Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Budget Stalemate Whos Fault?  
User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4170 times:

With the US budget deadline just 48 hours away who is to blame? IMHO 100% of the blame is on the democrats and Obama. They want to spend this country into oblivion, then raise taxes on the job creators which is a huge mistake.
Obama Care is a huge expense this country cant afford as well as all the other spending Obama has done.
To make a budget work we need to slash spending my trillions, not rack up more. I am so scared for our future.

316 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4158 times:

The only reason we are here is due to the GOP not wanting to raise the debt ceiling without cuts. Not sure how this is Obama's fault. Truthfully this is a bigger problem for the GOP and Tea Party than it is for the Democrats.

Honestly the cuts just aren't that big, but they will affect a lot of people in a lot of businesses. I just wonder if the Tea Party and GOP will stay united.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4155 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
The only reason we are here is due to the GOP not wanting to raise the debt ceiling without cuts

Nor should we raise the debt ceiling. That's makes about as much sense as me not being able to make my bills, then go out and spend more or get more in debt. If we get rid of Obama Care, cut Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs we could not only eliminate the deficit, but have a surplus and pay down the debt.

Obama has spent more in four years than every other president in history. Not good.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4135 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
Nor should we raise the debt ceiling.

So this is just a flaimbait thread, not based on the real world or common sense?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineplaneguy727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1252 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4129 times:

It's the fault of the American people. Voting in representatives who promise to NOT compromise, regardless of political party. We did this and we need to deal with the results of our choice.


I want to live in an old and converted 727...
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4130 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
Budget Stalemate Whos Fault? 

Everybody's.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
Nor should we raise the debt ceiling.

You obviously don't understand what exactly the debt ceiling is.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4120 times:

I think this is way overblown honestly. I think the cuts are very mindless, but cuts do need to be made. I wish that both sides would have come together and cut just as much (actually, I'd prefer more) in the right places.

The GOP has made nothing easy in years, but the Dems are hardly blameless. I do believe we have a spending problem, I still don't see how anyone can think we don't, and I don't believe you can realistically raise enough revenue out of this hole. So both are to blame, sounds cliche, but both had made their errors

I'm not gonna adopt either side's battle cries either, though, a lot of them are full of it too



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4096 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
Obama has spent more in four years than every other president in history. Not good.

That's true of every President since Hoover, because of inflation.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
Nor should we raise the debt ceiling

If we don't and we default on our legal obligations to pay our bills, the economy will probably contract by around 10% in 2 weeks- i.e. a horrendous recession.

Even threatening to default is incredibly reckless- it's estimated that the 2011 debt ceiling standoff cost us 19 Billion over the next 10 years just from the effects of making the bond market nervous. Just from threatening to do something we ended up not doing! This is the way the economy works- it's not comparable to your credit card bills.

As BMI727 says above- if you think we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling you need to read up more on exactly what the debt ceiling is!



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3151 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4075 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
With the US budget deadline just 48 hours away who is to blame? IMHO 100% of the blame is on the democrats and Obama

The budget control act came out of the White House, correct.
Obama, Gene Sperling the White House National Economic Council Director along with Jack Lew then White House Budget Director and Ron Nabors White House Legislative Affairs and Joe Biden VP.
The bill was carried and given to Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader.

The bill does not reduce any debt. It only limits year to year automatic budget increases simply put.

The same 20 state tour with 3 staged press conferences a day that is going on now was going on then with the same children, police officers, infrastructure and teachers that will be thrown to curb if we do not pass the bill are now going be thrown to the curb because we passed the bill.

I will just leave it with the facts.

Okie


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26025 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4075 times:

We've simply continued to spend beyond our means.

Raising taxes and continuing to make the tax payer responsible for government actions is not the answer as it simply helps encourage the out of control spending habit.

Sole answer is to chop, chop, chop.

Yes it might be crude, but at some point we must bring spending inline with incoming revenue.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4062 times:

Am I incorrect in thinking that the cuts would be approx 2 to 3% across the board? If so (and I may be incorrect), any entity whether it be an individual or a family or a corporation or a government that can't handle a reduction of a few pennies on the dollar probably needs to be shot at sunset. Or at least not listened to.

This tedious perpetual fear mongering by the lame politicians to score D vs R points for their even lamer constituents is beyond obscene.

Although I am of the opinion (and this is only my opinion) that Obama and his power-hungrey cohorts are very smart, very astute and magnificent operators of sort of a Chicago-style thug political cartel that is successfully waging a winning war with a certain amount of masses (about a few percentage points more than half the voting public, think?), I also believe the perhaps ignorant to what really counts political opposition is equally as culpable. Most are dollar/power whores on both sides.

I have seen the US government become another major industry in my lifetime (and I've been voting for one-half century...and I started voting when I was 21), and it appears that most politicians don't give a shit about me, or any other constituants (including you other USA A.netters) as long as they keep their power and prestige. This b.s. about the current "crisis" is just that. Pure B.S. Fear mongering.

Reference the thread starter refering to Obama and the Dems being 100% for blame for the current "crisis", I must disagree (although it appears that this whole sequestration junk began because of Obama's political crap-shooting: it was his, or at least his team's, original idea and now he's throwing it across the aisle).

It's the WHOLE band of bandits on both sides. So, as much disrespect I personally have for Obama and that bunch political whores, I offer no accolades to his basically sophomoric opposition team because most of them are political whores too.

Just observations from an old-timer. But, hey....that's what the forum is all about. Best regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4053 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
I think the cuts are very mindless, but cuts do need to be made.

The cuts are mindless. If you have a car and want to force the driver to get an oil change, you'd do it by making the air conditioner not work rather than disabling the brakes.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Yes it might be crude, but at some point we must bring spending inline with incoming revenue.

Closing the deficit for one year would take something like a 70% wealth tax on the top 1%.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 10):
Although I am of the opinion (and this is only my opinion) that Obama and his power-hungrey cohorts are very smart, very astute and magnificent operators of sort of a Chicago-style thug political cartel that is successfully waging a winning war with a certain amount of masses (about a few percentage points more than half the voting public, think?),

They certainly haven't gotten to the level of running something like that. Emanuel left Obama to be the dictator of Chicago after all. That said, you could certainly make the case that Obama bought 2012 with public money when he bailed out the car companies.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 10):
I have seen the US government become another major industry in my lifetime

You have. Although all spending has increased, the biggest increases leading to the current situation have been entitlements, both from the New Deal and more recently the Great Society programs.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offline3DoorsDown From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4030 times:

Whose fault. Politicians. They are all a bunch of whiny, sniveling, piss ants who only care about two things. Themselves and getting re-elected. They should all go back to second grade. Third graders act more like adults than these clowns.

User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1928 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4019 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
Nor should we raise the debt ceiling.

The debt ceiling is not something that is a bargaining tool. It would be the same as bargaining with your credit card company over last month charges. You spent that money already there is no bargaining to be done there.

Our problem in this country is we want a certain level of government services and we refuse to pay above a certain amount of taxes. We have to reduce the expenditures and bring the tax revenue inline with what we spend. 1 cant be done without the other and expect to fix anything.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4013 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
100% of the blame is on the democrats and Obama. They want to spend this country into oblivion

Except the right were spending this country into oblivion and that was fine. In fact, the then-vice president told the American people that "deficts don't matter" and kept spending.

But, I keep forgetting, the Bush/Cheney years don't count, according to MSM.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
raise taxes on the job creators which is a huge mistake.

Oh, for the love of....

SMALL BUSINESS CREATE MORE JOBS IN THE USA!!! Not huge multi-national corporations!! These people (multi-national corporations. Corporations are people, per the right-wing) pay less in taxes than many of us do. AND they get more in welfare than all of us qualify for! They get handouts but we deserve nothing? We make so much less than they do. How is that right? Add to that, they don't create jobs (so workers can pay taxes) in the United States. How is that a good thing?

Besides, these "job creators" have had decades to give us jobs. What is our unemployment rate? How has that worked out?

Who's fault? The politicians who "kick the can down the road" instead of actually taking responsibility and actually doing something. At least we know Boehner wants to spend even more, as evidenced by his support of the Paul Ryan budget. That monstrosity has been voted down twice, thank gawd, but he tells the American people it is the Senate's fault they don't want to spend more? I have a little respect for Bohener for standing up for something. Even if it does throw even more debt onto the deficit, at least he stands up for something!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 411 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3963 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

How about we not put ourself in another recession and worry about our comparatively small debt when our economy is doing better. Why do people still clamor for austerity when we have seen it doesn't work? The European countries that cut the most in 2010 and 2011 are now the ones that have gone back into recession. Our government, wisely chose stimulus spending instead of austerity. Our recession ended much quicker and growth rates have been much higher. Not high enough, but most of Europe would be jealous of our 2-3% growth.

Our government can borrow money at a negative interest rate when you consider inflation. Our debt to GDP is around 75%, compare that with the 230% that Japan has and they can still borrow at low interest rates. We share a lot more with Japan than we do with Greece. All the freaking out about us being the next Greece is so misguided.

Economic growth should be the #1 priority in this country right now. Cutting spending is about the worst thing we could do.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3937 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 10):

The insanity of all of this is that even with the cuts, the Federal government will still spend more than it did last year and about $1 trillion more than was spent in 2008. The fed apparently never stops spending more yet every single one of us has tightened our belts the last 5 years. Most people I know haven't had an increase in compensation like that in the last 5 years. This pretty much disproves the theory on government spending stimulating the economy. We're no better off as a country financially than we were in 2008 and we've spent trillions trying to prove that federal spending improves things. That's like saying if you spend all your salary on stuff and over borrow against your home to cover it you won't lose that home when you can no longer borrow and spend. This is exactly why we had an economic collapse. People thought, and many still think that revenue (equity) from growth (property value over time) is limitless and it most certainly is not.

I wouldn't say it's "our" fault. Some people know how to save, vote accordingly and hope for the best.

[Edited 2013-02-27 06:13:42]

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3930 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 8):
The budget control act came out of the White House, correct.
Obama, Gene Sperling the White House National Economic Council Director along with Jack Lew then White House Budget Director and Ron Nabors White House Legislative Affairs and Joe Biden VP.
The bill was carried and given to Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader.

Okie, to start there you are ignoring the debt cieling negotiations that got destroyed by the Tea Party. This whole sequestration was supposed to be a poison pill that both political parties would seek to avoid through negotiations.

Both political parties failed miserably in that regard. If everyone is so against these cuts, but the argument from the GOP is that we should cut elswhere or more then I feel the GOP position on negotiations is untenable, because there were solutions to postpone the cuts longer or raise offsetting taxes to make it a more balanced approach.

Right now the GOP defense hawks are hopping mad at the defense cuts, whlle the Tea Party GOP wants more cuts. The GOP is going to rip itself apart before long. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later for the sake of this country.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3922 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
If we get rid of Obama Care, cut Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs we could not only eliminate the deficit, but have a surplus and pay down the debt.

Why didn't Bush and the Republican Senate do that between 2002 and 2006? Because its political suicide to do it - but its fair game to claim the other side are idiots for *not* doing it.

Its always the opposition parties job to lambast the other side for not doing things that they themselves would never do anyway.


User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 411 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3910 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 16):
The insanity of all of this is that even with the cuts, the Federal government will still spend more than it did last year and about $1 trillion more than was spent in 2008.


A large part of our deficit comes not from spending, but from loss of revenue. Tax receipts are down to the tune of $350 billion in 2011 compared to 2008. Add another couple hundred billion for the unemployment benefits and you have a huge deficit before spending a dollar on any stimulus.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 16):
The fed apparently never stops spending more yet every single one of us has tightened our belts the last 5 years.

Which is exactly why having the fed do the same thing is a terrible and counterproductive idea. If the government chose the route of austerity instead of stimulus then just look to Europe for how we would have fared. Back in recession.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 16):
This pretty much disproves the theory on government spending stimulating the economy. We're no better off as a country financially than we were in 2008 and we've spent trillions trying to prove that federal spending improves things.

We are growing at 2-3% per year, it has improved things. We aren't back in a recession like most European countries that did what you're advocating.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 16):
That's like saying if you spend all your salary on stuff and over borrow against your home to cover it you won't lose that home when you can no longer borrow and spend.

The government can borrow and spend as much as the market will allow. Using history and other countries as examples, we are very very far away from hitting any borrowing limit. Like $10+ trillion away from being toe-to-toe with Japan, which is still able to borrow cheaply.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days ago) and read 3909 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
Nor should we raise the debt ceiling. That's makes about as much sense as me not being able to make my bills, then go out and spend more or get more in debt

If you're going to rail against the debt ceiling, it's a good idea to know what it actually is (and it's not what you think it is).

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
Who's fault? The politicians who "kick the can down the road" instead of actually taking responsibility and actually doing something.

   Why would anyone choose to make investments in this country when policy changes are threatened every couple of months in Congressionally-manufactured crises? Just pick a national strategy and stick with it - it doesn't have to be the best one, it just has to be one that we can live with and that we won't try to screw around with for political gain at the earliest possible convenience. And once people realize can feel confident that their investment today isn't going to be made worthless by Congress tomorrow, they'll invest, and the economy will benefit from it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days ago) and read 3895 times:

The blame for the budget stalemate falls clearly and completely on one group.

The voters who keep sending these fools back to Congress every two years.

We have seen this coming for 20 years as the political process has become more and more separated from reality.

Congress must be willing to work with the administration, even one they do not like, to ensure bills are passed which the President will sign. To keep the government running.

Proposing bills they know the President will not sign without enough votes to override a veto is a failure of the Congressmen's basic duty to the nation. It is a deliberate violation of their oath of office.

FIRE THEM ALL IN 2014 !!!!


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
100% of the blame is on the democrats and Obama. They want to spend this country into oblivion

Except the right were spending this country into oblivion and that was fine. In fact, the then-vice president told the American people that "deficts don't matter" and kept spending.

But, I keep forgetting, the Bush/Cheney years don't count, according to MSM.

Going further in the past for blame does us no good, we need to analyze the situation now

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
raise taxes on the job creators which is a huge mistake.

Oh, for the love of....

SMALL BUSINESS CREATE MORE JOBS IN THE USA!!! Not huge multi-national corporations!!

I think that is what he is talking about. I don't know all the details of everything put out by the left, but some of it at least appears to be harmful to small businesses in addition to the larger ones. More research and elaboration must be done, but you may have read what he was saying incorrectly



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3861 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 21):
Congress must be willing to work with the administration, even one they do not like, to ensure bills are passed which the President will sign. To keep the government running.

Proposing bills they know the President will not sign without enough votes to override a veto is a failure of the Congressmen's basic duty to the nation. It is a deliberate violation of their oath of office.

But what if the President is not reasonable? The House has twice passed budgets which would have softened the impact of the sequester with targeted cuts, but the President and his party refuses to even look at them.

As your post exemplifies, there are plenty of people out there that buy into the idea that we don't need any cuts, in fact we should increase spending, and make our kids pay for it. It's sad when a country has degenerated to a point where the current generation is willing to sacrifice their children's future in return for current comforts.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12856 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3856 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
IMHO 100% of the blame is on the democrats and Obama. They want to spend this country into oblivion, then raise taxes on the job creators which is a huge mistake.

If GOP/Bush doctrine was right, the tax cuts Bush put in would have avoided all this stuff. Instead all we've seen it do is fuel corporate and individual greed, a housing bubble and resulting collapse, and waves of outsourcing.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
Obama Care is a huge expense this country cant afford as well as all the other spending Obama has done.

The major inflator of cost over the last few decades for all levels of government has been the cost of health care. Some how you seem to be OK with not addressing that?

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
To make a budget work we need to slash spending my trillions, not rack up more. I am so scared for our future.

Were you saying the same thing when Bush/Cheney/Rummy were spending trillions off-budget to invade Iraq and Afghanistan?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
The only reason we are here is due to the GOP not wanting to raise the debt ceiling without cuts. Not sure how this is Obama's fault.

  

There was a "grand bargain" on the table during the debut ceiling negotiations, and it was Boehner who could not deliver his side. They don't seem to realize that to make a bargin you must give something up you don't like to get something you do like. They seem to think they can just obstruct till the other side caves. I think it was that very episode that convinced Obama he had to play hardball. On the preceding Bush tax renewal he got reamed out by his own party for putting everything on the table right up front and then getting done over by the GOP, and after those two episodes he's learned.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
Truthfully this is a bigger problem for the GOP and Tea Party than it is for the Democrats.

