Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode. The competing demands could deepen political battles over the size and role of the government, the trade-offs between taxes and spending, the choices between helping older generations versus younger ones, and the bottom-line questions about who should ultimately shoulder the burden.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rightisright

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Sobering article.

Prepare for the confiscation of tangible assets.

Ooooh more debt fear mongering from the people who brought us "deficits don't matter".


BOO!

Amazing how insouciant liberals are about massive new deficits, now that they're the ones kiting the checks.

Gobama!

Lord, would you look at the price of gold! Gobama!

#4 | Posted by rightisright

And if McCain was calling the shots you would be marching in lockstep bleating about how deficits don't matter.

When my debts got out of hand I started paying more towards them to reduce the amount that went to interest and voila! soon they were paid down.
When we had large debts following WWII we had tax rates high enough to pay them down, I think that will again be the way to do it.
It's not rocket science, rich folks will have to pay taxes, I know that sounds crazy, but it's the only way we will ever be prosperous again.

rich folks will have to pay taxes, I know that sounds crazy,

Danni you communist. How dare you say that the rich should pay taxes!

Blasphemy!

Don't you know they should be given a free ride? Only the poor and middle class should pay. They are the leaches on society.

Weeeee. Dow up 100!

Only the poor and middle class should pay. They are the leaches on society.

The sarcasm is noted. I don't think the wealthy are over taxed per se. But please recognize this...

usgovinfo.about.com

oh and yes, I know this is only Federal Taxes but the taxes you are asking the wealthy to pay more of would primarily come in this area.

Although it is worth noting that extreme libs love to blame this problem on how much the wealthy pay rather than expect the govt to cut spending first.

I pay my taxes and I don't write the tax code. Yet, according to you, I have been getting a "free ride".

I think the best way to get our house in order would be to increase the first time home buyer credit from 8,000 to 16,000. In addition I would double cash for clunkers from a 4k credit to an 8k credit. These two ideas would clearly demonstrate that the government takes fiscal responsibility very seriously.

For the libbies' sake--and everyone's, I suppose--they had better hope Dick Cheney was right. We'll see.

That's a great idea, Iraqi. That and another big round of free money so Goldman and the hedgies can pay out a few dozen billion in bonuses, and recovery is just around the corner.

Avalanche of Debt Payments Facing US Government

Thank you George W Bush and the 'conservative' GOP!! Never forget!

"How the Government Is Swallowing the Economy"

You know about the bailouts, the stimulus plan, cash for clunkers, and moola for mansions. But for all the anxiety they've caused, those government giveaways are just a tiny part of a mushrooming problem.

By one measure, the government already plays an outsize role in our so-called free-market economyand it has little to do with the recession. Economist Gary Shilling has calculated that 58 percent of the population is dependent on the government for "major parts of their income," including teachers, soldiers, bureaucrats, and other government employees; welfare and Social Security recipients; government pensioners; public housing beneficiaries; and people who work for government contractors. By 2018, Shilling estimates, an astounding 67 percent of Americans could be dependent on the government for their livelihood. The implications aren't comforting.

www.usnews.com

Thank you George W Bush and the 'conservative' GOP!

The outcry from the hypocritical right is amusing about our debt load.

That is really what it comes down to. If Bush had continued the fiscal policies of Clinton, or had enacted meaningful cuts to offset his tax cut for millionaires then our current predicament would be nowhere as bad as it currently is.

But keep on the fauxrage after pretending the deficits for the previous 8 years never happened.

"Ooooh more debt fear mongering from the people who brought us "deficits don't matter".


BOO!"


If you are claiming that this is fear mongering, then you are agreeing that deficits don't matter.

Just thought I'd point that out because you seem very confused.

Personally, I think it is extremely problematic to spend more than you make regardless of whether the Spender In Chief has a D or an R next to his name.

But why be sensible when we can turn our pending insolvency into fodder for schoolyard "my side is better" type sniping?

Dave Ramsey for President!

But keep on the fauxrage after pretending the deficits for the previous 8 years never happened.

As the USA Titanic sinks, both parties argue over who hit the iceberg.

"Personally, I think it is extremely problematic to spend more than you make regardless of whether the Spender In Chief has a D or an R next to his name."

All spending being equal you are right, but the whole point is that this spending will make us more competitive. I know, I know, so far the money has only gone to the banks whom we've yet to even consider regulating and toward a few token programs but... but... wait, I don't know if there is a but. Damn.

#19 | Posted by Ray

My lifeboat has guns on it!

It's not rocket science, rich folks will have to pay taxes, I know that sounds crazy, but it's the only way we will ever be prosperous again.

#7 | Posted by danni

Or...

...they can leave.

Just ask the NY Governor about that.

Ooooh more debt fear mongering from the people who brought us "deficits don't matter".

