isle-hawg Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Yup, lots of people want nuclear power, but few want a reactor in their back yard. I think there's truth to that complaint. Mind you, I also think it's fair that returning the tax rates to Clinton levels might not be a bad idea during this time of debt. What go back to the days we had a budget surplus and actually started paying down the debt? That's CRAZY talk!! Too bad the R's only seem to give a damn about running up a deficit when a D is in the white house... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 LisaDCNNLisa DesjardinsBOEHNER GOP CALL summary: He focused on GOP unity, demanding spending cuts. No talk of compromise, instead call for GOP to stick together .Cuts to SS/Medicare etc.without tax revenues? ****. :doh: BREAKING - NEW Dem. debt plan: Reid to offer at "least $2.5 Trillion" in deficit redux w/ no revenue increases, Dem. source tells CNN. http://twitter.com/#!/LisaDCNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 So, does that mean the Democrats blinked? I mean, that's what the Republicans wanted, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 So, does that mean the Democrats blinked? I mean, that's what the Republicans wanted, right? If this report is true..Yes, thats exactly what it means. Unbelievable.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 If this report is true..Yes, thats exactly what it means. Unbelievable.... While I'm not a Democrat and though I'm not a fan of taxes...this is a puss out of the first degree. Republicans might be dogmatic to the point of stupidity, but at least they show SOME signs of a backbone (albeit not much of one). Democrats, your party leadership seems to have let you down yet again. They've given the fringe wing of the Republican party a HUGE victory if this report is true. As I said before, the time has come for us to throw off the shackles of this two-party oligarchy and introduce not only a third party into the mix, but a real effort to elect people that are advocates of the NATION, not just their constituents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaO Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Cuts to SS/Medicare etc.without tax revenues? ****. :doh: I'm not quite sure this is true. I remember Pelosi saying a couple of days back that Democrats may reluctantly agree to a cuts only-package with no revenue increases, but that the entitlement programs would not be part of the cuts. The only way Democrats vote for changes to Medicare, Social Security, etc is with revenue increases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 Yeah, that's the way I've heard the negotiations being presented: "If you want Democrats to vote to cut SS/Medicare, then the Republicans have to vote for some tax increases". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 What go back to the days we had a budget surplus and actually started paying down the debt? That's CRAZY talk!!Too bad the R's only seem to give a damn about running up a deficit when a D is in the white house... We going back to the spending level then as well? But I agree they are both hypocrites on debt,and ya can throw in O as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Some interesting statistics What the hell happened to tax revenues in 09 and 10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 What the hell happened to tax revenues in 09 and 10? :secret: There was this little Depression thingie? Also caused spending on things like unemployment and Social Security to spike? It was in all the papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Didn't we also get a hefty FICA tax break? How much is that eating into the tax receipts? Edit: Just looked it up. The payroll tax break only accounts for about $120 billion in lost revenue this year. Petty close to the annual cost of the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 :secret: There was this little Depression thingie? Also caused spending on things like unemployment and Social Security to spike? It was in all the papers. Very funny, Larry. :jerk: You read the press, all that was going on before 09. Now, unemployment got a lot worse 09 and 10, but I was asking about REVENUES. What hit in 09? Did business really take that bigger a hit in 08-09 than before?I'm generally a cut taxes rather than raise them guy, but what really explains the drop off in 09? And the massive expenditures increase in 09. I know Obama made a lot of bailouts, but that seems way too big a leap too. What explains that? Were the Bush bailouts still being paid out so responsible for some of that too? edit: what you said about unemployment going up sure, but does that and the bailouts cover all the spending increase in 09? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Very funny, Larry. :jerk: You read the press, all that was going on before 09. Now, unemployment got a lot worse 09 and 10, but I was asking about REVENUES. What hit in 09? Did business really take that bigger a hit in 08-09 than before?I'm generally a cut taxes rather than raise them guy, but what really explains the drop off in 09? And the massive expenditures increase in 09. I know Obama made a lot of bailouts, but that seems way too big a leap too. What explains that? Were the Bush bailouts still being paid out so responsible for some of that too? edit: what you said about unemployment going up sure, but does that and the bailouts cover all the spending increase in 09? Um... okay, yes, the crash started before 2009. While the NBER technically says that the recession began at the end of 2007, I think the economic community would generally say that the crash began in early September 2008. So that leaves around three and a half months of 2008 for revenues to be falling towards the "new normal." Thing is, they've been stuck there for all of 2009, 2010, and 2011 thus far. In other words, 1/4 of 2008 had post-crash tax revenues. 2009 was the first full year of post-crash revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 snipThanks. Didn't know it hit so bad in fiscal 09 as opposed to years before. Especially with all the rhetoric flying before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 Very funny, Larry. :jerk: You read the press, all that was going on before 09. Right. It hit along about September of '08, as I recall. And Fiscal Year '09 began, I think, in August of '08. That's why conservative Kool Aid drinkers believe the mantra that "Obama tripled the deficit": Republican spinmeisters all label FY09 as "Obama", which not only puts Obama's name on a year that was half over when he took office, but it also means that the six months of depression that happened while W as still in the White House under Obama's name. And it makes it as though TARP, which passed before Obama was even elected, gets counted as Obama's spending. In effect, what they're doing is taking all of the deficit that happened at the end of Bush's administration, subtracting that deficit from "Bush's deficit", and adding it to "Obama's deficit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Right. It hit along about September of '08, as I recall. And Fiscal Year '09 began, I think, in August of '08. That's why conservative Kool Aid drinkers believe the mantra that "Obama tripled the deficit": Republican spinmeisters all label FY09 as "Obama", which not only puts Obama's name on a year that was half over when he took office, but it also means that the six months of depression that happened while W as still in the White House under Obama's name. And it makes it as though TARP, which passed before Obama was even elected, gets counted as Obama's spending. In effect, what they're doing is taking all of the deficit that happened at the end of Bush's administration, subtracting that deficit from "Bush's deficit", and adding it to "Obama's deficit". :doh: I'm not trying to assign blame here. Personally I don't think you can even start to measure a Pres' impact on the economy until halfway through his term. The sudden increase in spending and decrease in revenues in fiscal 09 (as % of GDP) just shocked me and made me wonder "what all was going on here as opposed to the bad year before?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 :doh: I'm not trying to assign blame here. Personally I don't think you can even start to measure a Pres' impact on the economy until halfway through his term. The sudden increase in spending and decrease in revenues in fiscal 09 (as % of GDP) just shocked me and made me wonder "what all was going on here as opposed to the bad year before?" And what I'm pointing out is that the start of the depression (at least, the time when we out here in the cheap seats heard about it) was like a month after FY09 started. Which was the tail end of calendar year 08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 We going back to the spending level then as well? Unfortunately no. It seems to me the only time the two parties really agree is when they pander to everybody - tax cuts - more entitlements and free wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 And what I'm pointing out is that the start of the depression (at least, the time when we out here in the cheap seats heard about it) was like a month after FY09 started. Which was the tail end of calendar year 08.:beatdeadhorse: I don't know much, which is why I was asking about it. But my posts were pretty clear I got that point of yours before your last couple posts. Hell, if the figures are done for the chart, the way they're done here in NC, 09 basically refers to the back HALF of 08 not just the tail end, and the first half of 09. But anyways, keep at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Oh yeah, I didn't see that that was fiscal years instead of calendar years. In which case, yes, the crash occurred entirely in 2009 (well, almost entirely, the federal fiscal year begins October 1 and the crash began in September), and we've been stuck at those levels since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 At this point Pelosi/Reid/President Obama want to push it out past the next election- that is a cowardice move right there. The republicans want to cut everything but not raise taxes even a little - that is a being too stubborn. Allow a Vat that goes towards the debt "ONLY". and both get their way. but a balanced budget amendment has to be in there or they will just spend some of that money twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 Allow a Vat that goes towards the debt "ONLY". There is no such thing. Just as there is no such thing as a spending cut that goes towards the debt ONLY. It can't be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 There is no such thing. Just as there is no such thing as a spending cut that goes towards the debt ONLY. It can't be done. Just because you say it or underline it doesn't make it so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 Just because you say it or underline it doesn't make it so Prove me wrong. Demonstrate to me how it's possible to reduce the federal dept while the government continues to spend more than it takes in. Fell free to make up any numbers you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Prove me wrong. Demonstrate to me how it's possible tu reduce the federal dept while the government continues to spend more than it takes in. Cut spending (ALL plans on the table have this) ADD a Vat tax of 10% to only go towards the debt. Edit the line in the PAYGO bill that allows the Congress to ignore it. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. - underlined, therefore true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.