Indeed, and I note how you mention these two separately. The GOP's biggest issue is that this issue is a wedge, for their own party: their own members and others who call themselves conservatives dislike what the GOP congressmen are doing!

Quote:

While 74 and 68 percent of Democrats and liberals, respectively, approve of the president's handling of the issue, 51 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of conservatives disapprove of the performance of GOP lawmakers. Even among "very" conservative Americans, 54 percent disapprove of the congressional Republicans' approach.

Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/brink-budget-s...-121007509--abc-news-politics.html

So we see Dem unity and GOP dis-unity. It's like last year's election, where the GOP just could not believe they were backing a bunch of losing policies.

We also see across the board that the GOP, aka 'The Party of No', is the one being given the blame.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 10):
Am I incorrect in thinking that the cuts would be approx 2 to 3% across the board? If so (and I may be incorrect), any entity whether it be an individual or a family or a corporation or a government that can't handle a reduction of a few pennies on the dollar probably needs to be shot at sunset.

It's not that simple. Indeed all the agencies impacted are going to do the cuts, but there are some things you can't cut due to contracts the government has written. This is why the burden will fall mostly on civilian employees, because it's relatively easy to tell them to stay at home. They won't file a court injunction like the big defense contractors will.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 16):
The insanity of all of this is that even with the cuts, the Federal government will still spend more than it did last year and about $1 trillion more than was spent in 2008. The fed apparently never stops spending more yet every single one of us has tightened our belts the last 5 years.

Right, but the core issue is that medical costs are growing much faster than the rest of the budget. This means the money the fed puts out for medical for civilian and military employees, civilian and military retirees, and Medicare/Medicaid is going up like crazy.

Addressing this was a goal of Obamacare, but the distractions thrown up by both the lobbyists and the right wingers made it difficult to get much savings worked into it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
The House has twice passed budgets which would have softened the impact of the sequester with targeted cuts, but the President and his party refuses to even look at them.

1: When you say "refuse to look" do you literally mean they completely refused to look?

2: Were these proposals ones that "softened the impact" but included stuff that obviously wasn't going to fly for Democrats? As in if the sides were reversed and the Democrats gave the Republicans something that included a bunch of cutting, like the GOP wants, but hardly touched entitlements and clobbered defense?

I only ask this because I think this is a misleading argument. I hear all the time that the House in the past few years passed X amount of budgets but it was the Democrats fault for not agreeing!!! (Only to find out you'd have greater chance convincing the Westboro Baptist Church supporting gay marriage than the Democrats agreeing to the budget the Republicans passed.)

Now I'm not praising either side or excusing them... they both did lousy jobs! But if we take the GOP's bait that they did everything they could (!) but at the last second, the Dems shot it down without consideration, (and that turns out to be misleading, as I outlined above) than us as an electorate are causing the problem by eating their BS and not holding them accountable, even if you agree with that side more than the other

With an issue as difficult and time consuming as this budget, I highly highly doubt the answer is as simple as "the House has twice passed budgets . . . but the President and his party refuses to even look at them"



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3312 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
Obama has spent more in four years than every other president in history. Not good.

Evidence? Last I checked, under Obama, the budget deficit has actually shrunk as opposed to grown. But hey, I guess when the guy in charge is from the other party, no credit is allowed. I suggest you discard the chain emails that claim what you posted.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-barack-obama-has-doubled-deficit/

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...ticized-fact-checks-truth-o-meter/

Quoting planeguy727 (Reply 4):
It's the fault of the American people. Voting in representatives who promise to NOT compromise, regardless of political party. We did this and we need to deal with the results of our choice.

   We have a winner.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 10):
(although it appears that this whole sequestration junk began because of Obama's political crap-shooting: it was his, or at least his team's, original idea and now he's throwing it across the aisle)

You are forgetting one teensy weensy detail: the sequester was an idea thrown as a backup should the Supercommittee fail to agree on cuts and was overwhelmingly approved by both parties. To say that the sequester is solely Obama's fault is simply blind. If both parties were against it, they could have voted against that particular piece.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...hos-responsible-for-the-sequester/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...io-says-sequester-was-obamas-idea/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts/

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
100% of the blame is on the democrats and Obama. They want to spend this country into oblivion

Except the right were spending this country into oblivion and that was fine. In fact, the then-vice president told the American people that "deficts don't matter" and kept spending.

But, I keep forgetting, the Bush/Cheney years don't count, according to MSM.

  



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 411 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3905 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
As your post exemplifies, there are plenty of people out there that buy into the idea that we don't need any cuts, in fact we should increase spending, and make our kids pay for it. It's sad when a country has degenerated to a point where the current generation is willing to sacrifice their children's future in return for current comforts.

Did your generation sacrifice and suffer hardship to pay off the WWII debt, which was 120% of GDP instead of the 75% we're at now? No. In fact, we never paid off our WWII debt. In the 30 years following WWII our debt doubled and we had deficits nearly every single year, yet our debt to GDP plummeted to less than 40%. We didn't pay off our debt, we just outgrew it.

The shock of the depression and WWII caused out debt to reach 120%. The shock of 2 wars and the largest financial collapse since the depression has caused our debt to reach 75%, and could go a little higher before it starts going down. Our government will likely continue to have annual deficits every year for the next 30 years just as it did following WWII. It is not a problem as long as we grow. Austerity will kill growth.

Let's look at what our annual deficits have been since the recession.

2008: $459 Billion
2009: $1413 Billion
2010: $1294 Billion
2011: $1299 Billion
2012: $1100 Billion
2013: $900 Billion

Notice a trend? Down over $500 billion in the past 5 years, and the drop is quickening.

Just an example of what growth does: If our economy grows at a modest 3% a year, that means we can afford an annual deficit of $350 billion without increasing our debt-to-gdp %. We don't need a surplus to reduce our debt. And unlike many of our European and Asian counterparts, we have the demographics (relatively quick growing population) to support prolonged economic growth.

Our debt isn't an issue. Get over it.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3401 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3902 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
But what if the President is not reasonable? The House has twice passed budgets which would have softened the impact of the sequester with targeted cuts, but the President and his party refuses to even look at them.

If he was unreasonable then congress would be able to send him a veto-proof majority.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Yes it might be crude, but at some point we must bring spending inline with incoming revenue.

Yes, but I question if that is wise in the short term where no one is spending. Look at what austerity has done on Europe IIRC the UK might actually have a triple dip recession because David Cameron is still pushing austerity.

Once the economy starts growing again put in a plan to balance the budget in the medium term and it will attract investment. Short term austerity will actually decrease the amount of revenue the government receives because when people get laid off they go on unemployment and they stop paying taxes at best its a zero-sum game and we are worse off because the consumer isn't spending.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
Closing the deficit for one year would take something like a 70% wealth tax on the top 1%.

Anyone who is suggesting a balanced budget in one year needs their head examined.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 13):
Our problem in this country is we want a certain level of government services and we refuse to pay above a certain amount of taxes. We have to reduce the expenditures and bring the tax revenue inline with what we spend. 1 cant be done without the other and expect to fix anything.

I'll get flamed but from the outside looking in the US is under taxed.

Quoting moo (Reply 18):
Why didn't Bush and the Republican Senate do that between 2002 and 2006? Because its political suicide to do it - but its fair game to claim the other side are idiots for *not* doing it.

Bush said IIRC "I will not balance the budget on the backs of the poor".



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5738 posts, RR: 10
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3896 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 27):
Let's look at what our annual deficits have been since the recession.

And don't forget about $4T of that debt is actually earning money in the form of the "Quantitative Easing" that the Treasury has done. Yes it is likened to "printing money" but in truth they are buying assets that can be later sold and can grow in value.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3875 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 16):
We're no better off as a country financially than we were in 2008

Depends when in 2008. We aren't better off than we were before the financial crash it's true, but we are most certainly better off than when Obama took office.

As others have opined, now is not the time to worry about the deficit. Austerity doesn't work, as Europe has shown. The ONLY thing lawmakers should be focused on right now is job creation. Especially since voters overwhelmingly believe that should be the priority. Right now the deficit is propping up the economy and reducing it (either by cuts or new taxes on the middle class) will contract the economy.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
If we get rid of Obama Care, cut Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs we could not only eliminate the deficit, but have a surplus and pay down the debt.

Problem is that few in America want any of those programs touched, because they're extremely popular (even ObamaCare has broad support across the political spectrum; it's only the individual mandate part of it some don't like because that's the part which pays for it). People want cuts but not to anything which affects them. It's a kind of NIMBYism. The only thing people want to eliminate is "waste", which is why politicians talk about it so much. Problem is that there isn't a whole lot of waste to cut, and what there is won't save us very much money.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 21):
FIRE THEM ALL IN 2014 !!!!

Problem is, we'll just vote in more. As you say, the electorate are the problem here.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3878 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
SMALL BUSINESS CREATE MORE JOBS IN THE USA!!! Not huge multi-national corporations!!

Do you know the definition of an economic positive driving small business?

25 to 100 employees
Growing employment by at least 10% per year
Employees have medical insurance and retirement coverage through their employer.

Any business 'smaller' than this and without those benefits for employees is a economic burden on the nation, not a job creation organization.

Somewhere the definition of small business has been changed to include small shops without benefits and paying near minimum wage. Those businesses might create a few jobs, but they do not improve the economy.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
The House has twice passed budgets which would have softened the impact of the sequester with targeted cuts,

The House is completely irresponsible in this situation. Their duty is to pass a budget which will pass the Senate and be signed.

If they cannot pass what they consider a reasonable budget by a veto proof majority - then all they are doing is playing political games.

They are not fulfilling their oath of office or their duties to the tax payers of this nation.

I'm not saying the Democrats or President are not playing the same stupid game.

But the politics of stalemate are an insult to the citizens of this nation. The Republicans in the House are every bit as guilty as the Democrats in the Senate and White House.

FIRE THEM ALL IN 2014!!!


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3850 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
Going further in the past for blame does us no good, we need to analyze the situation now

Seemed to work until 2008.

What I want to know is: Democrats are willing to negotiate. The right is not. Why is that?

Also: the right keeps complaining that Obama is going around the country and why isn't Obama in Washington? Well, you politicians know where he is and know he is willing to compromise, so send him something he can deal with or, at the very least, go to where he will be and work with him there instead of sitting on you kiesters in Washington complaining.

More to the point: you on the right should work with Democrats in the House and Senate to get things done instead of taking three and four day weekends every week. IIRC, under Pelosi, the House was in session five days a week, except holidays. She kept saying "WE need to get this done" and "WE need to get that done" as opposed to the current right-wing leadership saying "it is their fault" and "they are not doing anything".

And, yes, I still believe both sides are to blame. I am pointing out one component of what I see going on.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12856 posts, RR: 25
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3839 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
More research and elaboration must be done

I think you should take into consideration that:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 26):

You are forgetting one teensy weensy detail: the sequester was an idea thrown as a backup should the Supercommittee fail to agree on cuts and was overwhelmingly approved by both parties.

And before that we had the 'commission report' etc.

So there's been more than enough time for that kind of work.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13704 posts, RR: 61
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
The only reason we are here is due to the GOP not wanting to raise the debt ceiling without cuts.

Can you explain why the Democrats don't want cuts? Shouldn't EVERYONE in the government want cuts (which aren't really cuts anyway, but merely slowing the rate of the annual increases) to help get the budget under control?



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2591 posts, RR: 7
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3811 times:

Quoting planeguy727 (Reply 4):
It's the fault of the American people. Voting in representatives who promise to NOT compromise, regardless of political party.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 21):
The voters who keep sending these fools back to Congress every two years.

That's right. Why oh why do people keep sending these bums back term after term? Congress' approval rating is at crush depth and has been for years, yet when the time comes to change things, the incumbents get another trip to D.C. I guess too many people think "they're all worthless except my representative or senator." Enough is enough! Can't we have a "no confidence" vote like they do in other countries?

Quoting 3DoorsDown (Reply 12):
Politicians. They are all a bunch of whiny, sniveling, piss ants who only care about two things. Themselves and getting re-elected. They should all go back to second grade. Third graders act more like adults than these clowns.

  

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
If we get rid of Obama Care, cut Social Security, Medicare,

I'd really prefer that you leave Social Security and Medicare alone - I'll be collecting the former and be eligible for the latter in a few years. Maybe buy a few dozen fewer F-35's and a sub or two less to pay for them
 


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6694 posts, RR: 24
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 34):
Shouldn't EVERYONE in the government want cuts (which aren't really cuts anyway, but merely slowing the rate of the annual increases) to help get the budget under control?

I think Democrats do want cuts, but they're not the same cuts the Republicans want. Hence, the problems we're having.

The other problem is that government revenue as a % of GDP is at record lows. Despite the fact that GDP hasn't fallen, government revenues have. So where's all the money going? If we had a similar % of revenue of GDP as we had in the late 90's, you'd cut the deficit in half.

On a side note, your quote from Reagan is quite ironic given that while Reagan claimed government was a problem, he had no problem signing budgets that significantly increased government spending and produced deficits.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
It's sad when a country has degenerated to a point where the current generation is willing to sacrifice their children's future in return for current comforts.

To be fair, that's been going on now for quite a while. The WWII generation made out like bandits on programs like SS and Medicare...not to mention on their defined benefit pensions. Their gains started the ball rolling in terms of deficit spending and sacrificing future generation's for the current generation's comforts.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 16):
This pretty much disproves the theory on government spending stimulating the economy. We're no better off as a country financially than we were in 2008 and we've spent trillions trying to prove that federal spending improves things.

Take a look at your 401K today versus 2008....most people are vastly better off in that regard. You say we aren't better off with government spending, but you can't really know that because you don't know what would have happened if the government hadn't spent all that money. And if you are correct, then we should just slash a trillion dollars in government spending tomorrow and see no impact....yet somehow few conservatives are willing to go down that path.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 28):
Anyone who is suggesting a balanced budget in one year needs their head examined.

I'm not saying it needs to, I'm just illustrating the magnitude of the issue. Anyone who says this is a revenue problem needs their head examined. Coming up a few bucks short is a revenue problem. Outspending revenue by better than 50% is not a revenue problem. Drunken sailors look like Suze Orman compared to the government.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 36):
So where's all the money going?

Into the pockets of Americans. I fail to see how that is scandalous.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12856 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 34):
Can you explain why the Democrats don't want cuts?

I guess you haven't hear Obama mention the "balanced approach" over the last, oh, six to nine months? No one wants cuts, but if they are done in conjunction with tax reforms then a compromise can be reached.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 36):
I think Democrats do want cuts, but they're not the same cuts the Republicans want.

AFAIK the "Republicans" haven't ever named the cuts they are willing to vote for. AFAIK At during the "fiscal cliff", the best they did was that they named some reduction dollar targets.

I say "Republicans" in quotes, because they aren't at all speaking in one voice.

One small slice will allow for some tax reforms, but they are getting beaten down by the "read my lips" types.

All of them are doing a great job at making sure they disappear as a party. They are widely viewed as a party of obstructionists. At a time when the citizens are having to make tough choices, they are seen as refusing to do so. They just lost the presidential election and don't agree why. They've got the internal battle of the tea party types versus the centrists/RINOs. They've got Karl Rove out there raising funds for more centrist/RINO types to run against the Tea Partiers. They have many in their number who are moving to block immigration reform and thus guarantee future defeats. On top of that, the polls show they are going to be the ones to take the blame for the sequester. Should be an ugly few months for the GOP.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6694 posts, RR: 24
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3794 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 37):
Into the pockets of Americans. I fail to see how that is scandalous.

It's not scandalous, but it completely undermines the story that taxes are "hurting" the economy. The economy has more of it's revenue to spend as it wants than anytime in recent history.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 37):
Outspending revenue by better than 50% is not a revenue problem.

It's both. We do have a spending problem, but we also have a revenue problem. With current revenues, it's almost impossible to balance the budget based solely on cuts.


User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 411 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3799 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 34):
Can you explain why the Democrats don't want cuts? Shouldn't EVERYONE in the government want cuts (which aren't really cuts anyway, but merely slowing the rate of the annual increases) to help get the budget under control?

No. Some of us want growth. It is the best way to reduce the deficit after all. And it's how we have historically overcome our deficits. You outgrow them.

