Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 5, 2014, at 9:07 AM:
More tax and spend and fueling of the class warfare fire.
Replies (38)
Price control on medical services and more money to departments of control while bringing in more non photo Id voters, and more tax and spend under the guise of creating jobs.
Sounds like a plan to me.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Mar 5, 2014, at 11:40 AM
"President Obama unveiled an ambitious $3.9 trillion budget blueprint Tuesday that seeks billions of dollars in fresh spending to boost economic growth but also pledges to tame the national debt by raising taxes on the wealthy, slashing payments to health providers and overhauling the nation's immigration laws."
First paragraph carries the words "by raising taxes on the wealthy", somehow I fail to see how this favors the wealthy.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 5, 2014, at 4:00 PM
Obama is not shrinking the deficit now he will tell you that because he has been told to say that. Obama knows nothing about a budget he has always been a lawyer and a community organizer. Matter of fact his 3.9 trillion dollar budget is dead on arrival by both democrats and republicans all he is doing is his usual show boating and as usual campaigning and cheer-leading because he sure not leading not only in economics but look at the mess his foreign policy is in.mccheck out of due respect this is not the democratic party we were born and raised in the party has been taken over by far left radicals.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Mar 5, 2014, at 4:56 PM
I think that it's about time that air travelers should start paying for their own personal gate rape and groping.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 4:56 AM
"I love how a tax code that favors the wealthy is not a problem, but pointing out that fact is "class warfare"."
How does the tax code "favor the wealthy"? The wealty pay the lion's share of taxes, while those at the bottom pay little to nothing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 6:32 AM
The reduced rates on Capital gains taxes encourages investment. It must work, since the Dow has been in record territory despite the lackluster economy. But it doesn't "favor the rich" since they still pay the bulk of taxes while the poor pay little or nothing.
The Social Security cap parallels the payment cap. Those who pay the maximum will not be likely to see anywhere near a reasonable return on that "investment" when they retire. To remove the cap is to change Social Security from a "retirement supplement" to a simple welfare plan (which I actually think it is anyway, but the pretense remains, and the cap is compliant with that pretense).
Besides, Social Security is "off budget", as you noted, so it should be immaterial to this discussion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 8:27 AM
I didn't know Obama's budget had anything to do with the structure by which SS taxes are collected.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 9:59 AM
Therefore Obama's "Budget" does not favor the wealthy.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 10:19 AM
"However, it doesn't change the fact that I pay 6.1% of my income in Social Security tax, while someone with income of $200,000 pays 3.5% and someone making $1 million pays less than 1%. That is favorable to those with higher incomes."
It also doesn't change the fact that the "rich" can't draw significantly more out of Social Security than the middle income, due to the payment cap. Ergo, the system does not "favor the rich", the cap merely keeps the system from being overly punitive.
"Favoring" seems to be in they eyes of the beholder. I don't see how a system in which "the rich" pay about 70% of all taxes (the percentage paid by the top 10% of wage earners) can be said to be tilted in their favour.
Since "the rich" likely comprise the majority of employers (I don't have the actual figures on that), and employers pay 50% of payroll taxes (excepting the self-employed), then it seems logical to assume that "the rich" pay a significantly higher percentage of payroll taxes than they are given credit for paying.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 10:26 AM
"I don't. In fact, I plan to be one someday."
For "anyone" hoping to be rich someday, I would suggest that they get out of the classroom and get cracking on doing so, as there is definitely a short window of opportunity in one's life to do so.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 11:03 AM
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 11:12 AM
"1. BILL GATES
Net worth: $72 billion
America's richest college dropout, Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates has been described by Harvard's student newspaper as the most successful to do so, as well."
From your link.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 11:24 AM
"Kind of puts your disdain for higher education in perspective."
I do not disdain higher education, I encourage young folks to get an education and get out into the work world while they are still young enough to do so.
I do however, not look highly on people having reached what comes close to middle age and they are still muddling around with what appears to be no plan.
One of the richest men I knew and did business with had to drop out of school in the 6th grade when his Father died to help his Mother raise his brothers and sisters. He educated himself.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 11:41 AM
"That same 10% earns over half the income and holds 85% of the country's wealth."
Which is why we call them "the rich". But I don't think the 85% figure for the country's wealth is accurate. I believe that depends on how you measure "wealth". In any case, you would have to limit that to 85% of the "privately-held" wealth.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 12:01 PM
"That same 10% earns over half the income "
Half the income and 70% of the income taxes. Certainly doesn't sound as if the income tax system is "favoring" them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 12:03 PM
The sites I find differ on the percentage owned by the top income earners. One says the top 20% own 85% of the wealth, the top 10% owning 70%.
Worldwide, another says the top 10% own 85% of the world's wealth, which would seem to indicate that the U.S does a better job with income equality than the rest of the world.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 12:06 PM
"From what I can tell, the compromise budget last December was a 2 year deal for 7.4 Trillion dollars. A 3.9 trillion dollar annual budget isn't that far off."
In my figuring, $200 billion is pretty far off.
"The military spending has been cut, from about 20% of the budget in 2011 to about 10% of the proposed budget."
Military spending is cut nearly in half and the budget still gets bigger? Who's getting the pentagon's money?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 12:09 PM
"I'm not sure where the $200 billion came from, but it's a difference of less than 6%."
