White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

iliveonramen · Oct 4, 2011

Obama budgets are 600 billion a year more than Bush's 2008 budget thus the baseline is 3.7 trillion. Why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget?

Where are you getting 3.7 trillion? Bush was President when the Federal Fiscal year 2009 budget was passed and the spending was 3.1 trillion. Obama's first budget passed during his presidency in 2010 was 3.09 trillion.

20% of GDP is govt. spending so tell me who pays for that govt. spending? Spending offset by debt creates a net gain of zero.

Long term yes, short term no, which is the whole crux of the argument.

Deficits are yearly and if you are going to blame Bush for the Medicare Part D expense you better look at the Democrat alternative which was much higher.

So your defense of Bush spending is based on plans that didn't pass....by the minority party that knew their plan wouldn't pass.

then you would be wrong and someone who doesn't know the components of GDP

I know them pretty well actually. I will amend my statement...a targeted tax cut at income levels where individuals spend near their full salary on consumption will spur an increase in consumption. A tax cut for individuals at income levels were they already don't spend their full income on consumption will lead to an increase in investing. The question is...what's our issue here. I would say that it's not an issue with capital...we have companies sitting on cash, our issue is consumption, which is why they aren't using that cash to employ people.

My issue with the whole "tax cuts spur growth" is that if you give say a 900 billion dollar tax cut, and a large chunk of that goes towards individuals who will not use that for consumption (high income earners) then you're not spurring growth with those taxes. Now you may spur a stock market boom, but that doesn't necessarily translate to job growth...which is evident under the Bush years and during our "recovery" period.

I posted the breakdown on the tax cuts on this thread. Suggest you review them and then explain how they helped the economy especially since we have more unemployed today than when that stimulus was signed and when Obama took office. The actual number today is 842 billion dollars and was for shovel ready jobs. Guess the shovels weren't ready. 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans don't think the stimulus was successful

Why would I need to argue this. Economists from Goldman Sachs to the CBO state it created jobs and increased GDP growth.

Snevert · Oct 4, 2011

Conservative said:
So here we go again, blaming Bush, If Bush is responsible for spending during his term and added 4.9 trillion to the debt, why isn't Obama responsible for the spending in his term adding 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years? You cannot have it both ways. Deficits are yearly and come from yearly budgets. Bush deficits have nothing to do with Obama spending.

What I'm saying is how come Democrats get crap for it while Republicans were just as guilty of it less than a decade ago? Why do they get a free pass? It's both sides who are to blame. And yes I DO blame Bush. He cuts taxes and lets the deficit run out of control. And he permitted the economy to fall into s*** in 2008 and even further with his stimulus package, which did just a cracker jack job in solving the problem. If Obama started the deficit I'd be blaming him for the whole thing.

EarlzP · Oct 4, 2011

Conservative said:
Great, then write them the check instead of taking out Govt. admin fees. Funny how millions and millions of Americans have nothing invested in Wall Street. Think many poor people have investment accounts? This is an act on your part, isn't it?

Here is a fact you side step the facts every chance you get, I continue to write a check to the government every time I get paid. You either do not want to admit that Wall Street effects every single American or you refuse to admit it, poor people do not have the money to invest but the poor decisions Wall Street CEO's make effects every one rich or poor, the unregulated practices of Wall Street allow those "with" to steal from those "without" even though those "without" are not invested in Wall Street. Wall Street is a scam artist's paradise filled with speculators, hedge funds, predatory lending practices, direviatives, selling short ect ect ect . Wall Street and the rich now run our country by controlling the economy and the conservative republican party

2012

Conservative · Oct 4, 2011

iliveonramen;1059847108]Where are you getting 3.7 trillion? Bush was President when the Federal Fiscal year 2009 budget was passed and the spending was 3.1 trillion. Obama's first budget passed during his presidency in 2010 was 3.09 trillion.

From the Budget of the United States at the link I gave you. Further the 2009 Budget was passed without Republican support thus passed due to Obama and the Democrats. Obama voted for that budget then put the Department heads in place to spend the money. Fiscal year of the U.S.Runs from October to September. October 2008 to January 20, 2009 Bush was in charge but the rest of the year it was Obama. Not sure where you got the 3.09 budget for 2010 but that isn't what the Treasury Dept shows.

Long term yes, short term no, which is the whole crux of the argument.

There is no long term in relationship to the budget as budgets are yearly. GDP is made up of four components and the govt. component is 20% on a yearly basis. Who pays for that govt. expense?

So your defense of Bush spending is based on plans that didn't pass....by the minority party that knew their plan wouldn't pass.

Stop buying the liberal rhetoric. Congress appropriates the money and also spends money. Democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2011 with overwhelming numbers in 2009-2010

I know them pretty well actually. I will amend my statement...a targeted tax cut at income levels where individuals spend near their full salary on consumption will spur an increase in consumption. A tax cut for individuals at income levels were they already don't spend their full income on consumption will lead to an increase in investing. The question is...what's our issue here. I would say that it's not an issue with capital...we have companies sitting on cash, our issue is consumption, which is why they aren't using that cash to employ people.

I have seen no evidence that yo uknow the four components of GDP and the percentage each contributes. Targeted tax cuts from Obama were short term and once gone are gone. You are still receiving the Bush tax cuts thus more take home pay. Regardless of where those evil rich people put their money it helps the economy unless they bury it in the backyard.

Tax cuts for all individuals means more take home pay, period. Rich putting it into a bank means more money available for lending.

My issue with the whole "tax cuts spur growth" is that if you give say a 900 billion dollar tax cut, and a large chunk of that goes towards individuals who will not use that for consumption (high income earners) then you're not spurring growth with those taxes. Now you may spur a stock market boom, but that doesn't necessarily translate to job growth...which is evident under the Bush years and during our "recovery" period.

Bush took over an economy with a GDP of 9.9 trillion and left it at 14.4 trillion, that is good economic growth.

Why would I need to argue this. Economists from Goldman Sachs to the CBO state it created jobs and increased GDP growth.

So Goldman Sachs knows how you spend your money? Don't care what Goldman Sachs says, only know what people do with more spendable income.

Conservative · Oct 4, 2011

Snevert said:
What I'm saying is how come Democrats get crap for it while Republicans were just as guilty of it less than a decade ago? Why do they get a free pass? It's both sides who are to blame. And yes I DO blame Bush. He cuts taxes and lets the deficit run out of control. And he permitted the economy to fall into s*** in 2008 and even further with his stimulus package, which did just a cracker jack job in solving the problem. If Obama started the deficit I'd be blaming him for the whole thing.

Do you have any idea why we have a Congress and what their role is? As for deficits, they are yearly and come from the budgets. Obama deficits for 2009-2011 will total over 4 trillion dollars.

Conservative · Oct 4, 2011

EarlzP said:
Here is a fact you side step the facts every chance you get, I continue to write a check to the government every time I get paid. You either do not want to admit that Wall Street effects every single American or you refuse to admit it, poor people do not have the money to invest but the poor decisions Wall Street CEO's make effects every one rich or poor, the unregulated practices of Wall Street allow those "with" to steal from those "without" even though those "without" are not invested in Wall Street. Wall Street is a scam artist's paradise filled with speculators, hedge funds, predatory lending practices, direviatives, selling short ect ect ect . Wall Street and the rich now run our country by controlling the economy and the conservative republican party

2012

You write a check to the govt? What does that have to do with Wall Street and what does that have to do with your SS income? Keep ignoring how liberalism and your govt. is screwing you, not Wall Street. You have a choice whether or not to invest in Wall Street, not so in paying taxes

Grant · Oct 4, 2011

EarlzP said:
Given a choice I would rather see my money going to government employees then to the failed Wall Street CEO,s who have shown their inability to manage. What group was responsible for the recession public employees or Wall Street CEO'S and their employess

Great! Next time you see a postal worker hand them $20.

muRda · Oct 4, 2011

Conservative said:
What is funny is you don't know how to use the site. You can go to that site, home page and put whatever year you want and get the data. Suggest you do better research

...? You cited to a link. I looked indepth at the information from the link. Maybe if you didn't make me do your job of presenting the numbers you want to use in your argument, then maybe you should start bearing the onus of presenting numbers for your arguments.

Numbers are what they are and that seems to be the problem with liberals who want to change the numbers. We have a 14.6 trillion dollar debt and when you go to the Treasury site you will see SS and Medicare ON BUDGET

Remember the conservative diatribe line? It's back again. It's always the liberals, gotta be the liberals. Changing the numbers, causing the debts, raping our teenage daughters. You're also not arguing anything, you're just stating (an opinion and then) a fact without a source. Should I respond by telling you that the horns on a unicorn can vary anywhere from 2-3 1/2 feet?

The issue remains, why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget? What is different is that SS and Medicare shouldn't be on budget and then the rest of those items are funded by FIT.

You really need to be able to hit home on your argument. So, what you're arguing is that SS and Medicare should be paid only from payments received from them and not included in the general budget?

I suggest better research on CBO, their role and where they get their data.

I suggest the same to you. I've studied government accounting, screw reading through that.

Military spending as part of total spending constitutes about 20% of the budget thus the question as to the role of the Federal Govt. vs the role of the state govt.

That wasn't my point. I suggest better reading of what I elegantly type out to you.

Does that really make sense to you, defense budget is 700 plus billion out of a 3.7 trillion dollar budget and you really believe that is the only part of that budget with waste, fraud, and abuse?

If I say yes, will you promise to spank me until I learn my lesson and spit on me like the dirty, little hippie liberal I am?

Where do I say anywhere that it is the ONLY part of the budget with waste? They all have waste, military included (which makes up 20% of the budget, yes, a significant portion).

So, let's see, your Federal Taxes go up, what does that do to state revenue and what does that do to your take home pay? You telling me that if FIT goes up you aren't going to find a way to reduce state taxes? Best way to do that is to move to a state with no State income taxes. Businesses and people are doing that all the time. Research TX.

You're still doing it. Tax is one variable in the whole equation that equals me (and others) moving. To break it down simply for you:

Taxes + a + b + c + d + e + f + g + hundreds/thousands of other variables = why people are moving.

Besides, you don't think some businesses stand to turn better profit in NY even with high taxes as compared to if they moved to TX? That's just wishful thinking until you would like to source something that says clearly otherwise.

It isn't diatribe when actual non partisan data is posted.

He didn't source anything he said. Again, typing what you think has no relevance to any debate when you try to make a point, especially where you're trying to prove a causal relationship.

EarlzP · Oct 4, 2011

Conservative said:
You write a check to the govt? What does that have to do with Wall Street and what does that have to do with your SS income? Keep ignoring how liberalism and your govt. is screwing you, not Wall Street. You have a choice whether or not to invest in Wall Street, not so in paying taxes

I am going to continue to take you back until you address the fact that Wall Street has had and continues to have a major negative impact on the middle class,the poor and the elderly in our country. It would be bad enough if the rich only took from the rich but they don't, speculation for instance effects every American citizen, some like the rich prosper because of it while the middle class, the poor and the elderly are helpless to stop the price increases of life essential needs ie: gasoline,heating oil, food, clothing.

Conservative · Oct 4, 2011

muRda;1059847324]...? You cited to a link. I looked indepth at the information from the link. Maybe if you didn't make me do your job of presenting the numbers you want to use in your argument, then maybe you should start bearing the onus of presenting numbers for your arguments.

I gave you a link, there is a home page, sorry that was 2009 numbers but if you go to the home page it will list all budgets including 2010 and all previous budgets. I really don't care whether you buy my numbers or not. It is your choice to buy what you are told from the leftwing media and not do your own research.

Remember the conservative diatribe line? It's back again. It's always the liberals, gotta be the liberals. Changing the numbers, causing the debts, raping our teenage daughters. You're also not arguing anything, you're just stating (an opinion and then) a fact without a source. Should I respond by telling you that the horns on a unicorn can vary anywhere from 2-3 1/2 feet?

Of course it is all about liberals. Conservatives don't care how much money you make and are more than willing to let you achieve your share of the growing pie. Liberals would prefer to keep you dependent and always talk about more revenue to the govt. Why? Think that more revenue means less of a deficit? Think again.

You really need to be able to hit home on your argument. So, what you're arguing is that SS and Medicare should be paid only from payments received from them and not included in the general budget?

That is the way it was created and sold. It has no business on budget and LBJ put it there to use any surplus to pay for the Vietnam War. It has been kept there since the 1960's and that surplus in the 70's is gone. Instead of putting it aside for future responsibilities they spent it and now want more revenue to cover those IOU's. Must be liberal math

I suggest the same to you. I've studied government accounting, screw reading through that

.

Govt. accounting? LOL, if any business ran like the govt. they would have been bankrupt years ago. Baseline budgeting? Think about it.

Where do I say anywhere that it is the ONLY part of the budget with waste? They all have waste, military included (which makes up 20% of the budget, yes, a significant portion).

So 20% of the budget is more significant than the 80% remainder. How much of that 700 billion defense budget is waste and apply that to the debt. Want to talk about an insignificant amount?

You're still doing it. Tax is one variable in the whole equation that equals me (and others) moving. To break it down simply for you:

Taxes + a + b + c + d + e + f + g + hundreds/thousands of other variables = why people are moving.

Whatever the variable more people are moving out of California, NY, Illinois and other liberal states. When you start your own business let me know if you can make more money in NY than in TX. Taxes are a bottomline expense

Conservative · Oct 4, 2011

EarlzP said:
I am going to continue to take you back until you address the fact that Wall Street has had and continues to have a major negative impact on the middle class,the poor and the elderly in our country. It would be bad enough if the rich only took from the rich but they don't, speculation for instance effects every American citizen, some like the rich prosper because of it while the middle class, the poor and the elderly are helpless to stop the price increases of life essential needs ie: gasoline,heating oil, food, clothing.

And I am going to continue to focus on the 14.6 TRILLION dollar budget debt created by a govt. who has higher poverty today in spite of all the spending on the Great Society War on Poverty. You need to go down to Wall Street and protest with the other misinformed individuals there. You don't have a clue.

Still waiting for how Wall Street affects my SS and Medicare. Keep dodging and running.

iliveonramen · Oct 4, 2011

From the Budget of the United States at the link I gave you. Further the 2009 Budget was passed without Republican support thus passed due to Obama and the Democrats. Obama voted for that budget then put the Department heads in place to spend the money. Fiscal year of the U.S.Runs from October to September. October 2008 to January 20, 2009 Bush was in charge but the rest of the year it was Obama. Not sure where you got the 3.09 budget for 2010 but that isn't what the Treasury Dept shows.

I was wrong about the 3.09 budget for 2010 it was estimated. your numbers are right.

As for the passage of the 2009 FFY budget, either the President owns the budget or he doesn't. Also, it doesn't matter who Obama puts as heads of departments...they can't spend over the budget without additional spending authorized by Congress. I would like to point out that unlike Bush...Obama actually included the spending of the wars on the budget so that would mean in part his budgets by default even with the same spending everywhere else would be the same.

Bush owns the 2009 budget plain and simple...just like Reagan owned his budgets. I mean, under your view the Reagan tax cuts were not Reagans but Congress since they passed them...

There is no long term in relationship to the budget as budgets are yearly. GDP is made up of four components and the govt. component is 20% on a yearly basis. Who pays for that govt. expense?

There is long term and short term, unless you hold the view that when the government runs a deficit everybody automatically decreases spending by an amount equal to future taxation. There is a short term beneficial effect to the GDP when running a deficit. In the long term, with the deficit amount being paid off, that where their is a net zero effect.

Stop buying the liberal rhetoric. Congress appropriates the money and also spends money. Democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2011 with overwhelming numbers in 2009-2010

What does this have to do anything, Medicare Part D was passed by a fully Republican Congress signed into law by a Republican President. How exactly is this liberal rhetoric to point out the Dems had no power beyond a filibuster to stop Medicar Part D.

I have seen no evidence that yo uknow the four components of GDP and the percentage each contributes

Be specific. You'll have to point out what exactly you're talking about here instead of some vague pretending I don't have knowledge discussed in any Macro Econ 101 class.

Targeted tax cuts from Obama were short term and once gone are gone. You are still receiving the Bush tax cuts thus more take home pay

.
This doesn't make the Bush tax cuts more efficient in boosting the economy. It just means they haven't lapsed yet.

Regardless of where those evil rich people put their money it helps the economy unless they bury it in the backyard.

I never called rich people evil I have no idea where you get that. As for does it help the economy.....not necessarily. If you give a multi-millionaire a tax break, they invest that in the stock market (secondary market) that has no effect on the GDP. If a country decides to expand (based on consumption) then the added money in the secondary market drives up stock prices thereby making their treasury stock more valuable and it's easier to raise money. Once again, our problem is consumption, that's what is causing this recession not lack of capital. As of now there is unused capacity, not lack of capacity.

Tax cuts for all individuals means more take home pay, period. Rich putting it into a bank means more money available for lending.

I apologize but once again, why is a company going out and getting a loan from a bank if they are sitting on tons of cash and they have unused capacity currently.

Bush took over an economy with a GDP of 9.9 trillion and left it at 14.4 trillion, that is good economic growth.

Bush growth rates in comparison to other Presidents.
Ranking the Presidents by G.D.P. - NYTimes.com
I'm not sure about your figures, are they not adjusted? BEA BEA National Economic Accounts Has 11 trillion in Q1 2000 and 12.8 Q4 2008. It's actually not very good economic growth.

So Goldman Sachs knows how you spend your money? Don't care what Goldman Sachs says, only know what people do with more spendable income.

Ok...I'll go ahead and take your word for it.

muRda · Oct 4, 2011

Conservative said:
I gave you a link, there is a home page, sorry that was 2009 numbers but if you go to the home page it will list all budgets including 2010 and all previous budgets. I really don't care whether you buy my numbers or not. It is your choice to buy what you are told from the leftwing media and not do your own research.

You didn't give me numbers. See above, below, the post you made, and/or the post I quoted you in:

Conservative said:
I gave you a link

Of course it is all about liberals. Conservatives don't care how much money you make and are more than willing to let you achieve your share of the growing pie. Liberals would prefer to keep you dependent and always talk about more revenue to the govt. Why? Think that more revenue means less of a deficit? Think again.

Normally more revenue would equal less of a deficit, but whatever, I'm neither wholly liberal nor wholly conservative.

The whole "willing to let you achieve" thing is where you oversimplify a tremendous problem tho. The rabbit can't get the carrot if it's in a cage that was built around it.

That is the way it was created and sold. It has no business on budget and LBJ put it there to use any surplus to pay for the Vietnam War. It has been kept there since the 1960's and that surplus in the 70's is gone. Instead of putting it aside for future responsibilities they spent it and now want more revenue to cover those IOU's. Must be liberal math

If it's true, sure. I have no idea.

Govt. accounting? LOL, if any business ran like the govt. they would have been bankrupt years ago. Baseline budgeting? Think about it.

That was my point about your source?

So 20% of the budget is more significant than the 80% remainder. How much of that 700 billion defense budget is waste and apply that to the debt. Want to talk about an insignificant amount?

Like, I'm running out of ways to explain this to you:

ALL THE MAJOR SECTORS OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING HAVE WASTE. THE 20% FOR MILITARY AND THE REMAINING 80%.

I simply said that waste could be cut from the military portion and you've done nothing but read into that that I said the rest of government spending doesn't have waste.

Whatever the variable more people are moving out of California, NY, Illinois and other liberal states. When you start your own business let me know if you can make more money in NY than in TX. Taxes are a bottomline expense

Yea, man, whatever the variable. Doesn't even matter if it's taxes like you've been harping on for the past few pages. Thanks for the discussion, tho.

Oh, man, you'll probably be so dumbfounded when I move to CA from NY.

And thanks for the heads up, pretty sure I'll need to know that when I take REG in January.

Conservative · Oct 4, 2011

iliveonramen;1059847354]I was wrong about the 3.09 budget for 2010 it was estimated. your numbers are right.

Thank you

As for the passage of the 2009 FFY budget, either the President owns the budget or he doesn't. Also, it doesn't matter who Obama puts as heads of departments...they can't spend over the budget without additional spending authorized by Congress. I would like to point out that unlike Bush...Obama actually included the spending of the wars on the budget so that would mean in part his budgets by default even with the same spending everywhere else would be the same.

Bush owns the 2009 budget plain and simple...just like Reagan owned his budgets. I mean, under your view the Reagan tax cuts were not Reagans but Congress since they passed them...

Yes he owns the budget along with Congress but Obama has responsibility for spending the money. Obama was in office 8 months of fiscal year 2009 and Obama's Department heads spent the money. Just because there is a budget doesn't mean you have to spend the money. No matter how you spint it, Obama voted for the 2009 budget, Democrats passed the 2009 budget, and Obama then spent the 2009 budget. Included in that 2009 spending was TARP which Bush spent 350 billion dollars of the 700 billion and Bush had nothing to do with the 842 billion dollar stimulus plan that Obama passed some of which was spent in 2009.

You see, spending matters, not the budget amount and regardless of what is on the budget the spending is included in the deficits

There is long term and short term, unless you hold the view that when the government runs a deficit everybody automatically decreases spending by an amount equal to future taxation. There is a short term beneficial effect to the GDP when running a deficit. In the long term, with the deficit amount being paid off, that where their is a net zero effect.

The problem with budgeting is that it is baseline budgeting which guarantees that the budget will go up each year off the baseline. There is no reason for this rate of spending and sending more money to D.C. encourages more spending. Why is there such passion for increasing taxes?

What does this have to do anything, Medicare Part D was passed by a fully Republican Congress signed into law by a Republican President. How exactly is this liberal rhetoric to point out the Dems had no power beyond a filibuster to stop Medicar Part D.

Yes, and the Democrat alternative was much higher. Congress passed the Medicare Part D which by the way has cut medicare expenses. Democrats wanted more and settled for less.

Be specific. You'll have to point out what exactly you're talking about here instead of some vague pretending I don't have knowledge discussed in any Macro Econ 101 class.

There are four components of GDP and each contribute a percentage. Find out those components and what they contribute. You will find Govt. spending is a small percentage and you will realize how tax hikes hurt the economy.

This doesn't make the Bush tax cuts more efficient in boosting the economy. It just means they haven't lapsed yet.

Sure it does as you will find out when you find out the four components of GDP

I never called rich people evil I have no idea where you get that. As for does it help the economy.....not necessarily. If you give a multi-millionaire a tax break, they invest that in the stock market (secondary market) that has no effect on the GDP. If a country decides to expand (based on consumption) then the added money in the secondary market drives up stock prices thereby making their treasury stock more valuable and it's easier to raise money. Once again, our problem is consumption, that's what is causing this recession not lack of capital. As of now there is unused capacity, not lack of capacity.

Many here believe the rich got rich off the backs of the poor and that is evil. It does appear that your understanding of the economy is very limited. Do some better research

I apologize but once again, why is a company going out and getting a loan from a bank if they are sitting on tons of cash and they have unused capacity currently.

It isn't only businesses that borrow money but expansion requires capital and most businesses aren't those mega corporations

Bush growth rates in comparison to other Presidents.
Ranking the Presidents by G.D.P. - NYTimes.com
I'm not sure about your figures, are they not adjusted? BEA BEA National Economic Accounts Has 11 trillion in Q1 2000 and 12.8 Q4 2008. It's actually not very good economic growth.

There you go again, percentage change, means nothing as real dollars generate tax revenue not percentage change.Bush GDP growth was 4.5 TRILLION dollars which is going to be a lower percentage change off the 9.9 trillion he inherited that the Clinton GDP growth off a much lower base but only 3.5 trillion increase. Which is better 4.5 trillion or 3.5 trillion?

iliveonramen · Oct 4, 2011

There are four components of GDP and each contribute a percentage. Find out those components and what they contribute. You will find Govt. spending is a small percentage and you will realize how tax hikes hurt the economy.

They don't contribute different weighted amounts...everything is 1v1. 100 bucks is spent on a govt salary...that contributes 100 dollars. If 100 dollars is spent to build a bridge that's 100 dollars. The only thing you can be pointing out...which has nothing do with any sort of weighted contributions, is that SS and unemployment are transfers which is not countred towards GDP. Once again...what are you talking about. The government purchasing 100 dollars in goods or a private citizen spending 100 dollars are both 100 dollars in consumption counted towards GDP!

Sure it does as you will find out when you find out the four components of GDP

GDP=C+I+G+(X-m). If private consumption goes down 100 dollars (C) due to taxes and government spending goes up 100 dollars (G) that creats no net effect! This is where the Bush tax cuts are inefficient. When a wealthy person gets a tax break, they don't normally use most of that tax break to consume goods (C). They normally invest that money in the secondary markets or in a bank with is considered "Savings" which is not parts of the equation for GDP. Quit pretending this deeper knowledge unless you want to be specific. Do I think it's possible you have some insight to add that I'm not aware of? Sure! Have you demostrated that? No.

Many here believe the rich got rich off the backs of the poor and that is evil. It does appear that your understanding of the economy is very limited. Do some better research

Once again, this vague pretending of superior knowledge you haven't written anything except a basic view "rich people put money in a bank, the bank lends out money". Please be specific. I'm always open to learning new things.

It isn't only businesses that borrow money but expansion requires capital and most businesses aren't those mega corporations

They also require customers which most small businesses are not getting a sufficient amount of.

There you go again, percentage change, means nothing as real dollars generate tax revenue not percentage change.Bush GDP growth was 4.5 TRILLION dollars which is going to be a lower percentage change off the 9.9 trillion he inherited that the Clinton GDP growth off a much lower base but only 3.5 trillion increase. Which is better 4.5 trillion or 3.5 trillion?

I know of no one that uses real values to compared GDP growth rates over a period of time. We'll have to agree to just disagree. I would like to point out the US great 4.5 trillion and at the same time China grew 3 trillion.

Conservative · Oct 4, 2011

iliveonramen said:
They don't contribute different weighted amounts...everything is 1v1. 100 bucks is spent on a govt salary...that contributes 100 dollars. If 100 dollars is spent to build a bridge that's 100 dollars. The only thing you can be pointing out...which has nothing do with any sort of weighted contributions, is that SS and unemployment are transfers which is not countred towards GDP. Once again...what are you talking about. The government purchasing 100 dollars in goods or a private citizen spending 100 dollars are both 100 dollars in consumption counted towards GDP!

GDP=C+I+G+(X-m). If private consumption goes down 100 dollars (C) due to taxes and government spending goes up 100 dollars (G) that creats no net effect! This is where the Bush tax cuts are inefficient. When a wealthy person gets a tax break, they don't normally use most of that tax break to consume goods (C). They normally invest that money in the secondary markets or in a bank with is considered "Savings" which is not parts of the equation for GDP. Quit pretending this deeper knowledge unless you want to be specific. Do I think it's possible you have some insight to add that I'm not aware of? Sure! Have you demostrated that? No.

Once again, this vague pretending of superior knowledge you haven't written anything except a basic view "rich people put money in a bank, the bank lends out money". Please be specific. I'm always open to learning new things.

They also require customers which most small businesses are not getting a sufficient amount of.

I know of no one that uses real values to compared GDP growth rates over a period of time. We'll have to agree to just disagree. I would like to point out the US great 4.5 trillion and at the same time China grew 3 trillion.

Sorry but what I see here is someone who is young and doesn't really understand how the economy works. I call that being book smart, now you need to become street smart. This is an internet forum so you aren't going to believe my background. Keep believing what they tell you in school and believe that is going to help you long term in the real world. If that is what you believe then make sure you go to sleep early Christmas Eve so that Santa comes to your house.

Regarding your China/U.S. Comparison. Do you want to compare workers wages in each country as well? In addition do you realize how difficult it is to grow from 9.9 trillion to 14.5 trillion vs China growing 3 trillion dollars from their meager base?

It really is frustrating to see the so called book smart people in this forum who never really held a private sector job. I fear for our country when I see the education that many are receiving. no wonder his country is in a mess.

pbrauer · Oct 4, 2011

Conservative said:
Do you have any idea why we have a Congress and what their role is? As for deficits, they are yearly and come from the budgets. Obama deficits for 2009-2011 will total over 4 trillion dollars.

A good deal of the deficit is due the lost FIT because of the Great Bush Recession.

KevinKohler · Oct 4, 2011

EarlzP said:
Given a choice I would rather see my money going to government employees then to the failed Wall Street CEO,s who have shown their inability to manage. What group was responsible for the recession public employees or Wall Street CEO'S and their employess

Maybe saying they were not able to manage was less then accurate maybe they knew exactly what they were doing and what the impact on or economy would be and just didn't care as long as they could pad their bank accounts, what do you think?

Well, unfortunately, we are NOT given a choice. We HAVE to support our government employees, have NO say on which employees we keep, and which we fire, have No say even on how each outfit is ran, other than the grossly incompetent administrative class that we inexplicably continue to vote for every other year. At least if I am buying into a private company, I then get to use my shares to have a direct say in how things are run. Of course, this is now becoming impossible, too. Unless....you're already wealthy.

As for who was to blame for our economic crisis, that rests with every single person in this country. We had people who were spoon fed the american dream trying to live it before they were financially ready, we had government bodies devoted to making SURE those same people could qualify for just about any loan they applied for, resulting in housing prices going up, since no matter what, people could still get the credit to buy them. In order for the loan companies to cover their buts and turn a fast profit, they then bundled them, and sold them as securities, to other, larger firms, namely, banks, and insurance companies. Those banks and insurance companies, many of them ran by the very people that run the FED, did a little accounting voodoo, stuff that has been going on ever since the federal reserve became the power behind the dollar, and began setting down the rules governing how that dollar is traded, resulting in those securities APPEARING to be more profitable and less risky than they actually were, resulting is some pretty good times for investors and board members, which meant THEY went out and bought more than they maybe should have, as well, at inflated, late 90's era bubble prices. And remember, since most every bank in this country is FDIC insured, they don't have to worry about losing their shirts, because they will ALWAYS get bailed out by the federal government, should they lack the assets to cover monetary withdrawals or liquidations. From there, well, it was only a matter of time before the first domino fell. One, two, three, then hundreds of defaults on loans by people who never should have qualified in the first place, which led to the rapid offloading of those securities to any party that would take them, which led to a few job losses, which led to a few more defaults, until you had the crisis come down on everyone's heads.