I certainly don't want to follow Europe's lead back into a recession.

[Edited 2013-02-27 12:54:58]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3797 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 32):
What I want to know is: Democrats are willing to negotiate. The right is not. Why is that?

Because they are, you have bias of your own. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of politicians on the right that aren't budging. You see that on the left too, entitlement cuts are pretty much a sacred cow for some of them. You have Republicans right now breaking ranks and some definitely want compromise. Didn't a bunch of Republicans sign on to something fighting prop 8? I heard that today.

You rightly call out the double standard on the right but don't forget it happens on the left as well. Not holding them accountable, even if you agree with their positions, doesn't do anyone good

Quoting Revelation (Reply 33):
I think you should take into consideration that:

Huh? That has nothing to do with what I was talking about



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3798 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):
It's not scandalous, but it completely undermines the story that taxes are "hurting" the economy.

Taxes don't help the economy. Some of the things taxes pay for are needed to have an economy at all, but the stock market never crashed because taxes weren't high enough. Companies don't lay off workers because the tax bills are too low.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):
It's both. We do have a spending problem, but we also have a revenue problem.

Mostly spending. It's like a guy working at McDonald's buying a Gulfstream and then saying that he just doesn't quite make enough money.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 34):
Can you explain why the Democrats don't want cuts? Shouldn't EVERYONE in the government want cuts (which aren't really cuts anyway, but merely slowing the rate of the annual increases) to help get the budget under control?

Cuts slow growth. We need growth. We don't need to reduce the deficit. It's as simple as that.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6647 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
ut the stock market never crashed because taxes weren't high enough.

.

The stock market is doing just fine - thank you very much

Dow rallies to new 5-year high

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/27/inve...stocks-markets/index.html?iid=Lead



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3734 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 43):
We don't need to reduce the deficit. It's as simple as that.

     

Holy crap, If you actually believe that, your head must be examined!



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3703 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 45):
Holy crap, If you actually believe that, your head must be examined!

Once the economy has recovered we can worry about the deficit. Right now it is a non-issue.

If you think I need my head examined, tell me why this is so urgent.

[Edited 2013-02-27 15:29:04]


If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5501 posts, RR: 13
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3688 times:

All of them! With a slight nod to the Republicans in the House. And also to all the BS government waste and crap like subsidizing tobbaco and other stuff.


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3679 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 47):
And also to all the BS government waste and crap like subsidizing tobbaco and other stuff.

Ill take subsidizing tobacco off the table if you take subsidizing green energy off the table  
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 46):
Once the economy has recovered we can worry about the deficit. Right now it is a non-issue.

If you think I need my head examined, tell me why this is so urgent.

I think you are the only person I've heard say that. Not even Obama is saying the deficit isn't a problem. As economic experts why they think it's urgent.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3151 posts, RR: 3
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17):
Okie, to start there you are ignoring the debt cieling negotiations that got destroyed by the Tea Party

I am not ignoring anything.
Just stating that I just can not remember a politician spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars on a political tour to condemn legislation that came out of his own office. So best he can do try to blame someone else.

So it sounds like a meager 2.5% shift in budget seems to totally escape the capabilities of the several hundred thousand government heads. Amazing. Most businesses would probably take 8 seconds to figure out how to deal with a 2.5% cut.

Okie


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3650 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 48):
I think you are the only person I've heard say that. Not even Obama is saying the deficit isn't a problem. As economic experts why they think it's urgent.

I'm not asking "economic experts"- I'm asking you. What is so urgent?



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12856 posts, RR: 25
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3652 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 49):
Most businesses would probably take 8 seconds to figure out how to deal with a 2.5% cut.

Baloney. Have you ever been a part of a budget review of something bigger than, let's say, a hot dog stand?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Because they are, you have bias of your own.

Some of them are. Yes. The ones that count are not willing to negotiate.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Didn't a bunch of Republicans sign on to something fighting prop 8? I heard that today.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with this.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
"Republicans" haven't ever named the cuts they are willing to vote for.

Entitlements. You know: those programs we the people paid into. Like Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, police, fire, roads, public education. Entitlements that are given to those horrible awful welfare queens who just want to leech off the government.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3620 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 52):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Didn't a bunch of Republicans sign on to something fighting prop 8? I heard that today.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with this.

I meant that more and more Republicans seem to be splintering off... they are an unorganized mess but I'd prefer it that way since when they were organized, nothing really got done. Now we have a chance

Quoting seb146 (Reply 52):
Entitlements. You know: those programs we the people paid into. Like Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, police, fire, roads, public education. Entitlements that are given to those horrible awful welfare queens who just want to leech off the government.

This is true, both sides seem pretty hellbent on doing it their way, unfortunately



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
If we get rid of Obama Care, cut Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs we could not only eliminate the deficit, but have a surplus and pay down the debt.

You also dramatically increase poverty for those in their 60s & 70's. Really impressive.

Then add in the massive burden of health care in the US

Some simple numbers to help you understand:

62% of all bankruptcies are related to illness or medical bills

69% of those who filed medical related bankruptcies had health insurance at the time of filing.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/2...at-makes-health-care-so-expensive/

Both of those numbers are only going to get worse if we follow your recommendations.

BTW, the most informative information right now on the high costs of medicine is the series at Time Magazine:

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/2...-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/

Major read, but pretty important for people in your age group. Start thinking of your future including health inflation that far exceeds your COLA compensation package increases. Start thinking about $100,000 "co-payments" (that you can face today) and then think about how that is going to hit your personal assets web it doubles, triples or more.

The first step to protect YOU when you get to your 60s is to ensure ObamaCare continues. The next step to protect your ability to receive health care in your "later years" is to move the overpriced burden of health insurance off of the backs of employers. It you've read the second link above you can pretty well see what is going to happen to your future care (and your assets) without moving core care to a Medicare system.

Or maybe we can end that (now unaffordable) tax free ride on your employer nanny care. Thats a huge chunk of money, especially when you look a the 10 year amount.

Toss in that income tax free ride on contributions to private pension programs - they are also unaffordable these days - and you pretty well take care of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for your entire lifetime. You'll probably also deliver old age protection for your kids as well.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 2):
Obama has spent more in four years than every other president in history. Not good.

The guy has been cleaning up the horrid mess of the Bush/Cheney Years. Two totally unnecessary wars on the credit card as well as The Great Recession. Housing Crisis, Stock Market Crash. Worst Presidency in my 68 Years and you want to hit on the Black Guy who came in to clean up the mess.

Maybe you'd prefer to have had a few more years of Bush & Cheney.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Raising taxes and continuing to make the tax payer responsible for government actions is not the answer as it simply helps encourage the out of control spending habit.

Especially in that 75,000 page tax law there are so many neat little things for the very wealthy and you REALLY, REALLY want to continue helping those that need a 300+ page tax return.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3609 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
Closing the deficit for one year would take something like a 70% wealth tax on the top 1%.

Which would still leave them in the top 1%.         

It really doesn't matter how high we raise their taxes - they have the political power to ensure the loopholes are maintained, they will continue to file a 300+ page tax return and they will continue to pay under the 15% level.

You might eventually get to a point where you believe it is BS, but even then it won't matter. They have the money and they have the political power.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3151 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3612 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
Baloney. Have you ever been a part of a budget review of something bigger than, let's say, a hot dog stand

Everyday. Thank You.

They have had a year and a half to figure it out. Pathetic

Okie


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3605 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 50):
I'm not asking "economic experts"- I'm asking you. What is so urgent?

Economic uncertainty puts businesses in stasis. Reduced hiring, not spending their money, etc. Even in the best economic times, owning a business is a risky venture; with the yahoos in DC, it makes it even more so (both D and R). The national debt is a long term problem, so while you say it's not a problem, we cant simply "kick the can down the road" as the saying goes. While creditors do not yet worry about a default on our debt, leaving the deficit uncheck absolutely increases that risk. Its all about one word: Uncertainty.

Now, please share with me why you think this isn't a problem.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3589 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 55):
It really doesn't matter how high we raise their taxes - they have the political power to ensure the loopholes are maintained, they will continue to file a 300+ page tax return and they will continue to pay under the 15% level.

You might eventually get to a point where you believe it is BS, but even then it won't matter. They have the money and they have the political power.

You talk like that's somehow wrong. It's not the middle and lower classes giving the government most of the revenue. The government is paid for by the top earners and corporate entities so it should come as no surprise that it's run with their interests in mind. When you bankroll something, you own it, whether or not you get an actual deed or title for it. If "main street" wants more clout the solution is simple: pay up.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3590 times:

The closer we get to the sequestration the more I believe if is just another piece of political crap that we are going to be enduring for the rest of this year.

Fix the sequester and then we have the debt limit games - pocket billiards that they believe are important. What crap. Maybe we can have another credit downgrade from these worthless political games.

So we cut "spending". Maybe a million worthless government employees let go. At lest they probably know the ways around getting all possible government benefits for the unemployed.

And there will be the obvious economic losses from those lost jobs. Remember when Old W was loosing 750,000 jobs a month? It flows down hill. Just as housing was starting to improve we can put a few hundred thousand mortgage payers on foreclosure. More GOP Economics with the Tea Party cracking the whip.

Look for three major (unnecessary) economic crisis before summer is over. WHile the Tea Party may love this political crap our economy won't.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3565 times:

What I postulated in the other thread is proving true. $45 billion in unspent already allocated funds just sitting there to be spent. Combined with a hiring and procurement/expansion freeze and nothing much needs to come if this in the short term. But just as it was in California, those in charge who want higher taxes are purposely cutting forward facing personel and services to win the fight. It's blackmail, but it only works if the sequester happens. which is why obama hasnt even tried negotiations for a week. So who's at fault? Hmmm...


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5705 posts, RR: 29
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3568 times:

Quoting planeguy727 (Reply 4):
It's the fault of the American people. Voting in representatives who promise to NOT compromise, regardless of political party. We did this and we need to deal with the results of our choice.

Exactly.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
We've simply continued to spend beyond our means.

Raising taxes and continuing to make the tax payer responsible for government actions is not the answer as it simply helps encourage the out of control spending habit.

Sole answer is to chop, chop, chop.

Yes it might be crude, but at some point we must bring spending inline with incoming revenue.

We needed to do it 20 years ago. I wish we'd do it today. The problem is, we'll do it in 20 more years when I REALLY won't be ready.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 10):
This tedious perpetual fear mongering by the lame politicians to score D vs R points for their even lamer constituents is beyond obscene.

It's pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 10):
Although I am of the opinion (and this is only my opinion) that Obama and his power-hungrey cohorts are very smart, very astute and magnificent operators of sort of a Chicago-style thug political cartel that is successfully waging a winning war with a certain amount of masses (about a few percentage points more than half the voting public, think?), I also believe the perhaps ignorant to what really counts political opposition is equally as culpable. Most are dollar/power whores on both sides.

Again, they're all pathetic. The higher up the chain you go, the worse it gets.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 10):
I have seen the US government become another major industry in my lifetime (and I've been voting for one-half century...and I started voting when I was 21), and it appears that most politicians don't give a shit about me, or any other constituants (including you other USA A.netters) as long as they keep their power and prestige. This b.s. about the current "crisis" is just that. Pure B.S. Fear mongering.

Again, I agree.

Quoting 3DoorsDown (Reply 12):
Whose fault. Politicians. They are all a bunch of whiny, sniveling, piss ants who only care about two things. Themselves and getting re-elected. They should all go back to second grade. Third graders act more like adults than these clowns.

Yep.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
Except the right were spending this country into oblivion and that was fine. In fact, the then-vice president told the American people that "deficts don't matter" and kept spending.

But, I keep forgetting, the Bush/Cheney years don't count, according to MSM.

Yes, we get it. It's always Bush/Cheney's fault with you.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
SMALL BUSINESS CREATE MORE JOBS IN THE USA!!! Not huge multi-national corporations!! These people (multi-national corporations. Corporations are people, per the right-wing) pay less in taxes than many of us do. AND they get more in welfare than all of us qualify for! They get handouts but we deserve nothing? We make so much less than they do. How is that right? Add to that, they don't create jobs (so workers can pay taxes) in the United States. How is that a good thing?

If you're so smart, go start a business, create jobs, and show us how it's done.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
Besides, these "job creators" have had decades to give us jobs. What is our unemployment rate? How has that worked out?

I can't believe how anit-business the left has gotten. Unbelievable.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):
How about we not put ourself in another recession and worry about our comparatively small debt when our economy is doing better. Why do people still clamor for austerity when we have seen it doesn't work? The European countries that cut the most in 2010 and 2011 are now the ones that have gone back into recession. Our government, wisely chose stimulus spending instead of austerity. Our recession ended much quicker and growth rates have been much higher. Not high enough, but most of Europe would be jealous of our 2-3% growth.

So we just keep spending beyond our means forever? Because that's what we've been doing for decades. If we're going to do that, let's at least admit to ourselves that we plan to do it so we can just stop talking about it. Otherwise, it seems like all we do is pay lip service to balanced budgets when we secretly know that that is just not good for our future.

???

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):
Our government can borrow money at a negative interest rate when you consider inflation. Our debt to GDP is around 75%, compare that with the 230% that Japan has and they can still borrow at low interest rates. We share a lot more with Japan than we do with Greece. All the freaking out about us being the next Greece is so misguided.

Economic growth should be the #1 priority in this country right now. Cutting spending is about the worst thing we could do.

When does the overspending stop? Never?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17):
Right now the GOP defense hawks are hopping mad at the defense cuts, whlle the Tea Party GOP wants more cuts. The GOP is going to rip itself apart before long. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later for the sake of this country.

I do too, to be honest. I'm ready for a new Conservative party that will actually lead rather than do what they're doing now. I think we need a strong liberal and a strong conservative party as a balance. We have all one, we get wars. We have all the other, we get entitlements. At some point, we need sanity.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 19):
Like $10+ trillion away from being toe-to-toe with Japan, which is still able to borrow cheaply.

That's, what, 10 or 15 years? Then what?

Quoting Mir (Reply 20):

Why would anyone choose to make investments in this country when policy changes are threatened every couple of months in Congressionally-manufactured crises? Just pick a national strategy and stick with it - it doesn't have to be the best one, it just has to be one that we can live with and that we won't try to screw around with for political gain at the earliest possible convenience. And once people realize can feel confident that their investment today isn't going to be made worthless by Congress tomorrow, they'll invest, and the economy will benefit from it.

At this point, I don't see it happening any time soon. We've grown ever more devisive every election.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 21):
The blame for the budget stalemate falls clearly and completely on one group.

The voters who keep sending these fools back to Congress every two years.

Exactly.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 28):
I'll get flamed but from the outside looking in the US is under taxed.

Based on? I never understand statements like under-taxed or over-spends. Don't the two need to go together?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 32):
And, yes, I still believe both sides are to blame. I am pointing out one component of what I see going on.

The token "balance" to make you seem unbiased?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 36):
On a side note, your quote from Reagan is quite ironic given that while Reagan claimed government was a problem, he had no problem signing budgets that significantly increased government spending and produced deficits.

I'm not sure if it's ironic.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 36):
To be fair, that's been going on now for quite a while. The WWII generation made out like bandits on programs like SS and Medicare...not to mention on their defined benefit pensions. Their gains started the ball rolling in terms of deficit spending and sacrificing future generation's for the current generation's comforts.

And we should find solace in that? lol Yep, we're screwed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 37):
Drunken sailors look like Suze Orman compared to the government.

 
Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
All of them are doing a great job at making sure they disappear as a party. They are widely viewed as a party of obstructionists. At a time when the citizens are having to make tough choices, they are seen as refusing to do so. They just lost the presidential election and don't agree why. They've got the internal battle of the tea party types versus the centrists/RINOs. They've got Karl Rove out there raising funds for more centrist/RINO types to run against the Tea Partiers. They have many in their number who are moving to block immigration reform and thus guarantee future defeats. On top of that, the polls show they are going to be the ones to take the blame for the sequester. Should be an ugly few months for the GOP.

It'll be longer than that. They are bumbling fools who are being played by the Dem's at this point. If that's the best they can do, kick 'em to the curb.