Math. A two-year, $7.4 trillion budget makes it about $3.7 trillion ($3,700 billion) per year. A $3.9 trillion ($3,900 billion) leaves a difference of $200 billion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 12:39 PM
"Choices in degrees may be the reason there are so former students without a job. "
A friend of my daughter got a BS in social science and still hasn't found a solid full time job in two years. When she does it will pay about $50K a year max and she has a $60K student loan to pay off. What a way to start out life.
There is no college that is going to teach you self determination. Especially when you start off thinking someone owes you something.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 1:38 PM
There is no college that is going to teach you self determination. Especially when you start off thinking someone owes you something. -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 1:38 PM
Couldn't have said that better! There are a lot of lawyers running around in jobs that aren't in the law profession. And massive debt to boot.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 6, 2014, at 3:06 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 12:20 PM
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 12:42 PM
Curious you failed to mention higher taxes? Selective memory?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 12:52 PM
"No, just not important to my point." -- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 12:57 PM
You have accused others of lying and misleading when leaving out pertinent information.
Yes - the debt will be lower than what it was when Obama ran it up to record levels.
The debt is still unsustainable and the deficit continues to grow at record rates under Obama.
I agree with Obama 100% re: debt
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
"This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health-care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on."
Barack Hussein Obama
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 1:33 PM
That information was not pertinent. -- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 1:40 PM
Increased taxes are not pertinent to debt reduction? Hmm....
"supports my point because higher taxes are one reason the debt will be lower"-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 12:57 PM
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 1:43 PM
I didn't feel it was necessary to restate everything in the link to make a brief point. -- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 1:47 PM
Not everything. Just that tax increases are included. We're not talking rocket science here. Just a simple acknowledgement that Obama plans to spend more and lower the debt through hefty tax increases.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 2:17 PM
My point, again, is that not only is Obama proposing a budget which has a debt in it, he is also proposing a budget that has MORE taxes in it.
More spend and tax. And the CBO doesn't agree with his projections?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 2:36 PM
"So, Obama has proposed a budget that would lower debt and has less spending than the Ryan-Murray bill.
"Hardly sounds like the fiscally irresponsible liberal that some would make him out to be."
Actually, Mr. Obama's budget assumes higher revenues and less spending than the probably more realistic Ryan-Murray or the CBO's projections. He doesn't really say how he'll get it there.
What he does is use rosy projections for spending reductions in the future, while spending more now, and rosy projections for tax revenue in the future, without explaining the source for that influx of revenue.
Actual spending has been higher, and revenue lower than his past budget scenarios. There is little reason to believe that will be the case today.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 3:01 PM
"The differences were immaterial."
You have to compare the long-term spending scenarios with the actual. That is where the difference is found.
Mr. Obama's budget request exceeds CBO baseline projections for the near term, which is to say for the remainder of his term in office, it is in the long-term spending and revenue where his forecast supposedly saves all that money. But he doesn't say how it will get there.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 3:43 PM
"from the President's 2013 budget seems to indicate debt to be on the same trajectory the CBO has in their estimates."
I'm saying that you have to compare his long-term scenarios with actual fact: That would require going back to the 2010 or 2011 budget and comparing his projections with actual spending in recent years.
In order to make the claim that Mr. Obama's budget proposal actually spends less and reduces debt more than Ryan-Murray or CBO baseline, you have to be comparing long-term projections (i.e., eight or ten years down the road), since it clearly does not do so in the near-term. Since the budget proposal does not outline how these spending or revenue increases occur, the only comparison we have is with the success of his previous long-term projections.
Whenever such projections are done, the number-crunchers assume a rate of GDP growth upon which to base their revenue levels, and they assume level of entitlement growth upon which to base their spending levels. Presidential budgets are typically rosier in these projections than CBO figures, whereas Congress is up or down, depending upon whose budget proposal it is.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, at 4:31 PM
How can anybody believe anything the Obama Administration says after what they have took this Nation through with all the lies and mis-leading people.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 12:19 PM
How true that is Diseased Turtle, but the Obama crew tells those stories daily around the clock and they are good at it will look every one of us right in the eye and lie.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 2:31 PM
WMD's
Smokin' Gun
Mushroom Cloud
Any of you left wing nut jobs remember these words?
Yea, I didn't think so
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 3:47 PM
Speaking for all left wing nut jobs on these post, yes we all remember these well. How about swamp, do you remember? Rick, do you remember? Dug do you remember?
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 3:49 PM
leftie: Since you opened the gate find a post where I called you a 'left wing nut job" I see where my last post was removed I wonder who did that? not hard to figure out.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 5:12 PM
Rick: If you don't agree with the liberal agenda they will throw all sorts of rocks at you. You got to remember and don't for get this they are always right on everything and when you disagree with them and post your rebuttal I guarantee they will have it removed it has happen to me, you Wheels and many more because you see they for got about the first amendment.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 5:18 PM
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 5:12 PM
Your post was removed over that? Crazy.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 6:11 PM
Rick and swamp, HWWT has referred to me as left winger, or leftist, or left wing nut job, so since you guys worship at HWWT's alter, I figured you agreed with him or you would have declared you didn't. Don't be offended if you are mislabeled, because I don't. I have thick skin.
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 6:23 PM
Isn't left-turn the person that accused me of correcting their spelling, but never proved it when challenged? He/she just makes stuff up, apparently.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 8:32 PM
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, May 6, 2014, at 6:23 PM
Lefty: You are indeed a left wing nut job just like I'm a right wing nut job.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, May 7, 2014, at 8:02 AM
Menu
More tax and spend and fueling of the class warfare fire.
Replies (38)