Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[Guest one]

It sounds like you have researched her work for years so I guess I am going to have to agree with you that she was a huge racist.

In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey. She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand." Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."

I guess since she tried to get black people and women of the KKK to both use birth control she must have been a confused racist. Trying to stop black people from reproducing out of hate and trying to stop white people from having unwanted pregnacies because she wanted them to live better, healthier lives.

[Fuzz]

"the president said to me, 'We don't have a spending problem.' "

Get ready for more taxes and spending!

http://online.wsj.co...ss_opinion_main

So...taxes/debt/deficit?

What say you?

[nsplayr]

I say we have a spending problem relative to our level of taxation, absolutely. Hard to argue with that. When you cut taxes for a decade and then all agree to make 99% of those cuts permanent you can't continue to offer the same or a higher level of government services.

I voted for a combination of discretionary cuts where they make sense, reforms to big programs to bend the cost curves, and higher taxes in some cases. I hope that's what we get when all those ideals go through the D.C. sausage-making machine known as Congress.

Edited January 9, 2013 by nsplayr

[ThreeHoler]

I say we have a spending problem relative to our level of taxation, absolutely.

[Smokin]

When we are in debt more than an entire year's GDP, I argue we have a spending problem regardless of our taxes. Raise federal income tax to 100% for all tax brackets with no deductions allowed and a year from now we're still in debt. How is this not a spending problem regardless of our tax levels?

[Vertigo]

she spoke at KKK rallies

In which she stated was "awkward for her" because their beliefs were contrary to each other and routinely had to turn down further invites.

and then went and championed birth control in black churches

At the invite of the black preachers of those churches.

But yeah, trying to save women lives by giving them an alternate to self-induced abortion is eugenics- moron.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Vertigo

[Fuzz]

Well we have officially hit rock bottom...

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/01/08/bad-news-poll-finds-congress-less-popular-than-nickelback/

When asked if they have a higher opinion of either Congress or a series of unpleasant or disliked things, voters said they had a higher opinion of root canals (32 for Congress and 56 for the dental procedure), NFL replacement refs (29-56), head lice (19-67),

the rock band Nickelback (32-39)

, colonoscopies (31-58), Washington DC political pundits (34- 37), carnies (31-39), traffic jams (34-56), cockroaches (43-45), Donald Trump (42-44), France (37-46), Genghis Khan (37-41), used-car salesmen (32-57), and Brussels sprouts (23-69) than Congress.

Congress did manage to beat out telemarketers (45-35), John Edwards (45-29), the Kardashians (49-36), lobbyists (48-30), North Korea (61-26), the ebola virus (53-25), Lindsay Lohan (45-41), Fidel Castro (54-32), playground bullies (43-38), meth labs (60- 21), communism (57-23), and gonorrhea (53-28).

[joe1234]

When we are in debt more than an entire year's GDP, I argue we have a spending problem regardless of our taxes. Raise federal income tax to 100% for all tax brackets with no deductions allowed and a year from now we're still in debt. How is this not a spending problem regardless of our tax levels?

I would say it's because we live in reality, and not in some fantasy world with your imaginary time horizon of one year to solve everything. Why is it so difficult to understand this issue without having to dumb it down to the point of ridiculousness?

"IT'S LIKE CREDIT CARDS! LOL"

[Smokin]

Why is it impossible to make a point here without you accusing others of having to dumb it down in order to understand it? Do you really think that I am actually proposing a solution where every single person in America basically works for free for a year? Did I say this situation must be fixed in a year? I am merely illustrating the point of how spending is THE problem (not just part) and it will not get fixed by raising taxes within reason. There are these things called analogies and examples that people use to get a point across. Just because someone uses an analogy does not mean they are incapable of understanding the complexity of the issue.

You are correct that the issues are not as simple as family finances, but they are not quantum physics either. Congress has not passed an actual budget in years because, like a teenage girl with her dad's credit card, they are unable to control their spending. Oh, sorry, another simplified analogy. That obviously means that I have no understanding of the situation and should defer to your implied superior intellect because I have to dumb things down to the point of ridiculousness to understand.

[Guest one]

To understand this situation fully you have to look at the psychology of all those involved in this tax debate. It is very important to understand the minds of the people trying to raise taxes. This should explain it to everyone who doesn’t already know.

In this situation, Republicans are dicks, Democrats are pussies, and Obama is an asshole.

Edited January 9, 2013 by one

[HU&W]

Mid-month mypay's are up. My paycheck shrunk thanks to the social security being bigger than the raise and zero change in BAH. It's interesting that the media is just reporting the increase in Social Security as being 2% of total pay, although that is technically true. Calculated another way, I was paying ~$240 and am now paying ~$400, or roughly a 67% increase in Social Security payments. It sounds like a much bigger deal when you put it that way.

[Vetter]

Well, that 2% really wasn't your money to begin with. So you really can't complain about it.

[Groundbounder]

Well, that 2% really wasn't your money to begin with. So you really can't complain about it.

Who's money is it?

[joe1234]

Why is it impossible to make a point here without you accusing others of having to dumb it down in order to understand it? Do you really think that I am actually proposing a solution where every single person in America basically works for free for a year? Did I say this situation must be fixed in a year? I am merely illustrating the point of how spending is THE problem (not just part) and it will not get fixed by raising taxes within reason. There are these things called analogies and examples that people use to get a point across. Just because someone uses an analogy does not mean they are incapable of understanding the complexity of the issue.

Stop getting so butt hurt. You didn't even make an analogy in the first place. In your quote, you said that it doesn't matter what the tax rate is, because spending needs to be cut, which is completely false, because revenues are half of the entire equation. I can probably guess what what point you're trying to get across, but it was just a silly argument to make. Honestly, the problem isn't dumbing down an argument, the problem is dumbing down an argument that wasn't even rational to begin with.

[Homestar]

Who's money is it?

You must have missed post #340.

[lloyd christmas]

Mid-month mypay's are up. My paycheck shrunk thanks to the social security being bigger than the raise and zero change in BAH. It's interesting that the media is just reporting the increase in Social Security as being 2% of total pay, although that is technically true. Calculated another way, I was paying ~$240 and am now paying ~$400, or roughly a 67% increase in Social Security payments. It sounds like a much bigger deal when you put it that way.

They can label the tax increase whatever they want. They are going to borrow from it to pay for everything else anyway. And by borrow, I mean take from it and never pay it back. That is what pisses me off.

Edited January 10, 2013 by lloyd christmas

[Butters]

Who's money is it?

It belongs to Angel Adams and her 12 kids. Who did you think it belonged to? Someone needs to pay for all her kids and 51% of America elected Obama to figure out who to give your money and guns to.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Butters

[lloyd christmas]

It belongs to Angel Adams and her 12 kids. Who did you think it belonged to? Someone needs to pay for all her kids and 51% of American elected Obama to figure out who to give your money and guns to.

Dont forget her suffering. Somebody has to pay for that too.

[Finance_Guy]

Mid-month mypay's are up. My paycheck shrunk thanks to the social security being bigger than the raise and zero change in BAH. It's interesting that the media is just reporting the increase in Social Security as being 2% of total pay, although that is technically true. Calculated another way, I was paying ~$240 and am now paying ~$400, or roughly a 67% increase in Social Security payments. It sounds like a much bigger deal when you put it that way.

Not sure where you get your numbers but the rate changed from 4.2% back to the original 6.2%. So if your FICA/OASDI was $240 then you are most likely taxed on a base pay of $5,714,29. Now multiply that base pay by the 6.2% and that comes to $354, not $400. That is a 47% increase using the FICA rates. When it was first implemented everyone saw a 32% decrease in the rate. Funny how the percents are not the same. Bottom line, you are only paying another 2% of base pay to FICA ($114).

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123331498

In my honest opinion they should have never messed with social security rates--some tax holiday it will be one day when it runs dry.

[HU&W]

Not sure where you get your numbers but the rate changed from 4.2% back to the original 6.2%. So if your FICA/OASDI was $240 then you are most likely taxed on a base pay of $5,714,29. Now multiply that base pay by the 6.2% and that comes to $354, not $400. That is a 47% increase using the FICA rates. When it was first implemented everyone saw a 32% decrease in the rate. Funny how the percents are not the same. Bottom line, you are only paying another 2% of base pay to FICA ($114).

http://www.af.mil/ne...sp?id=123331498

In my honest opinion they should have never messed with social security rates--some tax holiday it will be one day when it runs dry.

Spot on. Bad math on my part, and I'm sure my mistake was pretty obvious. Agreed that it is a 47% increase back up to previous rates. Still not a fan of donating over $300 per month to a sunk cost.

Edited January 12, 2013 by HU&W

[nsplayr]

Economists: Don’t mess around with the debt ceiling!

From the article:

More than 80 percent of the country’s leading economists say that the nation’s debt ceiling creates unnecessary uncertainty and can lead to worsening the nation’s financial picture, according to a new survey of more than 40 academics.

The survey by the IGM Forum at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business says that 84 percent of the nation’s economists agree or strongly agree that because all federal spending must be approved by both houses of Congress and the executive branch, a separate debt ceiling that has to be increased periodically creates unneeded uncertainty and can potentially lead to worse financial outcomes.

[Seriously]

Economists: Don’t mess around with the debt ceiling!

From the article:

The whole point of the debt ceiling is to show us just how much we're spending. Every time we raise it, it's a reminder that our spending is out of control.

The US is like a fat person trying to lose weight by eating less, so we use a smaller plate to limit how much food we can eat (the debt ceiling). Only now, we finished everything on our plate and want more. Obama solution is to just make the plate bigger. joe1234's solution is to get a bigger plate (raise the debt ceiling) and pile more food on the plate even higher than before (raise taxes). Neither solution involves eating less (the Republicans' answer).

We can't keep eating so much. Eventually, we're just going to barf it all up, shit all over the place, or (more likely) both at the same time.

Has this dumbed it down enough for you joe1234?

[pawnman]

Man, those dirty Republicans, trying to prevent the debt ceiling from being raised.

[nsplayr]

The whole point of the debt ceiling is to show us just how much we're spending. Every time we raise it, it's a reminder that our spending is out of control.

That is the only redeeming quality of the debt ceiling that the surveyed economists found, that it has the potential to bring about better behavior from Congress WRT have sound economic spending and taxation policies. That's valid. My argument, which is plain to see and I bet most conservatives would agree, is that the debt ceiling is absolutely no barrier to Congress spending more! It has the potential to do so, but when you allow a group of people to spend money and then give the same group of people the ability to determine what the "limit" of their spending can be, the "limit" isn't really doing a lot of good if those people decide to spend more. The debt ceiling is intended to limit Congress but is fully controlled by Congress, and as a side effect the consequences of not raising it are monumental; great policy!

Has this dumbed it down enough for you joe1234?

I agree with joe that I'm 100% sick of dumbed-down analogies. The debt ceiling is a limit on how much debt Treasury can incur in doing the business of paying America's bills. Congressional appropriations are what govern the spending that results in those bills. If you want to stop spending, don't stop our ability to pay bills, just stop spending i.e. stop appropriating money! It's not so f-ing complicated that you even need an analogy or Christ's sake.

Man, those dirty Republicans, trying to prevent the debt ceiling from being raised.

Anyone who at anytime advocated for not raising the debt ceiling, regardless of their party or current position in government, was wrong to do so. Shame on them for playing politics with America's credit. The debt ceiling is such a dangerous point of leverage to even threaten to use and it shouldn't even exist.

If you, as a Congressman, want to reign in spending, don't appropriate the money in the first place! If you, as a citizen want Congress to stop spending, only elect Congressmen who promise to do so. It doesn't take a box-checking AAD to figure that out.

[HeloDude]

If you, as a Congressman, want to reign in spending, don't appropriate the money in the first place! If you, as a citizen want Congress to stop spending, only elect Congressmen who promise to do so. It doesn't take a box-checking AAD to figure that out.

So are you trying to say that every dollar spent by the federal government in each fiscal year was a result of specific appropriations made by the Congress the year prior to when it was spent?