The deficit is decreasing: but taxes are highest ever.

[OHCHUTE 0]

OBAMA...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/taxes-rising-faster-under-obama-than-under-any-other-president/article/2533976

[grue 1]

OHCHUTE

OBAMA...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/taxes-rising-faster-under-obama-than-under-any-other-president/article/2533976

That's disingenuous at best. Against GDP is a pretty bizarre way to spell it out. Personal income tax was over 90% in the past. Obama's a scumbag but at least he's not doing that.

cavete terrae.

[kallend 1,621]

OHCHUTE

OBAMA...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/taxes-rising-faster-under-obama-than-under-any-other-president/article/2533976

A decreasing deficit is not a zero deficit or a surplus.

Something that the morons who run the Examiner seem to have overlooked.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tkhayes 124]

One of the ways to decrease the deficit/debt is to actually raise taxes to pay for the programs we spend money on. The other is to control spending to a level where the taxes actually cover it.

A normal approach would be a combination of both.

We are doing neither. And we have not been for decades.

[winsor 186]

tkhayes

One of the ways to decrease the deficit/debt is to actually raise taxes to pay for the programs we spend money on. The other is to control spending to a level where the taxes actually cover it.

A normal approach would be a combination of both.

We are doing neither. And we have not been for decades.

The problem with this theory is that it assumes that you could, say, deal with an out-of-control gambling problem by taking extra shifts at McDonalds and backing off on the double or nothing bets.

The fundamentals are so badly skewed at this point that a paradigm shift akin to every economy that has followed this path is inevitable. The only reason our economy is still afloat is that when we go down, we will take a huge part of the global economy down with us.

If a paramedic comes across a patient with arterial bleeding, reducing said bleeding by 50% over time is not what we call an ideal solution.

Government, by its very nature, is an exercise in brute force and ignorance. We have let ours metastasize into a malignancy that is, unfortunately, inoperable.

Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.

[tkhayes 124]

If a paramedic comes across a patient with arterial bleeding, reducing said bleeding by 50% over time is not what we call an ideal solution.

Nice analogy but does not say what I said. What I said in essence was - decide on what programs we want and then adjust the tax base to pay for them. When people get the tax bills to pay for what they are getting, they will quickly decide on what they really want or need.

The only thing that is dragging down the 'problem' is that somehow may people think that the country can be run on nothing, that every government entity is out to get you, and that every govt entity must operate at 110% efficiency, and on top of that, we should not have to pay anything for it.

I do not mind paying taxes when I am getting something for it.

[rhaig 0]

kallend

A decreasing deficit is not a zero deficit or a surplus.

Something that the morons who run the Examiner seem to have overlooked.

whenever I start talking about national debt (mostly bitching about it after a few beers) someone usually pipes up with "But the deficit is down under Obama!" and I try not to pound my head against the table.

Yes, they are very much different. And until it gets to the zero or surplus levels you mention, the debt will only get worse.

As a friend of a friend used to say "Morons Abound!!"

--
Rob

[kallend 1,621]

rhaig

***
A decreasing deficit is not a zero deficit or a surplus.

Something that the morons who run the Examiner seem to have overlooked.

whenever I start talking about national debt (mostly bitching about it after a few beers) someone usually pipes up with "But the deficit is down under Obama!" and I try not to pound my head against the table.

Yes, they are very much different. And until it gets to the zero or surplus levels you mention, the debt will only get worse.

As a friend of a friend used to say "Morons Abound!!"

Well, a decreasing deficit is certainly better than an increasing one.

But some people do have a problem telling the difference between x, x' and x''.

Probably the same ones that bought derivatives they didn't understand.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

tkhayes

If a paramedic comes across a patient with arterial bleeding, reducing said bleeding by 50% over time is not what we call an ideal solution.

Nice analogy but does not say what I said. What I said in essence was - decide on what programs we want and then adjust the tax base to pay for them.

We want ALL the programs, or perhaps more precisely the people we can vote for want that.

Quote

When people get the tax bills to pay for what they are getting, they will quickly decide on what they really want or need.

Would that be the 43% who do not pay income taxes? Perhaps the bottom earning 75% of 4-member households who are eligible for ACA health insurance subsidies? Or the bottom earning 90% who are carried by the top earning decile who have a larger ratio between share of income + payroll taxes and income than the entire rest of the OECD 24 which includes Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, The Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and The United Kingdom?

For the sake of argument I'll accept that those people will get fed up and vote differently.

The average successful senate campaign runs $10.5M for a six year term, or $1.7M a year and nearly 10X the $174K paid by the position. That arithmetic only works because some one pays for the campaign. That some one is PACs (like the National Association of Realtors, ranked first in donations to candidates) and the 0.4% of natural people making campaign contributions large enough to require reporting with the majority totaling $10K per couple for primary and general election for many candidates. They do that because they get something in return like government spending or favorable tax treatment. IOW, voters are choosing between candidates which funnel money to special interests and/or collect less in taxes from them whose campaigns were paid for by those groups.

The only way around that is to out-spend the people making money off government largesse which isn't going to happen.

In theory places which allow citizens to legislate via a ballot process could opt for a proportional representation with people not working that way gaining a toehold and perhaps advancing from there, although with the powers that be having free speech, owning media companies, and having huge (PhRMA spent $150M on ACA) advertising budgets that seems unlikely to go anywhere.


[QUOTE]
The only thing that is dragging down the 'problem' is that somehow may people think that the country can be run on nothing,
[/QUOTE]

No, although the US Government has demonstrated that it can run on a top tax rate of 7% applied to incomes above $11,630,303 in 2013 dollars with the first $69,782 exempt for single people ($93,042 for married couples) and next $465,212 taxed at just 1%.

Quote

I do not mind paying taxes when I am getting something for it.

You're getting a lot for your taxes - a government pension which will replace 30% of your earnings, a higher incarceration rate than China or the former Soviet Union, and military 5X bigger than #2, 10X bigger than the next NATO country, and 30X bigger than Canada eh?

[billvon 2,384]

The usual confusion over debt and deficit applies here.

"How can you not afford to pay your mortgage? It drops every month!"