Personally, I don't care if the party I vote for gets defeated as long as they stand on their principles. At this point, as a conservative voter, I'm not expecting to see many more conservative party victories because regardless of how they vote, minorities, old people, homosexuals, single women, immigrants, etc won't vote for them anyhow. Bush could have pushed for gay marriage and it wouldn't have mattered - those votes will always go Democrat. The same with most of the ones I listed. They instead need to lead in these issues or prepare to be defeated on principle - I'm fine with it either way.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
62% of all bankruptcies are related to illness or medical bills

I must know everyperson then that declared BK for spending beyond their means. lol

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
Worst Presidency in my 68 Years and you want to hit on the Black Guy who came in to clean up the mess.

Shame on you. This is the type of statement that absolutely marginalizes the left. I don't know ONE PERSON that voted for or against President Obama because he was black, yet you'd think it was the ONLY reason he is in office. At the same time, I don't know one person that's even mentioned his RACE as a reason for their opinion about him. Why the left feels like they need to make us racist for disagreeing with him is pathetic. And frankly, that's what it is, because the counter to that is that it was the White Guy's fault.

Shame on you.

Quoting okie (Reply 56):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):Baloney. Have you ever been a part of a budget review of something bigger than, let's say, a hot dog stand
Everyday. Thank You.

They have had a year and a half to figure it out. Pathetic

Okie

I think one problem is that government is so convoluted in how it does things and makes so many things untouchable that they set us up for these issues. Need to cut the budget? Why is it illegal immigrants being released from jail, school funding being cut, etc.? Could it be fear mongering? No, can't be. But even if it's not, why is it set up so that we cannot trim "a little off of each budget" rather than pick and choose the most emotional areas for slashing?

Our local jurisdictions to the same thing with Medic One. If we don't vote for Medic One funding, it'll be elminated. Well, how about we do that with everything then so that we can pick and choose? Nope, can't have that, because the things we'd actually say "no" to must be stuffed inside other appropriations so that we can't touch them. But heaven forbid I have a heart attack - better vote to increase my taxes.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3553 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 58):
You talk like that's somehow wrong.

I don't believe you understand the power of money in building wealth at the costs of the middle & lower classes.

You want to see the power of money, look at the money spent on health related lobbying - far more than defense related lobbying. Here's an easy link to see th numbers:

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/2...at-makes-health-care-so-expensive/

Money is political power in the US today (especially after the USSC gave in to the super rich) and you'll be paying your entire lie.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 58):
It's not the middle and lower classes giving the government most of the revenue.

It is the middle class that drives our economy and the shaft they received under W is one of the reasons for the Great Recession. The wealthy are hiding their incomes with loopholes and overseas accounts. And 300+ page tax returns.

The more we pull back middle class economic activity the close we come to a another Great Recession, or Great Depression.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 58):
When you bankroll something, you own it, whether or not you get an actual deed or title for it.

Like an aircraft carrier? Or new tankers for the USAF?

We build capital assets as a nation and we then get some long term use of those assets. How old are the current tankers? How about the BUFFs? The Carrier Enterprise was just commissioned after how many years? 50 IIRC.

We stop bankrolling our national assets (be they military or civilian infrastructure) and our economy is heading backwards. But Willard & Friends will appreciate your contributions to their wealth.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3550 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61):
Shame on you. This is the type of statement that absolutely marginalizes the left. I don't know ONE PERSON that voted for or against President Obama because he was black, yet you'd think it was the ONLY reason he is in office. At the same time, I don't know one person that's even mentioned his RACE as a reason for their opinion about him. Why the left feels like they need to make us racist for disagreeing with him is pathetic. And frankly, that's what it is, because the counter to that is that it was the White Guy's fault.

Jimmy Carter pretty well renders that argument moot anyway.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62):
Money is political power in the US today

   So, middle and lower class people want more say, middle and lower class people ought to pay.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62):
It is the middle class that drives our economy and the shaft they received under W is one of the reasons for the Great Recession.

What shaft was that? Cutting taxes to let people keep more money? What an awful thing to do.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62):
The wealthy are hiding their incomes with loopholes and overseas accounts. And 300+ page tax returns.

And yet they still pay most of the taxes the federal government receives.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5705 posts, RR: 29
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3532 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 60):
What I postulated in the other thread is proving true. $45 billion in unspent already allocated funds just sitting there to be spent. Combined with a hiring and procurement/expansion freeze and nothing much needs to come if this in the short term. But just as it was in California, those in charge who want higher taxes are purposely cutting forward facing personel and services to win the fight. It's blackmail, but it only works if the sequester happens. which is why obama hasnt even tried negotiations for a week. So who's at fault? Hmmm...

Funny, isn't it? Actually, it isn't funny at all. But it is happening.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62):Money is political power in the US today
So, middle and lower class people want more say, middle and lower class people ought to pay.

Some would argue that they are doing so by voting for the D on the ballot. I don't see how either the D or the R are really doing anything to steer us in the right direction but I'm not sure if it's even possible anyhow.

Regardless, I think it's naive to expect those on the lower end of the income scale to compete with the big guns when it comes to lobbying. We like to eat and put gas in our car, too. That's not something that George Soros is going to have to worry about.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3401 posts, RR: 9
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 58):
When you bankroll something, you own it, whether or not you get an actual deed or title for it. If "main street" wants more clout the solution is simple: pay up.

With what money??

That is not how democracy works and it is designed so that everyone has a say. Humanity has learned through very painful experiences in our history that restricting power to a select few for whatever reason eventually ends badly.

Look up the causes for French revolution, or more recently the Arab Spring. They were primarily caused by the masses standing up to the rich rigging the game.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 57):
The national debt is a long term problem, so while you say it's not a problem, we cant simply "kick the can down the road" as the saying goeso. While creditors do not yet worry about a default on our dd by ebt, leaving the deficit uncheck absolutely increases that risk. Its all about one word: Uncertainty.

Agreed its a long term issue, no argument there. However the actions of the US government to suddenly be unwilling to pay its bills creates more uncertainty.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8709 posts, RR: 3
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3525 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
I am so scared for our future.

In China, it is commonly known that the US doesn't have a future.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
What shaft was that? Cutting taxes to let people keep more money? What an awful thing to do.

Yes, Bush cut taxes and increased spending hugely. Really our problem is Bush's innovations that Obama failed to bring under control. "Deficits don't matter."


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 32):And, yes, I still believe both sides are to blame. I am pointing out one component of what I see going on.
The token "balance" to make you seem unbiased?

There are many sides to this. I simply pointed out one that I see. I made the point that I understand there is more than just "Obama is to blame" that the right loves to parrot.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61):
Yes, we get it. It's always Bush/Cheney's fault with you.

What I find interesting is, the right blamed Clinton for everything. Until November, 2008. Then, it was Obama's fault. When someone does the exact same thing back, all we hear is "yeah, well... we're still better" instead of any valid and rational logic.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61):
I can't believe how anit-business the left has gotten. Unbelievable.

Darn it all the left wants small business to grow because the left understands that small business hires Americans right here in America. The shame of the left! How dare they support Americans instead of shipping jobs overseas!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3517 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 67):
Darn it all the left wants small business to grow because the left understands that small business hires Americans right here in America. The shame of the left! How dare they support Americans instead of shipping jobs overseas!

The Left is hardly pro-small biz. They gave the country horrific health care legislation that many small businesses have come out and stated they cant afford. Yes, bravo to the left!  praise 

[Edited 2013-02-27 22:35:37]


So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3515 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 57):
While creditors do not yet worry about a default on our debt, leaving the deficit uncheck absolutely increases that risk. Its all about one word: Uncertainty.

Now, please share with me why you think this isn't a problem.

We cannot default on our debt unless we choose to. The government cannot "go bankrupt" since it controls the supply of money. The risk and uncertainly you speak of is almost entirely caused by unemployment and the poor state of the economy, which absolutely should be the focus of Congress. The deficit is going down anyway, and will disappear once employment increases again and tax revenues increase.

Making spending cuts or taxing the middle class will contract the economy. So why would you contract the economy in order to fix the economy?



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3401 posts, RR: 9
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 66):
Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
I am so scared for our future.

In China, it is commonly known that the US doesn't have a future.

Well does China??

I call a    on the US not having a future but there has to be a will to fix the problems in the US and encourage innovation. Right now that advantage is being lost but it can always be re-gained.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 69):
Making spending cuts or taxing the middle class will contract the economy. So why would you contract the economy in order to fix the economy?

Because those in congress are idiots.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 70):
Well does China??

I always find it amusing that people assume that 1) China can grow indefinitely and that 2) If China overtakes the US the US is doomed. Being #2 isn't the end of the world- just ask...errr....China!



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5705 posts, RR: 29
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3502 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 67):
What I find interesting is, the right blamed Clinton for everything. Until November, 2008. Then, it was Obama's fault. When someone does the exact same thing back, all we hear is "yeah, well... we're still better" instead of any valid and rational logic.

But when you do it back, it's nothing more than droning on with repetitive anti-right one-liner's. You say that the right just responds mindlessly, but that's exactly what you do when you just keep repeating these anti-right comments as if it's new information or something you haven't said 100 times before.

Neither you, nor Obama, are a victim. We ALL are victims of this back and forth crap.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 67):
Darn it all the left wants small business to grow because the left understands that small business hires Americans right here in America. The shame of the left! How dare they support Americans instead of shipping jobs overseas!

Funny. Someone else on the left commented that the smallest businesses are basically a drag on the economy. ObamaCare will punch many small business owners in the gut. I think you guys need to get your story straight.  

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3499 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 64):
Some would argue that they are doing so by voting for the D on the ballot.

Maybe or maybe not. Funding all sorts of wonderful programs is easy when it's not your money.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 65):
With what money??

That's the thing, it would be difficult for them, but that's the point. FairTax would be a smart way to go for taxation, but the point is to let everyone feel the pain from expansive bureaucracy and excessive government.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 66):
Yes, Bush cut taxes and increased spending hugely. Really our problem is Bush's innovations that Obama failed to bring under control. "Deficits don't matter."

And people are calling on the wealthy to pick up the slack. Doesn't seem like shafting the middle class to me.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 58):
You talk like that's somehow wrong.

It is absolutely wrong.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 58):
It's not the middle and lower classes giving the government most of the revenue. The government is paid for by the top earners and corporate entities so it should come as no surprise that it's run with their interests in mind. When you bankroll something, you own it, whether or not you get an actual deed or title for it. If "main street" wants more clout the solution is simple: pay up.

Except that campaign contributions don't come from tax revenue. The lower and middle classes could be taxed twice what they are now and they'd have even less money to buy off politicians with, and so their influence would be even more diminished.

It's votes that give the lower and middle classes power, not money. As it should be - whether you're rich or poor, you still deserve a government that treats you equally and represents your interests as much as possible. If we can't do that right, then we're not doing our job as a representative democracy.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 411 posts, RR: 1
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3476 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61):
So we just keep spending beyond our means forever? Because that's what we've been doing for decades. If we're going to do that, let's at least admit to ourselves that we plan to do it so we can just stop talking about it. Otherwise, it seems like all we do is pay lip service to balanced budgets when we secretly know that that is just not good for our future.

Yes. I wish we would stop talking about it. At least until the economy is in better shape and unemployment isn't so high. Trying to balance our budget right now would not be good for our future.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61):
When does the overspending stop? Never?

Our annual deficit has dropped by $500 billion since 2009. You don't need to cut spending, you need to grow revenue. And not via tax increases, but via economic growth. You'd think conservatives would want to get behind that. Unfortunately their priorities have gotten skewed in their never ending quest for government blood.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61):
That's, what, 10 or 15 years? Then what?

That's 10 or 15 years if we have 0% growth. Assuming a modest 3% growth rate over the next 10 years puts our GDP at $21.7 trillion, which means to equal Japan's debt levels we would have to spend $31.5 trillion more than we take in over the next 10 years. We won't do even a 3rd of that. This just further illustrates that it's not an immediate problem and should not be our focus.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1928 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3471 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 27):
Our debt isn't an issue. Get over it.

It is not a short term issue that deserves the constant attention that it gets, but it is something that needs attention for the long term.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 71):
I always find it amusing that people assume that 1) China can grow indefinitely and that 2) If China overtakes the US the US is doomed. Being #2 isn't the end of the world- just ask...errr....China!

If the US were to fail it would be a huge blow to China's economy. Who do you think is responsible for the rapid growth in China and the rest of the BRIC countries.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3436 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 58):
It's not the middle and lower classes giving the government most of the revenue. The government is paid for by the top earners and corporate entities

I would love to see your numbers because Mitt Romney, the Republican party, the Republicans in Congress and all the 'Tea Party' candidates all strongly disagree with you.

Their constant argument against raising taxes on millionaires is that adding $1 million in tax payments by all the millionaires in the US would not raise as much money as adding $500 in tax payments by every taxpayer in the $50,000 to $100,000 income bracket.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8709 posts, RR: 3
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 77):
Their constant argument against raising taxes on millionaires is that adding $1 million in tax payments by all the millionaires in the US would not raise as much money as adding $500 in tax payments by every taxpayer in the $50,000 to $100,000 income bracket.

R's don't aim fund today's government on the backs of the middle class. It is a little bit more nuanced. They argue that if only rich boys pay to run the society, people will vote to spend an infinite amount. But if everybody has to pay some percentage, then society at least will not destroy itself with spending.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days ago) and read 3415 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 40):
I certainly don't want to follow Europe's lead back into a recession.

The US is and likely always has been in recession, the government is simply lying about the true inflation rates.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 75):
Yes. I wish we would stop talking about it. At least until the economy is in better shape and unemployment isn't so high. Trying to balance our budget right now would not be good for our future.

Yes it would. An economy based on debt is a consumer economy, not a productive economy. Continuing to feed that consumer economy with debt does nothing to adjust the economy towards productivity, which is ultimately what needs to happen if the US ever wants to grow again.

[Edited 2013-02-28 07:38:13]

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8709 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 75):
Our annual deficit has dropped by $500 billion since 2009. You don't need to cut spending, you need to grow revenue.

That is like saying my BAC dropped from 0.20 to 0.14. It is still at an unhealthy level.

Do we really need to spend 50% of US GDP on government services each year? That is where we are.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3388 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 75):
Our annual deficit has dropped by $500 billion since 2009. You don't need to cut spending, you need to grow revenue. And not via tax increases, but via economic growth. You'd think conservatives would want to get behind that. Unfortunately their priorities have gotten skewed in their never ending quest for government blood.

Well it isn't completely surprising; they're just using a convenient tool to advance their ultimate agenda for smaller government. It's in their interests to exaggerate the dangers of the deficit and the debt. The public don't know any better- most people cannot wrap their head around macroeconomics because there is no parallel to compare it to. That's why they get into all sorts of difficulty when they try and equate it with their credit card bills and come up with nonsense answers.

What surprising to me is that the Democrats are going along with this. I can only assume that they think that the US public are so frightened of debt that it would be political suicide to do nothing about it, even if that's the better course for America in the long run. Sad really.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 79):
Yes it would. An economy based on debt is a consumer economy, not a productive economy. Continuing to feed that consumer economy with debt does nothing to adjust the economy towards productivity, which is ultimately what needs to happen if the US ever wants to grow again.

Feeding the debt is what's keeping the economy afloat. You can argue as much as you like that long term the US should be running a surplus (although many have made that bet in Japan and lost), but in the short to medium term the economy cannot recover without feeding that deficit. You do not fix an economy by contracting it- you focus on growth, and then the debt issue disappears by itself.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 411 posts, RR: 1
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3383 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 79):
The US is and likely always has been in recession, the government is simply lying about the true inflation rates.

Ah yes. Everything is a lie. We're all fools.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 79):
Yes it would. An economy based on debt is a consumer economy, not a productive economy. Continuing to feed that consumer economy with debt does nothing to adjust the economy towards productivity, which is ultimately what needs to happen if the US ever wants to grow again.

The government isn't the economy. What you are saying has a *little* bit of truth in the private economy, which, you know, can't just print and borrow near unlimited money and control interest rates and inflation.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 80):
That is like saying my BAC dropped from 0.20 to 0.14. It is still at an unhealthy level.

But healthier. And the trend is in the right direction. Drastic action isn't required that would slow our growth.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 80):
Do we really need to spend 50% of US GDP on government services each year? That is where we are.


Not sure where you are getting 50%. If you consider that our federal tax revenues are hovering around 16% of GDP, leaving a 34% gap, that would put our annual deficit at over $5 trillion. Our real spending is about 23% of GDP, and dropping.

