The Math Just Doesn’t Work: We CANNOT Balance Our Budget On The Backs Of The Rich

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

The Math Just Doesn’t Work: We CANNOT Balance Our Budget On The Backs Of The Rich

Written By : John Hawkins

The idea that we can have a massive government with a lavish social safety net funded almost entirely by wealthy Americans is an enduring fantasy of the Left. It’s part of the reason they resist cutting spending so strongly, it inspires their demonization of successful Americans, and it’s at the core of the economic policies. However, as Kevin Williamson notes at National Review, we simply CANNOT balance our budget on the backs of the rich. The math just doesn’t work:

In fact, in 2006, the Census Bureau found only 2.2 million households earning more than $250,000. And most of those are closer to the Lubbock city manager than to Carlos Slim, income-wise. To jump from the 50th to the 51st percentile isn’t that tough; jumping from the 96th to the 97th takes a lot of schmundo. It’s lonely at the top.

But say we wanted to balance the budget by jacking up taxes on Club 250K. That’s a problem: The 2012 deficit is forecast to hit $1.1 trillion under Obama’s budget. (Thanks, Mr. President!) Spread that deficit over all the households in Club 250K and you have to jack up their taxes by an average of $500,000. Which you simply can’t do, since a lot of them don’t have $500,000 in income to seize: Most of them are making $250,000 to $450,000 and paying about half in taxes already. You can squeeze that goose all day, but that’s not going to make it push out a golden egg.

But like certain other exclusive clubs, Club 250K has an inner sanctum, a special club within the club, the champagne room of socioeconomic status. And that is Club 1: the million-dollar-a-year club. Not the millionaires’ club — lots of the people earning $1 million in any given year do not have $1 million in assets — but, still, a million a year, even in rapidly depreciating U.S. dollars, is not too shabby. But the trouble for liberals is, Club 1 is really, really exclusive: Only 0.2 percent of U.S. households have incomes that high, meaning that there’s only about 200,000 of them. And like Club 250K, Club 1 is bottom-heavy: There are a lot more $1 million men than there are $6 million men. And there are a whole heck of a lot more $6 million men than there are $60 million men.

You want to tax Club 1 to get rid of the deficit, you have to hit each of those 200,000 households with an average tax hike — not an average tax bill, but tax increase — of $6 million. And a lot of those Club 1 households don’t have $6 million in income to start with, much less $6 million left after the taxes they’re already paying.

Every time you raise the threshold for eating the rich, you get a much, much smaller serving of meat on the plate — but the deficit stays the same. The long division gets pretty ugly. You end up chasing a revenue will-o’-the-wisp.

So, what about Lloyd Blankfein and Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods? What about these people? You can tax the striped pants off of them, but you won’t get enough money to balance the budget. If you’re doing it, you’re probably mostly doing it because it feels good. (And, yes, that does make you a bad person.)

Correction: You can try to tax the striped pants off of them. Lloyd Blankfein and Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen have a lot of discretion about when, where, and how they get paid. Lloyd Blankfein does not look at a pay stub every two weeks and shake his head sadly, and make sad little sighing sounds; guys like that do something about it. They move to low-tax jurisdictions. They defer. They incorporate. They set up enormous trusts to keep their ne’er-do-well nephews in boat shoes and gin and political office while avoiding taxes. They lawyer up. They will play the game, and they are better at it than you are.

So, how about taxing people who make less than $250,000? That’s probably whom you want to tax, since they are the ones who have the money (Counterintuitive, I know.) The Bush “tax cuts for the rich” cost the Treasury about $800 billion in forgone revenue; the Bush tax cuts for the middle class cost trillions – 2.2 of them, to be precise.

Repealing all of those Bush tax cuts, for rich and middle class alike, gets you about $3 trillion — over ten years. The deficit is running from a third to almost half that every year. Will not balance. Does not compute.

In other words, even if the Left did the full Lenin, there just isn’t enough money there for liberals to pirate — and, folks, does anyone think these people are going to sit by and do nothing while the money they earned is confiscated by socialists? The higher the tax rate goes, the more people will stop working, flee the country, find offshore tax shelters, and pay for lobbyists who’ll insure that loopholes are put into the tax system for them. Can you blame them?

What this means is that there is no easy way out of the fix we’re in. To balance the budget and pay off the debt, not only are we going to have to cut spending dramatically, we’re going to have to raise taxes on the middle class. Neither option is going to be popular and we should certainly do the former before the latter, but eventually, that’s where this is all going because we’ll either have to do that, go bankrupt, or print so much money that you’ll need a wheelbarrow to buy a loaf of bread.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

It’s not about financing it wholly on the backs of the wealthy. It’s about cuts across the board to address spending, while increasing taxes on those that can afford it to address revenue shortfalls. That’s the only way to balance the budget.

If you just cut spending, you’ll further increase revenue shortfalls. Especially if you choose not to cut all spending (foreign military expenditures) and just a small portion, discretionary spending, which creates a number of jobs in America.

Since the wealthy of America have been unwilling to broaden the tax base (ala trickle down), it is now up to the government to reduce our revenue shortfall on their backs, so that we can maintain the tax base that currently exists and is supported by government spending.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The tax cuts would make matters worse. You guys on the left have got to get past this maniacal need to raise taxes for every and any reason and opportunity. Here’s a quick hint on why its a bad idea: during low economic times, tax revenues drop.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

And you guys on the right have got to get past this maniacal need to lower taxes for every and any reason an opportunity. Here’s a quick hint on why its a bad idea: that money becomes concentrated in the hands of the few and is not put to use effectively in the economy.

StanW

“…that money becomes concentrated in the hands of the few and is not put to use effectively in the economy.”

Why do you need to be schooled on this constantly, SWINE.

That money stays in the hands of the people that earned it. And they are ALWAYS beeter suited to spending it that the government is.

Anonymous

Actually, it is usually invested in enterprises creating more wealth. But, to Danny, wealth isn’t something that is created. It is something that you get the government to take from those who’ve earned it.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

If it was invested in enterprises creating more wealth, why are the companies that have created that wealth cutting jobs, while small businesses are the primary drivers of our economic turnaround?
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Exactly, to the left there’s a pie of a specific size, and you only argue over how to cut those slices up not how to make the pie bigger. That seems to be a concept that is completely alien to these jokers.
Anonymous

Danny, do you have to work hard to cram so much ignorance into such a little post?
1. Not every business venture succeeds. Most do not.
2. Even businesses that fail generally create economic value.
3. Small businesses generate wealth.
4. The rich are among the primary financiers of small business.
5. There is no contradiction between creating wealth and cutting jobs. Employment is not a reliable measure of wealth creation.
6. Business conditions vary over time. Poor economic conditions do not mean that created value is not invested into business.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Christopher, you have 10 pieces of pie. What’s going to get you more pie? Giving the fat kid 9 pieces of the pie, or giving 6 pieces to someone that is going to sell the pieces and can make more?

Right now the fat kid (large corporations and the wealthy) is taking 9 pieces of pie, the baker is getting 1/2 a piece, and some homeless guy is getting the other 1/2.

Doesn’t sound like a recipe for success to me.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Bill, do you have to work hard to cram so many Austrian talking points into one post?

1. Not every business venture succeeds. Most do not.
2. Even businesses that fail generally create economic value.

What do these points have to do with the wealthiest individuals having their wealth based off of companies which do not create jobs, and merely create profit, which is in no way indicative of wealth?

3. Small businesses generate wealth.
And how many of these are owned by the wealthiest Americans?

4. The rich are among the primary financiers of small business.
I’d love to see your facts backing this. Because most small businesses are started by those with net worth under $1 million, receiving financing backed by the SBA from banks, whose deposits are made of people from all walks of life. The wealth of the rich is largely held in stocks, real estate, and bonds, none of which is used to finance small business.

5. There is no contradiction between creating wealth and cutting jobs. Employment is not a reliable measure of wealth creation.

If your entire purpose is to create profit, at the expense of the well being of the nation, then #5 holds. It also holds if you are merely looking to increase wealth over the short term. If you are looking to create wealth over the long term, then you need a continued customer base. Continued job losses caused by larger corporations does not produce a sustained customer base, leading to wealth deterioration over the long run. Every US corporation has seen this over the past 20 years, with growth almost entirely coming from international segments.

6. Business conditions vary over time. Poor economic conditions do not mean that created value is not invested into business.

Excess unused capital does though.
Anonymous

Christopher, you have 10 pieces of pie. What’s going to get you more pie?

Confirming our point that the notion of wealth creation is totally foreign to Danny Browning.
Anonymous

Christopher, you have 10 pieces of pie. What’s going to get you more pie?

Confirming our point that the notion of wealth creation is totally foreign to Danny Browning.
Anonymous

What do these points have to do with the wealthiest individuals having their wealth based off of companies which do not create jobs, and merely create profit, which is in no way indicative of wealth?

I never claimed that it is creating jobs. That isn’t the reason companies exist and jobs are neither mana from heaven to be picked up nor the product of slavery for others to create. I claimed that it is creating wealth. To the extent that you claim the companies create profit they do so by providing goods and services that others value more highly than the money they paid for said goods and services. By definition the total value of the goods and services in the economy has increased and wealth has been created.

If you are looking to create wealth over the long term, then you need a continued customer base. Continued job losses caused by larger corporations does not produce a sustained customer base, leading to wealth deterioration over the long run.

No, Danny, you need people willing and able to trade value for value of your product. A “customer base” composed of those you have to give money to buy your product provides no value in return for that product. Your strategy is a formula for a firm to leak value and eventually go bankrupt.

Excess unused capital does though.

And of course EVERYONE knows that Danny Browning is the one source in the universe who knows what the proper utilization rate of capital is. Captial couldn’t possibly be sitting on the sidelines as a rational reaction to economic and political risk engendered by just the sort of policies you’re advocating here.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

That’s where there is $2 trillion in unused capital right now? That’s why wages have been unchanged since the 70′s? That’s why blue collar jobs continued to be offshored? That’s why houses in some areas have lost 40% of their value? That’s why tax dollars had to go to bail out investment banks?

The middle class is better suited to spending the money. 400 individuals are not.
StanW

What are you babbling about? Wages unchanges since the 1970′s????
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Stan, if you don’t even know changes in wage growth over the past 30 years, how can you possibly comment on the effect of governmental policy?
StanW

If you think wages haven’t changed in the past 40 years, you have no business being allowed out in public unsupervised.
StanW

If you think wages haven’t changed in the past 40 years, you have no business being allowed out in public unsupervised.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Thanks for proving to everyone Stan that you don’t understand policy, inflation, wage growth, or costs of living.

Can you crawl back to your hole and let the adults talk now?
StanW

Says the man that thinks wages haven’t changed since the 1970′s.

Yes, the adults are talking here. So PLEASE let the door hit you on your way out to play.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I’d love to see your evidence that wages have not changed since the 1970s, that sounds incredibly doubtful, to say the least. I know how much I got paid in 1983 and how much minimum wage is now, and it has gone up, to say the least.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Just leaving taxes as they are isn’t lowering them anywhere.

If you cannot work out how damaging the production and growing elements of the economy actually harms growth and government revenues, I doubt you’ll ever understand any of this discussion anyway.
Anonymous

“you have 10 pieces of pie. What’s going to get you more pie? Giving the fat kid 9 pieces of the pie, or giving 6 pieces to someone that is going to sell the pieces and can make more?”

Or, you could learn to make some pie yourself instead of hoping someone will be nice and give you one.

StanW

Saw this in the Weekly Standard, just to put things into perspective…

“…if national defense, interstate highways, national parks, homeland security, and all other discretionary programs somehow became absolutely free, we’d still have a budget deficit.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mandatory-spending-exceed-all-federal-revenues-fiscal-year-2011_554659.html

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

And that’s if they became free. Not if they were all cut. Cutting them further reduces revenue, increasing the budget deficit.

It may be “their money”, but the wealthy are going to see more taxes. They had a chance to trickle down, and instead sent jobs overseas.

StanW

What a steaming pile from the SWINE!

You do not spend money you don’t have. PERIOD! You and your ilk want to keep spending more and more and demand that other people give you money to do it with.

Do you run your own life like that?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

You mean like continued incentives for oil companies? Or how about wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Continued spending on the Patriot act?

Or how about all the tax repeals? Estate tax, repeal restrictions on deductions for spouse traveling on business, repeal restrictions on deductions for business meals and entertainment?

Oh right, repealing taxes isn’t spending. It just makes it so the existing spending in place is no longer funded.

More starve the beast to give tax breaks to corporations?

StanW

You don’t spend money you don’t have, SWINE. I cannot make it any more simple than that. If the government can’t spend the money we give them responsibly, then we shoudl not give them more.

And the article I sited shows that if we cut the military budget to ZERO, we would still be in a deficit.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

If you take away their money, then they’re spending money they don’t have.

What part of tax cuts reduces revenue and defunds existing spending do you not understand?
StanW

Then stop spending! Cut your spending! Spend money on things you MUST have, not everything you WANT.

Perhaps if you had a job and paid for your own things, you would understand this, SWINE!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

What must you have Stan? The retirement money you’ve promised workers that have contributed for 30 years? Or perhaps the military bases on foreign soil? The wars in foreign lands further reducing the number of able bodied workers? The tax refunds to the richest companies in the world?

Let’s put it this way Stan. Would you give back a portion of your salary because you decided to give up cable? Would you give back a portion of your salary because you were thinking about giving up cable?
StanW

What I would not do is get the ultimate cable package that I cannot afford (along with a new HD TV with surround sound) and then DEMAND my employer pay me more money because of my inability to control my spending.

And as far as what we MUST have, the Constitution is a good guide to that.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Way to move the goal posts Stan. Answer the question:

Would you give back a portion of your salary because you decided to give up cable? Would you give back a portion of your salary because you were thinking about giving up cable?
StanW

The goalposts are right where I left them, SWINE.

Congress is spending out of control and you want to give them MORE money to spend. EXACTLY AS MY EXAMPLE SHOWS.

The reason I woudl give up my cable is if I was spending too much and could not afford my mortgage, electricity, or food. I would cut out any LUXURIES in order to pay for NECESSITIES!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Stan, you have the memory of a goldfish. Or you’re 12.

Cutting taxes was akin to giving back salary. The difference is, when Bush did, he then spent more, or in your case, bought the HD cable package.

Fast forward to last year. We had a chance to get our old salary back. We instead chose to give up a portion of our salary because we were planning on cutting out the premium channels of our cable package. All this, while not having enough money to pay for our house.

Does that seem very sensible to you Stan?
StanW

And that is where you fail on a large scale, SWINE.

Cutting taxes is akin to a salary INCREASE. In that the person gets to keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY.

Your thinking, like everything else in your life, is completely BACKWARDS!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Stan, you’re just firing blanks all over the place today.

The government has a revenue stream, just like businesses, just like individuals. A business can give away products for free, individuals can accept less pay, and the government can lower taxes. All of these affect the revenue stream they receive.

When Bush took office, the government essentially had a $50,000 salary, saved $100 a year, and owed $5,000. By 2007, the government had a $51,000 salary, lost $500 a year, and owed $20,000. The would be exactly the same as if you had the same salary and expenses, and decided in 2000 to take a $5,000 pay cut.

You’re not spending more. Any spending, unnecessary or necessary, is still in place, and still growing with inflation. Just because you don’t want to pay a 4% increase in your power bill doesn’t mean you choose not to. It’s going to increase by 4% because of inflation. You either have to hope your salary keeps pace, or you go into debt.

The big kicker was by 2003, you were losing $400 a year, and somehow thought doubling down and taking another $5,000 pay cut would get you out of debt. You somehow thought that this was going to help your company grow so much, that they would reward you with 10% pay increases every year.

2009 rolls around, the company is hurting, you’re losing $1,500 a year, owe $50,000, and the company now gives you a 15% pay cut. Do you really think that by saving $200 a year, your situation is magically going to improve?
StanW

As I said (and you just proved), you have everything exactly BACKWARDS.

It is not the governments money, SWINE. The money belongs to the people that earn it.

Here is a more appropriate analogy:

You take home $50,000 per year. You live in a nice house and are able to pay your bills. But at the beginning of this year; you buy a much larger house, several new cars, take multiple vacations, and run up all of your credit cards to maximum. You are spending $3 for every $1 you are bringing in.

When you finally realize that you cannot sustain this spend-more-than-you-have attitude, you have two choices.
1) Cut back your spending, cut out all luxuries, and make sure you meet your financial obligations.
2) Continue spending like you have been , but demand people give you MORE money to spend, even if you have to take that money from them by force.

You and your ilk advocate option 2. That is all any of us need to know about you!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Way to move goalposts again Stan.

The tax cuts preceded all the spending. You keep forgetting that.

Make up an analogy that actually goes along with you taking a pay cut first.
StanW

Still looking backwards, I see. You want the American people to take a paycut by taking more of their money away from them in taxes to give to a small group of people who will recklessly spend that money AND borrow more on credit to spend.

You want a better analogy? OK…

You give your son $25 every Sunday night as an allowance. He is to by his lunch at school all week and gas for his car. Anythign left over is his to spend as he wishes.

On Monday, he skips school, goes to the mall with his friends, and spends everything as well as borrowing money from his friends. On Tuesday, he comes to you crying that his car is out of gas, his friends want thier money back, and he has nothing to eat at school for the rest of the week.

Do you…
A) Give him more money that you stole from your neighbor and tell him to keep right on spending?
B) Tell him that’s too bad, to deal with it and learn from his mistake.

You are advocating option A. Clear enough?
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I agree that the subsidies and investment/research incentives could end without me complaining any. The simpler and more direct the tax system, the less corruption and fraud. Of course, you’d have to give up all those other tax breaks meant to manipulate and mold society, like “green” investments.

The PATRIOT Act simply applies existing laws specifically to terrorists, I’ll never understand the terror people hold it in. Have a problem with it, you have a problem with the RICO act.

D-Vega

If welfare went away tomorrow, you would still have a deficit.

StanW

If all defense spending went away tomorrow, you woudl still have a deficit.

D-Vega

That’s why your original statement is nonsense.

Thank you.

StanW

Still the prick!

What the original statement shows is that we cannot solve this problem by raising taxes or cutting the military. The government has to live within it’s means and only spend money where it must.

What you want is for the spending to continue unabated and for Americans to fork over more of their hard-earned money to irresponsible people.

That is the height of foolish.
D-Vega

What the original statement shows is that we cannot solve this problem by raising taxes or cutting the military.

No, it doesn’t, Stan. That’s a fallacy.

What the original statement shows is we cannot solved this deficit problem, but JUST raising taxes or cutting the military.

But raising taxes and cutting the military should definitely be part of the MIX to solve the problem.
StanW

Before taxes are raised, before we give this government another single cent to spend, they need to prove that they can spend it well. The reason the Right opposes tax increases is because they can’t spend what they have now responsibily. What makes you think that will suddenyl get responsible if we give them MORE?????
D-Vega

What makes you think that will suddenyl get responsible if we give them MORE?????

Make it part of a LAW. That’s what these kunckleheads are supposed to be doing.

Cut and raise in one shot. Or make the cuts and tax raises go into effect over the course of five years.

It can be done.
StanW

Law? Are you serious? These are the people that make laws and write exceptions for themselves. They also pass laws and the pass new laws later that negate the previous laws.

You are truly a fool, Vega!

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

If you cut all welfare you would, including SS and Medicare/Medicaid Etc.

D-Vega

SS is not welfare.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Yes it is.
D-Vega

No, it’s not. People pay and have paid into SS in order to get it.
Whereas welfare and food stamps are given to people out of hardship.

It’s an entitlement, but it’s not welfare.
D-Vega

No, it’s not. People pay and have paid into SS in order to get it.
Whereas welfare and food stamps are given to people out of hardship.

It’s an entitlement, but it’s not welfare.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Yes it is, because it has always been a handout from those working now to those retired NOW. You might have a point if the first people to receive a benefit NEVER paid into it. The payments have always been from the currently working to the noe retired, THAT’S welfare!
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Meh, I consider it welfare anyway, its unconstitutional federal spending to hand out money gathered from one group of people to another group. Don’t make the common mistake of assuming you get back the same amount you put in, you get a lot more unless you die real soon after retiring.
D-Vega

Regardless, it’s not welfare. That’s why it’s the third rail of politics. Because people feel, or know, they paid into it for 40+ years.

Anyone who touches that, brings the wrath of Oldin’ down on ye.
D-Vega

Regardless, it’s not welfare. That’s why it’s the third rail of politics. Because people feel, or know, they paid into it for 40+ years.

Anyone who touches that, brings the wrath of Oldin’ down on ye.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
welfare

Any of a variety of governmental programs that provide assistance to those in need. Programs include pensions, disability and unemployment insurance, family allowances, survivor benefits, and national health insurance.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/welfare-1#ixzz1GtEVtgB9

DV you really need to stop trying to create your own definitions of words.
D-Vega

DV you really need to stop trying to create your own definitions of words.

I am referring to Retirement Insurance Benefits. Which are not welfare.

And I would look at the many, many definitions you have in YOUR link.
Anonymous

LOL, they get all bent out of shape for even the slightest mention of an individual being able to invest a small % of Social Security money.
Do you know why?

A: Only because we are trying to take the word Social out of words Social Security – it is for no other reason than simply diminishing the word Social.
Anonymous

Then why do you idiots always used the General Welfare Clause to justify it?
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

It’s a transfer payment. It’s the working class supporting the retired class. It’s taxing one group of people for the sole benefit of another.

Tell me exactly how that isn’t welfare.

Anonymous

The real possibility of starvation – is good motivation.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Russell-Kay/568298573 Russell Kay

probably because we’d just vote in politicians to spend money on *other* wasteful things.

D-Vega

Like taxpayer subsidies to oil companies.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I posted about this a bit ago but it bears repeating: they aren’t tax subsidies. They’re standard for industry; companies that do research typically can write off research that fails. In this case, oil companies are able to write off failed drill attempts and places that didn’t produce.

I don’t know as I think they really need the write off, but its hardly unusual or some sort of kickback to oil companies. And, in principle, I’m generally in support of people getting to keep their own money.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

“Like taxpayer subsidies to oil companies.”

A tax break is not a subsidy, no matter how many times you call it one. Taking less of a person’s money is not welfare.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

“If welfare went away tomorrow, you would still have a deficit.”

If welfare went away tomorrow, we’d have a surplus of approximately $74,528,000.00. Here’s the math.

We would have to subtract all Social Security and Medicare revenue into the government, reducing total receipts to $1.632 trillion.

We would subtract all welfare programs:
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Dept of Agriculture
Environment (It’s all handouts now)
International Affairs
Welfare (the Whitehouse gave this the very Orwellian name of “Income Security.” It includes HUD, Unemployment, Food Stamps, etc.)
Community Development
Health (Though I left in Medical research, CDC, etc.)

Once the welfare was subtracted, it left us with expenses of $1.558 trillion. This consisted of:

Defense
Science, Space, & Technology
Energy (Though if I were dictator, this would be reduced as well.)
Transportation (Federal highway funds, FAA, etc.)
Education (I personally want this entire department abolished, but it’s not technically welfare, so I left it in.)
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Government Overhead (This would drop due to so many depts disappearing, but I left it in.)
Interest on the Debt (This one isn’t going anywhere)
Commerce
Health research.

So you are wrong… again.

Anonymous

The USA is one of the least taxed countries among the western industrialized nations (data not quoted by try the UN). We have an imperfect liberal-socialist system which functions to the benefit of everyone, not just the wealthy and their supporters (e.g., RWN). Because of the low tax rates and loopholes and corporate giveaways, we are in debt.

So what is the solution? It’s not pandering to the greedy, that’s for certain.

Anonymous

And please, please. Don’t let me have to provide the data again, from that Canadian group which showed the best social indicators of well being as coming from Sweden, then Canada, then the USA. The implications are horrible. As a consequence of greed, we “kill” more people than any of the European social democracies plus Canada combined.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

“And please, please. Don’t let me have to provide the data again, from that Canadian group which showed the best social indicators of well being as coming from Sweden, then Canada, then the USA”

Let me guess, a socialist Canadian group that lumps in immeasurable variables such as “equality” in order to produce their rankings, right? The same type of rankings that somehow put the United States at the bottom of the healthcare lists, even though the quality of care here is considerably higher than the rest of the world.

When a politician stakes his future on high taxes and entitlements, you can bet your bottom dollar that his party and supporters are going to produce “studies” showing how much better everyone is under that type of system. Nevermind the fact that the median income in Sweden, coupled with the extremely high cost of living there, means that the middle class lives under what in the United States would be considered the poverty level. Please ignore the fact that the same Scandinavian countries that always seem to rank at the top of these ridiculous lists have the highest suicide rates in the world.

Please disregard that standard of living is more than just what the government provides you, but can also be measured by the level of disposable income, something that Europe, and the rest of the world, lags far behind the United States in.

“The implications are horrible. As a consequence of greed, we “kill” more people than any of the European social democracies plus Canada combined.”

Oh, so you’re pro-life then.
Anonymous

I assume that by “the greedy,” you refer to government, which never ever does with less, always more and more and more. And if not, then you’re a fucking idiot. (Well, either way you’re an idiot.)
Anonymous

I assume that by “the greedy,” you refer to government, which never ever does with less, always more and more and more. And if not, then you’re a fucking idiot. (Well, either way you’re an idiot.)
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

“The USA is one of the least taxed countries among the western industrialized nations”

We have the highest corporate tax rates in the civilized world, but to you they are still undertaxed.

“We have an imperfect liberal-socialist system which functions to the benefit of everyone, not just the wealthy and their supporters”

No, it is not to benefit of everyone that less than 50% of the nation pays income tax. It’s to the benefit of the 54% that don’t pay, and nobody else.

No, it is not to benefit of the entire country that massive entitlements have been enacted that will bankrupt the country.

No, it is not to the benefit of the everyone that the most productive in our society are financially punished while the least productive are rewarded.

“Because of the low tax rates and loopholes and corporate giveaways, we are in debt.”

Ummm, no. First, there are so few loopholes, and so few people qualify for them that it has virtually zero effect on the budget. Revenue is never, and I mean never, the problem. It is always spending.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

Just for grins, since Vega can’t seem to grasp the definition of welfare (i.e. taxing one group for the sole benefit of another group.)

Adding SS and Medicare back into my calculation does indeed leave us with a deficit of $224 billion. The current year deficit from those two programs total $299 billion (but Liberals keep telling us that there isn’t anything wrong with them!)
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

Just for grins, since Vega can’t seem to grasp the definition of welfare (i.e. taxing one group for the sole benefit of another group.)

Adding SS and Medicare back into my calculation does indeed leave us with a deficit of $224 billion. The current year deficit from those two programs total $299 billion (but Liberals keep telling us that there isn’t anything wrong with them!)

D-Vega

We can’t balance our budget on the back of the poor and needy either.

We can balance our budget by go back to the tax rates from the 90′s, cutting the defense budget and reforming SS and Medicare though.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Tell you what, let’s try cutting the budget back to the 90s first. After all, were the poor and needy doing so horribly back then?

How about it, Vega, we have a deal?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Do you plan on putting taxes back to their 90′s level as well?

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

No need, if the budget is at that level. You just want higher taxes to punish the rich.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

If you revert spending to their 90′s levels, you’ll run a deficit, like we did, until taxes were raised.

Unless of course you mean to revert to spending levels without adjusting for inflation. Which would again mean we would run a deficit, since the cuts would be much deeper, and we wouldn’t generate our current revenue levels.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

At present tax revenues are down because the economy is in such horrible shape. If the federal government showed a real, tangible, and immediate commitment to dialing back interference with business, damage to the economy, and overspending (all of which the last 10 years and especially 14 months), then businesses would breathe a sigh of relief and growth could start.

Right now business owners are holding back on investment, expansion, and even hiring because they see things getting more and more hostile to them in Washington and no stability in the future. Give them that stability and dial back the hostility and see what happens.
D-Vega

If the budget is at 1990s level and tax brackets are the way they are now, you would still have a deficit.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Proof?
D-Vega

Proof?

Proof? It’s called logic.

If the budget was balanced then, with those brackets, brackets that take in LESS revenue would cause a deficit.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Correct, but if spending was handled carefully, it would eventually go away; the 90′s spending isn’t enough of a cut but its a good start that I think we can all agree on.

Just balancing the budget would eat away the deficit eventually, as it was starting to in the 90s. If we folded back the federal government to its proper, original, constitutional boundaries then the states could pick up the programs and cover them more cheaply and efficiently. That means overall lower taxes, more freedom, a better economy, and people who get help from the government doing better overall.

I realize that shy of some act of God that’s not happening in my lifetime at least, so I’ll take 90s spending as a start. Then we can start looking at duplication, waste, fraud, and overspending, and trim there.

I can’t imagine a single reason why any non-government corrupt drone would have a problem with that plan. And it doesn’t require tax increases.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Correct, but if spending was handled carefully, it would eventually go away; the 90′s spending isn’t enough of a cut but its a good start that I think we can all agree on.

Just balancing the budget would eat away the deficit eventually, as it was starting to in the 90s. If we folded back the federal government to its proper, original, constitutional boundaries then the states could pick up the programs and cover them more cheaply and efficiently. That means overall lower taxes, more freedom, a better economy, and people who get help from the government doing better overall.

I realize that shy of some act of God that’s not happening in my lifetime at least, so I’ll take 90s spending as a start. Then we can start looking at duplication, waste, fraud, and overspending, and trim there.

I can’t imagine a single reason why any non-government corrupt drone would have a problem with that plan. And it doesn’t require tax increases.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

DV it’s not logic, since revenues change based constantly at ALL tax levels, and when Bush cut taxes revenues increased over the levels of Clinton’s term.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG

So if revenues INCREASE while spending drops to 1990 levels what happens?
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

DV it’s not logic, since revenues change based constantly at ALL tax levels, and when Bush cut taxes revenues increased over the levels of Clinton’s term.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG

So if revenues INCREASE while spending drops to 1990 levels what happens?

D-Vega

I could live with that.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I agree, and we all should sacrifice. We all have to in order to survive as a country.

Anonymous

There is that word “all”
Define “all”
When the left uses the word “all” it doesn’t mean every person.
D-Vega

All. If everyone sacrifices, then it’s fair.

If the poor and middle class sacrifice and the rich don’t, that’s called bullshit.
Anonymous

Vega – now go tell that to your lefty friends.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yeah, well in fairness, there are some people who just have nothing to sacrifice. They’re already giving everything up, in effect.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Defense is less than 20% of the budget, cutting that is nearly useless, SS and Medicare and all welfare, and any and all subsidies including to PP and NPR would be a better start.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Discretionary spending is 19% of the budget, yet cutting that is the path forward to prosperity?

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Discretionary spending is over 40% of the budget, dippy. But I wouldn’t just cut there, I would also cut the so called mandatory spending that has no Constitutional basis(Social Security, etc), and amounts to more than 42% of the budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

D-Vega

So cutting defense, being 20% of the budget is nearly useless, but cutting PP and NPR would be a better start?

SS & Medicare, like, actually feeds and keeps people alive, but we shouldn’t touch defense, a ton of which we don’t need (like more than 1,000 bases worldwide)?

You are failing big time this week, wolf.

SS is not welfare, secondly. People have paid into SS.

Lastly, saying “cut SS and Medicare and all welfare” is simple thinking. And that’s why you can’t pass anything that even touches it.

You need REFORM. Reform is not destruction.

Defense spending, SS, and Medicare need to be reformed. Period. Anything else is “useless” as you say.

You guys keep obsessing over public broadcasting and abortion and you’ll be bounced out of office soon enough.

At least if you rhetoric matched Republicans’ actions, it could at least be respected.

StanW

“You guys keep obsessing over public broadcasting and abortion and you’ll be bounced out of office soon enough.”

Riiiiight.

Better to cry over the legality of prostitution in Nevada, and whine about Super Bowl commercials, right Vega?

D-Vega

Who’s doing that, Stan?

Stop trying to create strawmen. I have made my case.

Either offer something related, or go back to your chicken coop.
StanW

You cannot help being an obnoxious prick, can you Vega.

You think Republicans are obsessing over abortion, yet you have Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) obsessing over Super Bowl Commercials, and Harry Reid (D-NV) obsessing over making prostitution in Nevada illegal.

Now you will say that they are not obsessing and that what they are doing is SOOOOOOO different that what the Republicans are doing.

Dance for me now, Vega!
D-Vega

You cannot help being an obnoxious prick, can you Vega.

Likewise.

You think Republicans are obsessing over abortion,

Because they are.

yet you have Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) obsessing over Super Bowl Commercials, and Harry Reid (D-NV) obsessing over making prostitution in Nevada illegal.

Neither of those people are obsessing. They made statements about an issue.

How many bills did they introduce to address prostitution in NV and Super Bowl commercials, during the ENTIRE TIME they controlled the Senate and House?

How many abortion-related bills have Reps introduced in just 10 week of being in control of the House?

Yeah.
StanW

Fine little dance, Vega. You went EXACTLY where I knew you would.

So when Republicans do something, they are obsessing. But when Democrats do it, they are not.

Elections have consequences, Vega. Even when Republicans win.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

“SS is not welfare, secondly. People have paid into SS.”

Every person who is a recipient, paid in? Sorry factually false, and I’m not even talking about survivor benefits.

D-Vega

No?
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Exactly so if not everyone getting benefits paid in they are getting…. wait for it… WELFARE!
D-Vega

Exactly so if not everyone getting benefits paid in they are getting…. wait for it… WELFARE

Who are these people who are not paying into it?
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

SSI and Disability, to name 2.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I don’t know a single person my age or younger who believes that social security will be around when they retire. The money we’re putting into the system we figure is gone.
D-Vega

Yup. We consider it an old people’s tax.

Might as well call it that and make it mandatory that everyone over the age of 18 start a 401(k).

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think you grossly overestimate the voting public’s like of public broadcasting. I suspect that 90% of the voters don’t give a damn about it. Given that even NPR execs are saying they’d be better off without public funding I can’t imagine why people would want it to continue.

D-Vega

Irrelevant, as we are talking about priorities and what will make the most impact.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Well you’re the one that brought up how much cutting public broadcasting was going to hurt the GOP. I just don’t see it. The people who are desperately in love with PBS and government funding would cut their gonads out before voting for a Republican anyway.

Anonymous

I told you before that PP and NPR were put on the top of the pile of bills when you brought them up.

As in my home, when I look to cut the budget, I start at the top of the stack of bills and work my way down, and here you go putting PP and NPR on the top again – yes, that is where I would start, again.

Anonymous

Vega,

So your solution is to cut the one area that is actually a legitimate function of government. Why am I not surprised. What actual cuts beyond defense are you willing to support?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Show me where the constitution gives the president power to wage wars in the middle east using my tax dollars.

Show me where the constitution gives the DoD the power to build and maintain bases on foreign soil.

Anonymous

Show me where the constitution gives the president power to wage wars in the middle east using my tax dollars.

Article II, Section 2. The power to authorize him to do so rests with Congress under Article I, Section 8.

Show me where the constitution gives the DoD the power to build and maintain bases on foreign soil.

Again, Congressional authority under Article I, Section 8 and Presidential authority to execute is Article II, Section 2.

Thanks for wasting our time.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Great you listed sections of the constitution. Now, using those sections, please show me where it gives them those powers.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Read the articles yourself moron they are very clear. Congress declares war and appropriates the funds for said war, POTUS commands the troops to execute said war.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

What are you, an idiot? Read the sections. You asked him to show you and he showed you. The president is given the power to exercise military power when he believes it needs to be done. Congress is given the power to declare war when they believe they need to. Where and why is not restricted.

You or I might not personally prefer how or where its done but its constitutional. To even suggest otherwise is either deliberately lying or simply ignorant at a level that is inexcusable.
Anonymous

Jesus Christ but you’re stupid.

Look kiddo, here’s a copy of the Constitution:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

Now here’s the passages Bill just cited:

Article II, Section 2
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have power…To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

Read them. Then read them again. Then read them one more time. Keep reading them until you are no longer a booger-eating moron.
StanW

Sam, you can’t fix stupid!
Anonymous

Jesus Christ but you’re stupid.

Look kiddo, here’s a copy of the Constitution:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

Now here’s the passages Bill just cited:

Article II, Section 2
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have power…To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

Read them. Then read them again. Then read them one more time. Keep reading them until you are no longer a booger-eating moron.
Anonymous

Sam, you can’t fix stupid!

I know, but hitting dumb trolls in the face with a clue-bat makes me feel all warm and tingly inside, even when it accomplishes nothing at all.
Anonymous

Sam, you can’t fix stupid!

I know, but hitting dumb trolls in the face with a clue-bat makes me feel all warm and tingly inside, even when it accomplishes nothing at all.
Anonymous

“Jesus Christ but you’re stupid.”

What he said.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Good ol’ right wing trolls, blatantly attacking someone, without actually reading the original post, or what they posted in response.

Article II, Section 2
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

At what point does this give him the power to wage war? Oh right, it doesn’t specifically give him that power, and only congress has provided him with the means to wage war by ignoring the provision that only allows them to fund those actions for two years.

Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have power…To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

They never declared war. They continue to fund the overseas operations but have never declared war, and continue to ignore limits on wartime funding.

Neither of those clauses say anything about building and maintaining foreign bases for half a century either.

All this talk about constitutionally mandated powers, yet you right wing trolls continue to ignore actions that are easily shown by the quotes you yourself provide to not be constitutionally mandated.
StanW

Did Congress authorize a use of force in Iraq, YES or NO?
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I wish I could like a post more than once. What a freakin’ jackass.

D-Vega

I said reform SS and Medicare, too. That would have to involve cuts of some kind, either money or benefits or kick-in date.

Those are the big three, plus going back to 1990′s tax brackets.

You do all those things, I predict we would be on the road to a balanced budget in 10-15 years.

Anything else, ANYTHING, is hogwash for the trough of the pignorants.

Anonymous

So Mr. Obama’s proposal to freeze domestic discretionary spending is “hogwash for the trough of the pignorants”. Glad you could bring yourself to admit that much.

Of course Rand Paul’s proposal knocked off $500 billion without even touching entitlements. Unless you want to claim that isn’t enough, your hard-pressed to claim that the proposal is “hogwash for the trough of the pignorants”.

D-Vega

Yes, and all it does it in effect destroy the dept of education. Schools across the country won’t miss that at all.

However, I can at least respect Paul in that he walks the walk.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

“Yes, and all it does it in effect destroy the dept of education. Schools across the country won’t miss that at all.”

Actually they won’t miss it because that money would stay in taxpayer hands, allowing the states to take part of it while eliminating a very large level of bureaucracy. Same could be done with HUD, DOEnergy, DOag, DoL, EPA, and dozens of other redundant and unconstitutional departments.
D-Vega

Actually they won’t miss it because that money would stay in taxpayer hands

What the hell are you talking about, dude?
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The truth is, schools wouldn’t miss the department of education in any negative way. They might be happier without that heavy hand on them, though.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

DV if we send the 50 billion as a budget for the DoEd and they spend 10 billion on wages and operating expenses, that means they give 40 billion back to the states. now what if the states just raised their taxes to make up the $40 billion? The tax payers would still save $10 billion dollars, and state budgets would remain the SAME! And if you think that’s paltry multiply that over hundreds of departments most of which have operating budgets well over 20% of their total budget including the DoEd.
D-Vega

Yes, and all it does it in effect destroy the dept of education. Schools across the country won’t miss that at all.

However, I can at least respect Paul in that he walks the walk.

Anonymous

So Mr. Obama’s proposal to freeze domestic discretionary spending is “hogwash for the trough of the pignorants”. Glad you could bring yourself to admit that much.

Of course Rand Paul’s proposal knocked off $500 billion without even touching entitlements. Unless you want to claim that isn’t enough, your hard-pressed to claim that the proposal is “hogwash for the trough of the pignorants”.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The thing is you don’t need the tax increases and they’d be damaging to the economy just when things are looking even worse. We need business and investment to be set free and calmed down, not punished even more.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The thing is you don’t need the tax increases and they’d be damaging to the economy just when things are looking even worse. We need business and investment to be set free and calmed down, not punished even more.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The thing is you don’t need the tax increases and they’d be damaging to the economy just when things are looking even worse. We need business and investment to be set free and calmed down, not punished even more.

D-Vega

We can’t balance our budget on the back of the poor and needy either.

We can balance our budget by go back to the tax rates from the 90′s, cutting the defense budget and reforming SS and Medicare though.
Anonymous

“We CANNOT Balance Our Budget On The Backs Of The Rich”

I agree for a change! If I earn, for example, $one million/yr of taxable income, I certainly would not want to pay any more than $350k of federal taxes. In fact, I should have to pay no more than the average taxpayer, whatever that amount is. Let the other 99% (middle and lower class taxpayers) shoulder the burden and pay their share. They don’t pay anywhere near 35%. Why should I.

Anonymous

and millions of people pay nothing.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The top 1% richest people in the nation pay more than 50% of the taxes. That’s not going to stop being true no matter what you say.

D-Vega

But they have 80% of the money.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yeah, that’s what makes them “rich.” Because they have more money. Being upset at someone for having more is called “jealousy.” They’re paying most of the taxes, complaining that they don’t pay the same percentage as you is just juvenile and envious.
Anonymous

And that magically justifies taking it away from them. Somehow.
Anonymous

And that magically justifies taking it away from them. Somehow.

Anonymous

Well you are not incorrect if you mean balancing the yearly budget. But after 30 years of feeding the wealthy to where wealth inequality is now as extreme as it was in 1929, cutting off the big party, the fat taxcuts and estate tax giveaway, is a beginning.

Who here is not at least part of the middle class? Well, unless some changes are made in the tax giveaway, you are going to go down and down like everyone else, still praising the wealthy for what they have done for the country. I like Dickens England as a model for where the US is heading.

Anonymous

And of course we have a budget deficit. It now takes 800 billion a year to just pay the interest on the National Debt, which began to balloon with Mista Reagan’s presidency.

So stop praising yourselves for what you now complain about.

StanW

“The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020.”

Who do YOU want to praise, The Democrats????

Anonymous

You have heard about Bush’s fuzzy math, right? Take out the Social Security income, which the government has been stealing since Reagan, and what do you have? Our retirement money has been used to reduce the yearly deficits and now we are being told that retirees are living off the fat and need to start contributing more of their retirement in taxes.

Michigan anybody?

StanW

It is amazing how you can only see Republicans in the bad parts of this and can find no way to blame the Democrats for their part.

But it is what we expect from a pathetic partisan HACK like you!
Anonymous

And its amazing how you can only see Democrats in the bad parts of this and can find no way to blame the Republicans for their part, but then again you are a pathetic partisan HACK arent you.
StanW

I’ve blamed the Republicans in this ever since Bush and his cronies spent their way out of office, crthns.

So take your comments and shove them up your ass!
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS Pub. L. 101-508, title XIII, Sec. 13301(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104Stat. 1388-623, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of – (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

Slow joe was in charge in 1990 when this happened?

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

When you start being at least as upset at Obama’s massive explosion of spending and deficits as you are [insert Republican here] people will start taking you more seriously, Until then you’re just a partisan parrot repeating away what you’ve been told to by your commissars.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

When you start being at least as upset at Obama’s massive explosion of spending and deficits as you are [insert Republican here] people will start taking you more seriously, Until then you’re just a partisan parrot repeating away what you’ve been told to by your commissars.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

When you start being at least as upset at Obama’s massive explosion of spending and deficits as you are [insert Republican here] people will start taking you more seriously, Until then you’re just a partisan parrot repeating away what you’ve been told to by your commissars.

Anonymous

What is your fascination with wealth inequality?
Do you understand that; the pie is not fixed and one person having wealth doesn’t stop you from getting a slice.

Anonymous

I do get a slice. Like you, a small one. But that’s not the point. The point is the amount of the National Debt that I owe, that was spent on taxcuts for the wealthy, and how that debt and the yearly deficit is putting the country in jeopardy. Soon it will be Greeceville for us, then what?

Anonymous

It will be Greeceville for us for we continue to implement socialistic ideas.
Great example of modern European socialism failure, Thanks.

Anonymous

Greeceville? Greece’s problem is that tax avoidance is a national sport there. The tax collectors are all rich because they get bribed to not collect taxes. They tax pools in Athens. Only 600 pool owners out of an estimated 45,000+ pool owners in Athens pay taxes on their pools. I guess those 600 forgot or refused to bribe the tax collectors.
Anonymous

But but but – it is a great example of european democrat socialism in action.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

He has a problem with basic math too; he can’t work out that when there’s not enough money with rich people there isn’t enough and you can’t squeeze enough out of people to pay off the deficit no matter how long you tax them punitive and excessive amounts.

Anonymous

Right on, Chris! There is no way that we can squeeze any money out of GE’s paltry $10.3 billion profit to help wit the deficit. In fact, as I pointed out above, GE paid $ZERO in taxes and got a $1.1 billion tax credit. How else could GE possiblly compete with International companies with the USA’s outrageous 35% corporate tax. The same is true for Exxon, which paid ZERO taxes to the IRS on it’s record $45 billion profit.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

It takes a special kind of fool to spit in the face of absolute rock solid math like that.

Anonymous

During the great depression income disparity was less extreme than it is today, right?

Which decade would you rather live in?

Anonymous

You asked for it, now you got it.

Schakowsky proposing higher federal taxes for millionaires, billionaires

Schakowsky Introduces Bill to Tax Millionaires and Billionaires

(about time)

“The most popular way to reduce the deficit, according to 81% of Americans? Put a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year.”

– NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll, March 2, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC (March 16, 2011) – Today Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), member of President Obama’s 18-member Fiscal Commission, introduced the Fairness in Taxation Act…

Income inequality in America is the worst we’ve seen it since 1928. Wages have stagnated for middle and lower income families despite enormous gains in productivity. Where has all the money gone?

“In the United States today, the richest 1% owns 34 % of our nation’s wealth – that’s more than the entire bottom 90%, who own just 29% of the country’s wealth,” said Rep. Schakowsky. “And the top one-hundredth of 1% now makes an average of $27 million per household per year. The average income for the bottom 90% of Americans? $31,244. It’s time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share….

The current top tax bracket begins at $373,000 in income and fails to distinguish between the “well off” and billionaires – like the top 20 hedge fund managers whose average income last year was over $1 billion.

The Fairness in Taxation Act asks enacts new tax brackets for income starting at $1 million and ends with a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:

* $1-10 million: 45%
* $10-20 million: 46%
* $20-100 million: 47%
* $100 million to $1 billion: 48%
* $1 billion and over: 49%

Boy that’s quite a break from the 90% and 70% top rate of the old days, when we didn’t have large budget deficits. That is before the wealthy took over our political system.

Anonymous

What you fail to mention with the 90% brackets is all of the write off that were there at the time.
90% of income was not taxed.

D-Vega

And it is still that way. The rich don’t pay that high bracket.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

If you think the wealthy didn’t control the political system back then, you’re even stupider than I think.

D-Vega

That’s why it’s not 90% anymore.

Anonymous

The max tax rate in the 1950′s was 92%. They used to joke back then that the only tax payers who actually paid those rates were baseball players and boxers. Corporations paid 40% of the taxes back then. In the last yr of the Clinton administration, corporations paid about 7% of the total. Here is what Forbes magazine said about GE:

” “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion”"

Here is what Exxon did according to fForbes:

“Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.”

Nice!

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

So you’d be in favor of a simplified tax system with no write offs and no social engineering, just a straight, simple tax? Like a flat tax? Or a VAT that replaced income and FISA deductions?

Anonymous

I think it’s horrible the way the federal government forces these liberal billionaires to hire armies of accountants to exploit every loophole and prevent them from paying their fair share.
Anonymous

Just stop with the coveting right now! Repent and choose to do it God’s way stop thinking you are someone special sticking it to the rich by raising there taxes cause you ain’t speacial and they could careless about you too.

Anonymous

Well after reading over the comments on this topic, I have to ask: is there anyone here on the right who doesn’t belong to an anti-taxation militia?

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Is there anyone on the left that isn’t a mind-numbed robot calling for higher taxes?

Anonymous

There’s noone on the left that isn’t a mind-number robot, period.
Anonymous

There’s noone on the left that isn’t a mind-number robot, period.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Is there anyone on the left that isn’t a mind-numbed robot calling for higher taxes?

Anonymous

Repealing the Bush taxcuts on everyone would certainly bring us closer to a balanced budget. No not all the way, but closer. Here is Zakaria speaking through Newsweek:

Raise My Taxes, Mr. President!

We can’t afford the Bush cuts anymore.

“For the last few months, we have heard powerful, passionate arguments about the need to cut America’s massive budget deficit. Republican senators have claimed that we are in danger of permanently crippling the economy. Conservative economists and pundits warn of a Greece-like crisis, when America can borrow only at exorbitant interest rates. So when an opportunity presents itself to cut those deficits by about a third—more than $300 billion!—permanently and relatively easily, you would think that these very people would be in the lead. Far from it.

The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. ”

Anonymous

What’s stopping you from paying more than you strictly have to?

“The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. “”

Sure tax cuts cause deficits, spending is entirely separate and makes no difference. Except defense spending. Any dollar that goes to the military adds to the debt, but any amount of social spending makes no difference.
Anonymous

Your taxes don’t have to be raised you can give more money to the federal government to waste if you want to but leave my taxes alone because I refuse to give my hard earned money to a politician who does’nt care about how many hours I have to work to make ends meet a wants to waste it instead of living on a budget like I have to.

Anonymous

You liberals fail to follow God’s laws and instead choose to do it your way. You are breaking atleast two of the ten commandments being a liberal and those are Thou shalt not covet and Thou shalt not steal. You covet what people have then have the government to steal it away from them and then on top of it refuse to see corruption in washington and the wasteful spending they do.

I think somehow you think by raising taxes on these filthy rich people you get a great feeling thinking you are punishing them for having more money than you do but you are not hurting them, instead you are hurting poor people who needs jobs that won’t be produced because of higher taxes. You hurt the very people you claim to care about the poor. The fact you trust politicians so much to spend your money is a bad sign right out of the gate instead of a business man.Explain how you can trust a politician over a business man.

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN