USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
- Thread starter Foxton
- Start date
- Status
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Hmmm. In 1980 the top rate was 70% and the national debt was less than $900 billion. Today the top rate is 35% and the national debt is...ummm...slightly larger.
Just a coincidence, of course.
Hmmm. In 1980 the top rate was 70% and the national debt was less than $900 billion. Today the top rate is 35% and the national debt is...ummm...slightly larger.
Just a coincidence, of course.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Spending like a drunken sailor wouldn't have any impact on that
Spending like a drunken sailor wouldn't have any impact on that
eaglehockeyrules
BC '84, HES '97
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Tax-n-Spend Liberals... that is what Obama is all about... so is Pelosi and Reid.
I think Obama extended the Bush tax cuts in order to help get himiself another term; he sure as heck upset the Democrats by his "compromise." Obama is already thinking about the 2012 race, with Axelrod leaving for Chicago to start up the magic show. The thing with magic, as we all know, you watch it and it is cool but it is nothing but smoke and mirrors - a trick played on your senses. Obama is good at that, but if you do not believe me look at his super-majority two years os POTUS and his inability to get anything passed (OK less healthcare, from the President who campaigned on not doing closed door meetings and having transparency). Smoke and mirrors, lads, smoke and mirrors. But when Obama takes off his suit jacket, rolls up his sleeves, and talks in his black preacher tone he is a crafty magician.
Gas is over $3.00/gallon and expected to rise to $5.00/gallon next year; how can we blame G W Bush now?!
Obama took the car the republicans drove in a ditch, stole the radio and put it on blocks and stole the tires/rims. Hopefully, the republicans can counter with a viable candidate with no skeletons in their closet.
Tax-n-Spend Liberals... that is what Obama is all about... so is Pelosi and Reid.
I think Obama extended the Bush tax cuts in order to help get himiself another term; he sure as heck upset the Democrats by his "compromise." Obama is already thinking about the 2012 race, with Axelrod leaving for Chicago to start up the magic show. The thing with magic, as we all know, you watch it and it is cool but it is nothing but smoke and mirrors - a trick played on your senses. Obama is good at that, but if you do not believe me look at his super-majority two years os POTUS and his inability to get anything passed (OK less healthcare, from the President who campaigned on not doing closed door meetings and having transparency). Smoke and mirrors, lads, smoke and mirrors. But when Obama takes off his suit jacket, rolls up his sleeves, and talks in his black preacher tone he is a crafty magician.
Gas is over $3.00/gallon and expected to rise to $5.00/gallon next year; how can we blame G W Bush now?!
Obama took the car the republicans drove in a ditch, stole the radio and put it on blocks and stole the tires/rims. Hopefully, the republicans can counter with a viable candidate with no skeletons in their closet.
omahasioux1
New member
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
I would like to thank Obama for three dollar plus gas. Where the hell are the leftist *****ing about his big oil connections?
I would like to thank Obama for three dollar plus gas. Where the hell are the leftist *****ing about his big oil connections?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
How's that oil coming out of Iraq? Is it paying for that war? How about lowering prices?
How's that oil coming out of Iraq? Is it paying for that war? How about lowering prices?
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
what does this have to do with the cold war? Is that I've clearly lined up the position of liberals repeated over the past decade and decades prior? Fact of the matter is that we've agreed to a deal that only the Americans have any reason to see through... the Russians have no clear incentive other than this idea of "cooperation" which is only given creedence in certain halls of the US government. In other words, delusion.
what does this have to do with the cold war? Is that I've clearly lined up the position of liberals repeated over the past decade and decades prior? Fact of the matter is that we've agreed to a deal that only the Americans have any reason to see through... the Russians have no clear incentive other than this idea of "cooperation" which is only given creedence in certain halls of the US government. In other words, delusion.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
its not that we're over taxed... we're undersaved... please provide us salvation.... please!
its not that we're over taxed... we're undersaved... please provide us salvation.... please!
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Is that in 1980 dollars or 2010 dollars?
Is that in 1980 dollars or 2010 dollars?
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
What income threshold do you consider to be "actual money"? $50k gross annual income = $3100 in social security taxes and $725 in medicare taxes - that's nearly 8% of your income - and more than that when you account for the fact your employer is also forking over these amounts. If you think these rates can't or won't be raised, you're kidding yourself. They've been raised many times: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html.
... so you don't think they constitute an improved quality of life? Would you prefer to live in a time and place w/o running water? Electricity? Cars? Vaccines?
Why yes, let's address our military spending - by cutting a few billion on nuclear weapons and finding the justification to spend $700 billion elsewhere. Sure, that'll fix things. If we are seriously doing what you claim we are via this treaty, how do you feel about Iraq-Afghanistan and Obama's continued involvement in both places? Doesn't that have a lot more to do with our spending and our posture than a nuclear arsenal we aren't using (which costs a small fraction of what our involvement in the aforementioned countries does)? And if this treaty was important to the Russians, why not use it as leverage to get cooperation from them on the Iran situation? Have we totally lost our ability to negotiate anything that might actually improve the situation?5mn_Major said:
Why we can't just abandon this idiotically complicated system filled with loopholes for this behavior or that behavior is beyond me. Just replace it with a sales tax and be done with it. If you inherit something and sell it, the buyer will pay the tax. If you inherit money and start spending like a drunken sailor on new cars or other pointless crap, you'll pay the tax. Want to avoid the tax? Don't buy anything. What a novel idea.Craig P. said:
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
They can't or won't,it will be some Speciall Fox news analyst. Maybe some day you'll figure out that Repubs are just the same as Dems, owned by the people who actually run this country. We, The pople gave that up a long time ago when we continue to vote these idiots in. Might as well give Congress a lifetime appointment and save the money from doing elections
They can't or won't,it will be some Speciall Fox news analyst. Maybe some day you'll figure out that Repubs are just the same as Dems, owned by the people who actually run this country. We, The pople gave that up a long time ago when we continue to vote these idiots in. Might as well give Congress a lifetime appointment and save the money from doing elections
They'll put the sales tax on and continue all the old taxes, they can't stop spending
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Check the blueish colored graph. According to that, the debt in 1980 was just a hair under $2T (in 2000 dollars).
And here is a federal revenue graph in constant 2005 dollars: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...art=F0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=Federal Revenue In Constant Dollars&state=US&color=c&local=s
Even with the lower tax rates and brutal recession, we've still got about $800 billion more in revenue (an increase of ~72%) - when compared with 1980.
US Population: http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/census/popchart.phtml - 226.5 million in 1980 and around 309 million now per the census (increase of roughly 36%).
So, even accounting for tax cuts for the rich and the population increase since 1980, our revenue situation now is still better than it was back then.
But yes, let's continue our mindless carping about how the fiscal situation is bad because of the highest marginal tax rate going down and ignore everything else that might be important (like overall federal spending).
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
Check the blueish colored graph. According to that, the debt in 1980 was just a hair under $2T (in 2000 dollars).
And here is a federal revenue graph in constant 2005 dollars: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...art=F0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=Federal Revenue In Constant Dollars&state=US&color=c&local=s
Even with the lower tax rates and brutal recession, we've still got about $800 billion more in revenue (an increase of ~72%) - when compared with 1980.
US Population: http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/census/popchart.phtml - 226.5 million in 1980 and around 309 million now per the census (increase of roughly 36%).
So, even accounting for tax cuts for the rich and the population increase since 1980, our revenue situation now is still better than it was back then.
But yes, let's continue our mindless carping about how the fiscal situation is bad because of the highest marginal tax rate going down and ignore everything else that might be important (like overall federal spending).
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
So, it's better to be poor in America than rich in 1653?
Given that piece of information why should anyone complain about taxes? All us rich people (People making 40K a year or more by your assertion here) should be willing to be taxed into poverty cause it's still a better life than a rich nobleman without electricity, running water, or a polio vaccine.
So, it's better to be poor in America than rich in 1653?
Given that piece of information why should anyone complain about taxes? All us rich people (People making 40K a year or more by your assertion here) should be willing to be taxed into poverty cause it's still a better life than a rich nobleman without electricity, running water, or a polio vaccine.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
That is impossible...the government themselves tell us it is all about the tax cuts for the rich...that is the cause of all of our problems...if the gov't just had a few more dollars they'd turn this thing right around and we'd be in great shape. Who else uses that type of reasoning? Well, you got crackheads, addicted gamblers, that no-good brother-in-law, teenagers and Wimpy.
That is why I don't understand the first lady's new campaign to stop obesity...wouldn't it stand to reason that if we gave fat people a few more cheeseburgers, they'd look like underwear models in no time? Lindsay Lohan, a few more snorts and shots and she'll be chair of the temperance league. Jerry Jones, a bigger stadium and he'll produce a winner.
Like the battle of wits with a Sicilian, land wars in Asia and "the check's in the mail"... the "I'm deep in debt and if you'd just give me some more money, I could turn this thing around" story is a classic. None of us believe that works in our daily lives, we wouldn't recommend it to a friend, we wouldn't invest that way but we think if you multiply it by a billion, it makes sense. A lot of minutes have gone by since the phrase "there is a sucker born every minute" was coined.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
Check the blueish colored graph. According to that, the debt in 1980 was just a hair under $2T (in 2000 dollars).
And here is a federal revenue graph in constant 2005 dollars: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...art=F0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=Federal Revenue In Constant Dollars&state=US&color=c&local=s
Even with the lower tax rates and brutal recession, we've still got about $800 billion more in revenue (an increase of ~72%) - when compared with 1980.
US Population: http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/census/popchart.phtml - 226.5 million in 1980 and around 309 million now per the census (increase of roughly 36%).
So, even accounting for tax cuts for the rich and the population increase since 1980, our revenue situation now is still better than it was back then.
But yes, let's continue our mindless carping about how the fiscal situation is bad because of the highest marginal tax rate going down and ignore everything else that might be important (like overall federal spending).
That is impossible...the government themselves tell us it is all about the tax cuts for the rich...that is the cause of all of our problems...if the gov't just had a few more dollars they'd turn this thing right around and we'd be in great shape. Who else uses that type of reasoning? Well, you got crackheads, addicted gamblers, that no-good brother-in-law, teenagers and Wimpy.
That is why I don't understand the first lady's new campaign to stop obesity...wouldn't it stand to reason that if we gave fat people a few more cheeseburgers, they'd look like underwear models in no time? Lindsay Lohan, a few more snorts and shots and she'll be chair of the temperance league. Jerry Jones, a bigger stadium and he'll produce a winner.
Like the battle of wits with a Sicilian, land wars in Asia and "the check's in the mail"... the "I'm deep in debt and if you'd just give me some more money, I could turn this thing around" story is a classic. None of us believe that works in our daily lives, we wouldn't recommend it to a friend, we wouldn't invest that way but we think if you multiply it by a billion, it makes sense. A lot of minutes have gone by since the phrase "there is a sucker born every minute" was coined.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Everyone agrees spending is the primary problem (the issue is spending on what - no one is willing to cut their own preferred spending at all). But cutting revenue in the face of increased spending is still adding coal to the fire.
We've also reached a point of no return in that you can't solely cut spending to get out of this (unless you're willing to default on the debt and immediately shred social security and medicare for current beneficiaries).
But yes, let's continue our mindless carping about how the fiscal situation is bad because of the highest marginal tax rate going down and ignore everything else that might be important (like overall federal spending).
Everyone agrees spending is the primary problem (the issue is spending on what - no one is willing to cut their own preferred spending at all). But cutting revenue in the face of increased spending is still adding coal to the fire.
We've also reached a point of no return in that you can't solely cut spending to get out of this (unless you're willing to default on the debt and immediately shred social security and medicare for current beneficiaries).
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
To turn your analogy around: If you're deep in debt and you voluntarily take a pay cut, you'll somehow get out of debt faster? Clearly you will need more money to get out of debt - the issue is whether you use that money to pay down the debt or continue to fritter it away.
To turn your analogy around: If you're deep in debt and you voluntarily take a pay cut, you'll somehow get out of debt faster? Clearly you will need more money to get out of debt - the issue is whether you use that money to pay down the debt or continue to fritter it away.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Yes, it is; seriously, are you this effing dense? Look at the life expectancy of people living in each time period. If that isn't convincing enough, look at the things they called "luxuries". If you still aren't satisfied (and I suspect you won't be because you never are), then consider this: even those in this country who are on medicaid get far superior medical treatment to anyone living before the 20th century, regardless of their social status / wealth at the time. Cripes, there's a reason why so many people die of cancer these days compared to 75 years ago - it's because 75 years ago, most people didn't live long enough to get it in the first place.
How about because we expect better performance from our government? I don't know about you, but it troubles me when I see gigantic multi-billion dollar giveaways in basically every piece of spending legislation that passes through Congress. We are subsidizing the production of a wasteful fuel (ethanol) which is very likely pushing food prices higher. This policy benefits a very small number of people and punishes basically everyone through higher food prices (and I'm not even accounting for the environmental issues involved with ethanol production). Meanwhile, we make it nearly impossible due to regulatory hurdles for anyone to build a nuclear powerplant. Last I checked, nuclear is a very safe and reliable energy source, so much so that countries much further left than us politically use it (France to name one). Embrace ethanol while holding the line on nuclear? W T F kind of policy is that? And this is just one - ONE! - example of idiotic policy. I could go through many others that p*** me off, but then I'd be in manifesto territory and that generally doesn't turn out well for anyone involved.
Nice attempt at deflection, but I'm calling you out on this. You: "they're going to have to go to people with actual money at some point." Me: "what income threshold do you consider to be 'actual money'?" I then provide an example of how much OASDI / medicare taxes someone making 50k a year must pay (since we were talking about funding the boomers' retirement costs which means social security and medicare). Given the fact someone at that income level isn't paying a hell of a lot in federal or state taxes, there is plenty of room for a revenue hungry government to hit them with additional taxation to pay for retiree benefits. That was my point, and you would have a very difficult time arguing against it (but please try if you feel the need - I could use a laugh).
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Sorry, you still can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. Can they raise my taxes another 10%? Sure. But in the grand scheme of things another 10% is not going to affect my standard of living in either direction. As it is they're going to steal that 10% anyway because of the stupid energy policy. Yay high gas prices again.
It's all relative but you don't seem to see that.10-15-20% either direction really doesn't mean a hill of beans. You adjust and move on. Anyone in the middle class has been losing ground the last decade anyway whether they wanted to or not. Unless they were getting 5% a year increases a long the way, then maybe they were holding ground. Pretty tough to get 5% nowadays no mater where you work.
And given your technology argument I could be taxed into poverty and still be living high on the hog. So, the fact that the government isn't stealing all my money is just another blessing. Cause after all, taxation is stealing.
Sorry, you still can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. Can they raise my taxes another 10%? Sure. But in the grand scheme of things another 10% is not going to affect my standard of living in either direction. As it is they're going to steal that 10% anyway because of the stupid energy policy. Yay high gas prices again.
It's all relative but you don't seem to see that.10-15-20% either direction really doesn't mean a hill of beans. You adjust and move on. Anyone in the middle class has been losing ground the last decade anyway whether they wanted to or not. Unless they were getting 5% a year increases a long the way, then maybe they were holding ground. Pretty tough to get 5% nowadays no mater where you work.
And given your technology argument I could be taxed into poverty and still be living high on the hog. So, the fact that the government isn't stealing all my money is just another blessing. Cause after all, taxation is stealing.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Not priceless. He seems to think cutting the top marginal rate was the primary problem. If you follow the links I provided, you will note that revenue in constant dollars is higher now than when the rate was at 70% in 1980. It's higher even after you account for the population increase since then. Even without borrowing, the feds can spend over $1000 more per person now than they could 30 years ago. So the idea that a lower marginal rate destroyed everything fiscally in this country is a bogus one. It's a very simple problem of spending increasing faster than revenue did. Plus, even if we kept the higher marginal rates, who is to say the government wouldn't have increased spending even more than it did over the past 30 years? Where is the evidence to show the government has any sense of fiscal restraint whatsoever?
Given how the spending has been done over the past decade, I don't think it matters anymore. Increased revenue or not, they'd still be running nutty deficits. The only difference is financial reckoning for us might be in 2030 instead of 2020 or wherever it is they calculate it these days (and really how can they calculate it at all - the precise timing of lost investor confidence in our debt is unknowable; the rates on Irish and Greek debt skyrocketed in a period of months, not years).
We could get out of it just by cutting spending, but I don't know how much people would be willing to accept a federal budget that is suddenly 60% its current size (roughly speaking - I don't know what the revenue is going to be in the present FY). Our representatives are so useless at this point, we pretty much need a Constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget out of them - otherwise I don't think it'll happen until after we default. I can't wait to see the meeting between the Fed and the foreign creditors.
- Status