Here is a nice chart that shows why we have a revenue problem, not just a spending problem. Tax revenues are at historic lows as a percentage of GDP. But the solution to that is GROWTH, not raising taxes. Not now at least. Last year was 15.8%, up 6% over 2011.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3375 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 82):
Ah yes. Everything is a lie. We're all fools.

It's true though. The CPI/RPI like the unemployment rates are constantly being abused to hide the true figures.

Over here inflation is massive and you'd have to be an idiot to think it's anywhere near what the government claim. From what i hear it's the same over in the US who have adopted the same policy to the debt crisis. IE print a shed load of money and hope the problem goes away.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 82):
The government isn't the economy. What you are saying has a *little* bit of truth in the private economy, which, you know, can't just print and borrow near unlimited money and control interest rates and inflation.

Why do you think being able to do any of those things makes a difference? None of those create wealth or increase productivity. Might increase nominal GDP, but that doesn't mean anything.


User currently offlinearrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 80):
Feeding the debt is what's keeping the economy afloat. You can argue as much as you like that long term the US should be running a surplus (although many have made that bet in Japan and lost), but in the short to medium term the economy cannot recover without feeding that deficit. You do not fix an economy by contracting it- you focus on growth, and then the debt issue disappears by itself.

The flaw in that approach is that growth is not likely to fix the problem. The US and other countries have gone through this before, and always been able to grow their way out of it. I don't see that happening this time, certainly not in the short or medium term. The only way to take advantage of whatever growth does occur is to get back to a balanced budget as quickly as possible -- and you do that through a combination of fairly significant cost-cutting combined with revenue growth through some higher taxes. Once that equilibrium is achieved, you can start ratcheting the tax levels back down again. The Congressional Budget Office says In 2012, the country spent $220 billion on interest alone, and if nothing changes that's expected to grow to $1 trillion by 2020. That's insane.

I read somewhere (and can't dig it out -- sorry) that a new 5% federal sales tax -- VAT, GST, whatever -- on everything except food would raise $160 billion a year. It staggers me that the right and (what passes for) the left are at each others throats to such an extent that this kind of thing would never fly, and government is paralyzed. That's scary.

On a positive note -- if all those sequestration cuts remain, apparently Border Services will have to chop so many agent jobs that line-ups crossing the border will go ballistic (they're already bad at times) and very few Canadians will be cross-border shopping anymore. See, every cloud has a silver lining.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Quoting arrow (Reply 84):
The flaw in that approach is that growth is not likely to fix the problem. The US and other countries have gone through this before, and always been able to grow their way out of it. I don't see that happening this time, certainly not in the short or medium term.

You're quoting Flighty but that's actually my post.

Why are things different this time? You concede that the US and other countries have gone through this before and ALWAYS (your words) been able to grow out of it. Why do you not see that happening this time?

Quoting arrow (Reply 84):
The Congressional Budget Office says In 2012, the country spent $220 billion on interest alone, and if nothing changes that's expected to grow to $1 trillion by 2020. That's insane.


Not necessarily- the numbers are meaningless unless you compare them against inflation and the total amount of debt. To use a domestic analogy I could borrow 1000 dollars, payable in 30 years, and pay $100 to service the loan for a total of $1100. Now let's say that in 30 years inflation causes the value of the dollar to halve. Therefore when I pay back the loan I am effectively paying back only $550 in real terms, for a profit of $450 over the life of the loan.

Obviously things are typically far more complex because you pay over the life of the loan rather than at the end, but you can see why throwing out figures which seem "insane" are really useless without context.

[Edited 2013-02-28 10:36:14]


If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3355 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 74):
It is absolutely wrong.

I don't think so. Look at it from the perspective of the top earners.

They pay the bulk of the income taxes in the country and much of the political narrative centers around them not paying enough in taxes. Why shouldn't the government favor those who are actually supporting it? If I'm part of a small group bankrolling something, I better get something for that money.

Quoting Mir (Reply 74):
you still deserve a government that treats you equally and represents your interests as much as possible.

You should also still be willing to pay for it. Seems that too many want the government that treats them equally and represents their interests but want it supported with someone else's money.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 77):
I would love to see your numbers because Mitt Romney, the Republican party, the Republicans in Congress and all the 'Tea Party' candidates all strongly disagree with you.

No they don't.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...deral-individual-income-tax-data-0

The latest data I've found is from 2009. What you'll see is that the top 10% of the population pays over 70% of the income taxes. Doesn't stop the bottom 90% from wanting that group to pay more.

Quoting arrow (Reply 84):
I read somewhere (and can't dig it out -- sorry) that a new 5% federal sales tax -- VAT, GST, whatever -- on everything except food would raise $160 billion a year. It staggers me that the right and (what passes for) the left are at each others throats to such an extent that this kind of thing would never fly,

I'm very much in favor of scrapping income taxes entirely and using a FairTax system instead.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3339 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 81):
Feeding the debt is what's keeping the economy afloat. You can argue as much as you like that long term the US should be running a surplus (although many have made that bet in Japan and lost), but in the short to medium term the economy cannot recover without feeding that deficit. You do not fix an economy by contracting it- you focus on growth, and then the debt issue disappears by itself.

Yes you do. By cutting spending you stop propping up industries that shouldn't be there and only exist due to the false economy that exists. By killing them the resources of these business are reallocated into productive sectors. Artificially keeping them afloat just keeps pushing you further down the wrong path and doesn't result in any tangible increase in productivity.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
I'm very much in favor of scrapping income taxes entirely

Me too, in fact i'd scrap the lot, VAT, income, sales, corp, dividend. Cut spending by a half and pay for it with a land value tax (one of the only taxes that doesn't distort behaviour)

Cue obscene amounts of prosperity and businesses crawling across broken glass to set up in your country...

[Edited 2013-02-28 10:43:25]

User currently offlinearrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 85):
Why are things different this time?

The best example I can come up with is Canada in the early 90s. Our debt and deficit spending policies had driven us so far into the hole that the Wall Street Journal was calling Canada's dollar the northern peso. The Canadian response was to slash spending and raise taxes. I think the ratio was $4 in budget cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. It worked very well -- but only because economic growth took off coincidentally because the US economy was on a tear. If you take that growth out of the equation, Canada's return to economic stability would have taken much much longer -- and keep in mind that the Canadain approach was far, far more draconian than anything that has been put on the table by either side in the US.

I think for the US to grow its way out of this without a major cut in spending and a major hike in tax revenue is for annual growth to hit 6-8%. I haven't seen anyone expecting growth to go much beyond 3% tops in the near term. You just can't
grow your way our it without drastic action. You've spent your way into oblivion (just like we did) and it's going to cost big time to get out of it. But if you don't do it, I don't like your future prospects (or ours, either).

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 85):
Not necessarily- the numbers are meaningless unless you compare them against inflation.

Well, with inflation never higher that 3.9% in the last two years, and currently at 1.6%, I don't see a big impact. A trillion dollars (or $220 billion) is still a huge whack of money to be throwing away every year on interest payments. The numbers aren't meaningless.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

Quoting arrow (Reply 88):
It worked very well -- but only because economic growth took off coincidentally because the US economy was on a tear. If you take that growth out of the equation, Canada's return to economic stability would have taken much much longer -- and keep in mind that the Canadain approach was far, far more draconian than anything that has been put on the table by either side in the US.

In other words, economic growth fixed the problem- cutting alone would not have worked, which is exactly what I'm arguing. Maybe I'm missing something- perhaps you could elaborate?

Quoting arrow (Reply 88):
Well, with inflation never higher that 3.9% in the last two years, and currently at 1.6%, I don't see a big impact. A trillion dollars (or $220 billion) is still a huge whack of money to be throwing away every year on interest payments. The numbers aren't meaningless.

Meaningless without CONTEXT. Not meaningless.

Quoting arrow (Reply 88):
I think for the US to grow its way out of this without a major cut in spending and a major hike in tax revenue is for annual growth to hit 6-8%.

How do you calculate that number?

Quoting arrow (Reply 88):
You just can'tgrow your way our it without drastic action.

Action is required to grow the economy; I completely agree. Job creation is critical right now. However focusing on reducing the deficit is not the correct action, because of the subsequent negative effects of doing so.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
What you'll see is that the top 10% of the population pays over 70% of the income taxes. Doesn't stop the bottom 90% from wanting that group to pay more.

And how much of that do they get back from the government in the forms of subsidies and tax loopholes?

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 82):
Here is a nice chart that shows why we have a revenue problem
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 82):
But the solution to that is GROWTH, not raising taxes.

So, we have a revenue problem but we don't need more revenue?

BTW, the reason revenue is going up is because people are being hired. Therefore, they can pay taxes (revenue). When taxes were high, the deficit was going down.

Let me explain it the same way I keep trying to explain it:

If your income is $500 but your expenses are $1000, the right-wing response is "you will make much more money by cutting your expenses by $200 and doing nothing else". The Democrats response is "cut $300 from expenses but also find a better source of income." Which sounds better?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 90):
The Democrats response is "cut $300 from expenses but also find a better source of income." Which sounds better?

That one does but I challenge you to provide a link to a serious proposal that had some real cuts with revenue gains that aren't wildly high.

I won't say the other side has something that is much better, because they don't... neither side is doing enough IMO



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
They pay the bulk of the income taxes in the country and much of the political narrative centers around them not paying enough in taxes.

This is a misinterpretation of that narrative. The argument is not that the rich simply need to pay more taxes, it's that they won't be hurt by spending cuts, since they tend not to use the services that are getting cut. And therefore, if we are going to have shared sacrifice in order to dig us out of the hole that we're in, they need to contribute in another way, and that means paying more in taxes.

People try again and again to equate that to class warfare, but it's really not.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Why shouldn't the government favor those who are actually supporting it?

Because that's not what a democratic government does. "By the people, of the people and for the people" means the people, not a certain subset of the people.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 90):
And how much of that do they get back from the government in the forms of subsidies and tax loopholes?

Tax loopholes is not getting back, it's never paying. Even with tax loopholes, the chart uses AGI, the top quarter still pays 70% of the taxes.

Quoting Mir (Reply 92):
And therefore, if we are going to have shared sacrifice in order to dig us out of the hole that we're in, they need to contribute in another way, and that means paying more in taxes.

It's not shared sacrifice now. Maybe the lower half of the country should make a more equal contribution before going for a tit-for-tat relationship.

And, how does the "cuts won't hurt the rich" point jive with the supposed truth that the rich benefit more from the government? Seems there's always a liberal saying that the rich receive more help from the military to protect their businesses, use the infrastructure to maintain their wealth and airports to land their evil private jets which is why they should be on the hook to pay more to the government, but now they should pay more because they don't receive extra services?

Quoting Mir (Reply 92):
Because that's not what a democratic government does.

If you want democratic control, you should have democratic contribution.

Quoting Mir (Reply 92):
"By the people, of the people and for the people" means the people, not a certain subset of the people.

Start with taxes then.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3271 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
It's not shared sacrifice now. Maybe the lower half of the country should make a more equal contribution before going for a tit-for-tat relationship.

And that's what spending cuts are all about. And if we could ever agree on what to cut, then we'd make progress there.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
And, how does the "cuts won't hurt the rich" point jive with the supposed truth that the rich benefit more from the government?

The rich benefit from the government because they have more of an ear in Congress because of their campaign donations. That's a completely separate issue from taxation.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
Start with taxes then.

You're not going to get much in taxes from a portion of the population that doesn't have much of the money. In fact, there comes a point at which you're spending more to enforce the tax code than you're taking in, and at that point you're just wasting more money.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
It's not shared sacrifice now.

No, it's not.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
Maybe the lower half of the country should make a more equal contribution before going for a tit-for-tat relationship.

So, 50 million people paying 35% in taxes is not enough taxes being paid but 100,000 people paying 15% in taxes is too much tax being paid. That's what you are saying. It is better to lower the low tax on the few who are not going to keep that money in this country? How did that work out 2001-2008, when "deficits don't matter"?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3238 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61):
I must know everyperson then that declared BK for spending beyond their means. lol

I gave you the link, but here it is again:

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/2...at-makes-health-care-so-expensive/

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61):
Shame on you. This is the type of statement that absolutely marginalizes the left. I don't know ONE PERSON that voted for or against President Obama because he was black, yet you'd think it was the ONLY reason he is in office.

You're assuming that all parts of the country are the same. Did you notice that las week Mississippi finally ratified the Constitutional Amendment that banned slavery.

While I've seen major changes during my lifetime I'm seeing efforts by the GOP to return to restrictive voting. Used to be a Poll Tax (or literacy test) that was the approach to keep "those people" from voting. Now we see access shrink to the point where people have to stand in line for hours. How many hours do they need to wait before you react?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
So, middle and lower class people want more say, middle and lower class people ought to pay.

Right.

Those folks being paid far below the poverty line should be hiring lobbyists, just like Willard & Friends.  
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
What shaft was that?

Start with the two unnecessary wars on the credit card

Then move to excessive over deployment of military personnel to the ME because (1) W & Dick & Friends really screwed up and (2) they didn't want to admit they screwed up and needed the draft to deliver needed manpower - so they forced personnel who had served their active duty commitment to stay on active duty.

Now let's add in tax free dividends - a HUGE approach to delivering tax free cash to the wealthiest in the country. Think Mitt Romney and the "dividends" he will be pulling in each year. That is one way where the ultra wealthy has been able to shift more of the nation's wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
And yet they still pay most of the taxes the federal government receives.

And they also are able to hide far more than they pay. Why do you believe they need a 300+ page tax return?

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 64):
I don't see how either the D or the R are really doing anything to steer us in the right direction but I'm not sure if it's even possible anyhow.

There are going to be changes in the future. The totally unsustainable increases in health care costs will continue to push changes.

It's a battle because the health industry is the Big Boy when it comes to lobbying. Same link as above:

Health care Lobbying a year: $5.36 Billion Yep, Billion with a "B".

Compare that to money spent lobbying for the Defense industry: $1.53 Billion

Health industry spending is three and a half times Defense spending on lobbying.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 66):
In China, it is commonly known that the US doesn't have a future.

We had better have a future or the fall in sales to this market would drive them into a Depression.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 68):
The Left is hardly pro-small biz. They gave the country horrific health care legislation that many small businesses have come out and stated they cant afford.

And Smal Biz can apply for help in making those payments IIRC.

But look at what's there now. If you make over $275 a month (yes, MONTH, not week) you make too much money to qualify for Medicaid under pre-Obamacare standards in backward yo-yo states like Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama. That is HORRIFIC health care programs that we have seen in America. And you complain about ObamaCare?

BTW, under ObamaCare the standard is 133% of the Poverty Line.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3228 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 96):
We had better have a future or the fall in sales to this market would drive them into a Depression.

Nonsense, they'll just sell the products they make to their own people.

If there were 2 people on an island and 1 was a Chinaman, and one was an American. The Chinaman's current job is to catch fish, and the American's current job is to eat them. Eventually when the American runs out of credibility the Chinaman is just going to eat them himself.

[Edited 2013-02-28 14:41:40]

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 94):
You're not going to get much in taxes from a portion of the population that doesn't have much of the money.

That's not entirely the point. The point is to make sure they feel the pain. Of course you can get behind government programs you'll never have to pay for, but if this agency or that regulation is going to actually cost you money you'll think long and hard about it. Lower and middle class people need to pay the price for government spending. It's true when people say that being a liberal is about trying to solve problems with other people's money.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
No, it's not.

When 25% of the population pays 70% of the taxes, you're absolutely right.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 96):
Those folks being paid far below the poverty line should be hiring lobbyists, just like Willard & Friends.

No, they should be paying for excessive government spending.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 96):
Start with the two unnecessary wars on the credit card

...which the lower and middle class Americans now expect the rich to pay for. Again, not getting the shaft.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 96):
And they also are able to hide far more than they pay. Why do you believe they need a 300+ page tax return?

Why do you raise that point as if it matters? The rich pay the vast majority of taxes even with the tax loopholes and closing the tax loopholes would make the distribution more unequal, not less unequal! A small group of people are paying most of the taxes and your only reaction is to complain that said small group does not pay enough.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5705 posts, RR: 29
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 96):
I gave you the link, but here it is again:

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/2...sive/

I never said I disputed it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 96):
You're assuming that all parts of the country are the same. Did you notice that las week Mississippi finally ratified the Constitutional Amendment that banned slavery.

While I've seen major changes during my lifetime I'm seeing efforts by the GOP to return to restrictive voting. Used to be a Poll Tax (or literacy test) that was the approach to keep "those people" from voting. Now we see access shrink to the point where people have to stand in line for hours. How many hours do they need to wait before you react?

Then talk to them. Don't come here and address the rest of us as if we're racists until proven Obama supporters. I find framing your positional statements that way appalling and shameful.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3178 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 97):
Eventually when the American runs out of credibility the Chinaman is just going to eat them himself.

Actually they will be eating electronic parts.

And there will be lots of leftovers for them.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
The point is to make sure they feel the pain.

So that's your new standard for America? Let the poorest "Feel The Pain"?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Lower and middle class people need to pay the price for government spending.

They do, and at a higher percentage of their total income than the rich do. Start with sales tax, add in petrol taxes and then sprinkle a bit of property taxes on that pile.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
When 25% of the population pays 70% of the taxes, you're absolutely right.

An old, dead statistic that conveniently ignores all of the other taxes - only looks at "Federal Income Taxes".

You obviously have forgotten about FICA taxes as well as all the other taxes I noted above.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
...which the lower and middle class Americans now expect the rich to pay for.

Why not. It was started by the rich and, when you look at the outsourcing to Administration Good Buddies, it's fair to say that it was for the rich. Halliburton wasn't poor when Cheney helped them out in the ME Wars. Wonder how much CHeney pulls in every year in tax free dividends from Halliburton.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
A small group of people are paying most of the taxes and your only reaction is to complain that said small group does not pay enough.

Back to your limited approach again. There is more in taxation than income taxes.

Maybe you should look at the directions of the spread wealth over the past 20 years. The middle class is shrinking (which may well impact your carer options, or even a long term potential for a decent job, even with your degree) and the wealthiest has dramatically increased the spread in this nation's wealth. You can defend them all you want, but you will pay the price far more than an old guy like me.

So open our mind a bit, toss in FICA taxes, excise taxes, petrol taxes, all the "fees" related to mobile phones or internet connections. taxes for car tags, etc. There is a very long list, all the way down to city races, school district taxes, etc. And try to understand the concept of taxes paid as a percentage of income.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 99):
I find framing your positional statements that way appalling and shameful.

And I find that your living in a more rational part of the country to be most fortunate, as is the fact that you were able to miss the rough times before CIvil Rights started bringing equality to the country. The difference is dramatic, but it's not perfect yet. Far from it and the hours that people had to stand in line simply to vote is a clear demonstration.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3175 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 100):
So that's your new standard for America? Let the poorest "Feel The Pain"?

It's a necessity. It's far too easy to support expensive things that you'll never have to pay for. See Friedman's four ways to spend money.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 100):
They do, and at a higher percentage of their total income than the rich do.

That isn't especially relevant, because it is still a small share. Small share of the contribution, small share of the benefit. It's only fair.

The smart thing would go to FairTax. No corporate taxes, so they wouldn't have much to lobby for, and citizens would only pay as much tax as they wish. And for a wealthy person to pay less of a percentage than a poor person would mean living very far beneath their means.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 100):
So open our mind a bit, toss in FICA taxes, excise taxes, petrol taxes, all the "fees" related to mobile phones or internet connections. taxes for car tags, etc.

Switch to FairTax and wipe most of that out.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineGatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 874 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

Legalize all drugs, tax them, and end the drug war. The annual savings that would otherwise be spent on war and revenues from taxing these drugs (similar to tobacco and alcohol) would save/generate nearly $100 billion per year.


Cha brro
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
It's a necessity.

No it's not.

And how is that retail job going? Do you think you would hold the same opinions if it starts to appear that there will be no engineering jobs? Only retailing?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
It's far too easy to support expensive things that you'll never have to pay for

Roads, bridges, airports are expensive to build. The "Little People You Look Down On" help pay for those with every gallon of gas they buy, or every flint they take - even those will be far apart.

Aircraft carriers are also expensive to build. Maybe we should significantly reduce the capabilities of any new carriers because the poor aren't paying enough.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
Small share of the contribution, small share of the benefit. It's only fair.

LMAO! Look at your contributions after you enjoyed how many years if help going through university.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
The smart thing would go to FairTax.

Did Willard tell you that?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
The smart thing would go to FairTax.

Only if you file a 300+ Page Tax Return. Doubt that works in retailing.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 103):
Do you think you would hold the same opinions if it starts to appear that there will be no engineering jobs?

There appear to be no engineering jobs now, so yeah.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 103):
The "Little People You Look Down On" help pay for those with every gallon of gas they buy,

As do the wealthy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 103):
Aircraft carriers are also expensive to build. Maybe we should significantly reduce the capabilities of any new carriers because the poor aren't paying enough.

Or just reassess other spending and how the revenue comes in. FairTax revenue is just as green as income tax.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 103):
Look at your contributions after you enjoyed how many years if help going through university.

Some return on investment for the government there, huh? Oh well, just keep on cutting defense.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 103):
Only if you file a 300+ Page Tax Return. Doubt that works in retailing.

For everybody. FairTax wouldn't even have a tax return, just tell the government how many people are in the household.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3139 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
FairTax revenue is just as green as income tax.

Fair tax totally ignores the long list of other taxes average people get hit with. The only ones who win are the top 1%.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
Some return on investment for the government there, huh

There's time, even though student loans may seriously deteriorate your opportunities. Started a post on that just a few minutes ago - pretty scary when you think about it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
Oh well, just keep on cutting defense.

Conservatives keep cutting taxes (or tossing out some major freebies) and Defense will be first in line.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5705 posts, RR: 29
Reply 106, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3128 times:

And again, Ken, I say your comments towards others regarding race are shameful. It has nothing to do with where I live or what you've seen or anything else. It is simply you trying to marginalize someone's position on an internet chat forum by using race.

Its gratuitous and its pathetic.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 107, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
Fair tax totally ignores the long list of other taxes average people get hit with.

FairTax doesn't ignore them, it abolishes them.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
The only ones who win are the top 1%.

I'm sick of hearing this because it isn't true. Let's do some math.

Just to make the math simple, let's say that the poverty level spending for a household of a given size is $25,000 and the tax rate is set at 10%.

One family makes $25,000 per year and spends all of it to live, they pay no taxes.

A second family makes $30,000 per year and spends all of it to live. They pay 1.6% of their income in taxes.

A third family has an income of $50,000 per year and spends $40,000, with the remainder going to savings and investments. They pay 3% of their income in taxes. To pay 1.6% of their income in taxes they would have to spend only $32,000 per year.

The fourth family makes $100,000 per year, but lives rather frugally and spends $60,000 during the year on living expenses and puts away the rest. 5.8% of their income will go towards taxes.

Now consider a family making $350,000 which would put them approximately just inside the top 1% of earners and roughly around the $250,000 adjusted level under the current system. Again, we can say these are frugal people who will spend only half, $175,000, of their income in a given year. Their effective tax rate is still 4.3%. If they want to match the 1.6% rate the poor family pays, they'll have to get by on only $81,000 for the year which is 23% of their income.

The rich family that makes $1,000,000 per year but lives on only $500,000 will pay an effective rate of 4.75%. To get the 1.6% rate, they'd have to make it on only $185,000 or 18.5% of their income.

Now, a whale making $10,000,000 per year who hates the government and wants to pay the same portion of his income in taxes as the working family making $30,000 per year is going to have to make it on $1,625,000 or 16% of their income. That's a lot to pay to hate the government.

The point of all this is that FairTax could be regressive, but in practice almost never would be. Yes, the wealthy do spend less of their income as a portion, but under the scheme would still be progressive in all but a few cases. Not to mention, it removes complicated tax returns and loopholes, corporate taxes (and therefore most lobbying), and is easily adjustable on a year to year basis. And as much as I hate the idea of using taxes to influence behavior, the way to avoid taxes under FairTax would be to save and invest money, which is personally prudent and good for the economy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
There's time, even though student loans may seriously deteriorate your opportunities.

I'm not scared. I have no interest in buying a house anyway. Plus, I have mine but I want the barriers to entry to increase to help me on the market.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):No, it's not.
When 25% of the population pays 70% of the taxes, you're absolutely right.

And when that same 25% gets back all they paid plus additional, that's just fine? At a 15% rate when the rest of us pay 35% or more?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 109, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3114 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 108):
And when that same 25% gets back all they paid plus additional, that's just fine?

Oh?

Check figure 8 on page 31 of this report. I haven't had the chance to go through all of this, and it seems dreadfully boring, but that seems to answer some of the questions you have.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/wp1.pdf



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 109):
Check figure 8 on page 31 of this report.

So, people who make less money request (and are sometimes granted) more in federal aid. So? Someone who can "prove" they use their jet for a business expense (I met for 10 minutes with someone about my business in the Bahamas over the 12 days my family and I were there) is somehow entitled to more of a kick-back from the government than a single mother of 3 who's father was killed in the line of duty? How is a business expense better than a police or military expense? I thought you guys were pro-military?

A perfect example is my cousin. She is an "author". She "researches" for books in Europe and Asia and Australia and tells her accountant it was a "business expense" since she was "researching" for a book. According to the right, that is just fine. She should get that expense and interest given back, but any family struggling on $1000 a month when they need at least $2000 are evil and just need to work more.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 111, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 110):
She is an "author". She "researches" for books in Europe and Asia and Australia and tells her accountant it was a "business expense" since she was "researching" for a book. According to the right, that is just fine.

It is just fine.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 110):
She should get that expense and interest given back,

No, she gets to deduct that expense from her gross income. Not the same thing.

If you want to get rid of that sort of thing just support FairTax. No loopholes, no deductions.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 111):
It is just fine.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 111):
she gets to deduct that expense from her gross income. Not the same thing.

Well, because of right-wing supported and passed legislation, she (and ALL corporations) get to deduct any and all "related" expenses (cruises, car rental, food, hotel, flights) from income. So, in the end, they get back MORE than they paid. As opposed to people who actually work. We pay but don't get to deduct lunches or the cost of getting to and from work or uniforms. TRUST ME!!

But us workers are the bad ones. How?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 112):
Well, because of right-wing supported and passed legislation, she (and ALL corporations) get to deduct any and all "related" expenses (cruises, car rental, food, hotel, flights) from income.

Exactly how is a rental car, food, hotel, and flight a questionable business expense? As far as cruises, well it depends what you're researching.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 112):
So, in the end, they get back MORE than they paid.

How do you figure that?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 112):
As opposed to people who actually work.

Does owning a business somehow absolve one from working? Seems to me it's usually just the opposite.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 112):
We pay but don't get to deduct lunches or the cost of getting to and from work or uniforms.

I bet you could deduct uniforms, if you pay for them. And on business trips, don't workers get an expense account for food?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 100):
Actually they will be eating electronic parts.

And there will be lots of leftovers for them.

Why do you think that? There are many many more Chinese people than Americans. Plenty of demand there.

[Edited 2013-03-01 00:22:02]

User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3082 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
Does owning a business somehow absolve one from working? Seems to me it's usually just the opposite

When it is not a "business" but they still work and take deductions as a busness, how is that acceptable? "I am flying to Switzerland to check on my bank accounts! I get to deduct the week in Paris and week in Barcelona!" is acceptable? Because an American is dodging American tax laws? That is fine with you?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
Exactly how is a rental car, food, hotel, and flight a questionable business expense?

To go to concerts, museums, shopping, breakfast.... I understand one meal, maybe two, but roaming all over France?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 112):So, in the end, they get back MORE than they paid.
How do you figure that?

I know. It happens all the time.

If your side gets to use the "I know a guy..." argument, then we get to use the "they get back MORE" argument. ESPECIALLY when it is documented. GIYF. Google is your friend.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
I bet you could deduct uniforms, if you pay for them

Nope. Again: I work for a living. I know these things. "Well, you could use those black pants for a wedding, so you can not deduct them." And "you could use that shirt for a lunch with your girl/boy friend. You can not deduct that." I know. Trust me. I know. I work.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
And on business trips, don't workers get an expense account for food?

Not any more. Unless they own the company.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 116, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 115):
When it is not a "business" but they still work and take deductions as a busness [sic], how is that acceptable?

What constitutes a business in your world? An author doing research for a project is most definitely a business.

I fail to see why you look down on and seek to punish business owners. Even if they are multimillionaires who show up at the office a couple times per week, you can bet the business didn't start that way.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 115):
Because an American is dodging American tax laws? That is fine with you?

Do what you can to avoid taxes. If you have bankers in Switzerland and need to meet with them, that could absolutely be construed as a business trip.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 115):
To go to concerts, museums, shopping, breakfast.... I understand one meal, maybe two, but roaming all over France?

I doubt that she gets a deduction for concerts (unless you're doing business there) or shopping. There's nothing wrong with stopping by a shop while on a business trip though.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 115):
I know. It happens all the time.

Does it? The link I posted seems to pretty clearly show that the top earners pay more in than they receive.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 115):
ESPECIALLY when it is documented.

Then find some. With numbers.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 115):
Nope. Again: I work for a living. I know these things.

Well, maybe your accountant doesn't. Here are the rules:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html

Quote:
An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense does not have to be required to be considered necessary.

You may be able to deduct the following items as unreimbursed employee expenses.
...
Work clothes and uniforms if required and not suitable for everyday use.

Right there. But here's the thing, the rules regarding this fly in the face of your "the law screws the working man" narrative. The uniform worn by the janitor? Deductible. The suit worn by the boss? Not deductible.

Oh, and for the trip to France, they also include this nugget:

Quote:
Travel, transportation, meals, entertainment, gifts, and local lodging related to your work.

Google is your friend too.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 117, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3059 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 116):
But here's the thing, the rules regarding this fly in the face of your "the law screws the working man" narrative. The uniform worn by the janitor? Deductible. The suit worn by the boss? Not deductible.

But as usual you didn't post the most important part of the rule because it shows your opinion is false.

The uniform worn by the janitor is only deductible if the janitor had "Large unreimbursed employee business expenses"

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc501.html

The simple fact is most hourly level workers can no longer itemize deductions.

Quote:
You may benefit from itemizing your deductions on Form 1040, Schedule A (PDF) if you:

Cannot use the standard deduction
Had large uninsured medical and dental expenses
Paid interest or taxes on your home
Had large unreimbursed employee business expenses
Had large uninsured casualty or theft losses, or
Made large charitable contributions

The janitor cannot deduct the cost of his lunch, but the boss can deduct the cost of his lunch if it is with a possible client, though to be honest, the boss seldom does that because the cost of his lunch is a reimbursed business expense, and the company takes the cost off their taxes.

In today's world of interest rates, most people with homes under $350,000 cannot take home mortage interest and taxes as a deduction because the standard deduction higher than itemized deductions.

[Edited 2013-03-01 05:58:10]

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 118, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3045 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
When 25% of the population pays 70% of the taxes, you're absolutely right.

The percentage of the population is irrelevant. What matters is what percentage of the income those 25% have.

The top 10% hold 74.5% of the wealth in this country (and the top 1% hold 34.5%). Even if you adjust for the fact that income and wealth aren't exactly analogous (though they are related), suddenly the top 25% paying 70% of the taxes doesn't sound quite so wrong anymore.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
...which the lower and middle class Americans now expect the rich to pay for.

Not pay for. Contribute to paying for. There's a difference.

EDIT: Forgot to include link to source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf

-Mir

[Edited 2013-03-01 06:54:56]


7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8709 posts, RR: 3
Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day ago) and read 3040 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 82):
Not sure where you are getting 50%.

State and local govt are about half of government footprint (and historically used to be over 90%). Sources differ, but the combined government total budget is "around" 7 trillion USD per year. All paid for by taxes or new debt.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 117):
In today's world of interest rates, most people with homes under $350,000 cannot take home mortage interest and taxes as a deduction because the standard deduction higher than itemized deductions.

Correct. The rich get most of the home interest deduction. But, they also pay most taxes, even after deductions.

You make interesting points about how rich businessmen can deduct their cars, lunches, golf, vacations because they may always be working (which for them is also fun time). As tax rates rise, the actual rich will innovate ways to pay around 0% taxes. The middle class and upper middle class will pay taxes, be demoralized, work less and spend less.

If we go from 45% to 65% government share of the economy, will we be better off? What about 75%... clearly there are limits to that.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 120, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 3027 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 119):
As tax rates rise, the actual rich will innovate ways to pay around 0% taxes.

Ronald Reagan did a great job of removing tax rates that were actually punishing on the highest income owners. Most folks don't remember when the US income tax rate on income over $1 million was 90%.

However part of Reagan's tax cuts was to remove thousands of deductions and loopholes.

Over the past 15-20 years, there has been a determined effort to introduce new and revive old loopholes to lower the effective tax rates of the wealthiest tax payers.

One of those was the elimination of the cap on allowable deductions of higher income earners.

The limit of deductions to exclude 2/3 of the total itemized amount for taxpayers with over approx $170 thousand income has phased down to 1/3 a few years ago, and totally eliminated in 2010.

That was supposed to spur a huge increase in charitable contributions - because the millionaires could then deduct the full value of their deductions, not just 33% and later 66% of those deductions.

Didn't happen that way. Some contributions did increase slightly, but the overall net effect was to lower the effective tax rate by a couple percentage points for those with incomes over the threshold.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5738 posts, RR: 10
Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
Taxes don't help the economy. Some of the things taxes pay for are needed to have an economy at all, but the stock market never crashed because taxes weren't high enough. Companies don't lay off workers because the tax bills are too low.

And the reverse is mostly true too. Though there are adjustments in companies as taxes change, over the long term, with taxes around what we currently have (in other words I am not talking about usuriously high taxes but ones within say 5-10% of where they are now) the changes are incorporated and hiring continues. And market continues to thrive. This is similar to the argument that cap gains taxes must be low to keep investment but there is no data that shows that higher cap gains taxes diminish investment or damage the economy over the long term. I personally believe that cap gain should be taxed like any other income.


Quoting Stabilator (Reply 48):
Quoting zippyjet (Reply 47):
And also to all the BS government waste and crap like subsidizing tobbaco and other stuff.

Ill take subsidizing tobacco off the table if you take subsidizing green energy off the table

Intersting and good comment. And this is where is gets so difficult in negotiation. For this though I guess my answer would be that "green tech" crap is more advantageous going into the future whereas tobacco provide no real advantage for future generations. So I would rather match a cut in tobacco with a similar cut in a backward looking subsidy of the opposing party (or match a cut in green tech with a cut in an equally looking forward technology, however I think that is even more damaging as it doubles the impact to elements that might really help going forward).

Quoting okie (Reply 49):
I am not ignoring anything.
Just stating that I just can not remember a politician spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars on a political tour to condemn legislation that came out of his own office. So best he can do try to blame someone else.

So it sounds like a meager 2.5% shift in budget seems to totally escape the capabilities of the several hundred thousand government heads. Amazing. Most businesses would probably take 8 seconds to figure out how to deal with a 2.5% cut.

I see you point, however a cut that size can still be tough to handle. With a company the size of the one I work at it means strategic decisions over what technology they will reduce their pursuit of or what executive and employee compensation and benefits they will cut/reduce. Certainly not an insurmountable decision though and why I find it ridiculous that the Congress cannot actually come up with something that "meets in the middle" of impacts to both parties.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 53):
I meant that more and more Republicans seem to be splintering off... they are an unorganized mess but I'd prefer it that way since when they were organized, nothing really got done. Now we have a chance

I am somewhat hopeful that we Republicans will do better going forward. One criteria to win my vote as a Republican is to be willing to compromise. There are far to many Republican candidates out that run on the plank of "I will not compromise" (not saying you can compromise on everyone of your values but many of them you can, tell me which ones or don't make the stupid statement). Rather than saying that and probably losing my vote, tell what you plan to do and how you plan to do it and how you will succeed. Share your ideas with me on what can be done!

Quoting okie (Reply 56):
They have had a year and a half to figure it out. Pathetic

  

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 57):
Economic uncertainty puts businesses in stasis. Reduced hiring, not spending their money, etc. Even in the best economic times, owning a business is a risky venture; with the yahoos in DC, it makes it even more so (both D and R). The national debt is a long term problem, so while you say it's not a problem, we cant simply "kick the can down the road" as the saying goes. While creditors do not yet worry about a default on our debt, leaving the deficit uncheck absolutely increases that risk. Its all about one word: Uncertainty.

Now, please share with me why you think this isn't a problem.

My comment on this would to focus on what you said first: "Economic uncertainty puts businesses in stasis." Right there, that is the answer. Whether they raise taxes or make cuts (both hopefully) or decide to assume more debt for the short term, stop the uncertainty. Have a plan, make the decision, and move forward. Business will adjust to the plan and move forward as well. Yes there will be some disruption as the nation adjusts but what is needed is clarity and certainty and something put into action. The dithering is what is killing us. The Sequestration is fine if that is what they are going to actually do. Just say it, if they said it a year ago all business would have begun making adjustments and would be ready for it now. But now we have business in limbo because "a deal could be made" so they are afraid to make a change and are now stuck with making faster more disruptive changes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
What shaft was that? Cutting taxes to let people keep more money? What an awful thing to do.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
And yet they still pay most of the taxes the federal government receives.

See below:

Quote:
The latest numbers from the IRS -- based on 2010 tax returns -- show what it takes to be among the top 1% of income earners: adjusted gross income of $369,691 or more. The 1.4 million Americans with this elite status reported 16.9% of all the country's taxable income.

That's right. One percent of taxpayers reported almost 19% of all taxable income. But that same tiny group also kicked in 37% of all the taxes paid. How much do you need to make to be in the top 50% of earners? Just $34,338.

Fall below that level and you are in the bottom half, along with nearly 70 million of your fellow taxpayers. All told, that group earned just 11.7% of the income reported on 2009 tax returns. And they coughed up 2.36% of all the income taxes paid.
[...]
For historical perspective, back in 1986, the top 1% of earners reported 11% of all income and paid 26% of the income taxes; the lower-earning 50% made 17% of the income and paid 6% of the nation’s individual income tax bill.
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/tax...ere-do-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html

However for perspective you must consider this:

Quote:
In 1962, the top 1% had 125 times the net worth of the median household. That shot up to 288 times by 2010, according to a new report by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

That trend is happening for two reasons: Not only are the rich getting richer, but the middle class is also getting poorer.

Most Americans below the upper echelon have suffered a decline in wealth in recent decades. The median household saw its net worth drop to $57,000 in 2010, down from $73,000 in 1983. It would have been $119,000 had wealth grown equally across households.

The top 1%, on the other hand, saw their average wealth grow to $16.4 million, up from $9.6 million in 1983. This is due in large part to the growing income inequality divide, as well as the sharp rise in value of stocks over the period.

Net worth counts all assets including real estate holdings, minus debts.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/news...conomy/wealth-net-worth/index.html

Quote:
Before you can talk about the 1 percent, it’s important to put the figures into perspective by understanding exactly what that figure means. The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, compared to the average income of the rest of the population, which is around $51,000. The real disparity between the classes isn’t in income, however, but in net value: The 1 percent are worth about $8.4 million, or 70 times the worth of the lower classes.

The 1 percent are executives, doctors, lawyers and politicians, among other things. Within this group of people is an even smaller and wealthier subset of people, 1 percent of the top, or .01 percent of the entire nation. Those people have incomes of over $27 million, or roughly 540 times the national average income. Altogether, the top 1 percent control 43 percent of the wealth in the nation; the next 4 percent control an additional 29 percent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywis...verage-america-vs-the-one-percent/

Quote:
Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available — not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Quote:
These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year. In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.
Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Quote:
Moreover, even these figures greatly understate low-income households’ total tax burden because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2011.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Quote:
Altogether, the top 1 percent control 43 percent of the wealth in the nation; the next 4 percent control an additional 29 percent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywis...verage-america-vs-the-one-percent/

And finally, you say there is something wrong when the "top 1%" pay 40% (approximately) of the federal taxes, but then how much do the "bottom 50% pay? And what is the delta for each group in income? The best latest data I could find was showing data from between 2004 and 2007 (so before the downturn), in rough numbers it showed that the top 5%, minus the top 1%, has a median income of around $250k and the bottom 50% with a median income of $40k to $45k, or a delta of around 5x. For the "top 1%" of earners, the median income was just over $1M (there is a figure noted above of $717k but that is after the downturn and I am trying to use consistent date from before that), or approximately 25 times as much as the bottom 50%. So why is it a surprise that the top 1% pay 13 times as much in taxes? And why is that "wrong" or "unfair"? To finish, the top 5%, or more accurately the top 4% after the 1% (i.e.: excluding the top 1%, which I noted above) paid approximately 22% of the taxes. So the bottom 50% pay around 4% of federal taxes, the "4%" pay about 22%, and the 1% pay 40% (all very rounded numbers), and each earns the approximate "X" times of the other group as they pay in taxes. How do you see that as wrong and unfair?

Sources noted above and also:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/03/...-tax-share-top-1-vs-bottom-50.html
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2011.pdf
http://www.cato.org/doc-download/sit.../files/pubs/pdf/WorkingPaper-9.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...it-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html
http://www.howtosavemoney.com/how-ri...re-the-top-1-percent-of-americans/
http://voices.kansascity.com/entries...an-favors-rich-over-middle-income/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):
That's the thing, it would be difficult for them, but that's the point. FairTax would be a smart way to go for taxation, but the point is to let everyone feel the pain from expansive bureaucracy and excessive government.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 107):
FairTax doesn't ignore them, it abolishes them.

Do you actually believe in the true "Fair Tax"? I don't think you do nor that you would or do support one. I think you support a product, a trade name, a marketing effort. Can you please provide a link to what you consider a "fair tax"? A real fair tax means everyone pays an equal share of their wealth. That does not mean just "income". It would be fair if it actually took into account all forms of income and even better if it looked at all wealth controlled by an individual and was a simple flat number like 5% (2%?) tax based on all monies/capital/holdings. etc. It would hit everyone equally as your desire and be flat and thus "fair". But that would never happen as then "the wealthy" would actually end up paying more and not have any exceptions or loopholes to apply.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 117):
The simple fact is most hourly level workers can no longer itemize deductions.

Chances are the janitor has less than the $6000 plus of deductions and so will just take the standard deduction. It's not fundamentally different, he still isn't taxed on the income that is spent on the uniform, it's just a matter of taking the lump sum over itemizing.

Quoting Mir (Reply 118):
The percentage of the population is irrelevant.

No. It's very relevant because each person gets a vote, not each dollar. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing to the federal government in income taxes.

So when there is an issue that comes along, like the government starting a new expensive program, that 50% doesn't really have a skin in the game. Of course they can be in favor of it, they won't need to pay for it. It's a situation where 75% of the voters walk into the voting booth to swipe a credit card that is 70% someone else's.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 123, posted (1 year 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 121):
And why is that "wrong" or "unfair"?

Because people vote, not dollars.

Quoting tugger (Reply 121):
Can you please provide a link to what you consider a "fair tax"?

Just use the actual FairTax plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairtax



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 2997 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 107):
FairTax doesn't ignore them, it abolishes them.

So you have just abolished Social Security and Medicare?

Will you support free distribution of the traditional Blue Pill to the elderly and disabled who feel they cannot continue living in the poverty you have just pushed them into?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 107):
One family makes $25,000 per year and spends all of it to live, they pay no taxes.

No FICA?

What about the various taxes at state, county, city, school system?

How does the cop and the fireman get paid?

A second family makes $30,000 per year and spends all of it to live. They pay 1.6% of their income in taxes.

Again, no FICA? That, in reality is 15.2% that the government is pulling in on them.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 107):
Plus, I have mine but I want the barriers to entry to increase to help me on the market.

Problem with barriers is that it will pull down the profitability


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 125, posted (1 year 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 2994 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 124):
So you have just abolished Social Security and Medicare?

FairTax isn't a new method of spending, but a new method of taxation. That would have to be a separate issue.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 124):
Again, no FICA?

Replaced by the universal sales tax.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 124):
What about the various taxes at state, county, city, school system?

How does the cop and the fireman get paid?

Those taxes would still exist as they are not federal. Hopefully states and cities would follow the federal FairTax model in time rather than continue a complicated, unequal system.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5705 posts, RR: 29
Reply 126, posted (1 year 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 118):
The percentage of the population is irrelevant. What matters is what percentage of the income those 25% have.

The top 10% hold 74.5% of the wealth in this country (and the top 1% hold 34.5%). Even if you adjust for the fact that income and wealth aren't exactly analogous (though they are related), suddenly the top 25% paying 70% of the taxes doesn't sound quite so wrong anymore.

I think that is often the missing piece of the puzzle on the right. They mention that the wealthy pay X % of the overall tax burden but don't say how much they earn. It's phrased in a manner to make it sound like the rich are paying a higher percentage share of their income than the middle or lower class, but that isn't the case.

I hope in my lifetime we come up with a tax system that evenly taxes the vast majority of people, with a low-end cut-off for the super poor and perhaps a high end bump up for the super rich.

Sidenote: My friend who gets back more in taxes than he has ever paid in is going out over the next few days to get his car windows tinted, install his new car stereo system (he already had a nice one), and buy his new(er) Playstation 3 (he already has one - he wants a newer one). What do I take from this?

1. I think he needs to be happy in his life, so if these things make him happy, good for him.
2. His spending will help the economy (though it sounds like it won't be ours for the most part)
3. It's really tough when I make tough choice every day to conserve cash and stay on budget, yet those "in need" just keep spending like the money will never end.

And apparently, it won't.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (1 year 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
No. It's very relevant because each person gets a vote, not each dollar. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing to the federal government in income taxes.

What you mean is the people that pay income taxes (from their wages) loan that money to the government and the government returns that loan (interest free) on April 15.

I know that BMI727 radically disagrees with me on probably most issues, but there is one "entitlement" I support a complete overhaul (and no it's not the Affordable Health Care Act): food stamps. I know the right-wingers make huge deal of non-existent voting fraud, but I believe it's time to do something about the downright fraud and mismanagement of how food stamps are used.

I mentioned on another thread that I once worked at a gas station. Sometime in 2010 or so the store where I worked I worked began accepting EBT (electronic form of food stamps). Due the fact that the area where I worked was in a very economic disadvantaged part of town. Not a slum by any means, but many residents living on subsidized housing (Section 8). Many of our customers had EBT cards.

For those of you that don't know, EBT cards can be used to purchase both food, "food," and using EBT cash to purchase non-food items. The problem is that food is not usually what people buy at gas stations, while "food" purchases like cold food, chips, pop, candy, etc. are more common and even worse is EBT cash, which can be used to buy cigarettes, magazines, hot food (hot dogs and nachos, etc.).

I have no problem with food stamps being used to buy real food at a grocery store and even some things like larger bags of chips and things like that that could actually be used to feed the family, etc. The problem I had was when people came in, high out of their minds (I'm not exaggerating, marijuana was a huge problem--I guess that depends on how you view marijuana), and buy all kinds of chips, pop, candy, etc. with the tax dollars we all pay, then they can get cigarettes with EBT cash--whereas paying your rent, bills, etc, the actual point of EBT cash.

Of course, if you make too much money to have EBT, you can buy (or rent) someone's card which you can get $300 in food stamps for $200 cash.

I have no idea how much money is put into this particular program, but if there was one entitlement cut I would support it would go to controlling this system in a way so that food stamps are actually used to buy food, not munchies. If there is fraud out there, this is it.

- Caleb

[Edited 2013-03-01 10:31:11]


Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5738 posts, RR: 10
Reply 128, posted (1 year 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 2984 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
Because people vote, not dollars.
OK, and people voted for the taxes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
Just use the actual FairTax plan.

Thanks for the source link.

Not too bad but one thing I notice is: "Also excluded are investments, such as purchases of stock, corporate mergers and acquisitions and capital investments." For me I think this would have to change, and I am not sure about the prebate idea of the USG "refunding" and having to be in the middle of giving people money back.

Also it would need some adjusting to better balance the tax base to actually be "fair", as it has a lot of carve outs for wealthier people (not that some aren't OK). I do like this:

Quote:
Personal services such as health care, legal services, financial services, and auto repairs would be subject to the FairTax, as would renting apartments and other real property. Food, clothing, prescription drugs and medical services would be taxed. [...] Internet purchases would be taxed, as would retail international purchases (such as a boat or car) that are imported to the United States (collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection).

However for health care taxes would have to be based on a "common standard" for services and procedures and not just on what a person is billed (currently those without insurance pay the highest "direct billed costs" and those with better and better insurance are billed at a lower costs. Though the ACA may address this going forward).

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 124):
Problem with barriers is that it will pull down the profitability

Often that is not true. Usually the higher the barriers the higher the profitability (no not always) because it is harder for some new entrant with a bit of money and low costs to come in and challenge the status quo.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 126):
I think that is often the missing piece of the puzzle on the right. They mention that the wealthy pay X % of the overall tax burden but don't say how much they earn. It's phrased in a manner to make it sound like the rich are paying a higher percentage share of their income than the middle or lower class, but that isn't the case.

I did note these numbers near the end of my exceedingly long post above:

Quoting tugger (Reply 121):
And finally, you say there is something wrong when the "top 1%" pay 40% (approximately) of the federal taxes, but then how much do the "bottom 50% pay? And what is the delta for each group in income? The best latest data I could find was showing data from between 2004 and 2007 (so before the downturn), in rough numbers it showed that the top 5%, minus the top 1%, has a median income of around $250k and the bottom 50% with a median income of $40k to $45k, or a delta of around 5x. For the "top 1%" of earners, the median income was just over $1M (there is a figure noted above of $717k but that is after the downturn and I am trying to use consistent date from before that), or approximately 25 times as much as the bottom 50%. So why is it a surprise that the top 1% pay 13 times as much in taxes? And why is that "wrong" or "unfair"? To finish, the top 5%, or more accurately the top 4% after the 1% (i.e.: excluding the top 1%, which I noted above) paid approximately 22% of the taxes. So the bottom 50% pay around 4% of federal taxes, the "4%" pay about 22%, and the 1% pay 40% (all very rounded numbers), and each earns the approximate "X" times of the other group as they pay in taxes. How do you see that as wrong and unfair?



Tugg

[Edited 2013-03-01 10:41:40]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 129, posted (1 year 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 128):
OK, and people voted for the taxes.

They voted for taxes on other people. Most Americans walk into the voting booth with the ability to go shopping with someone else's credit card. It's Friedman's four ways of spending money at work.

Quoting tugger (Reply 128):
"Also excluded are investments, such as purchases of stock, corporate mergers and acquisitions and capital investments." For me I think this would have to change,

I can understand stocks and bonds being excluded, it would be too difficult to collect and potentially make America uncompetitive. If you apply the tax to buying stock in American or American listed companies (like coming to the US to shop) then those stocks become depressed because of a price premium not related to the value of the company. If you apply it to Americans buying stock the solution is simple: I'm sending my money to an offshore mutual or hedge fund so there's no tax. It just seems like there's no good way of doing it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (1 year 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 2943 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129):
They voted for taxes on other people. Most Americans walk into the voting booth with the ability to go shopping with someone else's credit card. It's Friedman's four ways of spending money at work.

Not to mention those that vote on social issues. While http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/.../for-voters-its-still-the-economy/ suggests that the Economy was the #1 issue in the 2012 election, there was still a good chunk of people that found importance in Education, Medicare, Abortion and Immigration. I do believe there are some liberals out there that agree with portions of the right's financial plan, but are so turned off by the social stance the GOP has.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 131, posted (1 year 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
FairTax isn't a new method of spending, but a new method of taxation.

So you don't have ANY protection for Social Security and Medicare?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
Replaced by the universal sales tax.

And what about all of those bonds supported with existing sales taxes? Only takes another 20 years to clear all of them out. But then where is that local money for local roads going to come from?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
The bottom 50% pay basically nothing to the federal government in income taxes.

Here we go again. Many would pay income taxes but the Conservatives in the GOP decided to establish this Socialist $1,000 per child per year handout in order to take over the House i the '96 Election. Remember that Contract with America? That socialist handout was right there and the RESULTS of the Socialist Handout were:

(1) It helped the GOP take over the House.
(2) It started a Socialist program with the GOP brand that would be hard to end
(3) It has made a major contribution to the nation's debt - and will continue to do so,

To be clear, that Republican Socialist Hand Out costs the taxpayers $18,000 per child, unless, of course, those families live in high crime areas and the child is killed by a drive by. Or killed in school with a gun bought under NRA supported programs.

Quoting tugger (Reply 128):
Often that is not true. Usually the higher the barriers the higher the profitability (no not always) because it is harder for some new entrant with a bit of money and low costs to come in and challenge the status quo.

I think when you are talking about the responsible housing market (excluding the wild years under "W") you find that new entrants buying starter homes will drag the market (and profits) down.

THe classes example is the GI BIll, which really pulled down the entry barrier when we bought our first home in '70. That was the first step in home ownership and we went up from there. Not massive profits, but stable growth.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129):
They voted for taxes on other people.

When people vote to retain or increase sales taxes or proper taxes they are voting to spend their money as well. Supporting schools, building or repairing schools, police & fire, etc.

Tulsa has a 1% addition to our sales tax for capital purchases for the police & fire departments, as well as other capital items. Every time it has come up for renewal it has been approved by the voters - who are voting to spend their money on those items. Friedman' must have missed that approach.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 132, posted (1 year 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 2888 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 131):
So you don't have ANY protection for Social Security and Medicare?

No, it's funded by the sales tax. What's difficult to understand about that?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 131):
But then where is that local money for local roads going to come from?

FairTax is a federal plan. How states and cities want to fund themselves is their problem, but a similar scheme would probably work for them too.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 131):
Many would pay income taxes but the Conservatives in the GOP decided to establish this Socialist $1,000 per child per year handout in order to take over the House i the '96 Election.

FairTax would get rid of that too.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 131):
When people vote to retain or increase sales taxes or proper taxes they are voting to spend their money as well.

Not when they aren't part of the group paying the vast majority of taxes. If you are a family that pays no net income tax year after year, there's no reason not to be in favor of expensive new programs other people will have to be taxed for.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 131):
Tulsa has a 1% addition to our sales tax for capital purchases for the police & fire departments, as well as other capital items. Every time it has come up for renewal it has been approved by the voters - who are voting to spend their money on those items.

They think it's worth it, which is fine. And sales taxes aren't the same as income taxes since most people won't avoid them the way that income taxes that hit a small portion of the population disproportionately.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 131):
Friedman' must have missed that approach.

He didn't. That's the first way of spending money, and the way that pretty much all government spending should be done. Now take that approach and use FairTax to apply it to the federal government.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5738 posts, RR: 10
Reply 133, posted (1 year 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129):
They voted for taxes on other people. Most Americans walk into the voting booth with the ability to go shopping with someone else's credit card. It's Friedman's four ways of spending money at work.

Not really true, most people vote on taxes they pay or might pay someday. I know that I vote for taxes for myself because it is the best thing for the country.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129):
I can understand stocks and bonds being excluded, it would be too difficult to collect and potentially make America uncompetitive. If you apply the tax to buying stock in American or American listed companies (like coming to the US to shop) then those stocks become depressed because of a price premium not related to the value of the company. If you apply it to Americans buying stock the solution is simple: I'm sending my money to an offshore mutual or hedge fund so there's no tax. It just seems like there's no good way of doing it.

If you buy a stock or other product, whether here or overseas it is taxed just like any other transaction. What is so difficult about that? Now I don't know how other nations handle this but it would be something to review, but just because other nations treat something differently, tax or excluded from tax, certain things, it doesn't mean that it should be done. There are plenty of taxation differences among nations. But again, I would have to look into it more but for now it just doesn't seem like it would be that hard.

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 130):
Not to mention those that vote on social issues. While http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/.../for-voters-its-still-the-economy/ suggests that the Economy was the #1 issue in the 2012 election, there was still a good chunk of people that found importance in Education, Medicare, Abortion and Immigration. I do believe there are some liberals out there that agree with portions of the right's financial plan, but are so turned off by the social stance the GOP has.

I must admit that "social issues" are an important element in my decision for who I vote for. I general I find it hard to vote for someone that wants to curtail rights, that thinks that what goes on in someone's bedroom between consenting adults is their business. Or that "security" trumps individual rights. There has to be other very big reasons why I would would vote for a person that leads with things like that.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
income taxes that hit a small portion of the population disproportionately.

You keep saying that but it is not true. Show me where my numbers are that wrong?

Tugg

[Edited 2013-03-01 15:53:00]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 134, posted (1 year 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 2860 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 133):
Not really true, most people vote on taxes they pay or might pay someday.

They don't though. People know they probably won't ever have an income over $250,000 so it won't make a difference if those tax rates increase. People know if they have enough deductions that tax rates won't effect them.

Quoting tugger (Reply 133):
What is so difficult about that?

You aren't actually buying a product in the case of a mutual fund or hedge fund. So, find one overseas and you aren't buying anything so you aren't taxed, and the fund is overseas so they aren't taxed. Perfect workaround.

Quoting tugger (Reply 133):
You keep saying that but it is not true. Show me where my numbers are that wrong?

Not as disproportionate for income, but disproportionate by population. Everybody gets to vote, but a relatively small population is providing the bankroll.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5738 posts, RR: 10
Reply 135, posted (1 year 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 134):
They don't though. People know they probably won't ever have an income over $250,000 so it won't make a difference if those tax rates increase. People know if they have enough deductions that tax rates won't effect them.

Do students vote? Do people just starting in their career vote? Do you vote? And I do try to vote as best I can to not be unfair to people. I happen to think that voting for taxing cigarettes is a bit unfair as it is (now) a minority of the population that smokes and so they have little voice on the matter. However most cigarette taxes that I have voted for go toward dealing the costs to society for their health impacts (I did not vote for the CA tax that goes to "education").

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 134):
You aren't actually buying a product in the case of a mutual fund or hedge fund. So, find one overseas and you aren't buying anything so you aren't taxed, and the fund is overseas so they aren't taxed. Perfect workaround.

You could very easily be taxed for an overseas investment, it is not that hard. Just make it a requirement that it be reported by the selling agent or they can't sell here. Now if you choose to evade thee taxes and the law, well that is an individual choice and the individual will have to face any consequence that may incur. .

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 134):
Not as disproportionate for income, but disproportionate by population. Everybody gets to vote, but a relatively small population is providing the bankroll.

You are not making sense. A relatively small population makes the "bankroll" so they pay more. It is that simple. I realize the similarity to my cigarettes example but the taxes are actually relatively proportionate (thanks to deductions and exceptions etc.) and those that are wealthy benefit as much if not more from the taxes. (Again show where people "living ion the dole" (and not committing fraud) that has a better life and better access to more benefits of society and government than "the wealthy". I much prefer being a pert of "the wealthy" and will not change.)

Tugg

[Edited 2013-03-01 16:13:16]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 136, posted (1 year 9 months 14 hours ago) and read 2840 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 135):
Do students vote? Do people just starting in their career vote? Do you vote?

Yeah, and they get to indirectly reach their hands into the pockets of others. Why would a teacher or a retiree not want higher taxes on the rich? It can only help them right?

Quoting tugger (Reply 135):
I happen to think that voting for taxing cigarettes is a bit unfair as it is (now) a minority of the population that smokes and so they have little voice on the matter.

Now you're espousing tyranny of the majority, which is exactly the problem. You can't make it fine for a majority to pick on various subgroups: the rich, smokers, etc.

Quoting tugger (Reply 135):
A relatively small population makes the "bankroll" so they pay more.

The disconnect is that everybody gets a say in what that bankroll gets used on. Everyone is going to be a little more cavalier with money that isn't theirs.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8433 posts, RR: 9
Reply 137, posted (1 year 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
What's difficult to understand about that?

Well, the difficult part is that there is currently a huge number of local bonds that are guaranteed with sales tax revenues. For some reason I doubt that you support moving all those financial obligations to the Federal Government so they can be paid for by the National Sales Tax you are so supportive of.

Makes it hard to protect the elderly with Social Security and Medicare when a huge chunk would be needed to pay of existing Sales Taxes.

Or is your goal to double the Sales Tax programs? Got any idea how that will impact those in the Middle Class, or the Poor, or those working in retail?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
Not when they aren't part of the group paying the vast majority of taxes.

You missed that one.

We are talking about people in a city voting to increase (or retain) sales taxes that they know they will have to pay.

The greater your wealth the small percentage of your income will be spent on sales taxes. That puts the burden on the average voter.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
If you are a family that pays no net income tax year after year, there's no reason not to be in favor of expensive new programs other people will have to be taxed for.

Sales taxes are paid by people who spend money. And I addressed the silly bitching about "so many people not paying any taxes".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
And sales taxes aren't the same as income taxes since most people won't avoid them the way that income taxes that hit a small portion of the population disproportionately.

When you exclude the taxes offset by the GP Socialist Cash Handouts there are a lot of people who pay more taxes than you want to think about

Let's face it, with your retail wages you won't be paying taxes. Except, of course FICA and the long list of other taxes, like petrol taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129):
I can understand stocks and bonds being excluded, it would be too difficult to collect and potentially make America uncompetitive.

Collecting that tax is actually pretty simple - the Financial Sector has some of the most sophisticated computer systems in the world - and they probably have the code written, tested and well hidden.

Calling it un-compatitive is a joke. Only a fool would not invest in good investments because of some trivial tax. Send your money somewhere offshore and watch the "fees" you get hit with by those private companies handling your money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 136):
Why would a teacher or a retiree not want higher taxes on the rich? It can only help them right?

Again, we have been talking about voting for tax increases at the local level. Local sales taxes and local property taxes.

Teachers & retired people PAY these taxes - and at a higher percentage of their income than the local CEOs.

BTW, don't beat up on the teachers. You might find that you can grab a teaching job that pays a lot more than retailing - especially if you get a job at a private, local school. You could handle upper math levels, chemistry & physics - the better paying jobs in teaching. Not a lot of fun, but you have shorter word days and LOTS of vacation days.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 138, posted (1 year 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 2820 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
Well, the difficult part is that there is currently a huge number of local bonds that are guaranteed with sales tax revenues. For some reason I doubt that you support moving all those financial obligations to the Federal Government so they can be paid for by the National Sales Tax you are so supportive of.

There is no reason why they need to be moved. Just like there is often a state income tax along with a federal income tax, or a state sales tax in addition to a local one, there will be a federal sales tax in addition to state and/or local.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
The greater your wealth the small percentage of your income will be spent on sales taxes. That puts the burden on the average voter.

The burden should go more to the average people. But, that said, one would have to live very frugally for the sales tax to be regressive on income. You'd have to live on probably under 20% of your income to match the tax percentage (by income) paid by poorer people.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
Sales taxes are paid by people who spend money. And I addressed the silly bitching about "so many people not paying any taxes".

And the rich spend more than the poor, which is hardly a surprise.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
Let's face it, with your retail wages you won't be paying taxes.

Nope. But I would be if there were any economic growth and I had a real job.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
Except, of course FICA and the long list of other taxes, like petrol taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes.

The rich pay those too.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
Only a fool would not invest in good investments because of some trivial tax.

When you stick a tax on something you can take it from a great investment to merely a good one, or a good investment to a questionable one. And if you want to invest, just do it via foreign vehicles.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
Again, we have been talking about voting for tax increases at the local level. Local sales taxes and local property taxes.

That's great, but they won't be paying a lot in federal income taxes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
BTW, don't beat up on the teachers.

I'm just using them as an example of a group who will likely never approach the top tax brackets.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
You could handle upper math levels, chemistry & physics - the better paying jobs in teaching.

Probably, but again, teaching won't put you in the top tax brackets.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 139, posted (1 year 9 months 11 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
So when there is an issue that comes along, like the government starting a new expensive program, that 50% doesn't really have a skin in the game. Of course they can be in favor of it, they won't need to pay for it. It's a situation where 75% of the voters walk into the voting booth to swipe a credit card that is 70% someone else's.

So long as 10% of the country holds 75% of the wealth, that's always going to be the case. You could take everything the bottom 90% has in taxes and the top 10% would still be shouldering the vast majority of the burden, and they'd still be providing your metaphorical credit card to everyone else.

Fix the income inequality problem in this country and the tax balance will take care of itself. But you don't fix the income inequality by taxing those who have almost nothing more - that's counterproductive.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 140, posted (1 year 9 months 11 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 139):
Fix the income inequality problem in this country and the tax balance will take care of itself.

Fix the taxation inequality and you'll fix the will to embark on expensive programs of little utility. People will question things like EAS and NEA more if they see some of the direct results every time they go shopping.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 141, posted (1 year 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 2788 times: