causes is unbelievable and simple. You don't know SHIT!

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Sorry dear, that's nothing but supposition and wishful thinking about "what if" from a socialist propogandist. Tax revenue remains within a very narrow band as a percent of GDP regardless of tax rate, raise taxes, lower GDP, lower taxes, raise GDP, both result in essentially the same revenue to the government. Below is actual, historical data.

Horseshit, Iaintliein. You should know the $4.4 Trillion spent on wars, defense and military without any tax revenue (and in fact, CUTS) was problematic. You should also realize that the oft-whined-about U.S. corporate tax rate of 35% is NEVER paid by a single large U.S. Corporation unless they simultaneously EXECUTE their entire bank of CPA's and tax advisors for pure stupidity and malfeasance.

"Ain't" is now in the dictionary but so is the word "lying" and if you drop the "g", youirs is just as misspelled as your treatise was bungled. However I do respect your right to misspell your own handle.

Carry on, Guilty Pleasures! Well done!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Jdriller

"All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year. "

I seriously doubt that 25% of American households make 250,000 and above in annual household income. I do not believe that many households make that much money.

And that would be yet another problem with his argument - if that's what he actually said. 25% of income going to households making over $250,000/year is a lot different than 25% of households making over $250,000/yr.

And you want to tax even MORE?

No. I think we need to tax even more. If we're truly the richest country in the world, then we can afford to pay our bills. We just choose not to. It's as simple as that.

I hear the analogy about families living within their means, and how they stop spending when they run out of money blah blah blah. I think a better analogy is that we're like the rich people at the end of the street who keep getting their power shut off simply because they'd rather try to game the system than just pay their electric bill.

But that would be true if the governments estimate of tax revenue is actually correct and only if the total household income is really only 8 trillion.

And the third requirement is for you to read the data correctly. You need to click on the "Federal" tab. You also need to factor in revenue from corporate taxes, as well as the fact that revenues include social security and medicare taxes.

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

FUCKING IDIOT ALERT! The very next moron who blames Barney Frank for the housing bubble collapse and the sub-prime mortgage implosion, I'm gonna offer a ride in the Braillemobile to take a sanity test. The Dems won the House in 2006. Frank Couldn't have been the Chairman much over one year when the thing blew up in mid 2007. Besides, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed under CARTER and yet all of a sudden it comes apart under Obama? WTF? LMAO! Not ONE SINGLE WORD in the CRA forces lenders to lend one single cent to anyone with bad credit or anyone who could not pay it back. Blame the builders, developers, realtors, mortgage bankers who gamed the system with credit defaults swaps that skirted insurance and derivative regulation so they could lure in people who they could exploit and then sell the loans with "foolproof" derivative "insurance". Your ignorance of the causes is unbelievable and simple. You don't know SHIT!

speaking of idiots, it was all barney & billy