Fiscal Cliff and Doc Fix

[doctor712]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Happy and Healthy New Year Gang.

Been watching the news as usual. So the Senate passed their measure and now the House has its turn today I believe. Included in this mess, is the Doc Fix portion which will allow "Medicare docs" to continue getting "fully reimbursed." Yeah, I know what Medicare pays so it's ridiculous, but doesn't this apply to all docs, or docs that do x% of patients as Medicare? I would imagine a lot on this board just got a "break" in that Medicare reimbursements won't be further made minute, yes?

Also, the tax hike seems to have changed from 250k personal to 400k personal. I would guess many people on this board were spared, those who make between the 250 and 400?
Or 450 household. Anyway, thoughts on this absolute chaos?
And the payroll holiday is over. So, that'll knock 100k earner 2000 more.

I find it deplorable that the legislative branch (not to mention mr pres) who we pay, couldn't get this done in a more responsible way.

Last time I checked, when I wasn't making enough money and had maxed credit cards, I don't recall calling Amex and asking for an increase in credit limit.
And the actual ceiling isn't even part of this measure. Two more months on that.

D712

 

[lane]

Don't forget the raise congress received as the nice little cherry on top of this BS sundae

 

[JRG]

Also, the tax hike seems to have changed from 250k personal to 400k personal. I would guess many people on this board were spared, those who make between the 250 and 400?
Or 450 household. Anyway, thoughts on this absolute chaos?
And the payroll holiday is over. So, that'll knock 100k earner 2000 more.


D712

Just wanted to remind you that the tax rates are progressive. AKA someone making 450k is still benefiting (compared to the 250k proposal) because only 50k is taxed at the highest rate.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Once you have actually earned over $500K then you will realize just how much in taxes one already pays. Add to this fact that the US govt is a poor steward of taxpayer money and can't stop wasting money I have no desire to pay Obama/Cesear one extra dollar

We don't have a revenue problem in Washingon; we have a spending problem.

How many years should a US Citzen receive unemployment benefits or food stamps? The safety net has become a waterbed and many citizens choose to lay around and do nothing.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The GOP house is going to war with Obama in 60 days over spending. I don't see a debt limit increase unless Obama agrees to cut spending significantly. Obama has said he won't cut any spending unless he gets even more tax increases or revenue from the rich.

 

[Sublimazing]

Once you have actually earned over $500K then you will realize just how much in taxes one already pays. Add to this fact that the US govt is a poor steward of taxpayer money and can't stop wasting money I have no desire to pay Obama/Cesear one extra dollar

We don't have a revenue problem in Washingon; we have a spending problem.

How many years should a US Citzen receive unemployment benefits or food stamps? The safety net has become a waterbed and many citizens choose to lay around and do nothing.

I couldn't agree with you more on your last statement. Someone once told me, "people aren't inherently bad, but they are inherently lazy". We're demotivating the poor in this country by taking away their reason to work.

 

[dhb]

A quote from the comment section of a news source:

"They tax us $600 billion more and only cut spending $12 billion so in other words they RAISED SPENDING another $588,000,000.00 That is the way to cut the deficit...Our Country is full of #$%$ that think this deal is good for us"

Scary when you think about it.

 

[doctor712]

A quote from the comment section of a news source:

"They tax us $600 billion more and only cut spending $12 billion so in other words they RAISED SPENDING another $588,000,000.00 That is the way to cut the deficit...Our Country is full of #$%$ that think this deal is good for us"

Scary when you think about it.

Well, the House majority leader isn't backing the deal, so it's far from a done deal at this point. The repercussions of not getting this done will not be good in the short term, I don't think. Maybe he's making a stink to make a point, but other countries are going to laugh at us (more than already) if we cannot govern our way through this.

👎thumbdown

D712

 

[seinfeld]

What it comes down to for me is how many months of the year should i have to work to support people other than my family. I leave my wife and kids every morning and miss many dinners in the 5 months it takes to pay for other peoples problems.