You unravel all of the strings in that messed up ball of yarn, and you'll find that EVERYONE was complicit, in some small way, to our current predicament.

pbrauer · Oct 4, 2011

Conservative said:
Sorry but what I see here is someone who is young and doesn't really understand how the economy works. I call that being book smart, now you need to become street smart. This is an internet forum so you aren't going to believe my background. Keep believing what they tell you in school and believe that is going to help you long term in the real world. If that is what you believe then make sure you go to sleep early Christmas Eve so that Santa comes to your house.

Regarding your China/U.S. Comparison. Do you want to compare workers wages in each country as well? In addition do you realize how difficult it is to grow from 9.9 trillion to 14.5 trillion vs China growing 3 trillion dollars from their meager base?

It really is frustrating to see the so called book smart people in this forum who never really held a private sector job. I fear for our country when I see the education that many are receiving. no wonder his country is in a mess.

Once again your condescension is duly noted, Con.:roll:

Conservative · Oct 4, 2011

pbrauer said:
A good deal of the deficit is due the lost FIT because of the Great Bush Recession.

You mean the recession that Obama said that he would end and fix. Now we are facing a double dip and you still blame Bush. Here is something to think about

Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice
Presidents.

Notice the difference according to the Secret Service? Your support for Obama is misguided. He is a true community agitator

GeorgeW. and Laura Bush: The Secret Service loved him and Laura
Bush. He was also the most physically "in shape"who had a very
strict workout regimen. The Bushes made sure their entire
administrative and household staff understood to respect and be
considerate of the Secret Service. Karl Rove was the one who wasthe
most caring of the Secret Service in the administration.
She was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest; she never
had any harsh word to say about anyone.

Barack & Michelle Obama: " Clinton all over again" - hatesthe
military and looks down on the Secret Service. He is egotistical and
cunning; looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you, but turns
around and does the opposite---untrustworthy. He has temper
tantrums.
She is a complete bitch, who hates anybody who is not black; hates the
military; and looks at the Secret Service as servants.

Conservative · Oct 4, 2011

pbrauer said:
Once again your condescension is duly noted, Con.:roll:

As is your total lack of data and lack of understanding of how business and the private sector work. You appear to be a big govt. liberal who has been brainwashed by an ideology that has failed everywhere in the world yet liberal arrogance makes you believe that this group of liberals can do better than the last group. Same results, different players.

iliveonramen · Oct 4, 2011

Sorry but what I see here is someone who is young and doesn't really understand how the economy works. I call that being book smart, now you need to become street smart. This is an internet forum so you aren't going to believe my background. Keep believing what they tell you in school and believe that is going to help you long term in the real world. If that is what you believe then make sure you go to sleep early Christmas Eve so that Santa comes to your house.

Regarding your China/U.S. Comparison. Do you want to compare workers wages in each country as well? In addition do you realize how difficult it is to grow from 9.9 trillion to 14.5 trillion vs China growing 3 trillion dollars from their meager base?

It really is frustrating to see the so called book smart people in this forum who never really held a private sector job. I fear for our country when I see the education that many are receiving. no wonder his country is in a mess.

Alrighty.....

whysoserious · Oct 4, 2011

Conservative said:
You mean the recession that Obama said that he would end and fix. Now we are facing a double dip and you still blame Bush.

Honest question: did he really explicitly say that?

*Edit:

And the only reason you believe what that Secret Service agent said is because it fits your view of the world. If it was the other way around you'd say he was an un-American dick and you'd move along.

iliveonramen · Oct 4, 2011

It really is frustrating to see the so called book smart people in this forum who never really held a private sector job. I fear for our country when I see the education that many are receiving. no wonder his country is in a mess.

Don't make assumptions about me. Am I relatively young? Yes. Do I hold a private sector job? Yes, and it's very relevant to the subject matter we're discussing.

TheDemSocialist · Oct 4, 2011

Uh oh is this Reagan and Obama agreeing!
Reagan agrees to close the tax holes for billion airs and calls on them "to pay their fair share"! Uh oh was Reagan igniting class warfare!?!?
Oh my!!! :shock:

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

iliveonramen

Pontificator

Snevert

Member

EarlzP

Conservative

Conservative

Conservative

Grant

muRda

New member

EarlzP

Conservative

Conservative

iliveonramen

Pontificator

muRda

New member

Conservative

iliveonramen

Pontificator

Conservative

pbrauer

KevinKohler

pbrauer

Conservative

Conservative

iliveonramen

Pontificator

whysoserious

iliveonramen

Pontificator

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist