Fiscal Cliff?

Political discussions
User avatar
BlueHen86
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 13555
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:40 pm
I am a fan of: The McManus Brothers
A.K.A.: Duffman
Location: Area XI

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by BlueHen86 »

SuperHornet wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:We should get rid of the Office of Vice President.

The VP's only job is to replace the most protected man on the planet in case something happens to him, and there are other people in line of succession that can do that.
Almost but not quite true. Not quite a swing and a miss, so I'll call it a foul tip. :kisswink:

There is one other duty for the Veep (other than standing there and looking good for the cameras; OK, Biden fails at THAT one, too). The Veep is technically the President of the Senate, and casts tie-breaking votes. It doesn't happen all that often, but would have been huge if the widely speculated tie in the Electoral College a couple of weeks ago had come to fruition. With the House expected to vote Mitt Romney into the White House and a split Senate, who would expect Biden to vote for Ryan as Veep? Can you imagine a guy casting the deciding ballot for HIMSELF? I couldn't blame him, either.

That said, I can't wait for 2016, unless the President finds some way to repeal the 22nd Amendment and get himself elected President for Life. Biden has GOT to know that he stands no chance whatsoever of getting out of the Naval Observatory into the White House, whether a Republican OR a Democrat follows President Obama....
Another useless job, just let the President cast the deciding vote, it's not like the VP would ever cast a vote different from what the President wanted anyway.

Nice try on your part though, but it was a swing and a miss. ;)
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60519
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by Ibanez »

SuperHornet wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:We should get rid of the Office of Vice President.

The VP's only job is to replace the most protected man on the planet in case something happens to him, and there are other people in line of succession that can do that.
Almost but not quite true. Not quite a swing and a miss, so I'll call it a foul tip. :kisswink:

The Veep is technically the President of the Senate, and casts tie-breaking votes.
:roll:
There is no "technically". According to the Constitution he IS the President of the Senate. What are you insinuating with the word "technically?" :coffee:
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19233
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by GannonFan »

Getting back to this thread since there is new hand wringing and shouting on Capitol Hill about how bad the other party is and which party is more absurd than the other.

I just don't get the GOP position right now regarding the top 1% (or 2%, since that's starting to widen a bit). I understand they represent and get money from plenty of those, but I think many people agree that jacking up the taxes on the top 1% will 1) not really impact them that much since they can avoid the taxes far more easily than someone not in the 1% would be able to and 2) the resulting revenue from such a tax hike will do little or nothing with regards to solving the financial woes we are in.

So why don't they just let a bill pass that raises these rates and move on to the rest of the argument, such as further tax hikes on non 1% people and spending cuts? Heck, if the GOP didn't want to vote for it the Dems have the votes in the Senate to pass it as long as the GOP agrees not to filibuster it and the House can have just enough GOP votes to go along with the Dems to pass it there.

Right now the whole argument is being played out that the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich and even though it's not true, most people seem to think that all we have to do to fix things is to tax the rich more. Right now, in this political climate, most people hate rich people. Trying to resist a tax hike on them is just a losing strategy as seen in early November. So, go ahead and tax them and move on to the next step since taxing the rich more won't solve very much, if anything. Why the GOP is holding onto this losing hand when they can fare much better in the next steps is amazing. I'd be curious what the Dems would seek to do next once the tax the rich plan is approved and in use.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by AZGrizFan »

GannonFan wrote:Getting back to this thread since there is new hand wringing and shouting on Capitol Hill about how bad the other party is and which party is more absurd than the other.

I just don't get the GOP position right now regarding the top 1% (or 2%, since that's starting to widen a bit). I understand they represent and get money from plenty of those, but I think many people agree that jacking up the taxes on the top 1% will 1) not really impact them that much since they can avoid the taxes far more easily than someone not in the 1% would be able to and 2) the resulting revenue from such a tax hike will do little or nothing with regards to solving the financial woes we are in.

So why don't they just let a bill pass that raises these rates and move on to the rest of the argument, such as further tax hikes on non 1% people and spending cuts? Heck, if the GOP didn't want to vote for it the Dems have the votes in the Senate to pass it as long as the GOP agrees not to filibuster it and the House can have just enough GOP votes to go along with the Dems to pass it there.

Right now the whole argument is being played out that the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich and even though it's not true, most people seem to think that all we have to do to fix things is to tax the rich more. Right now, in this political climate, most people hate rich people. Trying to resist a tax hike on them is just a losing strategy as seen in early November. So, go ahead and tax them and move on to the next step since taxing the rich more won't solve very much, if anything. Why the GOP is holding onto this losing hand when they can fare much better in the next steps is amazing. I'd be curious what the Dems would seek to do next once the tax the rich plan is approved and in use.
If raising taxes on the rich was even a partial solution to the problem, I'd be all for it. But in reality, as you clearly stated, it does NOTHING to solve the inherent problems, it's just the donks buying the votes of the 47% (and growing) number of people who have no skin in the game.

And as you said, it used to be 1%...now it's 2%....it's a slippery slope.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
Cap'n Cat
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 13614
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:38 am
I am a fan of: Mostly myself.
A.K.A.: LabiaInTheSunlight

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by Cap'n Cat »

AZGrizFan wrote:
GannonFan wrote:Getting back to this thread since there is new hand wringing and shouting on Capitol Hill about how bad the other party is and which party is more absurd than the other.

I just don't get the GOP position right now regarding the top 1% (or 2%, since that's starting to widen a bit). I understand they represent and get money from plenty of those, but I think many people agree that jacking up the taxes on the top 1% will 1) not really impact them that much since they can avoid the taxes far more easily than someone not in the 1% would be able to and 2) the resulting revenue from such a tax hike will do little or nothing with regards to solving the financial woes we are in.

So why don't they just let a bill pass that raises these rates and move on to the rest of the argument, such as further tax hikes on non 1% people and spending cuts? Heck, if the GOP didn't want to vote for it the Dems have the votes in the Senate to pass it as long as the GOP agrees not to filibuster it and the House can have just enough GOP votes to go along with the Dems to pass it there.

Right now the whole argument is being played out that the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich and even though it's not true, most people seem to think that all we have to do to fix things is to tax the rich more. Right now, in this political climate, most people hate rich people. Trying to resist a tax hike on them is just a losing strategy as seen in early November. So, go ahead and tax them and move on to the next step since taxing the rich more won't solve very much, if anything. Why the GOP is holding onto this losing hand when they can fare much better in the next steps is amazing. I'd be curious what the Dems would seek to do next once the tax the rich plan is approved and in use.
If raising taxes on the rich was even a partial solution to the problem, I'd be all for it. But in reality, as you clearly stated, it does NOTHING to solve the inherent problems, it's just the donks buying the votes of the 47% (and growing) number of people who have no skin in the game.

And as you said, it used to be 1%...now it's 2%....it's a slippery slope.
That's the very reason, Zbot. That population is doubling and redoubling every two years on the backs of the middle class. Gotta curb their greed, man, for a better tomorrow.

Gobama.

:nod:
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19274
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Palermo Italy

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by Chizzang »

It's pandering - not a solution...
It'll make people "feel better" if the ultra rich guys get hit with a higher tax rate (that's all it is)
In the end it comes down to our federal government spending less - not collecting more tax revenue
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19233
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by GannonFan »

AZGrizFan wrote:
GannonFan wrote:Getting back to this thread since there is new hand wringing and shouting on Capitol Hill about how bad the other party is and which party is more absurd than the other.

I just don't get the GOP position right now regarding the top 1% (or 2%, since that's starting to widen a bit). I understand they represent and get money from plenty of those, but I think many people agree that jacking up the taxes on the top 1% will 1) not really impact them that much since they can avoid the taxes far more easily than someone not in the 1% would be able to and 2) the resulting revenue from such a tax hike will do little or nothing with regards to solving the financial woes we are in.

So why don't they just let a bill pass that raises these rates and move on to the rest of the argument, such as further tax hikes on non 1% people and spending cuts? Heck, if the GOP didn't want to vote for it the Dems have the votes in the Senate to pass it as long as the GOP agrees not to filibuster it and the House can have just enough GOP votes to go along with the Dems to pass it there.

Right now the whole argument is being played out that the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich and even though it's not true, most people seem to think that all we have to do to fix things is to tax the rich more. Right now, in this political climate, most people hate rich people. Trying to resist a tax hike on them is just a losing strategy as seen in early November. So, go ahead and tax them and move on to the next step since taxing the rich more won't solve very much, if anything. Why the GOP is holding onto this losing hand when they can fare much better in the next steps is amazing. I'd be curious what the Dems would seek to do next once the tax the rich plan is approved and in use.
If raising taxes on the rich was even a partial solution to the problem, I'd be all for it. But in reality, as you clearly stated, it does NOTHING to solve the inherent problems, it's just the donks buying the votes of the 47% (and growing) number of people who have no skin in the game.

And as you said, it used to be 1%...now it's 2%....it's a slippery slope.
But that's the thing, if the GOP would just let the Dems do it, then it's off the table as a solution and we start moving to the other solutions when it doesn't work. Right now, though, the GOP is just tone-deaf and getting killed publicity-wise, just like they did in the election, because people hate rich people and the GOP is standing in the way of raising taxes on the rich. So just do it, see if it works, and when it doesn't we move on to the next step. The longer they let this hang out like this the longer they are on the negative end of public opinion.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 36558
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by BDKJMU »

GannonFan wrote:Getting back to this thread since there is new hand wringing and shouting on Capitol Hill about how bad the other party is and which party is more absurd than the other.

I just don't get the GOP position right now regarding the top 1% (or 2%, since that's starting to widen a bit). I understand they represent and get money from plenty of those, but I think many people agree that jacking up the taxes on the top 1% will 1) not really impact them that much since they can avoid the taxes far more easily than someone not in the 1% would be able to and 2) the resulting revenue from such a tax hike will do little or nothing with regards to solving the financial woes we are in.

So why don't they just let a bill pass that raises these rates and move on to the rest of the argument, such as further tax hikes on non 1% people and spending cuts? Heck, if the GOP didn't want to vote for it the Dems have the votes in the Senate to pass it as long as the GOP agrees not to filibuster it and the House can have just enough GOP votes to go along with the Dems to pass it there.

Right now the whole argument is being played out that the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich and even though it's not true, most people seem to think that all we have to do to fix things is to tax the rich more. Right now, in this political climate, most people hate rich people. Trying to resist a tax hike on them is just a losing strategy as seen in early November. So, go ahead and tax them and move on to the next step since taxing the rich more won't solve very much, if anything. Why the GOP is holding onto this losing hand when they can fare much better in the next steps is amazing. I'd be curious what the Dems would seek to do next once the tax the rich plan is approved and in use.
Since when is making 200k rich?
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21211
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by clenz »

BDKJMU wrote:
GannonFan wrote:Getting back to this thread since there is new hand wringing and shouting on Capitol Hill about how bad the other party is and which party is more absurd than the other.

I just don't get the GOP position right now regarding the top 1% (or 2%, since that's starting to widen a bit). I understand they represent and get money from plenty of those, but I think many people agree that jacking up the taxes on the top 1% will 1) not really impact them that much since they can avoid the taxes far more easily than someone not in the 1% would be able to and 2) the resulting revenue from such a tax hike will do little or nothing with regards to solving the financial woes we are in.

So why don't they just let a bill pass that raises these rates and move on to the rest of the argument, such as further tax hikes on non 1% people and spending cuts? Heck, if the GOP didn't want to vote for it the Dems have the votes in the Senate to pass it as long as the GOP agrees not to filibuster it and the House can have just enough GOP votes to go along with the Dems to pass it there.

Right now the whole argument is being played out that the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich and even though it's not true, most people seem to think that all we have to do to fix things is to tax the rich more. Right now, in this political climate, most people hate rich people. Trying to resist a tax hike on them is just a losing strategy as seen in early November. So, go ahead and tax them and move on to the next step since taxing the rich more won't solve very much, if anything. Why the GOP is holding onto this losing hand when they can fare much better in the next steps is amazing. I'd be curious what the Dems would seek to do next once the tax the rich plan is approved and in use.
Since when is making 200k rich?
I'm no finance major, nor will I pretend to understand how a lot of this works.....but....

I'd bet there is a SIGNIFICANT "quality of life" difference between those making 200k and up and those making 200k and less....much more so than if using the 400K cut off line.




Go a head and tell me why I'm wrong though....I'm all for learning.
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 36558
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by BDKJMU »

If the Republicans fold now they'll never get any spending cuts or entitlement reform. What happened to 3 dollars in spending cuts to every 1 in tax increases? Heck, not only does Obama want to raise 1.6 trillion in new taxes, including on a million small businesses, he wants to increase spending also. If he wants 1.6 trillion in new taxes he should come up with at least 1.6 trillion in spending cuts.

I agree with Krauthammer- the Republicans should just walk away.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _away.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19274
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Palermo Italy

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by Chizzang »

BDKJMU wrote:If the Republicans fold now they'll never get any spending cuts or entitlement reform. What happened to 3 dollars in spending cuts to every 1 in tax increases? Heck, not only does Obama want to raise 1.6 trillion in new taxes, including on a million small businesses, he wants to increase spending also. If he wants 1.6 trillion in new taxes he should come up with at least 1.6 trillion in spending cuts.

I agree with Krauthammer- the Republicans should just walk away.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _away.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For the first time ever (at least that I can remember)
I think I agree with you - Businesses with 50 employees or less should be getting a tax break (period)
Raise Taxes on the elite wealthy
Reduce spending by a few percentage points

Done... is that so hard to do..?
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
User avatar
DSUrocks07
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:32 pm
I am a fan of: Delaware State
A.K.A.: phillywild305
Location: The 9th Circle of Hellaware

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by DSUrocks07 »

Chizzang wrote:It's pandering - not a solution...
It'll make people "feel better" if the ultra rich guys get hit with a higher tax rate (that's all it is)
In the end it comes down to our federal government spending less - not collecting more tax revenue
The Dems don't want any real solutions. They just want to get reelected in 2014. And the only way to do that is for them to remain relevant in the public eye as the "party of help and good intentions" its only a political strategy.

Same goes with the GOP, they're getting away from their core message. We have to get government spending in check otherwise America has no future. They need a Ross Perot type who can come out and bring their case directly to the American people, specifically the younger generation. The laughable "Contract with America" press conference doesn't cut it.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2
MEAC, last one out turn off the lights.

@phillywild305 FB
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 36558
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by BDKJMU »

clenz wrote:
BDKJMU wrote: Since when is making 200k rich?
I'm no finance major, nor will I pretend to understand how a lot of this works.....but....

I'd bet there is a SIGNIFICANT "quality of life" difference between those making 200k and up and those making 200k and less....much more so than if using the 400K cut off line.




Go a head and tell me why I'm wrong though....I'm all for learning.
In parts of CA, NYC, northern NJ, southern CT, DC, Boston, etc, etc areas, a family making 250 k (200 k is the cutoff for individuals, 250k for families) isn't "rich" as donks call them. One big problem is a family at 250k in one of those expensive areas and a family in BFE where the cost of living is literally 1/2 as much are taxed at the same rate. Actually, the family in the BFE area may be paying much less on top of that if are in a state with lower or no state income tax. You shouldn't have the same tax rate for every zipcode for starters.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69368
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by kalm »

BDKJMU wrote:
clenz wrote:I'm no finance major, nor will I pretend to understand how a lot of this works.....but....

I'd bet there is a SIGNIFICANT "quality of life" difference between those making 200k and up and those making 200k and less....much more so than if using the 400K cut off line.




Go a head and tell me why I'm wrong though....I'm all for learning.
In parts of CA, NYC, northern NJ, southern CT, DC, Boston, etc, etc areas, a family making 250 k (200 k is the cutoff for individuals, 250k for families) isn't "rich" as donks call them. One big problem is a family at 250k in one of those expensive areas and a family in BFE where the cost of living is literally 1/2 as much are taxed at the same rate. Actually, the family in the BFE area may be paying much less on top of that if are in a state with lower or no state income tax. You shouldn't have the same tax rate for every zipcode for starters.
Which would be unconstitutional.

(I now know this thanks to my most splendid thread on the subject!)

I don't have too much sympathy for $250,000 working poor. Don't they realize how much better they have it than the working poor from other countries? If they can't make enough money to afford over valued property, private schooling for the kids, $15 movie tickets, etc, they either need to re-train and/or re-educate themselves, or move away to someplace where they can afford to live.

Unproductive, parasitic, leaches. :ohno:
Image
Image
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69368
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by kalm »

Serious question: What's the difference between cutting social services, entitlements, and tax breaks to the middle class versus simply raising their taxes?

Americans have repeatedly favored certain government programs.

The problem is we simply don't have enough rich people anymore. :lol:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 36558
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by BDKJMU »

kalm wrote:Serious question: What's the difference between cutting social services, entitlements, and tax breaks to the middle class versus simply raising their taxes?

Americans have repeatedly favored certain government programs that other people have to pay for.

The problem is we simply don't have enough rich people anymore. :lol:
FIFY
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69368
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by kalm »

BDKJMU wrote:
kalm wrote:Serious question: What's the difference between cutting social services, entitlements, and tax breaks to the middle class versus simply raising their taxes?

Americans have repeatedly favored certain government programs that other people have to pay for.

The problem is we simply don't have enough rich people anymore. :lol:
FIFY
That's my point and it's true regardless of income level.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 36558
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by BDKJMU »

".....For fiscal year 2012, the country spent roughly $2.2 trillion of its $3.7 trillion budget on entitlement programs-about $400 billion less than the $2.6 trillion in gross annual revenues. In addition, interest on the federal debt was $220 billion.

Thus, the cost of entitlement programs plus interest on the debt is nearly equal to total federal revenues today. Virtually everything else the government does is with borrowed, or printed, money.

Entitlement spending is also growing much faster than the economy. Since 1980, Social Security and the various income security programs have grown at an average annual rate of 6 percent, while Medicare and Medicaid have both grown at more than 9 percent annually, which includes population growth.......
http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/th ... ents-cliff" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The national debt has already exploded under Obama more in less than 4 yrs than it did under Bush in 8. 10-6-16.3 trillion with no let up in sight. That is more than 50k for every man, woman and child, more than 200k per family. When you add in unfunded entitlements, its over 5X that. Its unsustainable, and will collapse.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 36558
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by BDKJMU »

kalm wrote:Serious question: What's the difference between cutting social services, entitlements, and tax breaks to the middle class versus simply raising their taxes?

Americans have repeatedly favored certain government programs that the govt can't afford to pay in the long run even if it taxed everyone at 100%.

The problem is we simply don't have enough rich people anymore. :lol:
FIFY again. No, the problem is the govt has promised FAR more than it can possibly provide in the LONG RUN, and no-one give a F*** about the long run, so we are truly f***ed.

"Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt

"......As Washington wrestles with the roughly $600 billion "fiscal cliff" and the 2013 budget, the far greater fiscal challenge of the U.S. government's unfunded pension and health-care liabilities remains offstage. The truly important figures would appear on the federal balance sheet—if the government prepared an accurate one.

But it hasn't. For years, the government has gotten by without having to produce the kind of financial statements that are required of most significant for-profit and nonprofit enterprises. The U.S. Treasury "balance sheet" does list liabilities such as Treasury debt issued to the public, federal employee pensions, and post-retirement health benefits. But it does not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security and other outsized and very real obligations.

As a result, fiscal policy discussions generally focus on current-year budget deficits, the accumulated national debt, and the relationships between these two items and gross domestic product. We most often hear about the alarming $15.96 trillion national debt (more than 100% of GDP), and the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1 trillion (6.97% of GDP). As dangerous as those numbers are, they do not begin to tell the story of the federal government's true liabilities.

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet. But it is possible to discover them. Included in the annual Medicare Trustees' report are separate actuarial estimates of the unfunded liability for Medicare Part A (the hospital portion), Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage).

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.
Were American policy makers to have the benefit of transparent financial statements prepared the way public companies must report their pension liabilities, they would see clearly the magnitude of the future borrowing that these liabilities imply. Borrowing on this scale could eclipse the capacity of global capital markets—and bankrupt not only the programs themselves but the entire federal government.

These real-world impacts will be felt when currently unfunded liabilities need to be paid. In theory, the Medicare and Social Security trust funds have at least some money to pay a portion of the bills that are coming due. In actuality, the cupboard is bare: 100% of the payroll taxes for these programs were spent in the same year they were collected.

In exchange for the payroll taxes that aren't paid out in benefits to current retirees in any given year, the trust funds got nonmarketable Treasury debt. Now, as the baby boomers' promised benefits swamp the payroll-tax collections from today's workers, the government has to swap the trust funds' nonmarketable securities for marketable Treasury debt. The Treasury will then have to sell not only this debt, but far more, in order to pay the benefits as they come due.

When combined with funding the general cash deficits, these multitrillion-dollar Treasury operations will dominate the capital markets in the years ahead, particularly given China's de-emphasis of new investment in U.S. Treasurys in favor of increasing foreign direct investment, and Japan's and Europe's own sovereign-debt challenges.

When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.

Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target. According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.

In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved......."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-16-tr ... 00503.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
User avatar
DSUrocks07
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:32 pm
I am a fan of: Delaware State
A.K.A.: phillywild305
Location: The 9th Circle of Hellaware

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by DSUrocks07 »

BDKJMU wrote:
kalm wrote:Serious question: What's the difference between cutting social services, entitlements, and tax breaks to the middle class versus simply raising their taxes?

Americans have repeatedly favored certain government programs that the govt can't afford to pay in the long run even if it taxed everyone at 100%.

The problem is we simply don't have enough rich people anymore. :lol:
FIFY again. No, the problem is the govt has promised FAR more than it can possibly provide in the LONG RUN, and no-one give a F*** about the long run, so we are truly f***ed.
No one does, even liberals who claim that they are worried about "future generations" with the environment and other hogwash. Everyone looks out for themselves with no thought about the future. That's the one thing that Donks, Conks, Libs, Conservatives, everyone has in common.

Conservatives want to keep more of THEIR money.
Liberals want to spend more of OTHER'S money on themselves.

There is no hope for this country. The time to hit the reset button is coming soon.
MEAC, last one out turn off the lights.

@phillywild305 FB
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69368
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by kalm »

BDKJMU wrote:
kalm wrote:Serious question: What's the difference between cutting social services, entitlements, and tax breaks to the middle class versus simply raising their taxes?

Americans have repeatedly favored certain government programs that the govt can't afford to pay in the long run even if it taxed everyone at 100%.

The problem is we simply don't have enough rich people anymore. :lol:
FIFY again. No, the problem is the govt has promised FAR more than it can possibly provide in the LONG RUN, and no-one give a F*** about the long run, so we are truly f***ed.

"Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt

"......As Washington wrestles with the roughly $600 billion "fiscal cliff" and the 2013 budget, the far greater fiscal challenge of the U.S. government's unfunded pension and health-care liabilities remains offstage. The truly important figures would appear on the federal balance sheet—if the government prepared an accurate one.

But it hasn't. For years, the government has gotten by without having to produce the kind of financial statements that are required of most significant for-profit and nonprofit enterprises. The U.S. Treasury "balance sheet" does list liabilities such as Treasury debt issued to the public, federal employee pensions, and post-retirement health benefits. But it does not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security and other outsized and very real obligations.

As a result, fiscal policy discussions generally focus on current-year budget deficits, the accumulated national debt, and the relationships between these two items and gross domestic product. We most often hear about the alarming $15.96 trillion national debt (more than 100% of GDP), and the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1 trillion (6.97% of GDP). As dangerous as those numbers are, they do not begin to tell the story of the federal government's true liabilities.

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet. But it is possible to discover them. Included in the annual Medicare Trustees' report are separate actuarial estimates of the unfunded liability for Medicare Part A (the hospital portion), Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage).

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.
Were American policy makers to have the benefit of transparent financial statements prepared the way public companies must report their pension liabilities, they would see clearly the magnitude of the future borrowing that these liabilities imply. Borrowing on this scale could eclipse the capacity of global capital markets—and bankrupt not only the programs themselves but the entire federal government.

These real-world impacts will be felt when currently unfunded liabilities need to be paid. In theory, the Medicare and Social Security trust funds have at least some money to pay a portion of the bills that are coming due. In actuality, the cupboard is bare: 100% of the payroll taxes for these programs were spent in the same year they were collected.

In exchange for the payroll taxes that aren't paid out in benefits to current retirees in any given year, the trust funds got nonmarketable Treasury debt. Now, as the baby boomers' promised benefits swamp the payroll-tax collections from today's workers, the government has to swap the trust funds' nonmarketable securities for marketable Treasury debt. The Treasury will then have to sell not only this debt, but far more, in order to pay the benefits as they come due.

When combined with funding the general cash deficits, these multitrillion-dollar Treasury operations will dominate the capital markets in the years ahead, particularly given China's de-emphasis of new investment in U.S. Treasurys in favor of increasing foreign direct investment, and Japan's and Europe's own sovereign-debt challenges.

When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.

Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target. According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.

In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved......."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-16-tr ... 00503.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
YAWN...

Is this why the conks passed legislation forcing the post office to fund benefits for workers that haven't even been born yet? :lol:

Of course we have a spending problem. When you cut EFFECTIVE corporate taxes to...in some cases...literally zero, take the top marginal rate from a high of 91% under Ike to the low teens, and suppress wages through trickle down policies, globalization, and union killing...well you're gonna have a spending problem. Especially when people have come to expect things like an education, affordable healthcare, clean air and water, safe foods and drugs, dead muslims, and are told they live in the greatest county on earth. Not to mention all the retail businesses who really need to have these people maintain that standard of living through the purchase of THINGS.

:coffee:
Image
Image
Image
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60519
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by Ibanez »

At this point, let's go over the cliff.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19233
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by GannonFan »

BDKJMU wrote:
GannonFan wrote:Getting back to this thread since there is new hand wringing and shouting on Capitol Hill about how bad the other party is and which party is more absurd than the other.

I just don't get the GOP position right now regarding the top 1% (or 2%, since that's starting to widen a bit). I understand they represent and get money from plenty of those, but I think many people agree that jacking up the taxes on the top 1% will 1) not really impact them that much since they can avoid the taxes far more easily than someone not in the 1% would be able to and 2) the resulting revenue from such a tax hike will do little or nothing with regards to solving the financial woes we are in.

So why don't they just let a bill pass that raises these rates and move on to the rest of the argument, such as further tax hikes on non 1% people and spending cuts? Heck, if the GOP didn't want to vote for it the Dems have the votes in the Senate to pass it as long as the GOP agrees not to filibuster it and the House can have just enough GOP votes to go along with the Dems to pass it there.

Right now the whole argument is being played out that the GOP doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich and even though it's not true, most people seem to think that all we have to do to fix things is to tax the rich more. Right now, in this political climate, most people hate rich people. Trying to resist a tax hike on them is just a losing strategy as seen in early November. So, go ahead and tax them and move on to the next step since taxing the rich more won't solve very much, if anything. Why the GOP is holding onto this losing hand when they can fare much better in the next steps is amazing. I'd be curious what the Dems would seek to do next once the tax the rich plan is approved and in use.
Since when is making 200k rich?
It isn't rich, but that's not the point. The point is the Dems have a winning strategy (and by winning I mean a political winning strategy - neither party has a strategy right now that helps the country in any particular way, they both have strategies to stay in power). The Dems want to raise taxes on anyone over $250k. I say let them. Once that's done, and we're no closer to solving our fiscal problems, then we can have a discussion about those issues. Right now, we never get to that discussion because the GOP is letting themselves get run over in this discussion and they look like fools for it. Let the tax rate on those people go up and then we can get to the real issues.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
User avatar
DSUrocks07
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:32 pm
I am a fan of: Delaware State
A.K.A.: phillywild305
Location: The 9th Circle of Hellaware

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by DSUrocks07 »

GannonFan wrote:
BDKJMU wrote: Since when is making 200k rich?
It isn't rich, but that's not the point. The point is the Dems have a winning strategy (and by winning I mean a political winning strategy - neither party has a strategy right now that helps the country in any particular way, they both have strategies to stay in power). The Dems want to raise taxes on anyone over $250k. I say let them. Once that's done, and we're no closer to solving our fiscal problems, then we can have a discussion about those issues. Right now, we never get to that discussion because the GOP is letting themselves get run over in this discussion and they look like fools for it. Let the tax rate on those people go up and then we can get to the real issues.
Lose a battle but win a war. :nod:

Once it's shown that this plan DOESN'T work (raising taxes on everyone over 250k), and that we have a HUGE spending problem, then the Dems are left holding the bag and will have to FINALLY answer the hardest question a politician will ever have to answer, "Now What"? The GOP needs to find its Cemetery Ridge...and this isn't it.
MEAC, last one out turn off the lights.

@phillywild305 FB
Seahawks08
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:28 pm
I am a fan of: Villanova

Re: Fiscal Cliff?

Post by Seahawks08 »

In parts of CA, NYC, northern NJ, southern CT, DC, Boston, etc, etc areas, a family making 250 k (200 k is the cutoff for individuals, 250k for families) isn't "rich" as donks call them. One big problem is a family at 250k in one of those expensive areas and a family in BFE where the cost of living is literally 1/2 as much are taxed at the same rate. Actually, the family in the BFE area may be paying much less on top of that if are in a state with lower or no state income tax. You shouldn't have the same tax rate for every zipcode for starters.
Considering I have real world experience with this, $250k is still "rich" in most of those areas. It just doesn't seem like it because they are residing next to millionaires, but a family making $250k is living way above what it needs.
Image
Post Reply