StreetScooby 5 #26 August 5, 2011 Quote According to the IRS SOI tax stats... Thanks, Mike. So, just to cover the 1.5T deficit you'd need to tax all corporate profits and all taxable income from millionaires++ at 70%. Well, that's not going to happen. What other "viable" sources of taxable income are there in the USA? By "viable", I mean a revenue stream that can realistically address the size of this deficit?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 26 #27 August 5, 2011 Quote So, just to cover the 1.5T deficit you'd need to tax all corporate profits and all taxable income from millionaires++ at 70%. Yes. That is exactly what people have been advocating. Put all the extra tax burden on these groups... Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 August 5, 2011 Quote Quote So, just to cover the 1.5T deficit you'd need to tax all corporate profits and all taxable income from millionaires++ at 70%. Yes. That is exactly what people have been advocating. Put all the extra tax burden on these groups... Haven't listened to any of Obama's speeches lately, have you?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #29 August 5, 2011 Quote Yes. That is exactly what people have been advocating. Put all the extra tax burden on these groups... Maybe I should have phrased that differently. The 70% is just to cover the deficit. That would be on top of what they're already paying. So basically, Obama wants to take ALL of it. Raises the questions: 1) Is he familiar with these numbers? 2) Is he knowingly advocating this? Either way, I'm inclined to conclude that Obama isn't very good at math. Maybe that explains why he hasn't proposed a budget (...I know, that's the duty of Congress).We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #30 August 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteBut Mr. Bush’s legacy on spending will likely be that he did not try to restrain it until Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. FY 2004 was the highest deficit of the Bush years, at 413 B. It dropped each year after that, ending up at 161 B for the final Republican budget (FY 2007). Democrats took over in January 2007 and posted their first budget for FY 2008. 2004: 413 B 2005: 318 B 2006: 248 B 2007 (Last Republican Congress budget): 161 B 2008 (First Democrat Congress budget): 458 B 2009: 1412 B The Dems haven't passed a budget since 2009, but relied on 'continuing resolutions' for their spending. Jesus fucking christ on a popsicle stick! Bush grew the size of our Federal Government by almost half and then handed it off during the worst economic downturn since the GREAT DEPRESSION! And you want to put it all on the new guy! That's so ridiculously dishonest and unaccountable that I simply have nothing else to say. What a fucking waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #31 August 6, 2011 According to this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf Interest payments are projected to rise from 186B (2009) to 562B (2016).We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #32 August 6, 2011 Quote Bush grew the size of our Federal Government by almost half... However much Bush grew it, Obama is growing it even more.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 August 6, 2011 QuoteBush grew the size of our Federal Government by almost half and then handed it off during the worst economic downturn since the GREAT DEPRESSION! And you want to put it all on the new guy! The new guy has run up 80% of Bush's debt increase in 32% of the time. QuoteThat's so ridiculously dishonest and unaccountable that I simply have nothing else to say. But enough about the Dems exploding the deficit. QuoteWhat a fucking waste of time. Most of your posts are...but it's still fun to see what the koolaid crowd has been fed recently.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 August 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteBush grew the size of our Federal Government by almost half and then handed it off during the worst economic downturn since the GREAT DEPRESSION! And you want to put it all on the new guy! The new guy has run up 80% of Bush's increase in 32% of the time. He's talking about spending. You're talking about deficit. They're not the same. This chart would have a lot more meaning expressed in the form of revenues versus spending. Bush did substantially increase the scale of the government, a really stupid move combined with the tax cuts (you pick one). When revenues drop, which is what happens in a recession, then without changing spending at all, you have a larger deficit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #35 August 6, 2011 Either way, the federal government is spending far too much money, and there aren't anywhere near enough taxable revenues to cover that.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 August 6, 2011 QuoteThis chart would have a lot more meaning expressed in the form of revenues versus spending. Ok. Numbers are 2005$, total direct revenue vs. total spending, sources are usgovernmentspending.com and usgovernmentrevenue.com. FY 2002 was the first Bush Budget. FY 2007 was the last Republican budget. FY 2008 was the first Democrat budget. FY 2002 spending was 112.08% of revenue. FY 2003 Spending was 114.25% of revenues. FY 2004 Spending was 106.19% of revenues. FY 2005 Spending was 103.62% of revenues. FY 2006 Spending was 100.05% of revenues. FY 2007 Spending was 95.61% of revenues. FY 2008 Spending was 113.44% of revenues. FY 2009 Spending was 157.67% of revenues. FY 2010 Spending was 139.49% of revenues.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 August 6, 2011 that does not show the trend lines for revenue or spending changes? was this deliberate on your part? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #38 August 6, 2011 QuoteQuote According to the IRS SOI tax stats... Thanks, Mike. So, just to cover the 1.5T deficit you'd need to tax all corporate profits and all taxable income from millionaires++ at 70%. Well, that's not going to happen. What other "viable" sources of taxable income are there in the USA? By "viable", I mean a revenue stream that can realistically address the size of this deficit? inheritance tax plus reverse all the tax cuts for the rich (which have led to the deficit in the first place)...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ghostlybadge 0 #39 August 6, 2011 you have to tax everyone not just the rich. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #40 August 6, 2011 Quoteyou have to tax everyone not just the rich. what's the point in taxing the poor - they have no money... (the rich on the other hand - because of their tax cuts, do)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #41 August 6, 2011 Quote ...reverse all the tax cuts for the rich (which have led to the deficit in the first place)... The numbers show that ALL of the revenue from corporations and millionaires+ would have to be taken. There wouldn't be anything left for them.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #42 August 6, 2011 QuoteQuote ...reverse all the tax cuts for the rich (which have led to the deficit in the first place)... The numbers show that ALL of the revenue from corporations and millionaires+ would have to be taken. There wouldn't be anything left for them. so you say. the majority of economists disagree. i don't think they'll starve - unlike the poor...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #43 August 6, 2011 QuoteSo what will all of this mean for the US and the world? In the short term, a catastrophic default has been avoided but the credibility of US economic policymaking is in shreds. How can anyone be reassured that this Congress will make an appropriate and timely decision when the next crisis comes along, as it surely will? Because this package of measures will compromise growth and push the US economy back into recession. Almost inevitably, unemployment will start to rise again and there is no provision in the agreement to extend unemployment benefits into 2012. Plus, all the costs fall on the poorest: there are huge spending cuts and, so far, no tax increases. As the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has noted, over the past ten years, the income of the top 1 per cent has risen by 18 per cent while that of blue-collar workers has fallen by 12 per cent. Mark my words, this is not a deal that is going to generate peace and harmony. http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/08/gdp-growth-rate-employmentstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #44 August 6, 2011 Quote ...the majority of economists disagree.... Links, etc., that show this?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #45 August 6, 2011 Quote Quote Quote But Mr. Bush’s legacy on spending will likely be that he did not try to restrain it until Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. FY 2004 was the highest deficit of the Bush years, at 413 B. It dropped each year after that, ending up at 161 B for the final Republican budget (FY 2007). Democrats took over in January 2007 and posted their first budget for FY 2008. 2004: 413 B 2005: 318 B 2006: 248 B 2007 (Last Republican Congress budget): 161 B 2008 (First Democrat Congress budget): 458 B 2009: 1412 B The Dems haven't passed a budget since 2009, but relied on 'continuing resolutions' for their spending. Jesus fucking christ on a popsicle stick! Bush grew the size of our Federal Government by almost half and then handed it off during the worst economic downturn since the GREAT DEPRESSION! And you want to put it all on the new guy! That's so ridiculously dishonest and unaccountable that I simply have nothing else to say. What a fucking waste of time. Explain to us how bush bush took down the housing market? I can explain it. just read my other thread titled " Thank you Barney" unaccountable ? how about the Democrats have not passed a budget in close to 3 years ? I hated Bush, but as for growing government. look at what Obozo has done to our credit rating. On the debt issue Democrats want to borrow and spend more Republicans want to cut cap and balance Which is more responsible now? Time to bring the size of government down. Big Brother must go... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #46 August 6, 2011 you agree that whatever happens to the rich - they're not going to starve. unlike the poor...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #47 August 6, 2011 Quote Time to bring the size of government down. Big Brother must go... so you think that the military should be cut...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #48 August 6, 2011 Quote http://www.newstatesman.com/...owth-rate-employment My take from this article was that not only is federal government too large, state and local governments are too large. Quote Plus, all the costs fall on the poorest: Here's an overview of poverty in America: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america What liberals call poverty in American would not be considered poverty anywhere else in the world.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #49 August 6, 2011 Quote so you think that the military should be cut... I think we should stop defending European democracies and let them pay for their own defense.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #50 August 6, 2011 Quote Explain to us how bush bush took down the housing market? I've just finished two very good books on this topic. The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America--and Spawned a Global Crisis http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Predatory-Lenders-Bankers-America--/dp/0805090460/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312630208&sr=8-1 This book discusses the subprime origination business, and it's impact on the crisis. May Roland Arnall and his colleagues burn in hell for eternity. The rating agencies could have shut this down in a heartbeat, but they wouldn't do it. Likewise, as states realized the extent of the fraud, they were prevented from doing anything about it by the federal government, largely because of Alan Greenspan's refusal to exert his authority. All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis http://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/159184438X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312630360&sr=8-1 This book does a good job covering all aspects of the crisis. The entire supply chain was rotten, from subprime through to dealers and the government. You have to ask yourself, who was buying these shitty bonds? In no small part, it was FNMA and FHLMC due to the insistence of Barney Frank.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