OUr society needs to get back to local support mechanisms. Local faith centers, community outreach programs, and acts of kindness to your neighbors. When $100 goes into a family hand from a neighbor it means a lot more than $100 worth of food from some government food bank/ benefit card. When 100 dollars goes into a pot along with 100billion dollars no one cares about a mere $100

 

[BLADEMDA]

Well, the House majority leader isn't backing the deal, so it's far from a done deal at this point. The repercussions of not getting this done will not be good in the short term, I don't think. Maybe he's making a stink to make a point, but other countries are going to laugh at us (more than already) if we cannot govern our way through this.

👎thumbdown

D712

At this point I'd take the deal but The house GOP doesn't like the added spending in the bill and no reduction in the debt.

 

[doctor712]

What it comes down to for me is how many months of the year should i have to work to support people other than my family. I leave my wife and kids every morning and miss many dinners in the 5 months it takes to pay for other peoples problems.

OUr society needs to get back to local support mechanisms. Local faith centers, community outreach programs, and acts of kindness to your neighbors. When $100 goes into a family hand from a neighbor it means a lot more than $100 worth of food from some government food bank/ benefit card. When 100 dollars goes into a pot along with 100billion dollars no one cares about a mere $100

The part of this that's notable is that whether it's 100$ from the US G or 100$ from neighbor Bob, someone still has to hand out that 100$. Why, I have no idea, well I do, but you get it.
It doesn't really matter to me if I have to work 5 months of the year and send that money to the Gov or walk to my neighbors' house and hand it to him. Taxes are so high now because of years and years of macro-economic G policies. And it's a problem.

I was at my son's peewee hockey game the other day, and I grabbed a puck. It said Made in Slovakia. Why can't we make our OWN pucks? Make better cars? Make cooler MacBooks here in the good old US. And no, a common misconception is that the puck is cheaper made in Slovakia, but if you watch the reports on these issues, it's not, it's really not. It's that the person who has been signing off on buying 10,000 Slovakian pucks for the last 10 years isn't checking into US made pucks. Apply this to 1,000,000 different products and this is our country's problem: we hand our money to the very last person who should get it. Keep it HERE.

Disclosure: I drive a Volvo.

Good luck making it through the day without using 100 products that were made in China. Impossible. Was it that way in 1940? 1950? Gotta get back there... FAST.

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

This new tax law is a ruse. Taxes go up substantially on those earning over $300,000. All deductions are phased out or eliminated pretty quickly as you earn more than $400,000. Many of you are going to find out next year that the Senate sold you out for next to nothing

As a concerned Citzen I woud rather go off the cliff and pay slightly more taxes under the Clinton tax code and then get real deficit reduction vs this crappy senate compromise which saves me a few grand but dooms my nation to disaster.

I would vote "hell no" and not just no (yes, my taxes go up but God save our nation)

The GOP sold the conservatives out for a bag of peanuts

 

[doctor712]

Yeah, but that's the mature option Blade. And we're talking politics here...

D712

 

[doctor712]

Some sneaky additions to this bill that are not being widely reported (yet)...

$430 million for Hollywood through “special expensing rules” to encourage TV and film production in the United States. Producers can expense up to $15 million of costs for their projects.

$331 million for railroads by allowing short-line and regional operators to claim a tax credit up to 50 percent of the cost to maintain tracks that they own or lease.

$222 million for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands through returned excise taxes collected by the federal government on rum produced in the islands and imported to the mainland.

$70 million for NASCAR by extending a “7-year cost recovery period for certain motorsports racing track facilities.”

$59 million for algae growers through tax credits to encourage production of “cellulosic biofuel” at up to $1.01 per gallon.

$4 million for electric motorcycle makers by expanding an existing green-energy tax credit for buyers of plug-in vehicles to include electric motorbikes.

Of course I'm sick and tired of seeing film/tv productions go overseas due to tax incentives and credits given by other Governments, so I don't mind keeping filming here in the US. Frankly, the film business gives a lot of people work and I'd rather it be US citizens. In the US. If I told you how much money I lost by not having a Euro or Canadian passport, I'd lose my lunch. A LOT. Simply so the producer could get the tax credit by hiring one of their own...

D712

 

[doctor712]

And CNN is reporting...the Bill has passed the House without changes.

👎

D712

 

[glorfindel]

The safety net has become a waterbed and many citizens choose to lay around and do nothing.

I'm pretty sure this isn't a big problem relative to the other spending problems we have.

1) medicare/medicaid. Huge, and growing. Biggest chunk of nondiscretionary spending. Costs can't be controlled, because one person's cost is another person's revenue. Who's making too much money in healthcare? Hospitals? Insurance companies? Doctors?

2) military. Biggest part of discretionary spending. Yet anytime anyone wants to cut military spending, the (mostly) GOP starts screaming that we're "crippling" our military. Really?

3) Cheesy special-interest perks, exemplified in D712s post. If you've got an effective special-interest lobby, the govt subsidizes you, no matter how unneccessary.

Compared to just these three, "lazy people" are a drop in the bucket.

 

[vector2]

The lazy folks on Blade's waterbed are actually old people if you really look at it. 40% of the federal budget is medicare, medicaid, and social security. The bulk of medicare and SS spending obv goes towards seniors, and 1/3rd of medicaid spending is LTACs/nursing homes etc. I agree with Sublimazing that "people aren't inherently bad, but they are inherently lazy," especially when we're talking about seniors, what, with their brittle vertebrae, depleted muscle mass, and incessant need for naps.

It's high time we get these layabouts to put some skin in the fiscal game and tell them to get back to work

 

[PikminOC]

so when we get old..whats our safety net?

 

[Laryngophed]

so when we get old..whats our safety net?

Personal/private investments, savings, real estate, etc., if I had to wager a guess.

 

[vector2]

so when we get old..whats our safety net?

Personal/private investments, savings, real estate, etc., if I had to wager a guess.

Precisely. I'm not particularly concerned that the average income of a female over 65 is $15k a year, or that average out-of-pocket medical expenses in the last year of life reach $6,000, or that the elderly poverty rate was 50% pre-SS and 30-35% pre-medicare, or that the overall tax burden to GDP ratio is the lowest it's been in 30 years. Blade and the rest of libertarian conservatives have already said it, folks- SPENDING is the problem...why should I be busting my ass and accruing all this debt to pay for someone else's fixadent and hip replacement when sub-$300k jobs after graduation might become the norm?? I mean, that's practically middle-class.

If you're old and sick and don't have any savings, that's your problem. Sell your heirlooms and valuables, ask your church for a couple bucks, file chapter 7, move in with your kids. Whatever you do, just don't raise my taxes.

 

[Mman]

Once you have actually earned over $500K then you will realize just how much in taxes one already pays.

flat tax is the only way to go.

Obama's justification for jacking up rates on the rich is "because they can afford it". Really? So 3 years from now when we are even more broke as a country, should we raise their rates again because they can afford it? Is it the goal of the people to have the richest 1% of the nation fund the country to whatever excess it wants? No thanks. I'd like far less government, far less taxes for everybody, and a more fare way to assess those taxes.

 

[yappy]

+1. I agree with blade too. I hate how people place themselves into special interest groups. For example, the logic goes, "because I'm 'poor' tax rate hikes at 400k+ don't effect me; therefore, who cares if they're raised". Taxes have been raised on EVERYONE in the sense that anyone who makes over 400k will pay a higher tax rate.

IMO this is the key to developing major change in our country. If people believe they can be successful then there will be lower marginal tax rates and less spending on entitlements or less sympathy for chronically poor or unemployed people. Just like the young ambitious resident on these boards who thinks they may make in PP, or business leader, or engineer with a big idea, etc etc they want lower tax rates and less gov spending because they believe in themselves.

I couldn't agree with you more on your last statement. Someone once told me, "people aren't inherently bad, but they are inherently lazy". We're demotivating the poor in this country by taking away their reason to work.

 

[pgg]

Precisely. I'm not particularly concerned that the average income of a female over 65 is $15k a year, or that average out-of-pocket medical expenses in the last year of life reach $6,000, or that the elderly poverty rate was 50% pre-SS and 30-35% pre-medicare, or that the overall tax burden to GDP ratio is the lowest it's been in 30 years. Blade and the rest of libertarian conservatives have already said it, folks- SPENDING is the problem...why should I be busting my ass and accruing all this debt to pay for someone else's fixadent and hip replacement when sub-$300k jobs after graduation might become the norm?? I mean, that's practically middle-class.

If you're old and sick and don't have any savings, that's your problem. Sell your heirlooms and valuables, ask your church for a couple bucks, file chapter 7, move in with your kids. Whatever you do, just don't raise my taxes.

You don't need to tax people at 50%+ to keep old people out of homeless shelters. If you think that's really needed, some reassessment of where that money is actually going is in order.


A decade or so from now, when interest rates have risen and debt payments are starting to take a bigger and bigger chunk of GDP, and actual GDP has grown at rates closer to 1% than the delusory 3-4% predicted by those modeling the future ... even taxing the top 2% at 90% won't be enough.

Maybe then we can talk about cutting spending?


I'm also not convinced that "move in with your kids" is such a horrible thing. I'd rather my elderly parents lived and died in my house than live in a nursing home and die in an ICU. And I'd rather spend my 80s or 90s in my kids' home and die there than get chest compressions or a AAA whack.

 

[yappy]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG9FWRbD9ac[/YOUTUBE]


What annoys me so much about the high taxes is that it makes saving / investing for yourself more and more difficult. By raising rates they're taking freedom away to support an unsustainable machine. Instead of saving you're taxed at such a high rate that you're not too much better off than the entitlement king and queen living it up on Obama's cell phone plan and section 8 housing. Instead of laughing at them when the gravy train runs out you will be on the street with them as the opportunity cost of their entitlements was YOUR savings.

so when we get old..whats our safety net?

 

[glorfindel]

By raising rates they're taking freedom away to support an unsustainable machine. Instead of saving you're taxed at such a high rate that you're not too much better off than the entitlement king and queen living it up on Obama's cell phone plan and section 8 housing.

Clearly you are not one of the Mitt-Romney-level-rich.

I'm talking about being rich enough to derive most of their income from capital gains -- these folks pay much, much less than the merely upper middle-class do, because the capital gains rate is so much lower than the marginal rates on income earned from work.

As soon as doctors start quitting their jobs to sign up for Section 8, I'll start weeping for them and their suffocatingly-high tax burdens.

We need some real poor people on this thread to keep it real.

---

Now that that's out of the way, it's true that it's no argument against excessive taxation of the rich to point out that they're better off than everyone else. They certainly are, but they could still be overtaxed.

I think they are, mostly, if you discount the Mitt Romneys and Pete Petersons (and Warren Buffetts and George Soroses).

What I find hilarious is all this raging against the poor, and the evidently widespread belief on this board that if we could just tame the voracious appetites of those poor enough to qualify for govt. safety-net assistance, our own tax burdens could be dramatically reduced. That's absurd.

The problem is excessive health care and military spending. Not Section 8. Not "Obama's cell phone plan." Those are drops in the bucket. Raging against those things is mostly wasted breath, even if it makes you feel better.

 

[Mman]

I'm talking about being rich enough to derive most of their income from capital gains -- these folks pay much, much less than the merely upper middle-class do, because the capital gains rate is so much lower than the marginal rates on income earned from work.

As soon as doctors start quitting their jobs to sign up for Section 8, I'll start weeping for them and their suffocatingly-high tax burdens.

We need some real poor people on this thread to keep it real.

At what point is somebody "real poor" according to you?

And why do most liberals who want to justify raising taxes on everybody earning more than 250K or 450K or whatever number you want like to throw out examples like Mitt Romney or Warren Buffett to support that plan? They are rich enough to have retired decades ago and they don't need to have a job. Not really applicable to a family of 4 earning 500K, paying a crap load of taxes, and needing to work for a long time at their current rate (likely weren't earning that much all along) just to retire comfortably.

The idea that the country should be funded by the rich people is just absurd to me. I think we should all pay our FAIR SHARE as in the same cut from your paycheck as everyone else. You can even spare the first 15K or 25K as tax free so that we aren't unduly burdening the poor.


P.S. I know what it's like to be broke and working multiple jobs and taking out student loans at the same time so pretty sure I've lived both sides of the coin on this one.

 

[vector2]

You don't need to tax people at 50%+ to keep old people out of homeless shelters. If you think that's really needed, some reassessment of where that money is actually going is in order.

And one doesn't need to rage against welfare spending (unless it's the corporate variety) or earned benefits programs if one is trying to make a legitimate point about deficit reduction. SS is funded separately from general revenues and its own solvency has such a far horizon that including it in current talks is absurd. Medicare in and of itself isn't the problem when you consider how much private insurance and health-care related expenditures in general cost. The folks who are for gutting medicare aren't thinking about how much it's gonna cost the US economy, employers and seniors when you throw these folks back into the vastly more expensive private market pool. This is the same reason why your "move back in with your kids" solution is silly, unless of course the massive economic drain from children spending large portions of their budget to care for their parents instead putting that money into more productive areas of the economy (or their own children) is something you find desirable.

You say that we don't need 50% rates to keep the elderly out of homeless shelters, and that very well may be true. Unfortunately we probably do need increased taxes in addition to discretionary spending cuts to pay for programs that are incredibly popular, morally justified, or both. Raising marginal rates on low-mid 6 figure salaries probably needs to happen, but we're forgetting that there are a thousand sources of revenue that are more fair to broach first, namely increasing capital gains rates on high 6 and 7 figure earners, reforming corporate tax code to get rid of loopholes/sheltering and instituting a corporate wealth tax since multinationals are sitting on $3 trillion in cash, getting rid of the FICA cap or at least making FICA a progressive system, instituting a financial transaction tax on banks and traders who are wreaking havoc with 48 millisecond computer-executed trades, steeply raising estate tax rates over $5-10m etc

A decade or so from now, when interest rates have risen and debt payments are starting to take a bigger and bigger chunk of GDP, and actual GDP has grown at rates closer to 1% than the delusory 3-4% predicted by those modeling the future ... even taxing the top 2% at 90% won't be enough.

Maybe then we can talk about cutting spending?

So what is someone supposed to get from this rhetoric? If something makes a small difference but not a large difference it's not worth doing at all? By that logic we shouldn't even dream of instituting chained-CPI for SS or raising the the medicare age to 68 since these measures will only save $8-10b a year over 10 years.

I agree that solely raising taxes isn't a solution in a system with systemic problems. You can't have Clinton-era tax rates without Clinton-era growth. This is why you look at tax burden:GDP which is still at historic lows. Honestly, looking at the totality of this thread it doesn't seem like a whole lot of people are actually concerned with fiscal responsibility, but rather with demonizing the mythical welfare queens who are somehow 99% responsible for a $1.3 trillion per annum deficit. If you want to keep more of your own money, fine, but don't pretend you're simultaneously sticking it to some young, able-bodied welfare layabout when it's really grandma and grandpa, kids on CHIPS, students, the working poor, working folks on unemployment, and teachers/cops/other municipal workers who're gettin it good.

On the bright side, at least we're all Keynesians now since I haven't heard too many conservatives arguing that the cliff's massive instantaneous deficit reduction would've been a positive thing for the economy.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Clearly you are not one of the Mitt-Romney-level-rich.

I'm talking about being rich enough to derive most of their income from capital gains -- these folks pay much, much less than the merely upper middle-class do, because the capital gains rate is so much lower than the marginal rates on income earned from work.

As soon as doctors start quitting their jobs to sign up for Section 8, I'll start weeping for them and their suffocatingly-high tax burdens.

We need some real poor people on this thread to keep it real.

---

Now that that's out of the way, it's true that it's no argument against excessive taxation of the rich to point out that they're better off than everyone else. They certainly are, but they could still be overtaxed.

I think they are, mostly, if you discount the Mitt Romneys and Pete Petersons (and Warren Buffetts and George Soroses).

What I find hilarious is all this raging against the poor, and the evidently widespread belief on this board that if we could just tame the voracious appetites of those poor enough to qualify for govt. safety-net assistance, our own tax burdens could be dramatically reduced. That's absurd.

The problem is excessive health care and military spending. Not Section 8. Not "Obama's cell phone plan." Those are drops in the bucket. Raging against those things is mostly wasted breath, even if it makes you feel better.

The poor overwhelmingly voted for Obama who in turn soaked the rich in order to give more free stuff to the poor. That's our current system of govt. along with borrowing money from the Chinese so the poor, elderly and disabled can keep getting a middle class lifestyle.

Clearly, the Ponzi scheme along with the Robin Hood philosophy of Obama will only work for so long before the entitlement dream becomes an entitlement nightmare.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[vector2]

The poor overwhelmingly voted for Obama who in turn soaked the rich in order to give more free stuff to the poor. That's our current system of govt. along with borrowing money from the Chinese so the poor, elderly and disabled can keep getting a middle class lifestyle.

Agreed. Look at these poors, olds, and disableds living like kings on the earnings Maobama stole from me. Did you know 99.6% of these slobs have a refrigerator??

 

[glorfindel]

Look at that big, sustained decrease in the poverty rate after 1959. Makes me pine for the Johnson administration.

 

[glorfindel]

The rich don't seem to be getting "soaked."

 

[pgg]

vector2 -

For the record, I favor cuts to the military, health care, and social security, and I don't oppose raising taxes for everyone.

This is the same reason why your "move back in with your kids" solution is silly, unless of course the massive economic drain from children spending large portions of their budget to care for their parents instead putting that money into more productive areas of the economy (or their own children) is something you find desirable.

End of life care is a huge portion of health care expenditures. It was more a comment on how our culture has come to view old age and dying, which I think is pretty sad.

In home Hospice care is both cost effective and humane. And god forbid it became culturally and socially acceptable again to put up with one's parents in their old age. I'm a little disturbed that you find weighing care for one's parents vs consumer spending to keep the economy chugging has an obvious answer in favor of buying stuff.

Raising marginal rates on low-mid 6 figure salaries probably needs to happen, but we're forgetting that there are a thousand sources of revenue that are more fair to broach first, namely increasing capital gains rates on high 6 and 7 figure earners, reforming corporate tax code to get rid of loopholes/sheltering and instituting a corporate wealth tax since multinationals are sitting on $3 trillion in cash, getting rid of the FICA cap or at least making FICA a progressive system, instituting a financial transaction tax on banks and traders who are wreaking havoc with 48 millisecond computer-executed trades, steeply raising estate tax rates over $5-10m etc

I don't disagree with any of that. Except maybe the estate tax.

A decade or so from now, when interest rates have risen and debt payments are starting to take a bigger and bigger chunk of GDP, and actual GDP has grown at rates closer to 1% than the delusory 3-4% predicted by those modeling the future ... even taxing the top 2% at 90% won't be enough.

Maybe then we can talk about cutting spending?

So what is someone supposed to get from this rhetoric? If something makes a small difference but not a large difference it's not worth doing at all? By that logic we shouldn't even dream of instituting chained-CPI for SS or raising the the medicare age to 68 since these measures will only save $8-10b a year over 10 years.

Where did I state that small things aren't worth doing at all? I was pointing out the pointlessness of raising revenues without reducing spending.

I agree that solely raising taxes isn't a solution in a system with systemic problems. You can't have Clinton-era tax rates without Clinton-era growth.

Minor detail there, with huge implications. I don't believe we will see 80s/90s era growth again. Ever.

If you recalibrate your future-prognostication to assume GDP growth of 1%, the notion that we can "outgrow" our debt becomes obviously silly. If you don't want that path to end with currency devaluation and/or a catastrophic credit crisis, then spending has to be reduced.

On the bright side, at least we're all Keynesians now since I haven't heard too many conservatives arguing that the cliff's massive instantaneous deficit reduction would've been a positive thing for the economy.

That's an interesting interpretation.


As an aside, do you simply not understand that those of us who already pay the great majority of the taxes in the country resent being told we need to pay more, but that spending cuts aren't needed, or somehow put an undue burden on other people?

 

[BLADEMDA]

The rich don't seem to be getting "soaked."

Fact: Your Country is Broke

Fact: Massive Spending on poverty since 1970 hasn't changed the poverty rate

Fact: The best program to avoid poverty is hard work and personal motivation

Fact: The USA was founded on priciples of personal liberty and freedom from government

 

[doctor712]

I'm also not convinced that "move in with your kids" is such a horrible thing.

👍

think back to the 70s and 80s (well at least my childhood), Grandma and Grandpa lived at home and everyone was thrilled to have them there... that's the way it ought to be.

But the 2000$ Condo on Collins Avenue is what everyone wants, that's 24K a year, let's say from 80 to 90... that's a lot of people spending 250K in this country that they just don't NEED to spend, as a senior.

Gee, I wonder how it works in other countries...

D712

 

[doctor712]

...along with borrowing money from the Chinese...

Let's be fair though, borrowing from China of all places, isn't new to Obama. Problem? Yes. His fault, hardly.

I'd like to know, actually, who is to blame on that one. When did we FIRST need to go there...

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

The rich don't seem to be getting "soaked."

Typical Liberal. Rather than Vilify the successful in America why not work harder and smarter to become one yourself.

Another Liberal falsehood is that the "pie" is fixed in size and scope. That's incorrect.
There is no limit to the size of the pie and another man's success is NOT the reason you are poor.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Let's be fair though, borrowing from China of all places, isn't new to Obama. Problem? Yes. His fault, hardly.

I'd like to know, actually, who is to blame on that one. When did we FIRST need to go there...

D712

Who cares. $16 Trillion in debt. We have a problem and need leaders with real solutions.
Both parties are at fault but where do we go from here? Obama can't be the next FDR because we are broke and he knows it.

 

[glorfindel]

Fact: Your Country is Broke

In debt, yes. Broke? Not yet.

Fact: Massive Spending on poverty since 1970 hasn't changed the poverty rate

But you do see that your graph shows the poverty rate decreasing pretty substantially since the 1960s, and then remaining steady? My interpretation of this is: the 1960s was when we instituted Johnson's Great Society safety-net programs. These programs had a large beneficial effect. Changes in safety-net spending since then have been minor, relative to the changes of the Johnson administration. Unsurprisingly, the changes in the poverty rate have been, since then, minor.

Fact: The best program to avoid poverty is hard work and personal motivation

I agree. Safety-net programs supplement the beneficial effect of these things. They don't substitute for them, or undercut them.

Fact: The USA was founded on priciples of personal liberty and freedom from government

Those principles were included in the mix, yes. Given the need to be "free from government," I find the Bush and Obama administrations' embrace of NSA warrantless wiretapping to be abhorrent. I'm very disappointed by the limp response of self-proclaimed "conservatives" to this vast expansion of government power.

 

[BLADEMDA]

A first grade teacher explains to her class that she is a liberal Democrat. She asks her students to raise their hands if
they were liberal Democrats too. Not really knowing what a liberal Democrat was, but wanting to be like their teacher,
their hands flew up into the air. There was, however, one exception. A girl named Lucy had not gone along with the
crowd. The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different. "Because I'm not a liberal Democrat." "Then,"
asks the teacher, "What are you?" ''Why I'm a proud conservative Republican," boasts the little girl. The teacher, a
little perturbed and her face slightly red, asked Lucy why she was a conservative Republican. "Well, I was brought up
to trust in myself instead of relying on an intrusive government to care for me and do all of my thinking. My Dad and
Mom are conservative Republicans, and I am a conservative Republican too." The teacher, now angry, loudly says,
"That's no reason! What if your Mom was a *****, and your dad was a *****. What would you be then?" She
pauses, and lets out a smile. "Then," Lucy says, "I'd be a liberal Democrat."



A Democrat found a magic genie's lamp and rubbed it. The genie said, "I will grant you one wish." He said, "I wish I
were smarter". So the genie made him a Republican.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your spouse and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous
looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand
is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:

Well that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done
anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this
situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content
to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all
so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:

BANG!

Southern Conservative Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click.....(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click.

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"

 

[glorfindel]

Another Liberal falsehood is that the "pie" is fixed in size and scope. That's incorrect.
There is no limit to the size of the pie and another man's success is NOT the reason you are poor.

Typical conservative. Turning a blind eye to the reality and consequences of the distribution of income and wealth.

If you can magically grow the pie, why be so upset about the share of what the government gets, vs the share of what the very rich get? Just work harder to be more successful so that those marginal rates you're paying still enable you to buy your yacht.

 

[glorfindel]

A first grade teacher explains to her class that she is a liberal Democrat. She asks her students to raise their hands if
they were liberal Democrats too. Not really knowing what a liberal Democrat was, but wanting to be like their teacher,
their hands flew up into the air. There was, however, one exception. A girl named Lucy had not gone along with the
crowd. The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different. "Because I'm not a liberal Democrat." "Then,"
asks the teacher, "What are you?" ''Why I'm a proud conservative Republican," boasts the little girl. The teacher, a
little perturbed and her face slightly red, asked Lucy why she was a conservative Republican. "Well, I was brought up
to trust in myself instead of relying on an intrusive government to care for me and do all of my thinking. My Dad and
Mom are conservative Republicans, and I am a conservative Republican too." The teacher, now angry, loudly says,
"That's no reason! What if your Mom was a *****, and your dad was a *****. What would you be then?" She
pauses, and lets out a smile. "Then," Lucy says, "I'd be a liberal Democrat."



A Democrat found a magic genie's lamp and rubbed it. The genie said, "I will grant you one wish." He said, "I wish I
were smarter". So the genie made him a Republican.

+1

If I ever stop being able to laugh at the liberal democrat stereotype, shoot me. Southern style.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Typical conservative. Turning a blind eye to the reality and consequences of the distribution of income and wealth.

If you can magically grow the pie, why be so upset about the share of what the government gets, vs the share of what the very rich get? Just work harder to be more successful so that those marginal rates you're paying still enable you to buy your yacht.

Government has an obligation to be a good steward of taxpayer money. Do you honestly think that is the case right now? Why does government have the right to take my money and give it to solyndra ,Green energy Companies or Windmill farms? Who decides how large the safety net needs to be? Should it include half of America?

Also, what is the role of government in society? We have vastly different views on that fundamental role.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

The U.S. welfare system sure creates some crazy disincentives to working your way up the ladder. Benefits stacked upon benefits can mean it is financially better, at least in the short term, to stay at a lower-paying jobs rather than taking a higher paying job and losing those benefits. This is called the "welfare cliff."

Let's take the example of a single mom with two kids, 1 and 4. She has a $29,000 a year job, putting the kids in daycare during the day while she works.

As the above chart – via Gary Alexander, Pennsylvania's secretary of Public Welfare — shows, the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income and benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income & benefits of $57,045.

It would sure be tempting for that mom to keep the status quo rather than take the new job, even though the new position might lead to further career advancement and a higher standard of living. I guess this is something the Obama White House forgot to mention in its "Life of Julia" cartoons extolling government assistance.