Federal Debt

[Xyun]

I love us vs. them. If there were no stupid people then I wouldn't be so smart now would i?

I don't believe the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a tax raise. Why would they make those tax cuts temporary? I'm sure they thought that maybe in 2010 or 2011 we may need that money again. Well, we do. I remember someone trying to make those cuts permanent and failing. Bottom line is I agree that the current tax system is as good as it's gonna get.

I personally owed back taxes for 06, 07, and 08. I've paid 06 off already and working on 07. The total was over $15k, and it was all because we screwed up the paperwork when we set up our mortgage company. For both 06 and 07 I made $45k combined, and I owed $10k just for those two years. That's almost 25% and i was at the freaking bottom of the goddamn tax bracket. Now I'm paying $430/mo. to the IRS to get all that paid off. I'm not bitching, I'm just saying I actually NEED that money, when I know there are people out there who are stinking rich and dodging their fair share. I have no sympathy for the filthy rich.

[Sylvus]

I believe the wealthy of this country should carry most of the tax burden.

So 300,000,000 people need a mechanism to decide what the proper burdens should be. The system we have currently works pretty well I think.

Your side is already winning for God's sake. We aren't even arguing that tax rates should go DOWN any further. The debate now is whether they should start to rise! If my side wins the current debate about the Bush tax cuts it just means that taxes won't immediately go up. Again, your side is winning!

And when the battle is rejoined in the next Congress you know that tax cuts won't be on the table because the Democratic minority will demonize Republican tax cutters as baby killers and hypocrites. Conservatives can't bitch about the huge budget deficits and then cut taxes to ensure those deficits rise even further. So the debate going forward will be about which taxes to RAISE. Again, your side is winning!

The thing about your side is that you never know when to stop. When is enough enough? Are you going to outright kill the golden goose? Or let him up when he's wheezing his last breath? When was the last time you got a job from a poor man?

Just so everyone reading this is on the same page, the expiration of the tax cuts will mean that:
A single person who makes $171,850 or less will not be affected. For married people, it's $209,250.
If you're single and you make $373,650, you'll be responsible for an extra $6000 of taxes. Married people who make only $373,650 will be responsible for an extra $4932.
If you're single and you make $1,000,000 you'll be responsible for an extra $34,812 than you were last year; Married people making the same would be responsible for about a grand less than that. That is in addition to the taxes they paid last year.

I'm sure some of you will say that's not enough for wealthy people to pay and others will say that it's highway robbery. Just wanted to put numbers on it.

[miir]

Facts have no place in this discussion!

[Boogahz]

pfft, miir wouldn't know facts if they were examing his rectum







so glad I won't break $1mil this year!

[Bubba Grizz]

If I were making that much money I guess I'd happily pay those taxes. However, this is coming from someone who does not, nor has, nor is likely to make that much money.

[Metanis]

Just so everyone reading this is on the same page, the expiration of the tax cuts will mean that:
A single person who makes $171,850 or less will not be affected. For married people, it's $209,250.
If you're single and you make $373,650, you'll be responsible for an extra $6000 of taxes. Married people who make only $373,650 will be responsible for an extra $4932.
If you're single and you make $1,000,000 you'll be responsible for an extra $34,812 than you were last year; Married people making the same would be responsible for about a grand less than that. That is in addition to the taxes they paid last year.

I'm sure some of you will say that's not enough for wealthy people to pay and others will say that it's highway robbery. Just wanted to put numbers on it.

You are making an assumption that Congress will pass Obama's proposal to extend the tax breaks for anyone making less than $200,000/yr.

As it stands right now that proposal hasn't been passed. If it does NOT pass then everyone will pay higher taxes including those at the bottom of the income scale.

Meanwhile the effect of all this is "trickle down poverty"!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wealthy Americans aren't spending so freely anymore. And the rest of us are feeling the squeeze. The question is whether the rich will cut back so much as to tip the economy back into recession -- or if they will spend at least enough to sustain the recovery. The answer may not be clear for months. But their cutbacks help explain why the rebound could be stalling.

[miir]

Meanwhile the effect of all this is "trickle down poverty"!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wealthy Americans aren't spending so freely anymore. And the rest of us are feeling the squeeze. The question is whether the rich will cut back so much as to tip the economy back into recession -- or if they will spend at least enough to sustain the recovery. The answer may not be clear for months. But their cutbacks help explain why the rebound could be stalling.

Are you implying that further tax cuts to the rich would actually help the poor?

Haha, you're fucking loony.

[Aabidano]

Met, you're making the assumption that the "conservatives" have your or the countries' best interest in mind, rather than leading you by the nose, just as the "liberals" are doing to the other side..

...the conservative coalition is the dominant coalition in American politics. There are two sides to this coalition according to the author. Economic conservatives want business tax cuts and deregulation. Frank says that since the coalition formed in the late 1960s, the coalition has been "fantastically rewarding" for the economic conservatives. The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off, due to these very economic policies and because the social issues that this faction pushes never go anywhere after the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_t ... ith_Kansas

Just follow the money. Lots of it is leading to the Tea Party ""movement" right now.

[Metanis]

Met, you're making the assumption that the "conservatives" have your or the countries' best interest in mind, rather than leading you by the nose, just as the "liberals" are doing to the other side..

...the conservative coalition is the dominant coalition in American politics. There are two sides to this coalition according to the author. Economic conservatives want business tax cuts and deregulation. Frank says that since the coalition formed in the late 1960s, the coalition has been "fantastically rewarding" for the economic conservatives. The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off, due to these very economic policies and because the social issues that this faction pushes never go anywhere after the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_t ... ith_Kansas

Just follow the money. Lots of it is leading to the Tea Party ""movement" right now.

Keeping my MONEY in MY pocket sounds like good politics to me. I'm going to vote for whoever promises to enable that concept.

[Metanis]

From Doctor Zero, a precise description why raising taxes too high is counter productive.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 ... f-options/

Money quote!

The charity of a prosperous nation will always be worth more than the hollow promises of socialists.

[Gzette]

I agree there needs to be a middle ground, but taxes are waaaaay too low.

[Xyun]

rofl. charity! What a fucking crock of shit. Charity!!! hahahhaahahahahahahaahaaa. thanks for that.

[Metanis]

rofl. charity! What a fucking crock of shit. Charity!!! hahahhaahahahahahahaahaaa. thanks for that.

Your point of view is consistent with Liberals extremely niggardly charitable giving. However Americans gave over $300Billion to charity in 2007. One of your top boys, Joe Biden, gave $369 a year on income averaging over $300,000. I personally give over $2,000 per year on hugely less income.

Google these facts as they are all well reported with the exception of my personal situation. Perhaps you should actually you know take the time to read the link?

[Aabidano]

Keeping my MONEY in MY pocket sounds like good politics to me. I'm going to vote for whoever promises to enable that concept.

But what you're missing is that neither side ever does, despite what they promise.

No argument there's a lot of waste, but the areas that would generate real savings are exactly the ones that will not get touched by either side. Welfare reform, etc... areas that make great campaign promises are areas I'm actually willing to leave some slack, having known people who through no fault of their own ended up on public assistance.

Also, to preserve the citizens from the greed\idiocy of businesses some regulation needs to be in place. The blanket "govt is bad" statements are just plain stupid.

Look at the privatization of most non-combat areas of the military for example, great for businesses who pushed for the changes and afterwards hired the politicians who implemented them. Not so good for the taxpayers or the military folks who used to do those jobs at 25% of the cost.

[Metanis]

Keeping my MONEY in MY pocket sounds like good politics to me. I'm going to vote for whoever promises to enable that concept.

But what you're missing is that neither side ever does, despite what they promise.

No argument there's a lot of waste, but the areas that would generate real savings are exactly the ones that will not get touched by either side. Welfare reform, etc... areas that make great campaign promises are areas I'm actually willing to leave some slack, having known people who through no fault of their own ended up on public assistance.

Also, to preserve the citizens from the greed\idiocy of businesses some regulation needs to be in place. The blanket "govt is bad" statements are just plain stupid.

Look at the privatization of most non-combat areas of the military for example, great for businesses who pushed for the changes and afterwards hired the politicians who implemented them. Not so good for the taxpayers or the military folks who used to do those jobs at 25% of the cost.

Wow, what a defeatist attitude. Do you realize there is a huge tangible difference between the actions of a Nancy Pelosi or a Paul Ryan? When you want to turn an aircraft carrier you have to actually exert pressure on the rudder. Your attitude is to simply walk away from the wheelhouse and let the Democrats run her hard aground at full speed? Like any grunt, I'm 20 decks under water and I'm screaming up the gangway for someone to take the wheel.

[Aabidano]

Wow, what a defeatist attitude. Do you realize there is a huge tangible difference between the actions of a Nancy Pelosi or a Paul Ryan? When you want to turn an aircraft carrier you have to actually exert pressure on the rudder. Your attitude is to simply walk away from the wheelhouse and let the Democrats run her hard aground at full speed? Like any grunt, I'm 20 decks under water and I'm screaming up the gangway for someone to take the wheel.

My attitude is I'm absolutely disgusted with both "sides" and the cash behind them. Expecting another republican revolution from these clowns is self defeating. Expecting "change!" by (s)electing another turd form the same bowl will result in, well what we've got right now.

And speaking of Paul Ryan:

On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced the GOP Alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This proposed alternative would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax, and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending.[10] It would also have replaced the Medicare system.[11] Instead, it proposed that starting in 2021, the federal government would pay part of the cost of private medical insurance for individuals turning 65

Good and bad there, that last bit actually made me laugh. What a boob. I'm astounded that anyone can think private medical insurance is a good idea - the concept is fundamentally flawed from the customer's perspective, and a conflict of interest from the providers perspective. "Insurance" is for things that might happen, not for things that will happen.

I might get hit by a hurricane or be in a car crash. I will get sick at some point. Later in life it's an assurance unless I'm lucky enough to just drop dead out of the blue.

Medicare supplemental polices are giving rebates larger than the premiums right now. Why might that be? Because the corporations are really nice?

Knew I shouldn't have looked at this post

[Metanis]

rofl. charity! What a fucking crock of shit. Charity!!! hahahhaahahahahahahaahaaa. thanks for that.

I'm the one laughing, I see another one of your Liberal icons gave a whopping $10 to Pakistan Flood Relief...

Hillary digs deep!

(Of course after paying for Chelsea's $2Million wedding maybe she's tapped out? We need to invent a new word to describe the absolute outrageousness of Liberal hypocrisy.)

[Metanis]

I'm astounded that anyone can think private medical insurance is a good idea - the concept is fundamentally flawed from the customer's perspective, and a conflict of interest from the providers perspective. "Insurance" is for things that might happen, not for things that will happen.

At least you have a better understanding of the concept of insurance than your buddy Obama. But your understanding of insurance is also flawed. Insurance is simply risk sharing. And it is undertaken with the explicit understanding that for some participants the events will in fact take place.

As a point of clarification forget health insurance and think about farmer's crop insurance. In any given year many farmers will face crop losses due to severe weather, drought, flood, etc. It's a fact of life. By many farmers pooling their funds and sharing the risk the "many" support the "few" who experience loss.

Health insurance works the same.

But Americans have been conditioned to expect something other than insurance. They think health care if free because someone else has paid the bill for so long. Having the government get more involved only deepens the problems while solving none.

Your perceived "right" to free or low cost medical care doesn't trump my right to say "Eff you, I'm not paying your bills". I'm not your slave laborer. I'll gladly join the shared risk taking pool, but you need to pull your own weight.

Interesting side note. Teachers in New Jersey pay NOTHING toward their health insurance. They blew a gasket when the new budget asked them to contribute 1.5% toward their own costs. Talk about your "entitlement" mentality.

[Canelek]

I'm not sure if that is entitlement as much as teachers simply making shit for money and needing all that extra 1.5% to pay insurance on the 1984 Honda Civic.

That is, unless NJ teachers unions get their members better pay than the rest of the country...

[Aabidano]

As a point of clarification forget health insurance and think about farmer's crop insurance. In any given year many farmers will face crop losses due to severe weather, drought, flood, etc. It's a fact of life. By many farmers pooling their funds and sharing the risk the "many" support the "few" who experience loss.

Health insurance works the same.

Almost the same, farmers don't have legal protections allowing them to engage in price fixing, nor do they have specific exemptions allowing monopolistic behavior. Were they not specifically exempted you could likely file RICO changes against the healthcare insurers.

The theoretical concept of insurance I have no problem with, It's a good thing. As implemented by unscrupulous companies in some markets I have a serious problem with.

Consider State Farm, after the 2004 hurricanes they almost didn't make a profit in FL For that year. The corporate response was "let us quadruple rates, forever" just in case in happens again or we're pulling out (they left).

[Metanis]

By now, almost everything imaginable has been said about Senator Kerry’s docking of his new $7 million yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, thus avoiding/postponing some $500,000 in state taxes. Here is some postmortem analysis:

1. Once again, a liberal proponent of higher and more redistributive taxes (e.g., Daschle, Geithner, Rangel) has acted antithetically to what he professes. In his 2004 campaign, Kerry alleged near-treasonous behavior (“Benedict Arnold”) on the part of companies that relocated out of the country to seek lower taxes. The psychology of this hypocrisy is hard to figure: Does the technocratic guardian class believe that, as an overseeing nomenklatura, the laws should not apply to thems? Does loud support for taxes in the abstract serve as some sort of surrogate ethical compensation for avoiding them in the concrete? Or is there an assumption that such elites won’t get caught (remember, Geithner and Kerry only paid up when public attention turned to their avoidance)?

If these asses actually paid the taxes they propose for the little people then all our taxes could be lowered!

Victor Davis Hanson

[masteen]

Part of the problem with insurance companies is related to the problem with ALL America business: emphasis on yearly and even quarterly profits. An insurance company should never be expected to be profitable during a disaster, but they still are. It's retarded, but as long as these entities are publicly traded and regulated the way they currently are, this will not change.

Another problem with health care specifically is that pretty much every single company doesn't seem to find the value in preventative medicine. I haven't had health insurance since I left the company Aab still works for (correct me if I'm wrong) that covered annual physicals. It costs less to let a person die after 6 months of radical chemo due to 5 years of untreated cancer than it does to keep that person alive via early detection and intervention. Until their company objectives become "keep people healthy," instead of "make money," we're gonna keep getting assraped.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Well once they start charging people for unhealthy behavior, then maybe that becomes plausible. Once we stop covering the expenses for some 450 pound fatass bitch to stuff her face full of cookies everyday, then we can use that money to treat the single mother who truly needs help covering her medical bills while attempting to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

The US is a land of fat fucks and people engaging in risky behavior because they know everyone else will pay for their sins. Let the motherfuckers die.

[Aabidano]

Still here, Jim and I plus a few QA and finance folks are the only ones left from the St Pete TAC.

Many smaller companies only provide "catastrophic event" coverage that covers heart attacks, broken bones, cancer & such. It's much cheaper than a comprehensive policy. That was the norm I think until the mid 70s. Day to day stuff was your own problem, today it can be covered by tax free earnings if you do it right. You have to hit a pretty high cap to write it off otherwise.

The insurance shenanigans in the last 20 years have created the bizarre price tiering we have today.

[Fairweather Pure]

Well once they start charging people for unhealthy behavior, then maybe that becomes plausible. Once we stop covering the expenses for some 450 pound fatass bitch to stuff her face full of cookies everyday, then we can use that money to treat the single mother who truly needs help covering her medical bills while attempting to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

The US is a land of fat fucks and people engaging in risky behavior because they know everyone else will pay for their sins. Let the motherfuckers die.

By your rational, countries that have socialized/universal heath care would be less healthy than Americans, and they're not.

[Aabidano]

He assumes it's a zero sum game.

[Canelek]

I always thought that if you made it to the 450+ tier you had to hire Geraldo Rivera to come cut you out of the double-wide. Does insurance cover mustachioed talk show hosts?

[Aabidano]

I always thought that if you made it to the 450+ tier you had to hire Geraldo Rivera to come cut you out of the double-wide. Does insurance cover mustachioed talk show hosts?

They only get a visit of they're getting married and need a way to get the reinforced bed on wheels out of the house.

[Xyun]

rofl. charity! What a fucking crock of shit. Charity!!! hahahhaahahahahahahaahaaa. thanks for that.

Your point of view is consistent with Liberals extremely niggardly charitable giving. However Americans gave over $300Billion to charity in 2007. One of your top boys, Joe Biden, gave $369 a year on income averaging over $300,000. I personally give over $2,000 per year on hugely less income.

Google these facts as they are all well reported with the exception of my personal situation. Perhaps you should actually you know take the time to read the link?

I'm looking at the big picture. Your assertion that cutting taxes will increase charitable donations is probably true. But it is an astronomical difference in dollars. If you don't understand the necessity of taxes, then how am I supposed to have an intelligent discussion with you about who should be taxed and for how much? The charity argument is a fucking cop out, and pretty fucking laughable.

[Metanis]

how am I supposed to have an intelligent discussion with you about who should be taxed and for how much?.

The horns of the dilemma. I certainly won't waste another brain cell here.

[Aslanna]

I certainly won't waste another brain cell here.

The wise choice as you're probably down to your last two as it is.

[Metanis]

I certainly won't waste another brain cell here.

The wise choice as you're probably down to your last two as it is.

Yeah, but those last two are just like rabbits!