What's new
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.

The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

USCHO crackpots jumpstart trend toward honesty. :)
Where once there was a shared denial of impending fiscal doom, there is now a growing consensus that, one way or the other, the federal government is going to have to bring revenues and expenditures into alignment. It could all end in stalemate and tears. But, for the moment, both sides are taking more seriously the fundamental questions of what government should do and how we should pay for it.
Good work boys. Priceless, I want to copy large parts of your letter, run a find/replace for "liberal" to "conservative", and use it myself.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Priceless, I want to copy large parts of your letter, run a find/replace for "liberal" to "conservative", and use it myself.

Feel free. Just don't make it look like a form letter. Congressional staffers can spot those a mile away and they tend to wind up in the circular file.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Feel free. Just don't make it look like a form letter. Congressional staffers can spot those a mile away and they tend to wind up in the circular file.

Staffers get thousands of astroturf letters from pressure groups every day. If you call a Member you'll probably get attention. Communicating by letter or worse email gives you about a 99% chance the staffer (or far more likely some automated mailbox rule) will shunt it right to trash.

Also, form letters are now "personalized" and have all sorts of homey touches like pictures of puppies or little blonde kids or church choirs. Lobbyists don't get paid millions for nothing -- even if a staffer actually sets her eyes on a letter "from" little Johnny, if it alludes to anything legislative it's probably just a scam from Glaxo or ADM.
 
Last edited:
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Democrats, Republicans edge closer on debt deal

(Reuters) - The outlines of a deal that would allow the United States to avert a debt default emerged on Thursday as top Republican and Democratic lawmakers held their first meeting aimed at cutting the bloated U.S. deficit.

Republicans edged toward a White House plan that would cut some spending now and set long-term deficit reduction targets, but said more difficult decisions on taxes and healthcare spending would have to wait until after the 2012 election.

A top Republican lawmaker, Paul Ryan, said there would be no immediate "grand slam" agreement on tackling the budget deficit, expected to reach $1.4 trillion this year and a major worry for Americans and investors.

If both parties can reach agreement on the framework for cutting the long-term U.S. deficit, that could clear the path for a vote on raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

The U.S. Treasury says the borrowing cap will be breached on May 16, although it can take steps to keep funding the government until August 2. An increase of roughly $2 trillion is needed to ensure enough borrowing power through the November 2012 election, Treasury officials have said.

Like the White House, Ryan and other top Republicans favor setting a long-term deficit reduction goal with automatic triggers that would kick in if deficit-cutting targets had not been met.

But a clear fault line remains as Republicans say those triggers should only require spending cuts, not automatic tax increases. Democrats say tax hikes need to be part of the equation.

"Any credible debt cap would require a revenue component to go with spending cuts," said Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen, one of the six lawmakers who met with Vice President Joe Biden for a first round of negotiations.

The two sides remain deeply divided on the balance between spending cuts and tax increases to tackle the deficit.

Panel member Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, said tax hikes were off the table after the meeting.

President Barack Obama, a Democrat, wants to raise taxes on wealthier Americans and shield cherished social spending like the Social Security retirement program and Medicare, messages that will be central to his re-election campaign in 2012.

Obama seeks $4 trillion in deficit cuts over 12 years. House Republicans want to hit that target in 10 years, but would take a very different route to get there.

Playing on broad voter anger over the size of the U.S. budget deficit, Republicans prefer to keep taxes low and slash healthcare spending, which is expected to eat up a growing portion of the budget as the population ages.

But their proposed overhaul of Medicare has been shown in opinion polls to be unpopular with many Americans.

Ryan said the question about how to slow the growth of Medicare would have to wait until after voters weigh in November 2012.

"We're not under any illusion that we are going to get any grand slam agreement," said Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee.

A "grand-slam" deal would be so easy if both sides would compromise.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I heard back from Senator Snowe's office. A complete form letter, but at least I tried. What is most frustrating is that if both sides would compromise the problem could be resolved so easily.

Thank you for contacting me concerning the Chairman Ryan's House Budget Committee's proposal for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY2012). I appreciate learning your thoughts on this issue.

As you may know, on April 11, 2012, House Budget Committee Chairman, Paul Ryan, introduced House Concurrent Resolution (HConRes) 34, a budget for FY2012 that would cut government spending by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, reducing the nation's $14 trillion debt by $4.4 trillion. This budget, which is one of the opening proposals in the FY2012 Congressional budget process, was agreed to by the House on April 15, 2011 by a vote of 235-193, and awaits future consideration by the Senate.

Given the level of our national debt, the House-proposed budget contains a number of spending reductions, namely its efforts to keep taxes low so the economy can grow. The proposal would prevent the $1.5 trillion in tax increases the President has proposed as part of his FY2012 budget, as well as acknowledge the need for comprehensive tax reform for both individual and corporate tax rates. In my view, now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone and updating our quarter-century old tax law is critical to the ability of American businesses to compete globally.

While the House-proposed budget contains commendable efforts to rein in our unsustainable debt, there are also a number of components that would require careful consideration. Given Maine has the oldest population of any state in the nation, any proposals representing profound changes to critical safety net programs, such as Medicare, would require serious and rigorous scrutiny. I am concerned that the House proposal could force seniors to bear additional risk and it is vital that we do not solve our fiscal problems by burdening our seniors who weren't responsible for creating our current fiscal morass. Also, Medicaid would shift from a state-federal partnership to strictly the state's responsibility during a time when more people are turning to Medicaid for coverage and many states are struggling with debt.

I do strongly believe that the most significant task for the 112th Congress moving forward is to rein in burgeoning deficits and return the federal budget to fiscal sanity. Families and small businesses cannot finance their expenditures by simply increasing their credit limit, and neither should the government. Thus, we must immediately reduce the size and scope of government, starting with pragmatic and meaningful cuts to annual spending, as well as instituting mechanisms such as a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to force the government to do what its citizens already do – live within its means. As the Senate moves forward with the FY2012 budget process, you may be assured that I will keep your thoughts and concerns firmly in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views. I value your opinion and hope that you continue to inform me of the issues that concern you.

Sincerely,
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE
United States Senator

I have read this numerous times and I still have no idea where she stands. Spending seems to be bad, but the proposed cuts are also bad. OK...so now what? More "rigorous" study? We didn't do this much studying in college!

Do you suppose it could be as simple as the members of Congress have never seen the various webtools that balance the budget?
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I heard back from Senator Snowe's office. A complete form letter, but at least I tried. What is most frustrating is that if both sides would compromise the problem could be resolved so easily.



I have read this numerous times and I still have no idea where she stands. Spending seems to be bad, but the proposed cuts are also bad. OK...so now what? More "rigorous" study? We didn't do this much studying in college!

Do you suppose it could be as simple as the members of Congress have never seen the various webtools that balance the budget?

Agreed, it seems like there will always be a ‘bad’ side to whatever needs to get done. All that is happening is, talking and pondering…no doing. This embodies what how our political system has strayed and people are losing faith in it.

I like how the discussion of ending the bush tax cuts was spun to say that ‘people in rough economic times don’t need more taxes’. Agreed, but do you really think the top 1% is struggling now? They are the only ones who aren’t. Also, its not that their taxes are getting a hike - its that they would be reverted to the previous levels from before. As far as I am concerned, they have been getting a discount for some time now. Yes, I know I just played the semantics game..
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

A "grand-slam" deal would be so easy if both sides would compromise.
A deal will never be easy, if for not other reason than, as the public grasps that they won't be getting a bunch of stuff from the federal government without paying for it anymore they will have a hissy fit. They will scream long and loud and it will take substantive political will on the part of both parties to stick to any deal that is worked out and not pander to the simplistic public outcry that people want their benefit levels back at where they were when the annual deficit was running $1 trillion plus.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Agreed, it seems like there will always be a ‘bad’ side to whatever needs to get done. All that is happening is, talking and pondering…no doing. This embodies what how our political system has strayed and people are losing faith in it.

I like how the discussion of ending the bush tax cuts was spun to say that ‘people in rough economic times don’t need more taxes’. Agreed, but do you really think the top 1% is struggling now? They are the only ones who aren’t. Also, its not that their taxes are getting a hike - its that they would be reverted to the previous levels from before. As far as I am concerned, they have been getting a discount for some time now. Yes, I know I just played the semantics game..

The deficit proble is such that just eliminating reduced marginal tax rates for the top two brackets isn't anywhere close to a solution, you have to repeal all of reductions in tax rates to even start to have a significant impact on the overall deficit.

Spending (particularly entitelments) MUST come down, and taxes MUST go up to solve the problem, thus everyone is unhappy and no long term structual solution is politically feasable, thus all this grandstanding and blowing of hot air currently.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Does anyone know if anyone has calculated how much money Wall Street ripped off of the middle class during the housing crisis? I've been reading "The Big Short" and it is pretty amazing how much money some people made off of the crisis and that money all came from the poor to middle class people (albeit ignorant poor to middle class people). There's a lot of wealth, and subsequently tax dollars that was stripped from the United States because of it.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Does anyone know if anyone has calculated how much money Wall Street ripped off of the middle class during the housing crisis? I've been reading "The Big Short" and it is pretty amazing how much money some people made off of the crisis and that money all came from the poor to middle class people (albeit ignorant poor to middle class people). There's a lot of wealth, and subsequently tax dollars that was stripped from the United States because of it.

If it is just a transfer of wealth from the poor and working middle class to the wealthy would that actually cost the US any tax dollars? Potentially it may have actually increased tax revenues for a short period. Of course, the question is at what long term costs to society at large.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

If it is just a transfer of wealth from the poor and working middle class to the wealthy would that actually cost the US any tax dollars? Potentially it may have actually increased tax revenues for a short period. Of course, the question is at what long term costs to society at large.

Capital Gains are only at 15%. I guarantee you the middle class pays more than that overall. For every lost job because of the crisis the government is losing 12% in payroll taxes and the money they are paying out in unemployment insurance, that's not including any middle class income taxes. That's also not including the bailout money of AIG (the biggest offender) which will never be repaid.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Capital Gains are only at 15%. I guarantee you the middle class pays more than that overall. For every lost job because of the crisis the government is losing 12% in payroll taxes and the money they are paying out in unemployment insurance, that's not including any middle class income taxes. That's also not including the bailout money of AIG (the biggest offender) which will never be repaid.

actually uncle sam just sold a ton of AIG stock at 29 $/ share and the treasury made a nice profit from it ( a few billion). I think the US still owns 78% of the company though.

2008 was unexcusable. the money that went into the financials whom are now quite profitable is robbery. no one has been charged. Easily the biggest sore spot in my mind.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

actually uncle sam just sold a ton of AIG stock at 29 $/ share and the treasury made a nice profit from it ( a few billion). I think the US still owns 78% of the company though.

2008 was unexcusable. the money that went into the financials whom are now quite profitable is robbery. no one has been charged. Easily the biggest sore spot in my mind.

Ok, I was pretty sure someone said they sold it at a loss.

Looks like they were wrong but a few billion wasn't really a nice profit.

Even when the government manages to claw back some of the $182 billion it offered up to bail the insurer out, there's a hitch. An offering that was supposed to bring taxpayers a nice bonus for all their support the past three years turned into a bit of a white-knuckle ride Tuesday. Treasury did cut its stake to 74%, but it sold less stock than initially expected at a barely break-even price.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/25/is-the-aig-selloff-overdone/
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Capital Gains are only at 15%. I guarantee you the middle class pays more than that overall. For every lost job because of the crisis the government is losing 12% in payroll taxes and the money they are paying out in unemployment insurance, that's not including any middle class income taxes. That's also not including the bailout money of AIG (the biggest offender) which will never be repaid.

You talking about the 47% of all americans who pay ZERO income tax? I am quite sure that 15%>0%.

After the crash, government revenues were negatively impacted. Before the crash, I wouldn't be surprised if tax revenues were increased by everything. All comed down to what timescale you consider.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

You talking about the 47% of all americans who pay ZERO income tax? I am quite sure that 15%>0%.

After the crash, government revenues were negatively impacted. Before the crash, I wouldn't be surprised if tax revenues were increased by everything. All comed down to what timescale you consider.

*sigh*

Zero income tax does not mean that they pay no federal taxes. Entitlements like Medicare and Social Security are paid for by the lower and middle class taxpayer through payroll taxes that just about equal the 15% that is paid in Capital Gains. That's before income taxes which the middle class for the most part pays at least something. For example, the tax rate for earners between 34,000 and 84,200 is 25% in income tax. That of course is taxable income after deductions, but I'd still call that set of people lower to middle middle class.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

You talking about the 47% of all americans who pay ZERO income tax? I am quite sure that 15%>0%.

After the crash, government revenues were negatively impacted. Before the crash, I wouldn't be surprised if tax revenues were increased by everything. All comed down to what timescale you consider.

Add onto that that tax reveune actually goes down when you increase the capital gains tax. See Page 3
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Add onto that that tax reveune actually goes down when you increase the capital gains tax. See Page 3

Sure. Especially when 100% of the capital gains taxes that we're talking about here were bilked from the middle class taxpayer in the first place. 25% is greater than 15%, but I digress.
 
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

*sigh*

Zero income tax does not mean that they pay no federal taxes. Entitlements like Medicare and Social Security are paid for by the lower and middle class taxpayer through payroll taxes that just about equal the 15% that is paid in Capital Gains. That's before income taxes which the middle class for the most part pays at least something. For example, the tax rate for earners between 34,000 and 84,200 is 25% in income tax. That of course is taxable income after deductions, but I'd still call that set of people lower to middle middle class.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Those are user fees. The idea is that you pay for the those programs that you will use. Of course, the rich actually pay more into those than they will ever collect, but there can never be enough income transfer for you.

Nevermind that those people (and then some) still recieve more form gov't than they pay in. 60% get more from gov't than they pay in
 
Last edited:
Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Sure. Especially when 100% of the capital gains taxes that we're talking about here were bilked from the middle class taxpayer in the first place. 25% is greater than 15%, but I digress.

Please back that one up. I'm not quite sure what planet you are on right now.

*and $100 is more than $75
 
Last edited:
Back
Top