BOO!

#3 | Posted by 726 at

What kind of nitwit are you that thinks debt is good?

Timex,

It was the Democratic Congress AND George Bush (with his Medicade Drug Benefit) that started this mess...but the Obama Stimulas, the Massive budget, the take over of the Car companies and the rest of the mess that put us over the top.

726 - A couple of things. 1) If you make 100K and your buy a house worth 300k - and you borrow the money at 6%- you can afford it (barely) because as a % of income your debt (spread over 30 years)is about 28%. You don't have much money left to do anything else but you can swing it. If interest rates are lower..maybe a bit more...or higher ...much less.

If you have 100K in income and you borrow 600K - as a % of income you are about 57% per year and you are going down fast.

That is the issue with the current deficit. If it it lower than 68% of GDP you have a potential issue (depending on the interest rates). With Bush it crossed 70% in his last year - but interest rates were at 3.5%.

It is now reaching 90%+ of GDP and interest rates are set to rise. THAT is the issue...debts do not matter if you have a hope in hell of paying it off....but once you reach the point that you don't - that is when the trouble starts.

2)Iraq cost less than 200B. A NIT in a 1.4Trillion hole.

3)REAL ASSETS will climb as investors avoid have $ which are becoming worthless. You pump 1.4 Trillion into the economy - three things happen. 1) value of the $ falls 2) Value of real assets rise (gold, companies, land) 3) Inflation will increase.


and DANNI:

www.taxfoundation.org

In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figuresshare of income and share of taxes paidare significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

top 0.1% of tax returns (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes

So the super rich make only 12 % of the adjusted gross income and pay 20% of the taxes and the Qusi- rich make 22%% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes.

Seems like they are paying MORE than their "fair share" now...how much more do you think we can soak them for? What do you think if "fair" that they pay all of it.

Sorry - I did not know you were not: Driving on the roads, visiting the libraries, being protected by the military and police.

OH...you have the benefit of these and other services and you pay next to nothing for them? Good for you.

Don't you know they should be given a free ride? Only the poor and middle class should pay. They are the leaches on society.

#8 | Posted by 726

No one said the rich should not pay taxes. You libs say that half the people in the US shouldn't pay taxes and get a free ride frome the other half.

I think that if you don't pay INCOME taxes you should not be able to vote.

I think that if you don't pay INCOME taxes you should not be able to vote.

#25 | Posted by Sniper

Amen Brother!

What kind of nitwit are you that thinks debt is good?

#23 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-23 02:07 PM | Reply |

You 2 years ago.

Thank you George W Bush and the 'conservative' GOP!! Never forget!

#14 | Posted by Timex

You don't have a clue.

Bush and the rep congress spent too much in his first term. Bush and the DEM congress spent way too much in his second term. He has been way out-done by ittle o and his DEM congress by a factor of at least four.

I don't give a shit who is in office, politicians love to spend money that isn't theirs and that isn't there.

"All spending being equal you are right, but the whole point is that this spending will make us more competitive. I know, I know, so far the money has only gone to the banks whom we've yet to even consider regulating and toward a few token programs but... but... wait, I don't know if there is a but. Damn."

OK, so let's say we have a program that will do great things for this country but the up front costs will be astronomical. What is sensible to do?

A) Keep spending on all the wasteful stuff when we are already broke AND implement this massive spending program at the same time. At some later date when it becomes obvious the government didn't plan and has no way to pay, print money and pretend that there is no such thing as inflation.

OR

B) Get a handle on our current spending. Devise a plan to reduce wasteful spending and get us out of strangling debt. Work the new program into that plan - maybe we even start saving for it before we implement. In other words: Pretend that we are capable of thinking long term rather than obsessed with instant gratification.

You 2 years ago.

#27 | Posted by KnightHawk

You make shit up!!! I have never posted that debt was good and I never will.

Hello! Dumb ass danni and 726 the fucking moron, the top 5% of wage earners pay 53% of the taxes, whens the last time a poor person created a job except for the welfare system worker?

The rich are only rich because the poor allow them to be. When the poor rises up the rich will be begging for mercy.

The rich are only rich because the poor allow them to be. When the poor rises up the rich will be begging for mercy.

I love these little "jackassisms".

" Bush and the DEM congress spent way too much in his second term."

Sniper pretends that the Congress shifted to the Dems in 2004 but it didn't. Not til 2006 and not a tremendous amount of spending occurred except of course funding for Bush's two wars.

"Hello! Dumb ass danni and 726 the fucking moron, the top 5% of wage earners pay 53% of the taxes"

Why are you calling Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon dumb asses?
They all saw the wisdom of the graduated income tax and we build a great nation under their leadership.

"The rich are only rich because the poor allow them to be. When the poor rises up the rich will be begging for mercy.

I love these little "jackassisms"."
#33 | Posted by eberly

Ask the Romanov and the Bourbons about it.

Why are you calling Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon dumb asses?
They all saw the wisdom of the graduated income tax and we build a great nation under their leadership.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-23 03:08 PM

Are the dems proposing significant tax increases on the rich yet?

Are the dems proposing significant tax increases on the rich yet?
#37 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE

They should be. The progressive tax table worked for decades. Thse in the higher brackets reinvested money and created jobs. Leave it to W to do two wars, two tax cuts, and Medicare Part D without paying for them.

That's why we have a $12 Trillion debt instead of the $0 it could have been this year.

"Are the dems proposing significant tax increases on the rich yet?"

Nope. Seems like they are afraid to touch the issue but eventually someone is going to have to face reality.

Nope. Seems like they are afraid to touch the issue but eventually someone is going to have to face reality.

"It'll be easy once they first remove private money from campaigns."

-Corky

#39 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-23 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny you think the only solution is to raise taxes. Have you ever considered cutting the expenses associated with all of the entitlements? And with the biggest yet to come, aka cost savings through health care reform, the government obligations for entitlements will almost double.

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2009-11-23 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Pussys who take their losing argument from one thread to another

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-23 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag angry that everyone with a brain sees that belief as delustional at best

Nope. Seems like they are afraid to touch the issue but eventually someone is going to have to face reality.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-23 03:51 PM

I have a feeling we're in for some "kick the can" when it comes to really tackling the debt.

We either need large tax increases or big spending cuts.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2009-11-23 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks bold print makes him look smarter..... OK, anything might help

a. End the empire.

b. shoot the non-wealthy

I'll take a, and so would most people if they could get their heads around the idea that whether the fags are allowed to marry is even less relevant than their understanding of gynecology.

"Ask the Romanov and the Bourbons about it."

Yep, and ask the Hapsburgs and Stuarts too!

"Funny you think the only solution is to raise taxes. Have you ever considered cutting the expenses associated with all of the entitlements?"

Of course, right along with cuts for the military. Where are your posts demanding we cut the military budget????

"And with the biggest yet to come, aka cost savings through health care reform, the government obligations for entitlements will almost double."

Making it up as you go along. In reality, 875 B reduction in the deficit over 10 years according to CBO.

Danni - Because we will be PAYING 3K per person per year for 4 YEARS the PRIVILEDGE of having health care THEN we get the government stuff.

So...cost will be over 6 years - income over 10. I can make ANY pig look good with that sort of crap.

By the way Danni - Top 1% have 20% of the income and 40% of the taxes - isn't that progressive enough for you...and the bottom 40% PAY NOTHING!..

How much more "progressive" do you have to be in order for you to say it is "fair"

(During Johnson anything over 1K was taxed at the bottom rate of 10% - so everyone paid something. Now the bottom GETS money from the government - straight redistribution of wealth - can you get more "progressive"?

-Top 1% have 20% of the income and 40% of the taxes

Those are rates, not actual payment percents after all the special deductions.

We have multi-billionaires who pay less in percent of taxes, and sometimes actual taxes, than their 40K a year secretaries.

And then we have $10 an hour posters who are afraid to tax the rich because, well, some day they might be that rich.... as if.


-Top 1% have 20% of the income and 40% of the taxes


Those are rates, not actual payment percents after all the special deductions.


We have multi-billionaires who pay less in percent of taxes, and sometimes actual taxes, than their 40K a year secretaries.


And then we have $10 an hour posters who are afraid to tax the rich because, well, some day they might be that rich.... as if.


#52 | Posted by Corky
You Dumb Shit! The total tax paid is the total tax paid. The percentage compared to an employee is a stupid analogy. It doesn't cost the police anymore to protect a rich person than a poor person. If they taxed everyone equally this spending spree would end.


Should I have said $10.50 an hour?

We have multi-billionaires who pay less in percent of taxes, and sometimes actual taxes, than their 40K a year secretaries.

Which only proves again: we have the best politicians money can buy. And suckers like Corky keep voting Demopublican every election expecting change

Personally I don't mind paying higher taxes if there's a reasonable assumption that the money will be used wisely.

Unfortunately my confidence in that happening are dismally low at the moment and still haven't reached the bottom of my expectations.

It's easy to say that the %ages the wealthy pay are more or less than what they are perspective wise, the factor most overlooked is that while the wealthy can absorb a tax increase, the working poor cannot.

It's neither right or wrong, it just _is_.

The above doesn't even take into account that while the wealthy are in a higher tax bracket, due to loopholes and whatnot, the amount actually paid is far below that %age.

Other than leave the rates the way they are and nix the loopholes, there are no simple or straightforward answers really, to me it's more of a 'whats worse' scenario.

In a perverse way of thinking about it, once you ridden all the horses in the stable to death, who but you is going to carry the saddle and supplies?

Loh


Ray is still pissed that his vote for Ludwig von Duck didn't count.

"In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country's wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.[2] The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth."

en.wikipedia.org

"Danni - Because we will be PAYING 3K per person per year for 4 YEARS the PRIVILEDGE of having health care THEN we get the government stuff.""

How about a link on that, I've looked and I can't seem to find anything that supports that statement.

Ray it is called lesser of 2 evils. 3rd parties won't win any time soon.

"Ray is still pissed that his vote for Ludwig von Duck didn't count."

Aflac!

Aflac! The sky is falling!! Aflac!

lol!

Those are rates, not actual payment percents after all the special deductions.


We have multi-billionaires who pay less in percent of taxes, and sometimes actual taxes, than their 40K a year secretaries.

I think that means when all taxes are figured in (in that the wealthy pay approximately the same %)


Ray is still pissed that his vote for Ludwig von Duck didn't count.
#57 | POSTED BY CORKY
Ray it is called lesser of 2 evils. 3rd parties won't win any time soon.
#59 | POSTED BY JACKASS

So if Hitler ran as a Republican, Stalin ran as a Democrat and some unknown, Ludwig von Duck ran as an independent, nobody would vote for Duck because he had no chance of winning. Then you wonder how the two parties and their corporate friends get away with such massive corruption.

Aflac! The sky is falling!! Aflac!
lol!
#61 | POSTED BY CORKY

That's the irony. Betting against government is the easiest money I ever made. The worse the economy gets, the richer I'll get.

if we took every dime from everybody that had a million and up would that get us out of the hole and for how long?

And along with the first time buyer tax credit and the cash for clunker program we can spend many billions bailing out auto makers,(where's the jobs) financial institutions,(wheres the accountability)and how about a trillion or so on health care reform.
Taxes smaxes lets just print some more money.
Fucking Democrats

"Fucking Democrats"

You forfeit the right to pretend moral or fiscal superiority when the Republicans passed tax cuts during two wars and then bought old people's votes with Medicare Drug Bill which prohibits negotiating for lower prices.
All these fiscally conservative Republicans of 2009 are just so laughable. If the current president had an R behind his name you'd still be cheering for more spending, more wars, more tax cuts.

Oh oh lets try some republican nonsense now. we don't need to raise taxes or cut spending. we can just sell our debt to the Chinese. When it's time for them to collect...turn the lights out and don't answer the door.
Fucking Republicans.

"if we took every dime from everybody that had a million and up would that get us out of the hole and for how long?"

In 2007 the total household wealth was 57 Trillion 800 Billion, so it would definitely get us out of the hole and keep us out for a while.
I'm not suggesting it but we hear that this country is broke all the time....far from it. There is plenty of wealth, it's just mostly owned by very few.

"A one percenter or 1%er is an individual that lies in top 1% of the American Tax bracket. These are the top earners in American society. It has been noted that the richest 1% of the American population owns as much as the combined wealth of the bottom 90%"

en.wikipedia.org

#67
...you'd still be cheering for more spending, more wars, more tax cuts.

Danni you're so close to the answer it almost hurts.

As far as I can tell 99% of the people that post here are blaming every one but themselves.

It's time to rethink the political process.

Just thinkin out loud here.

It's all about power. Not the quality of your health care. Not the cost of health care. It's all about creating dependence for the purpose of increasing power.

God I amuse myself sometimes. I was just thinking...if we did away with all tax deductions,incentives, loop holes the whole nine yards and taxed everybody just 15% of their total and actual income where would we stand financially? Personally and as a country. Hmmmm

The Federal Government's tidal wave of debt now exceeds $12 trillion dollars. We have plummeted an additional trillion dollars in the last 8 months.

Twelve trillion is twelve followed by 12 zeros: 12,000,000,000,000 or 12 x 1012 . 12 trillion eggs would weigh just over 13 million tons or the weight of 19 supertankers. That works out to 149 dozen eggs for each of the 6.6 billion humans on this planet. 12 trillion gallons of milk could easily fill Lake Superior almost four times over.

Twelve trillion is so vast a super number that only astrophysicists and molecular geneticists should be allowed to calculate with it, not the bureaucrats in Washington. In 2008, twelve trillion is equal to the combined output (GDP) of China, Japan and the UK. The total GDP of the United States in the third quarter of 2009 was $14.3 trillion.

Every day, each of our 1.9 million, non-military, Federal employees are happily administering the distribution of this debt to the tune of $2,995.

Each American household's share of this debt is $103,000. Does anyone honestly foresee our taxes being raised enough to pay off this massive deficit?

I'm not suggesting it but we hear that this country is broke all the time....far from it. There is plenty of wealth, it's just mostly owned by very few.

The poor don't write tax laws. That's the prerogative of the wealthy.

The Federal Government, of course, pays interest on its $12 trillion debt. How much interest was paid last year? A staggering $383 billion dollars was incurred during the last fiscal year. That compares to NASA's budget of $18 billion, the Department of Transportation's budget of $74 billion, and the California state budget of $90 billion. $383 billion in annual interest could purchase four thousands homes a day in the high priced California market. That same sum is a 1,000 times greater then the distance from Earth to Jupiter in miles.

The annual interest on this debt for each household is thirty-three hundred dollars a year, or $9 a day.

If each household in America were to take a thirty year fully amortized mortgage at 5.0% on their share of the $12 trillion dollar debt, their monthly payment would be $556 a month or $6,572 a year ---- for thirty years!

All these mind numbing numbers begs three fundamental questions. Who is going to end up paying for this tsunami of debt? Are there politicians willing to tax us enough to pay off this deficit? (Yes!) What's the threshold where taxpayers refuse to be taxed further, even with the threat of jail or loss of property? We may be finding out these answers within the next few months.

Each American household's share of this debt is $103,000. Does anyone honestly foresee our taxes being raised enough to pay off this massive deficit?

That calculation leaves out the $70 trillion SS & Medicare unfunded liabilities.

Mr Hopey and Changey should be pissed. But instead they are watching some leather clad gay boy dancing on the American Music Awards.

Each American household's share of this debt is $103,000. Does anyone honestly foresee our taxes being raised enough to pay off this massive deficit?

Cowboy does that include employer taxes on wages and company income taxes?

I think not. Our individual share of the national debt is somewhat smaller but still too large for our own good.

"A one percenter or 1%er is an individual that lies in top 1% of the American Tax bracket. These are the top earners in American society. It has been noted that the richest 1% of the American population owns as much as the combined wealth of the bottom 90%"
* * * *

Probably true. Unfortunately, a huge chuck of that is wrapped up in tax-free foundations so that libbies don't have to pay their taxes. Bill Gates? Warren Buffett? The Kennedy's and Rockefeller's? Steve Jobs?--all libbies, all with their enormous fortunes socked away so that Washington can never touch it.

Liberals don't pay taxes. We see that every time Obama tries to get someone to run part of Treasury. The uber wealthy libtards don't pay any at all. But the Dumbos don't get angry about any of that.

To really scare the heck out of you is Paul Krugman's recent article---a once (not so sure anymore) supporter of Obama, he made a comment about Obama's Fox news interview---one of the statements he made was that Obama appeared diffident (lack of self-confidence; reserved) and nervous about his economic policy." I've posted many times that this poor guy has been thrown into a position he was totally unqualified for---no executive experience, never held a "real job" (and don't tell me being a senator for a few months is a real job), and no knowledge of economics/business. I believe he'll be reduced more and more to a teleprompter reader and traveler and the decisions will ostensibly be made by others---there currently is a leadership vacuum at the top of the W.H.

RE:Matsop's #80
www.nytimes.com

#15 | Posted by Ray at 2009-11-23 01:05 PM

Precisely why it's to late, Ray. The cannibals will have to taste each other before they get sick of themselves and we start over.

What kind of nitwit are you that thinks debt is good?

#23 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-23 02:07 PM | Reply


The drudge kind.

How many names does Jackass have?

#82 | POSTED BY WASHBOARD

Here's something to think about. Government employees don't pay taxes. Their income comes from taxes. As the tax base shrinks, so do their jobs, salaries and benefits. They've avoided layoffs so far, but that is soon to change in a big way. They are at the top of the food chain and most vulnerable when the supporting structure under them can no longer support their dead weight.

"Government employees don't pay taxes."

That's a new level of stupid even for a moron like you Ray.

Here's something to think about. Government employees don't pay taxes. Their income comes from taxes. As the tax base shrinks, so do their jobs, salaries and benefits. They've avoided layoffs so far, but that is soon to change in a big way. They are at the top of the food chain and most vulnerable when the supporting structure under them can no longer support their dead weight.

#84 | Posted by Ray

No, they'll just keep coming out with stimuli.

Government employees don't pay taxes.

Since when??


Congress doesn't pay SS--or did that change??

That's a new level of stupid even for a moron like you Ray.
#85 | POSTED BY ZATOICHI

I'll bring this down to the moron level.
Government revenue flows from the private economy. The taxes I pay come from what my employer produces. The taxes you pay circulate within the revenue that came from the private economy.
Your job does not produce anything; it is a consumption expense extracted from the private economy. Or more bluntly, you're a parasite. Got that?

I think what Ray was trying to say is that if your income comes from the public trough, all government employees are doing is a tax offset. All the government does is move the numbers from one column to another. A friend of mine had some land the county wanted to buy. It was worth 3 mil. They paid 4 mil. The extra was to cover his taxes. Helps to be connected, but the principal is the same.

No, they'll just keep coming out with stimuli.
#86 | POSTED BY MATSOP

Many states are close to breakdown. The fireworks should be interesting. In NY, Governor Paterson announced that the state has a few weeks of cash left and most legislators refuse to believe him.

Wait until this healthcare bill passes and more of the medicaid costs are shifted to the states---they're really going to appreciate that---what to do then?--more taxes? more budget cuts?--a little of both?

When my debts got out of hand I started paying more towards them to reduce the amount that went to interest and voila! soon they were paid down.
When we had large debts following WWII we had tax rates high enough to pay them down, I think that will again be the way to do it.
It's not rocket science, rich folks will have to pay taxes, I know that sounds crazy, but it's the only way we will ever be prosperous again.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-23 09:27 AM

Yeah, you got the first part right. Unfortunately, this administration has decided to keep spending as apposed to "paying more towards them" debts.

Ray your latest stupidity is just another excuse for hating the government and is a slander against dedicated government employees who pay taxes out of their salary. Your Reaganism is tiresome.

Timex,

It was the Democratic Congress AND George Bush (with his Medicade Drug Benefit) that started this mess.

Foshaffer

Congress was 100% GOP controlled (Delay/Lott majority leaders) with Bush in the WH when Medicare Part D was shoved through with no way to pay for it, which made it illegal to negotiate prices to boot. Dumb move they made that's biting us in the ass now, wasn't it?

It's amazing that Republicans have such short memories. Just today I heard Fred Thompson's new radio show. He was going on about debt and blah blah blah. The guy was a freaking Republican U.S. Senator until 2006 and voted for everything that got us in this massive hole.


The hypocrisy on the right is astounding. Guess it's just the meme they're all squawking in unison. What else could they do? Take responsibility or something? Dream on!

Sorry Timext, your watch must be broken. Thompson served as a Sen from '94 til '03.

& you should look into his voting record. He followed the fiscal conservative path much more often than not.

But hey .... throw enough shit, sooner or later something will stick to the wall.

As for the debt tsunami we are facing, what a total waste of wealth built on the backs of all Americans. yes, Bush is at afult, as was the GOP controlled congress. So is the Dem controlled congress since '06 & yes, Pres Obama. By 2018, our intrest payment on this debt will rise from $383B EVERY yr to $780+ BILLION .... & that is ONLY the interest payment.

In truth, the Libs here & the neo-cons here are both asstards. You all seem ok with this debt as long as your party is the one sending out the checks.

Do I like Pres Obama's fiscal strategy? No. However, he is in charge, so he get his say. The ONLY thing I ask is "PAY FOR IT". Cut spending (drasticly) in other areas & raise revenues, but PAY FOR YOUR BAR TAB putz.

Ray your latest stupidity is just another excuse for hating the government and is a slander against dedicated government employees who pay taxes out of their salary. Your Reaganism is tiresome.
#93 | POSTED BY GRUMPY_TOO

Fuck Reagan! By any party name, government lives a parasitic existence off of the private economy. As we're beginning to see, there's only so much blood money it can extract before it kills the host.

I think that if you don't pay INCOME taxes you should not be able to vote.

#25 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-23 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


I think that if you don't pay INCOME taxes you should not be able to vote.


#25 | Posted by Sniper


Amen Brother!

#26 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2009-11-23 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag

Yeah as if income taxes are the only taxes paid in society.

"Government employees don't pay taxes."

That's a new level of stupid even for a moron like you Ray.

#85 | Posted by Zatoichi

Taxes pay all of their wages and bennifits. Don't try to tell em they pay theselves. Government employes don't create anything. They are taking from productivity.

Do I like Pres Obama's fiscal strategy? No. However, he is in charge, so he get his say. The ONLY thing I ask is "PAY FOR IT". Cut spending (drasticly) in other areas & raise revenues, but PAY FOR YOUR BAR TAB putz.


#96 | Posted by Axxe at 2009-11-24 06:22 AM |

While I agree that Bush was a nightmare when it came to fiscal strategy and trying to fight 2 wars. It still dosent compare to the handouts that Obama is creating and with programs like cash for clunkers and credit for home buyers He is doing nothing but postponing future disasters. Obamas has put us on a track that doubles what Bush has done and he is still trying to write more checks for healthcare, illegal immigration, unemployment benefits and any thing else the dems can think of. Its obvous that they dont even think this is an issue and are more concerned with their agenda than keeping America solvent. Instead they will plan is to transfer create many more unfunded mandates on the states.

Danni,

finance.senate.gov

Page 18 - half way down the page - in 2009 Beneficiaries making at least $85k of an individual or 175K for a joint will be means tested and charged up to 308 per month ( 3600 per year).

Page 21 further down - If you have a health care plan at work they will remove the exclusion from income...basically taxing you for having health care benefits.

Section 3- proposes that they remove the tax deduction for medical expenses - in 2010 BEFORE the plan goes into effect. Sadly this is the way that most people that have significant medical issues currently pay for them...so they will not be able to make use of this for years before they get covered...basically they are screwed.

Page 22 outlines that they would remove the exemption from Blue Cross and Blue Shield that allows them to pass the savings onto their customer base in lower costs...instead the government will remove this basically making BC&BS more expensive (and less likely to compete against the public plan...basically killing off the competition)

Page 24 highlights that they plan on killing or reducing the current Health Care Savings plans. Reducing its reduction on gross income...if you have one..no matter what you make - you will be paying more in taxes STARTING in 2010.

Page 32 takes away the tax exemption Medical, Law and other students currently have on medical coverage under FICA

Page 40 to 41 basically kills all tax reductions to virtually every business which will kill things like Oil exploration in the US, add a massive amount of taxes to anyone making over 250K, Charge for the use of inland waterways...all of this comes into play prior to the new system coming into effect.

And other pieces:

hotair.com

Pelosi saying jailing people who do not buy healthcare is OK?

www.businessweek.com

Unions AND the Chamber of Commerce against it.

www.taxfoundation.org

Notice the dates - the cuts start in 2010 and the extra taxes were to start with this years filelings...but the new government plan does not take effect until 2014 - 4 years of taxes WITHOUT the additional costs.

"The Baucus bill includes $378 billion in Medicare cuts over the 10-year window (2010-2019), while the Pelosi bill's cuts to Medicare would be nearly $100 billion greater. Sen. Baucus's proposed tax on expensive health insurance plans would raise approximately $201.4 billion according to CBO, while the House surtax on high-income tax returns would raise more than double that: $460.5 billion."

Alexander Frazier Tytler, published in 1776.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "from bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

FOSHAFER that isn't a proposed bill, it is just a discussion of ideas for reforming health care.
Didn't you notice that all of the ideas were expressed with "could be"????

It is what is in the bill now..but options are open until the final bill is drafted.

This is what has come out of comittee...but it WAS what was bench marked by the CBO. The taxing will start now and the benefit will be phased in starting in 2014. The net is 4 years of taxations without any benefit..that is the way to make the numbers look good.

"It is what is in the bill now..but options are open until the final bill is drafted."

I find that hard to believe considering it offers various solutions to each problem it discusses. Some are virtually contradictory to others. Some of what is in it is probably going to be in the final bill but certainly not everything.

Or more bluntly, you're a parasite. Got that?

#88 | Posted by Ray

Right on the truth ray. You did well by naking your point in very plain english.

Why did the $350 billion needed to fund medicare get moved out of the bill? Is it govm't school math? 1 + 1 = 1(if I say so).

Danni,

The senate sends a set of assumptions to the CBO for budgeting purposes..gets the answer. It can then go back with a different set of assumptions or the final bill.

This is the game the dems are playing...shorten the time the cost are there ....lengthen the time for income, may massive assumptions on revenue growth and then have the CBO put a number on that.

That is where the numbers come from...and of course as the assumptions change or provisions are left out of a bill the cost changes..

That is why Medicare is now broke, as is Social Secruity and about everything else..because reality does not match the budget assumptions.

thehill.com

www.youtube.com

www.cbo.gov

Here's something to think about. Government employees don't pay taxes. Their income comes from taxes. As the tax base shrinks, so do their jobs, salaries and benefits. They've avoided layoffs so far, but that is soon to change in a big way. They are at the top of the food chain and most vulnerable when the supporting structure under them can no longer support their dead weight.

#84 | Posted by Ray at 2009-11-23 07:57 PM


That was the point I was making in the cannibal post. When they're out of productive people to tax they'll have to eat each other. What's really going to be interesting is when the lil Red Hen asks, Who will help me make the bread.

These dumbasses don't know how their bread gets buttered.

I'll bring this down to the moron level.
Government revenue flows from the private economy. The taxes I pay come from what my employer produces. The taxes you pay circulate within the revenue that came from the private economy.
Your job does not produce anything; it is a consumption expense extracted from the private economy. Or more bluntly, you're a parasite. Got that?

#88 | Posted by Ray at 2009-11-23 08:26 PM |


ROFLMAO...... Zat's a scientist, don't ya know. lmao

"Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

Don't ever forget who ran up this massive debt when it could have been paid off this year:

The GOP

Timex....I do not know what planet you are on..but on this one of the 14 Trillion in debt a GOP congress is responsible for 4 Trillion and the Dems 10.

I have posted the two slots before but just take the web site that has the deficit per congress against the web site of which party was in power at that time and do the totals.

And do not say "its the president" 1) the Congress holds the purse strings - this is the constitution which we used to go by on our planet and 2) you will see the difference when you do the side by side comparison of the two.

If it is different where you come from posted the comparison.

Tonight is the big party in Washington where Obama bows to the Indian's and thanks them for taking millions of US jobs. How many millions is this costing the US taxpayer? And why is Katie Curic and Sanjay Gupta being entertained with US tax dollars. So much for their credibility as journalist. What a joke this administration is.

and thanks them for taking millions of US jobs

Taking?You mean given,same with China.Stockholders before country.

From A Keynesian perspective, using short-term debt to overcome market asymmetry can work, but it has to be directed towards value-added services. Reagan pretty much proved that. While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this method, I think it's pretty much a given that everyone from Gary Becker to Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman would agree with this, even though it is admittedly oversimplified and ignores a lot of unlisted relevant factors. The thing is, the Obama administration, is not directing these funds toward value added services. the intent is not to overcome asymmetric market information, it's to achieve a set of ideological goals. Capntrade is not going to generate wealth, and any jobs it created will come at the expense of other jobs, and at the expense of consumers. Healthcare may serve to cut down on labor costs for domestic firms in some segments, but it will be paid for by increasing taxes for others. The most likely paradox I see occurring is that new taxes will encourage highly paid doctors to retire...labor that is not easily replaced. This in turn will drive up the cost of healthcare to a level where, even at the higher tax rate, doctors are taking home an income comperable to what they were prior to the tax increases. But when healthcare is nothing more than a government-controlled commodity, shortages should be expected. See Canada.

When the North Vietnamese invaded and captured South Vietnam, the first thing they promised was ample access to all the goods and services the people would require, and they issued them scrip with which to purchase these products. And everyone had plenty of scrip. the problem was, the products were never available. To some degree, when a government offers things for free, it becomes easier to lay the responsibility on someone else when they are not available.

BTW, GWB deserves unlimited criticism for his poor fiscal policies. I think ray was pointing that out while Bush was still in office. I bet Danni and Corky were too. That it no way justifies the indefensible spending by the current administration, who, like Donny, are out of their element. Completely. Or maybe not. Maybe killing the free market is part of the greater ideological goal of injecting statism into a society that has largely rejected it. As the Germans found out, once you voluntarily cede your freedom to the state, it's very difficult to get it back

"Tonight is the big party in Washington where Obama bows to the Indian's and thanks them for taking millions of US jobs. "

Hmm. When Presidents Reagan and Nixon met with Emperor Hirohito, they bowed. You're mistaking a Prime Minister for an Emperor or other monarch.

On another topic, Cheney babbling about 'dithering' in Afghanistan is laughable. What did he do in Afghanistan in 7 years? Allow the Taliban to regain control of over 80% of the country and start a multitrillion dollar war we didn't need to fight ... borrowing the money to do it, of course.

You know I find it quite funny that people have the gall to pitch a bitch fit about Obama bowing before different dignataries from foreign lands. They themselves don't realize that the whole United States bows down quite literally before these same people when we use products and services provided by these same dignatoaries Countries. Until we rid ourselves from these foreign places we will continue to bow to these folks. Oh and I am just as much a bowerer as anyone else because I am just as guilty as the rest of You folks.

Larry

Tonight is the big party in Washington where Obama bows to the Indian's and thanks them for taking millions of US jobs.

#114 | Posted by midtowncowpie

Tonight is the big party in Washington where Obama bows to the Indian's and thanks them for taking millions of US jobs. How many millions is this costing the US taxpayer? And why is Katie Curic and Sanjay Gupta being entertained with US tax dollars. So much for their credibility as journalist. What a joke this administration is.


#114 | Posted by midtowncowboy at 2009-11-24 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


How can You blame India for taking American Jobs when they are given them by greedy corporations looking for a quick buck?? Should a person deny employment from a place because they are offering the job to them?? We got no one to blame but ourselves with that one.

Larry

"How can You blame India for taking American Jobs when they are given them by greedy corporations looking for a quick buck?"

How can you blame the corporations when the "greedy" consumers are only out to maximize their own purchasing power, which they do when they are able to buy products with lower overhead labor costs. Even if said corporations retained american employees, they would still be uncompetitive in the global market. In other words, consumers would still be buying products made by indian (or indonesian, or Chinese, or Korean) labor...they just wouldn't be employed by a US based firm.

Until the government steps in and restricts the right of the people to purchase goods made in other countries using less expensive labor, this won't change.

BTW, There is nothing wrong with Obama showing repsect for foreigners using their own customs. I don't know how many times I've had a Japanese military officer bow to me, and certainly not because they view me as anything other than a peer...

No, see, the government doesn't pay the bills....we do.....

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable