Nothing has been proposed like this from the administration.
so far he is no upped his tax increase to 1.6 trillion somehow. where that is going to come from who knows.
on top of that he wants 60b for a new stimulus plan and a saw another report that totaled all new spending to almost 600b.
so even if he raised 1.6trillion he would spend 600b of that. PS i noted NEW spending. that is on top of what he is already doing.
there are no cuts from the obama administration. it is the same ol song and dance of tax and spend liberalism.
the time for tax and spend is over. austery measures are required at this point.
it is time to balance the check book and fix the broken system.
it starts with the tax code.
it then starts with business
it then starts with cutting and eliminating the 100b dollars in duplicate programs that the government wastes every year.
then you see about the other things.
you reform SS, and medicare so that they function properly and at less expense to the government which my plan would do.
to say republicans want equal parts revenue and cuts is extremely far from the truth. They want MASSIVE cuts and next to no revenue increases.
simply wrong. they have offered reforms to the tax code. which will increase revenue while lowering rates.
and massive cuts are needed. we are just spending way to much money and even if obama gets his 1.6 trillion in new taxes there is nothing taht will stop him from just spending it rather than paying down the debt.
so we get less money in our pocket less raises every year worse benefits as companies try to battle this non-sense and stupidity.
government income goes down from lack of economic activity and we have to borrow more money to handle all the new spending obama wants to do.
it is just sheer irresponsibility and a total lack of intelligence on both sides.
2 things.
1st. Please link me to this so called "report" so that I can read it. I don't wanna start making points before having all the info.
2nd. yes....there was a plan that was 3 parts cuts and 1 parts revenue increases. That plan was shot down by republicans. Well not republicans but Bohner and some of his assosiates. There was a shift that made it about 2.5 to 1 dollar in cuts to raises in revenue. The Obama administration and democrats in general have proposed that there will be more cuts to the buget than tax revenue from the begining. However he is wanting to cut things other than Social security and medicaid.
Also I don't know how many times people will bring this up. Its false. SS is not bankrupt and we can technically put it off for another 20 years before it even becomes a problem. Its been a political barganing chip and nothing more. Its not a real issue yet at all. So gutting people's only source of income in their 80's after paying into SS for their whole life is NOT the way to go.
I agree Medicare/aid needs some adjusting. I support the drug test requirement. I assume this will knock out some deadbeats. There should be reforms even further in that.
The military could stand to take some cuts. We are winding down an occupation and there is no reason to have a standing military the same size. The pentagon wastes a lot of money. There needs to be a leaner government all over and that is something I agree with the republicans on. HOWEVER their tax plan doesn't work. There were a lot of lies and slandering during hte election but one thing that is true is the MATH does not add up. Maybe if the miracle magic fixident for the economy works and 12 million new jobs pop up next month then it will work...other than that its fantasy land.
SS and obamacare are the only two things that he doesn't seem willing to compromise on.
1st. Please link me to this so called "report" so that I can read it. I don't wanna start making points before having all the info.
I have to make some corrections.
890b in new taxes from tax increases on the rich.
he has proposed another 600b in new taxes from somewhere no details.
he has only proposed 400b in savings from medical reforms (which he is double counting which are iffy at best).
he has proposed 50-60b in new spending.
so this isn't a plan. it is tax and spend liberlism.
Also I don't know how many times people will bring this up. Its false. SS is not bankrupt and we can technically put it off for another 20 years before it even becomes a problem.
No one has said it is bankrupt it is going bankrupt. the system can no longer support itself and has been running deficits. IE more people taking out than paying in.
which is why ponzi scheme's fail to begin with. you soon owe more money than what you can pay out.
so what if there isn't a problem for another 20 years. lets fix it now and not worry about it later. it is called being pro-active.
So gutting people's only source of income in their 80's after paying into SS for their whole life is NOT the way to go.
again another liberal talking point no one has talked about gutting it. it needs reformed. current people can stay how it is.
the next generation is going to have to switch to a new system more like a 401k. although not invested in the stock market.
you put money into your own account like a 401k. the money is then pooled together and put into a safe interest bearing account. you earn a 5% interest rate on the money that you put in.
you can put in more or less like a 401k it depends on you.
HOWEVER their tax plan doesn't work.
Romney was right. taxes aren't generated by the government. they are generated by economic activity. if you want more taxes generate more economic activity.
that is the only way to bring in more money. sure you can raise rates but that lower activity after a while. it supplies a short term cash burst then it catches up.
hence why lowering taxes has generally brought in More money than raising them over a longer period of time.
my tax plan would do both generate economic activity and have the upper incomes paying more money.
as an example. warren buffet made like 64m dollars. this year he only had a taxable income of 37m dollars. under my tax plan he would have had a taxable income of 58m dollars. 21m more.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Mystery45 as of last year SS was still covering itself only the welfare bits (SSI) have been costing the general budget anything - its a projection that in 2020 or so it will begin to run negative in the main portion.
i posted a similar thread. in 2011 SS ran a 45b dollar deficit.
the crush on SS is happening now and people are just tossing it over the fence.
1) Taxes are about to go up as all bush tax cuts expire.
again my tax plan lowers rates doesn't tax the middle class more and the higher income people pay a higher % at a lower rate due to caps on the amount of deductions they can take.
It also increases economic activity but making us competitive in the corporate world.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
i posted a similar thread. in 2011 SS ran a 45b dollar deficit.
the crush on SS is happening now and people are just tossing it over the fence.
They don't clarify the parts of the SS budget - if you actually look at the SS publication on the matter for 2011 they have it as a net positive until you include Social Security Insurance. (AKA welfare, since it's used for bolstering people that don't meet the $718 minimum up to $718)
The reason why it's an important distinction is because some politicians are talking about specifically cutting SSI while leaving the rest be.
But the article is true if you're looking at the picture as a whole. (Not that it matters too much for another ~15 years at the current rate because of Treasury Bonds that SS holds anyhow)
1st. Please link me to this so called "report" so that I can read it. I don't wanna start making points before having all the info.
I have to make some corrections.
890b in new taxes from tax increases on the rich.
he has proposed another 600b in new taxes from somewhere no details.
he has only proposed 400b in savings from medical reforms (which he is double counting which are iffy at best).
he has proposed 50-60b in new spending.
so this isn't a plan. it is tax and spend liberlism.
Okay. well I'd still like to see the offical report you're talking about.
And I love how the republican game plan was "trust us it will work" when they wouldn't give specifics on their plans. Though there has been promises of major cuts to several programs in order to balance the budget on both sides. Its really where the cuts are. ITs sheer ignorance to assume that the Democrats don't want any cuts at all. Liberalism isn't bad either. You say it like its a negative connotation.
Also I don't know how many times people will bring this up. Its false. SS is not bankrupt and we can technically put it off for another 20 years before it even becomes a problem.
No one has said it is bankrupt it is going bankrupt. the system can no longer support itself and has been running deficits. IE more people taking out than paying in.
which is why ponzi scheme's fail to begin with. you soon owe more money than what you can pay out.
so what if there isn't a problem for another 20 years. lets fix it now and not worry about it later. it is called being pro-active.
I'll say it again. Its not an immediate problem nor is it even a permanent problem. I"ve already explained several times the baby boomers effect and now that several generations tend to be smaller as they go along because of condoms and abortion. So its possible (thought no way to tell for sure) that it could balance itself out in 20 years. Though its a good idea to NOT bet with our future.
Though there is not NOTHING that says we need to reform SS. Maybe other social programs but SS itself its fine. Revenue will come up one way or another and significantly so in the next few years. So again. SS is fine but I do agree we need to do something about it.
Though I find it laughable that the Republicans are all "proactive" about SS cuts but not climate change. Apparently its a hoax unless they can make cuts.
So gutting people's only source of income in their 80's after paying into SS for their whole life is NOT the way to go.
again another liberal talking point no one has talked about gutting it. it needs reformed. current people can stay how it is.
the next generation is going to have to switch to a new system more like a 401k. although not invested in the stock market.
you put money into your own account like a 401k. the money is then pooled together and put into a safe interest bearing account. you earn a 5% interest rate on the money that you put in.
you can put in more or less like a 401k it depends on you.
And this is a ultra right wing conservative ponzi scheme. Basically what it means is that if you have tons of extra money and wealthy to begin with you can dump as much as you want into your own personal account while the poor continue to struggle. IT no longer is a social program and simply a government run privatized savings account. What it really boils down to is people don't like paying taxes or having their money going to anyone else. thats the real reason.
HOWEVER their tax plan doesn't work.
Romney was right. taxes aren't generated by the government. they are generated by economic activity. if you want more taxes generate more economic activity.
that is the only way to bring in more money. sure you can raise rates but that lower activity after a while. it supplies a short term cash burst then it catches up.
hence why lowering taxes has generally brought in More money than raising them over a longer period of time.
my tax plan would do both generate economic activity and have the upper incomes paying more money.
as an example. warren buffet made like 64m dollars. this year he only had a taxable income of 37m dollars. under my tax plan he would have had a taxable income of 58m dollars. 21m more.
Your tax plan? I'm slightly confused now. Did you write up an offical document and have it drafted by a team of lawyers and economists or is this just a little side project you do when you're not surfing the forums? I"m not trying to knock your ideas at all b/c I think we need more thinkers but I just want to know what scale your idea really is on.
I agree that there needs to be some major tax reform. I would like to see a renewal of the whole system. And more economic activity does mean more tax revenue. However we can't get out of raising taxes really. And the revenue increases WILL NOT BE ADEQUATE if we simply stop loopholes and deductions. IT simply won't work. Will it work Eventually? Yeah in 10 years from now if we get the expected economic recovery it will be adequate. But we are talking this year, next year, NOW. The so called "cliff" is here in less than a month. Romney tax plan won't work in that short period of time. This whole "raise taxes on the rich" isn't even permanent but simply a save for the next year for congress to work out a real deal. IT is impossible to get an in depth tax plan and budget on the table by the requested time.
So for right now we need more money and thats the only place we can get it. I am a demand side-er when I look at economics and I can't understand at all supply side-ers. The argument doesn't make sense to me at all.
have it as a net positive until you include Social Security Insurance.
Sorry but that is not how it works you can't simply ignore something SSI comes out of SS fund. therefore you can't simply just go well it's net positive without. no SS fund is running deficits period.
It is not bringing in more money than it is taking out.
Revenue will come up one way or another and significantly so in the next few years. So again.
There is no proof of this anywhere in fact if you would have looked at the link i posted then you would have seen the CBO projections. They show the exact opposite of what you said.
And this is a ultra right wing conservative ponzi scheme.
then you have no clue what a ponzi scheme is.
Basically what it means is that if you have tons of extra money and wealthy to begin with you can dump as much as you want into your own personal account while the poor continue to struggle.
not at all SS is a tax it means everyone will be contributing to their own account.
no you can't dump as much money into it as you want. you can't even do that with a 401k.
IT no longer is a social program and simply a government run privatized savings account. What it really boils down to is people don't like paying taxes or having their money going to anyone else.
SS was never meant to be a permanent program it was only suppose to last 10 years or something.
why should my hard earned money go to someone else? i would still pay the tax. the fica tax would not go away just how it is allocated.
right now i am being promised benefits when more than likely it won't be there. my plan will be there.
people will have a retirement fund.
Did you write up an offical document and have it drafted by a team of lawyers and economists or is this just a little side project you do when you're not surfing the forums?[/quo]
that would be the problem laywers and economists have screwed the system up.
If you make less than 500K a year you pay 10% tax rate and keep your deductions.
If you make more than 500K a year then you pay a 20% tax rate and your deductions are capped by your income.
Same goes for capital gains only the tax rate is 15% yet if you make more than 500K a year in capital gains you can only claim 10% of your income as deductions. so if you earn 1m in capital gains you can only claim 100K in losses and will pay 15% on the other 900k.
EX: warren buffet released his 2010 tax returns. he made about 68m dollars his taxable income was about 39m.
under my plan if he made 68m in capital gains. he would be able to take 6.8m in deductions and have to pay 61.2 taxable income at 15%.
if he made 28m in income he would only be able to take 2.8m in deductions and would have to pay 20% on 25.2m
if the other 40m was in captial gains then he would get 4m in deductions and have 15% on the other 36m.
if you take someone that makes 60k a year. the standard deduction would go up to 20k. they could take all the deductions and credit they normally get. or they can take the standard deduction.
if they take the standard deduction their taxable income would be 40k they would pay a 10% tax which would be 4k.
i look it up if you make 60k you have a taxable income of about 9k.
corporations would pay a flat rate of 10% with only healthcare as a deduction.
[quote] However we can't get out of raising taxes really.
You don't get econoimc activity by raising taxes. economic acitivy is where taxes come from not tax rates.
And the revenue increases WILL NOT BE ADEQUATE if we simply stop loopholes and deductions. IT simply won't work.
my plan does. why because i cap the amount of deductions one can get if you make 500K or more.
since warren buffet is a champion of the left for higher taxes i will use him.
in 2010 warren made 68m dollars. his taxable income was only 39m dollars.
under my plan his taxable income would be 61m dollars or so.
But we are talking this year, next year, NOW. The so called "cliff" is here in less than a month.
I am sick of hearing cliff. it isn't a cliff it is a bump in the road. the cliff is the 16 trillion dollar deficit that is expected to go to 20+trillion if obama continues to get his way.
the cliff is that the federal government will no longer be able to borrow money to pay for the interest on the money they owe.
we are charging the credit card to pay for the credit card and it is fiscally stupid.
This whole "raise taxes on the rich" isn't even permanent but simply a save for the next year for congress to work out a real deal.
which according to the CBO obama tax increase will only run the government for 4 months. big whoop. OMG that tax increase saved us all from what exactly again.
Raising taxes on the rich more so obama's plan does nothing.
that is why he came up with 600b dollars in other taxes. increased air line tickets etc ...
his plan is dumber than just letting the tax cuts expire and the spending cuts take place.
What that guy in the video Dio mentions fails to realise is that taxing the wealthy more has a minute effect on the money the government has to spend. Taxing your top 1% percent more is but a drop in the ocean. Tax cuts for the middle class will lessen the government coffers tremendously. You do not just cut taxes for such a big amount of people. If he thinks that a tax cut on the middle class in a country as big as the US is not going curtail government expenditure (Which can be a great catalyst for growth) greatly then he really is just not in tune with what changing tax does.
Tax law is very rarely a case of tax more or less and everyone wins. It is more a case of tax some more and others loose less. I must say for a Berkeley professor he is either is rather ignorant of how taxing works or he is deliberately misleading people. Which seems par for the course with American liberals. Portraying Bush as a villain when he has no way to defend his policies is also a rather petty thing to do
If I was a Republican I would be rather annoyed at such things.
For future reference here is the video I'm talking about.
What that guy in the video Dio mentions fails to realise is that taxing the wealthy more has a minute effect on the money the government has to spend. Taxing your top 1% percent more is but a drop in the ocean. Tax cuts for the middle class will lessen the government coffers tremendously. You do not just cut taxes for such a big amount of people. If he thinks that a tax cut on the middle class in a country as big as the US is not going curtail government expenditure (Which can be a great catalyst for growth) greatly then he really is just not in tune with what changing tax does.
Tax law is very rarely a case of tax more or less and everyone wins. It is more a case of tax some more and others loose less. I must say for a Berkeley professor he is either is rather ignorant of how taxing works or he is deliberately misleading people. Which seems par for the course with American liberals. Portraying Bush as a villain when he has no way to defend his policies is also a rather petty thing to do
If I was a Republican I would be rather annoyed at such things.
For future reference here is the video I'm talking about.
Dio's video looked more like a campaign strategy for democrats than anything else. Although reducing military spending and ending corporate welfare would help dramatically. Foreign aid should also be ended, we can't afford it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
have it as a net positive until you include Social Security Insurance.
Sorry but that is not how it works you can't simply ignore something SSI comes out of SS fund. therefore you can't simply just go well it's net positive without. no SS fund is running deficits period.
It is not bringing in more money than it is taking out.
It depends, there's a few pitching a fix of just getting rid of SSI and putting those people on standard welfare if at all. Which would be a band-aid for a bit.
Unlike the rest of SS that is self-funded and "mandatory" no one pays in for SSI, so it's not giving people their money back it's true welfare that's easier to attack in the budget.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Care to make a list of all the "stuff" Obama gives people? Make sure to document your references.
This is a debate forum, not a place for you spread your ignorance.
free healthcare - VERY few people, if any are getting this for free. Obamacare does two things. First, it requires all people to PURCHASE insurance. Second, it sets up cheap insurance for certain people who qualify. A very, very small fraction of the population will qualify for any *free* insurance (read: medicaid).
free cellphones - This program was set up and championed by a republican president, not Obama (despite the ignorance of some poor misinformed and overplayed lady in a video). The veracity of the program is up for debate, but this isn't a "Obama" gift.
free citizenship (trying to) - Who is he trying to give "free" citizenship to? Last I checked, it was only children who pay to go to a US university or serve in the US armed forces. There is a big difference between making something "not impossible" and "free"
continues to give people unemployment - Fair enough. Let me pause while I go out and look for all the unemployed people I know who are happy living on government unemployment. Oh... wait.
i am sure there is more i would have to look it up
And? For the sake of hte argument, who exactly gets free healthcare, and how much do they get for how long?
free cellphones
This is an extension of the program that helps those in poverty have access to some form of communication. Because finding a job or, say, calling 911 if someone is hurt is much harder if you don't have a phone. What is your major problem with this program?
free citizenship (trying to)
I'm sure glad my great grandfather immigrated to the US. You are pulling at straws here.
continues to give people unemployment.
Because when someone loses their job we should throw them out on the street right? That's a great recipe for a stable country. After they loose their job why don't we just throw a pie in their face, kick them in the balls and push them into on coming traffic.
i am sure there is more i would have to look it up
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Can we stop the ObamaPhone nonsense? That was a meme started by a black woman who didn't understand the program's roots.
The actual program name is the Lifeline program, it was started by George HW Bush in 1988, it was extended to cell phones in 2006 by George W Bush.
The only changes Obama has proposed to the program is the RESTRICT how many people can have a subsidized phone. (right now it's per social with a welfare case - he wants to restrict it per address so that only 1 phone per address even if 3-4 people are on a program there)
And the other proposed changes to the program is being proposed by the FCC not him. (The extension of the program into broadband that's being tested)
*responding to quote in op not to any post since then* Just to be a middle man here, the conservative congressmen will not support a bill that only gives 99% of America a tax break, even if we go over the fiscal cliff. Right now, the extension of the bill is not truly what is up for debate, but a whole new bill. This bill if drafted by a conservative representative (and would have no opposition guaranteed) would include tax breaks for everyone and a reduction in government benefits to those who are relying on the government in someway for something. This would cut away benefits for both druggies who use the government as their private food bank as well as benefits that allow octogenarians to afford their varied medications as well as eat. If a liberal representative were to draft this bill (once again, with no opposition), it would include increasing tax breaks down the income ladder. It would also add on programs that would grant anything the government deemed as a necessity to anyone below, probably, $20,000 yearly income. This bill would also all but cut our drone programs, while secretly allowing other extreme measures so they couldn't be called pro-terrorism. Even the middle ground, cuts in foreign proactive military spending and stricter requirements on welfare benefits, would not be voted in because both parties have to hold onto their home votes. This is a problem more with local voting being heavily in one party or another in the majority of seats than with anything. Congress has always been a necessary evil that keeps us from having a king. Obama could never take over the government quietly with republicans being so vocal in the house, nor could Bush have done the same thing with the democrats being so vocal in both the senate and house. I do not believe that going over the fiscal cliff will change anything going on in Congress, it will just make things difficult for those of under $40k (not $200k) a year in gross income. It will make tough times tougher for most Americans, but will continue to keep both parties representatives happy and comfortable in their cushy congressional seats.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Petition to stop WotC from making M:tG cards that do not fit my specific likes! Join the revolution! If not you, then who?
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
Revenue will come up one way or another and significantly so in the next few years. So again.
There is no proof of this anywhere in fact if you would have looked at the link i posted then you would have seen the CBO projections. They show the exact opposite of what you said.
And every single economist ....ever has said that 12 million new jobs would be added over the next "X" years reguardless if Romney or Obama had been elected.
And this is a ultra right wing conservative ponzi scheme.
then you have no clue what a ponzi scheme is.
I do. I was mocking you as you don't seem to know whats going on if you called it a liberal ponzi scheme. I should have made it clearer.
Basically what it means is that if you have tons of extra money and wealthy to begin with you can dump as much as you want into your own personal account while the poor continue to struggle.
not at all SS is a tax it means everyone will be contributing to their own account.
no you can't dump as much money into it as you want. you can't even do that with a 401k.
Whatever you say. I have read the plan proposed by the right wing about it. It overly favors the rich. And basically what happens is the more you pay in the more you get. Only problem is its manditory.
IT no longer is a social program and simply a government run privatized savings account. What it really boils down to is people don't like paying taxes or having their money going to anyone else.
SS was never meant to be a permanent program it was only suppose to last 10 years or something.
why should my hard earned money go to someone else? i would still pay the tax. the fica tax would not go away just how it is allocated.
right now i am being promised benefits when more than likely it won't be there. my plan will be there.
people will have a retirement fund.
SS was originally used to supplement retirement that you made yourself. I don't recall it being temporary but I don't actually know. Citation would be appreciated.
The benifits won't be there if you take then away via cuts rather than do whats necessary to keep them (rather simple and its been talked about several times)
Did you write up an offical document and have it drafted by a team of lawyers and economists or is this just a little side project you do when you're not surfing the forums?
that would be the problem laywers and economists have screwed the system up.
If you make less than 500K a year you pay 10% tax rate and keep your deductions.
If you make more than 500K a year then you pay a 20% tax rate and your deductions are capped by your income.
Same goes for capital gains only the tax rate is 15% yet if you make more than 500K a year in capital gains you can only claim 10% of your income as deductions. so if you earn 1m in capital gains you can only claim 100K in losses and will pay 15% on the other 900k.
EX: warren buffet released his 2010 tax returns. he made about 68m dollars his taxable income was about 39m.
under my plan if he made 68m in capital gains. he would be able to take 6.8m in deductions and have to pay 61.2 taxable income at 15%.
if he made 28m in income he would only be able to take 2.8m in deductions and would have to pay 20% on 25.2m
if the other 40m was in captial gains then he would get 4m in deductions and have 15% on the other 36m.
if you take someone that makes 60k a year. the standard deduction would go up to 20k. they could take all the deductions and credit they normally get. or they can take the standard deduction.
if they take the standard deduction their taxable income would be 40k they would pay a 10% tax which would be 4k.
i look it up if you make 60k you have a taxable income of about 9k.
corporations would pay a flat rate of 10% with only healthcare as a deduction.
Thats like saying that doctors and chemists have ruined medicine.....
Soulds like a great plan on paper but so does Communism and other economic theroies. There is a lot of math to be done to see if there is actually any way to raise enough via your method.
However we can't get out of raising taxes really.
You don't get econoimc activity by raising taxes. economic acitivy is where taxes come from not tax rates.
No but more money does. This idea that the ecnomy will collapse with slight tax increase on the hyper wealthy is false. Simply false.
And the revenue increases WILL NOT BE ADEQUATE if we simply stop loopholes and deductions. IT simply won't work.
my plan does. why because i cap the amount of deductions one can get if you make 500K or more.
since warren buffet is a champion of the left for higher taxes i will use him.
in 2010 warren made 68m dollars. his taxable income was only 39m dollars.
under my plan his taxable income would be 61m dollars or so.
Have you done the math for the whole country? And do you SERIOUSLY THINK that the republican party would support actually raising the amount of taxes paid by the rich? I doubt it. The main reason they want to cut loopholes and deductions is b/c it still would be less than the 3% raise proposed by Obama.
But we are talking this year, next year, NOW. The so called "cliff" is here in less than a month.
I am sick of hearing cliff. it isn't a cliff it is a bump in the road. the cliff is the 16 trillion dollar deficit that is expected to go to 20+trillion if obama continues to get his way.
the cliff is that the federal government will no longer be able to borrow money to pay for the interest on the money they owe.
we are charging the credit card to pay for the credit card and it is fiscally stupid.
Obama didn't build this cliff by himself and people need to quit acting like he did. The cliff really isn't as bad everyone says. Honestly its just when the auto tax increases and cuts kick in if we can't balance the budget more. Thats all. Hell the economy wouldn't crash. It would dip and slow our recovery even more but it wouldn't destroy America. But it would be bad and it saves a us for a year.
This whole "raise taxes on the rich" isn't even permanent but simply a save for the next year for congress to work out a real deal.
which according to the CBO obama tax increase will only run the government for 4 months. big whoop. OMG that tax increase saved us all from what exactly again.
Raising taxes on the rich more so obama's plan does nothing.
that is why he came up with 600b dollars in other taxes. increased air line tickets etc ...
his plan is dumber than just letting the tax cuts expire and the spending cuts take place.
as i said obama has no plan on compromise. he is now showing his true colours which people denyed.
Wrong and you're very very very very very wrong. the tax increase ALONE as in BY ITSELF WILL ONLY RUN THE GOV FOR 4 MONTHS!
However its so ****ing stupid that its litterally pissing me off that people (no offense but mainly just you) think that Obama and democrats in general want 0 spending cuts. Thats not true. Not true at all. The plan proposed was 3;1 spending cuts to tax revenue. So if the tax increase would run the government for 4 months then the 3x greater value in cuts will run it for the rest of the 8 before next year.
NO ONE IN CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENCY WANTS 0 CUTS OR SPENDING INCREASES OVERALL!
I don't know how to make that any clearer. They just want less cuts than the Republicans.
I also love how they are like "Obama won't compromise" when they were obstructionism for 4 years. Obama said "no I don't like this plan b/c its overly republican with zero Democratic ideals" and the response on the media is "Obama refuses to compromise"
Does Obama refuse to bend over and take the luscious republican **** in the rear? Yeah he does. But what compromises has the republicans offered up? Any? None?
Wrong and you're very very very very very wrong. the tax increase ALONE as in BY ITSELF WILL ONLY RUN THE GOV FOR 4 MONTHS!
However its so ****ing stupid that its litterally pissing me off that people (no offense but mainly just you) think that Obama and democrats in general want 0 spending cuts. Thats not true. Not true at all. The plan proposed was 3;1 spending cuts to tax revenue. So if the tax increase would run the government for 4 months then the 3x greater value in cuts will run it for the rest of the 8 before next year.
No, the taxes that already existed will run it for the rest of the 8 months. spending cuts don't pay for things. that makes no sense.
Maybe you need to take a breather and step back form the issue -- the need to get an urgent response out is clearly clouding your response.
Wrong and you're very very very very very wrong. the tax increase ALONE as in BY ITSELF WILL ONLY RUN THE GOV FOR 4 MONTHS!
However its so ****ing stupid that its litterally pissing me off that people (no offense but mainly just you) think that Obama and democrats in general want 0 spending cuts. Thats not true. Not true at all. The plan proposed was 3;1 spending cuts to tax revenue. So if the tax increase would run the government for 4 months then the 3x greater value in cuts will run it for the rest of the 8 before next year.
No, the taxes that already existed will run it for the rest of the 8 months. spending cuts don't pay for things. that makes no sense.
Maybe you need to take a breather and step back form the issue -- the need to get an urgent response out is clearly clouding your response.
Perhaps. I did get heated there and I apologize. But spending cuts would be where money comes from. If they cut 40 dollars out of program X then they have enough money to pay for program Y. So in a way they do actually "pay for programs" or rather simply save the money so they don't have spend any more revenue on the program.
Though I want to say this. If spending cuts don't pay for government and thats stupid then why is the the entire Republican plan?
bLatch - His point is correct, he's just wording it poorly. (although it's not quite at the ratio he's using doing quick math)
If you reduce the total spending, then you extend those dollars spent to go further.
The "8.5 days" quotes are assuming spending doesn't change, which there's over $600b of cuts proposed ($200b specifically, $400 generic TBD) - which does mean they're actually longer than 8.5 days with his proposal. (Not that the "days metric" is worth a damn anyhow though - shutting down the military completely would be close to 2 months on that metric for example - everything sounds bad with "days" with how big the Fed is)
After all when you're talking about the portion of something $3.1T is versus $2.5T - the net ratio is going to change, even if it's not directly comparable, it's an indirect effect on the equation.
Wrong and you're very very very very very wrong. the tax increase ALONE as in BY ITSELF WILL ONLY RUN THE GOV FOR 4 MONTHS!
However its so ****ing stupid that its litterally pissing me off that people (no offense but mainly just you) think that Obama and democrats in general want 0 spending cuts. Thats not true. Not true at all. The plan proposed was 3;1 spending cuts to tax revenue. So if the tax increase would run the government for 4 months then the 3x greater value in cuts will run it for the rest of the 8 before next year.
This is simply not correct. the CBO says that the tax increases will only run the government for about 4 months. This is the CBO so if you want to argue that they are wrong then please provide some evidence for it.
I have yet to see where the administration says they will make any cuts. In fact they have offered little to 0 cuts but they have offered almost 600b dollars in NEW spending.
if they even cut anything that money has to be applied to the debt or deficit there is no indication that this will be the fact.
also love how they are like "Obama won't compromise" when they were obstructionism for 4 years.
He isn't compromising. republicans have offered 800b in new revenue and he refuses to take it because he can't tax people more.
which we have shown does nothing.
But what compromises has the republicans offered up? Any? None?
I just posted a link in my last post why did you ignore it?
And every single economist ....ever has said that 12 million new jobs would be added over the next "X" years reguardless if Romney or Obama had been elected.
There is no proof of this. I have seen the exact opposite that jobs are going to shrink.
I was mocking you as you don't seem to know whats going on if you called it a liberal ponzi scheme.
so lets do a comparison.
A ponzi scheme gets initial investors. it then continues to get more investors. the oringinal investors are paid with new investment money. in order to keep the scheme going you constantly have to have new investors.
the problem with these plans is that you evidently run out of investors.
SS works the same way. I work i invest. The govnerment promises me a return on my investment. The thing is though in order to keep it going the investment has to have more people paying in than taking out.
The money that i will try to collect is not my money but someone else's money.
When SS was first started there were 25 workers for every 1. the first lady to pull a SS check paid only about 250 dollars in but recieved almost 25K in benefits.
now there are only about 1.5-2 workers per 1 person.
It is a failed system. it is a ponzi scheme and we are now seeing it unravel.
so again i say i don't think you understand.
Whatever you say. I have read the plan proposed by the right wing about it.
again my plan =/= republican plan so you aren't paying attention.
The benifits won't be there if you take then away via cuts rather than do whats necessary to keep them
There will be no benifits at all if it is bankrupt.
There is a lot of math to be done to see if there is actually any way to raise enough via your method.
the math is simple. by capping what people making over 500K can deduct their taxable income increases.
i have already showed this under my plan Warren buffets taxable income increases by almost 30m dollars.
he is just taxed at a lower rate. his investment income deductions are capped the same way.
This idea that the ecnomy will collapse with slight tax increase on the hyper wealthy is false. Simply false.
Hyperbole much? the claim that raising taxes on the rich will fix the issue is even more false as has been shown time and time again.
And do you SERIOUSLY THINK that the republican party would support actually raising the amount of taxes paid by the rich?
They did in the 1980's they are proposing it again now.
the difference is they would rather reduce rates cut deductions. personally they should just cap deductions. my plan caps deductions to 10% of your gross income if you make 500K or more.
it could even be raised to 1m. still lower rates would be in order.
the middle class will not be affected in the slightest.
Obama didn't build this cliff by himself and people need to quit acting like he did.
again no one said he did. when he came into office the debt was only 10T. since then it has grown to now 16 trillion. CBO projects that if nothing is done and government spending continues including his new spending it will grow to over 20T by the end of his next term.
he will have effectively doubled the national debt in 8 years.
you need to accept that obama is a poor president. his entire economic policy has failed. he healthcare plan is causing employeers to lay off and cut hours to get around it.
The issue with the deduction cap isn't a singular thing though, I do agree with the goal in the longrun. But the numbers coming out for how much revenue it would generate are INCREDIBLY hazy - seems to me to make more sense to "overdo revenue" for a little bit while getting out of the hole, then once we see the real world numbers for a few years, then adjust it down if it's too high. AKA we should start off with the rate adjustment AND deduction caps.
Logic dictates we should err on the sides of "too much revenue" and "too much cutting" slightly - neither party is getting that concept in mind however. And until they do, you're still going to see $500b+ of deficit in either plan. (In fact, the Republican plan gets barely under $900b - and Obama's about $600b - a far cry from balanced)
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
2 things.
1st. Please link me to this so called "report" so that I can read it. I don't wanna start making points before having all the info.
2nd. yes....there was a plan that was 3 parts cuts and 1 parts revenue increases. That plan was shot down by republicans. Well not republicans but Bohner and some of his assosiates. There was a shift that made it about 2.5 to 1 dollar in cuts to raises in revenue. The Obama administration and democrats in general have proposed that there will be more cuts to the buget than tax revenue from the begining. However he is wanting to cut things other than Social security and medicaid.
Also I don't know how many times people will bring this up. Its false. SS is not bankrupt and we can technically put it off for another 20 years before it even becomes a problem. Its been a political barganing chip and nothing more. Its not a real issue yet at all. So gutting people's only source of income in their 80's after paying into SS for their whole life is NOT the way to go.
I agree Medicare/aid needs some adjusting. I support the drug test requirement. I assume this will knock out some deadbeats. There should be reforms even further in that.
The military could stand to take some cuts. We are winding down an occupation and there is no reason to have a standing military the same size. The pentagon wastes a lot of money. There needs to be a leaner government all over and that is something I agree with the republicans on. HOWEVER their tax plan doesn't work. There were a lot of lies and slandering during hte election but one thing that is true is the MATH does not add up. Maybe if the miracle magic fixident for the economy works and 12 million new jobs pop up next month then it will work...other than that its fantasy land.
SS and obamacare are the only two things that he doesn't seem willing to compromise on.
I have to make some corrections.
890b in new taxes from tax increases on the rich.
he has proposed another 600b in new taxes from somewhere no details.
he has only proposed 400b in savings from medical reforms (which he is double counting which are iffy at best).
he has proposed 50-60b in new spending.
so this isn't a plan. it is tax and spend liberlism.
No one has said it is bankrupt it is going bankrupt. the system can no longer support itself and has been running deficits. IE more people taking out than paying in.
which is why ponzi scheme's fail to begin with. you soon owe more money than what you can pay out.
so what if there isn't a problem for another 20 years. lets fix it now and not worry about it later. it is called being pro-active.
again another liberal talking point no one has talked about gutting it. it needs reformed. current people can stay how it is.
the next generation is going to have to switch to a new system more like a 401k. although not invested in the stock market.
you put money into your own account like a 401k. the money is then pooled together and put into a safe interest bearing account. you earn a 5% interest rate on the money that you put in.
you can put in more or less like a 401k it depends on you.
Romney was right. taxes aren't generated by the government. they are generated by economic activity. if you want more taxes generate more economic activity.
that is the only way to bring in more money. sure you can raise rates but that lower activity after a while. it supplies a short term cash burst then it catches up.
hence why lowering taxes has generally brought in More money than raising them over a longer period of time.
my tax plan would do both generate economic activity and have the upper incomes paying more money.
as an example. warren buffet made like 64m dollars. this year he only had a taxable income of 37m dollars. under my tax plan he would have had a taxable income of 58m dollars. 21m more.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
i posted a similar thread. in 2011 SS ran a 45b dollar deficit.
the crush on SS is happening now and people are just tossing it over the fence.
again my tax plan lowers rates doesn't tax the middle class more and the higher income people pay a higher % at a lower rate due to caps on the amount of deductions they can take.
It also increases economic activity but making us competitive in the corporate world.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Does this video accurately sum up this situation?
They don't clarify the parts of the SS budget - if you actually look at the SS publication on the matter for 2011 they have it as a net positive until you include Social Security Insurance. (AKA welfare, since it's used for bolstering people that don't meet the $718 minimum up to $718)
The reason why it's an important distinction is because some politicians are talking about specifically cutting SSI while leaving the rest be.
But the article is true if you're looking at the picture as a whole. (Not that it matters too much for another ~15 years at the current rate because of Treasury Bonds that SS holds anyhow)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Okay. well I'd still like to see the offical report you're talking about.
And I love how the republican game plan was "trust us it will work" when they wouldn't give specifics on their plans. Though there has been promises of major cuts to several programs in order to balance the budget on both sides. Its really where the cuts are. ITs sheer ignorance to assume that the Democrats don't want any cuts at all. Liberalism isn't bad either. You say it like its a negative connotation.
I'll say it again. Its not an immediate problem nor is it even a permanent problem. I"ve already explained several times the baby boomers effect and now that several generations tend to be smaller as they go along because of condoms and abortion. So its possible (thought no way to tell for sure) that it could balance itself out in 20 years. Though its a good idea to NOT bet with our future.
Though there is not NOTHING that says we need to reform SS. Maybe other social programs but SS itself its fine. Revenue will come up one way or another and significantly so in the next few years. So again. SS is fine but I do agree we need to do something about it.
Though I find it laughable that the Republicans are all "proactive" about SS cuts but not climate change. Apparently its a hoax unless they can make cuts.
And this is a ultra right wing conservative ponzi scheme. Basically what it means is that if you have tons of extra money and wealthy to begin with you can dump as much as you want into your own personal account while the poor continue to struggle. IT no longer is a social program and simply a government run privatized savings account. What it really boils down to is people don't like paying taxes or having their money going to anyone else. thats the real reason.
Your tax plan? I'm slightly confused now. Did you write up an offical document and have it drafted by a team of lawyers and economists or is this just a little side project you do when you're not surfing the forums? I"m not trying to knock your ideas at all b/c I think we need more thinkers but I just want to know what scale your idea really is on.
I agree that there needs to be some major tax reform. I would like to see a renewal of the whole system. And more economic activity does mean more tax revenue. However we can't get out of raising taxes really. And the revenue increases WILL NOT BE ADEQUATE if we simply stop loopholes and deductions. IT simply won't work. Will it work Eventually? Yeah in 10 years from now if we get the expected economic recovery it will be adequate. But we are talking this year, next year, NOW. The so called "cliff" is here in less than a month. Romney tax plan won't work in that short period of time. This whole "raise taxes on the rich" isn't even permanent but simply a save for the next year for congress to work out a real deal. IT is impossible to get an in depth tax plan and budget on the table by the requested time.
So for right now we need more money and thats the only place we can get it. I am a demand side-er when I look at economics and I can't understand at all supply side-ers. The argument doesn't make sense to me at all.
Sorry but that is not how it works you can't simply ignore something SSI comes out of SS fund. therefore you can't simply just go well it's net positive without. no SS fund is running deficits period.
It is not bringing in more money than it is taking out.
There is no proof of this anywhere in fact if you would have looked at the link i posted then you would have seen the CBO projections. They show the exact opposite of what you said.
then you have no clue what a ponzi scheme is.
not at all SS is a tax it means everyone will be contributing to their own account.
no you can't dump as much money into it as you want. you can't even do that with a 401k.
SS was never meant to be a permanent program it was only suppose to last 10 years or something.
why should my hard earned money go to someone else? i would still pay the tax. the fica tax would not go away just how it is allocated.
right now i am being promised benefits when more than likely it won't be there. my plan will be there.
people will have a retirement fund.
You don't get econoimc activity by raising taxes. economic acitivy is where taxes come from not tax rates.
my plan does. why because i cap the amount of deductions one can get if you make 500K or more.
since warren buffet is a champion of the left for higher taxes i will use him.
in 2010 warren made 68m dollars. his taxable income was only 39m dollars.
under my plan his taxable income would be 61m dollars or so.
I am sick of hearing cliff. it isn't a cliff it is a bump in the road. the cliff is the 16 trillion dollar deficit that is expected to go to 20+trillion if obama continues to get his way.
the cliff is that the federal government will no longer be able to borrow money to pay for the interest on the money they owe.
we are charging the credit card to pay for the credit card and it is fiscally stupid.
which according to the CBO obama tax increase will only run the government for 4 months. big whoop. OMG that tax increase saved us all from what exactly again.
Raising taxes on the rich more so obama's plan does nothing.
that is why he came up with 600b dollars in other taxes. increased air line tickets etc ...
his plan is dumber than just letting the tax cuts expire and the spending cuts take place.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html
as i said obama has no plan on compromise. he is now showing his true colours which people denyed.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Tax law is very rarely a case of tax more or less and everyone wins. It is more a case of tax some more and others loose less. I must say for a Berkeley professor he is either is rather ignorant of how taxing works or he is deliberately misleading people. Which seems par for the course with American liberals. Portraying Bush as a villain when he has no way to defend his policies is also a rather petty thing to do
If I was a Republican I would be rather annoyed at such things.
For future reference here is the video I'm talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=gMuA8I2M5l0
Dio's video looked more like a campaign strategy for democrats than anything else. Although reducing military spending and ending corporate welfare would help dramatically. Foreign aid should also be ended, we can't afford it.
It depends, there's a few pitching a fix of just getting rid of SSI and putting those people on standard welfare if at all. Which would be a band-aid for a bit.
Unlike the rest of SS that is self-funded and "mandatory" no one pays in for SSI, so it's not giving people their money back it's true welfare that's easier to attack in the budget.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
Obama Claus is coming to town.
He sees you when you're building.
he wants what you all make.
he'll tell the 47 per cent.
that being rich is a mistake.
oh you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
Obama Claus is coming to town.
he’ll tell you to be thankful.
to bow down and give thanks.
or he’ll send you to a FEMA camp.
to get your thinking “straight”.
oh you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
Obama Claus is coming to town.
he'll give you a free cell phone.
say Obamacare is great.
he'll tell you being a success.
is something you should hate.
oh you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
Obama Claus is coooming tooo tooown!
Spam infraction.
Care to make a list of all the "stuff" Obama gives people? Make sure to document your references.
This is a debate forum, not a place for you spread your ignorance.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
free healthcare
free cellphones
free citizenship (trying to)
continues to give people unemployment.
i am sure there is more i would have to look it up
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Bolded responses
And? For the sake of hte argument, who exactly gets free healthcare, and how much do they get for how long?
This is an extension of the program that helps those in poverty have access to some form of communication. Because finding a job or, say, calling 911 if someone is hurt is much harder if you don't have a phone. What is your major problem with this program?
I'm sure glad my great grandfather immigrated to the US. You are pulling at straws here.
Because when someone loses their job we should throw them out on the street right? That's a great recipe for a stable country. After they loose their job why don't we just throw a pie in their face, kick them in the balls and push them into on coming traffic.
Please do. Let us know what you find.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
The actual program name is the Lifeline program, it was started by George HW Bush in 1988, it was extended to cell phones in 2006 by George W Bush.
The only changes Obama has proposed to the program is the RESTRICT how many people can have a subsidized phone. (right now it's per social with a welfare case - he wants to restrict it per address so that only 1 phone per address even if 3-4 people are on a program there)
And the other proposed changes to the program is being proposed by the FCC not him. (The extension of the program into broadband that's being tested)
Soooooo sick of seeing the Obamaphone nonsense.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Banner ala Lymons
And every single economist ....ever has said that 12 million new jobs would be added over the next "X" years reguardless if Romney or Obama had been elected.
I do. I was mocking you as you don't seem to know whats going on if you called it a liberal ponzi scheme. I should have made it clearer.
Whatever you say. I have read the plan proposed by the right wing about it. It overly favors the rich. And basically what happens is the more you pay in the more you get. Only problem is its manditory.
SS was originally used to supplement retirement that you made yourself. I don't recall it being temporary but I don't actually know. Citation would be appreciated.
The benifits won't be there if you take then away via cuts rather than do whats necessary to keep them (rather simple and its been talked about several times)
Thats like saying that doctors and chemists have ruined medicine.....
Soulds like a great plan on paper but so does Communism and other economic theroies. There is a lot of math to be done to see if there is actually any way to raise enough via your method.
No but more money does. This idea that the ecnomy will collapse with slight tax increase on the hyper wealthy is false. Simply false.
Have you done the math for the whole country? And do you SERIOUSLY THINK that the republican party would support actually raising the amount of taxes paid by the rich? I doubt it. The main reason they want to cut loopholes and deductions is b/c it still would be less than the 3% raise proposed by Obama.
Obama didn't build this cliff by himself and people need to quit acting like he did. The cliff really isn't as bad everyone says. Honestly its just when the auto tax increases and cuts kick in if we can't balance the budget more. Thats all. Hell the economy wouldn't crash. It would dip and slow our recovery even more but it wouldn't destroy America. But it would be bad and it saves a us for a year.
Wrong and you're very very very very very wrong. the tax increase ALONE as in BY ITSELF WILL ONLY RUN THE GOV FOR 4 MONTHS!
However its so ****ing stupid that its litterally pissing me off that people (no offense but mainly just you) think that Obama and democrats in general want 0 spending cuts. Thats not true. Not true at all. The plan proposed was 3;1 spending cuts to tax revenue. So if the tax increase would run the government for 4 months then the 3x greater value in cuts will run it for the rest of the 8 before next year.
NO ONE IN CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENCY WANTS 0 CUTS OR SPENDING INCREASES OVERALL!
I don't know how to make that any clearer. They just want less cuts than the Republicans.
I also love how they are like "Obama won't compromise" when they were obstructionism for 4 years. Obama said "no I don't like this plan b/c its overly republican with zero Democratic ideals" and the response on the media is "Obama refuses to compromise"
Does Obama refuse to bend over and take the luscious republican **** in the rear? Yeah he does. But what compromises has the republicans offered up? Any? None?
No, the taxes that already existed will run it for the rest of the 8 months. spending cuts don't pay for things. that makes no sense.
Maybe you need to take a breather and step back form the issue -- the need to get an urgent response out is clearly clouding your response.
Perhaps. I did get heated there and I apologize. But spending cuts would be where money comes from. If they cut 40 dollars out of program X then they have enough money to pay for program Y. So in a way they do actually "pay for programs" or rather simply save the money so they don't have spend any more revenue on the program.
Though I want to say this. If spending cuts don't pay for government and thats stupid then why is the the entire Republican plan?
If you reduce the total spending, then you extend those dollars spent to go further.
The "8.5 days" quotes are assuming spending doesn't change, which there's over $600b of cuts proposed ($200b specifically, $400 generic TBD) - which does mean they're actually longer than 8.5 days with his proposal. (Not that the "days metric" is worth a damn anyhow though - shutting down the military completely would be close to 2 months on that metric for example - everything sounds bad with "days" with how big the Fed is)
After all when you're talking about the portion of something $3.1T is versus $2.5T - the net ratio is going to change, even if it's not directly comparable, it's an indirect effect on the equation.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
This is simply not correct. the CBO says that the tax increases will only run the government for about 4 months. This is the CBO so if you want to argue that they are wrong then please provide some evidence for it.
I have yet to see where the administration says they will make any cuts. In fact they have offered little to 0 cuts but they have offered almost 600b dollars in NEW spending.
if they even cut anything that money has to be applied to the debt or deficit there is no indication that this will be the fact.
He isn't compromising. republicans have offered 800b in new revenue and he refuses to take it because he can't tax people more.
which we have shown does nothing.
I just posted a link in my last post why did you ignore it?
There is no proof of this. I have seen the exact opposite that jobs are going to shrink.
so lets do a comparison.
A ponzi scheme gets initial investors. it then continues to get more investors. the oringinal investors are paid with new investment money. in order to keep the scheme going you constantly have to have new investors.
the problem with these plans is that you evidently run out of investors.
SS works the same way. I work i invest. The govnerment promises me a return on my investment. The thing is though in order to keep it going the investment has to have more people paying in than taking out.
The money that i will try to collect is not my money but someone else's money.
When SS was first started there were 25 workers for every 1. the first lady to pull a SS check paid only about 250 dollars in but recieved almost 25K in benefits.
now there are only about 1.5-2 workers per 1 person.
It is a failed system. it is a ponzi scheme and we are now seeing it unravel.
so again i say i don't think you understand.
again my plan =/= republican plan so you aren't paying attention.
There will be no benifits at all if it is bankrupt.
the math is simple. by capping what people making over 500K can deduct their taxable income increases.
i have already showed this under my plan Warren buffets taxable income increases by almost 30m dollars.
he is just taxed at a lower rate. his investment income deductions are capped the same way.
Hyperbole much? the claim that raising taxes on the rich will fix the issue is even more false as has been shown time and time again.
They did in the 1980's they are proposing it again now.
the difference is they would rather reduce rates cut deductions. personally they should just cap deductions. my plan caps deductions to 10% of your gross income if you make 500K or more.
it could even be raised to 1m. still lower rates would be in order.
the middle class will not be affected in the slightest.
again no one said he did. when he came into office the debt was only 10T. since then it has grown to now 16 trillion. CBO projects that if nothing is done and government spending continues including his new spending it will grow to over 20T by the end of his next term.
he will have effectively doubled the national debt in 8 years.
you need to accept that obama is a poor president. his entire economic policy has failed. he healthcare plan is causing employeers to lay off and cut hours to get around it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/8/picket-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_southeast_valley/tempe/businesses-make-cuts-fearing-obamacare
He is probably the worst disaster since carter and probably one of the bottom 15 presidents of all time. So much for hope and change.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Logic dictates we should err on the sides of "too much revenue" and "too much cutting" slightly - neither party is getting that concept in mind however. And until they do, you're still going to see $500b+ of deficit in either plan. (In fact, the Republican plan gets barely under $900b - and Obama's about $600b - a far cry from balanced)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Deck the Halls with Macro Follies