alexey Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yeah well you can raise taxes all you want when the economy is good. Yeah I can see it, both parties and the electorate going hey, things are going great, let's raise some taxes now, YAY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yeah I can see it, both parties and the electorate going hey, things are going great, let's raise some taxes now, YAY!!! Clinton did it. .com boom, thriving economy...he raised taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yeah well you can raise taxes all you want when the economy is good. When the economy sucks you cant raise taxes. You can cut spending all you want when the economy is good, too. Yeah, it's true. Raising taxes hurts the economy. And the hurt is magnified, in a bad economy. The exact same statement is true, about cutting spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 stay true to yourseld dude!(even if it smells rather turdish) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Clinton did it. .com boom, thriving economy...he raised taxes. Yes, he raised taxes in 1993 and then came 1994. Raising taxes and cutting spending are usually, if not always, politically difficult and risky things to do. We cannot even start this conversation If we cannot get agreement on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yes, he raised taxes in 1993 and then came 1994.Raising taxes and cutting spending are usually, if not always, politically difficult and risky things to do. We cannot even start this conversation If we cannot get agreement on that. No disagreement there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Could've raised taxes when the housing market was booming, but we didn't. We were on this jolly course of, "Hey, things are great, why change it?". So we didn't raise taxes then and here we are. I will admit, for the low taxes is good for business folks, that in hindsight it's a good thing that we didn't raise taxes then because of the sham that was the housing bubble. But hey, the dot com bubble was a sham as well and it got our budget balanced. I don't see anywhere that the Bush tax policy has actually helped our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 http://http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bushchart.jpg I can't see the picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I can't see the picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 i see... so i assume the point of the picture is to point out that even in the face of the most significnat economicdownturn in 80 years, spending only very temporarily blipped above its long run growth trajectory, but governemtn revenues have been hammered badly.... so TWA... are you saying we need to raise taxes ? (this chart would be much more useful if the y-axis was %-of-gdp, ratehr than straight $$$) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I got a letter from work showing 2013 vs 2012 And I'm around 150 $ short. I'll get the details but I'm hoping this isn't the deal as this doesn't seem Any diff than the cliff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I got a letter from work showing 2013 vs 2012And I'm around 150 $ short. I'll get the details but I'm hoping this isn't the deal as this doesn't seem Any diff than the cliff Likely it's because your SS contribution reverted back to 6.2%. It had been 4.2% for the last 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I got a letter from work showing 2013 vs 2012And I'm around 150 $ short. I'll get the details but I'm hoping this isn't the deal as this doesn't seem Any diff than the cliff Everybody in the US who has earned income, got a 2% pay cut, as part of the deal that the media keeps insisting on describing as "shielding everybody who makes less than $400K from a tax hike". (Well, everybody with earned income that's less than $110K, per person. Everybody who makes more than that, lost 2% of $110K.) That said, though, it's possible that your payroll department were forced to assume that all of the tax cuts expired. Their estimate may be based on the assumption that you got hit with the payroll tax and the income tax increases, both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Everybody in the US who has earned income, got a 2% pay cut, as part of the deal that the media keeps insisting on describing as "shielding everybody who makes less than $400K from a tax hike". (Well, everybody with earned income that's less than $110K, per person. Everybody who makes more than that, lost 2% of $110K.) That said, though, it's possible that your payroll department were forced to assume that all of the tax cuts expired. Their estimate may be based on the assumption that you got hit with the payroll tax and the income tax increases, both. Also, payroll tax holiday expired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Hey look, 3 posts in a row saying exactly the same thing. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallen5862 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-approves-97b-in-sandy-aid-with-some-republican-dissent/2013/01/04/6a232c1c-5681-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html Congress passes $9.7 billion in Sandy aid, with some House GOP dissent Congress has approved $9.7 billion in new aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy, with a face-saving quick move by the House taken three days after Speaker John A. Boehner earned scathing criticism from New York and New Jersey Republicans for canceling a late-night vote on the funds. The bill, which will allow the Federal Emergency Management Agency to pay out claims to those who held federal flood insurance, was approved in the House on a 354 to 67 vote. After the House action, the Senate also adopted by bill in a quick unanimous voice vote, sending it to President Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Even single no vote was GOP too. Glad to see that some of them still continue to put politics over everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Even single no vote was GOP too. Glad to see that some of them still continue to put politics over everything else. Vs those that put pork above everything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Vs those that put pork above everything else This was a pork bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Hey look, 3 posts in a row saying exactly the same thing.:evilg: And a payroll tax holiday had something to do with it too. :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 This was a pork bill? Obviously. And the fact that all those pork-hating Republicans voted to repeal all of the defense cuts from the fiscal cliff was because every one of those cuts was vital to defend our country from, well, somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 This was a pork bill? What one isn't? http://www.theblaze.com/stories/congress-accused-of-sneaking-unrelated-pork-spending-into-sandy-emergency-aid-bill-its-typical-of-washington/ Only $1 out of every $6 — $9 billion of the $60 billion will be spent in 2013. That means 85 percent doesn’t come until 2014 and beyond. That’s not immediate relief. What this bill is fundamentally is a pork bill.” naturally we will accept the money in the bill being sent to Texas though :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 4, 2013 Author Share Posted January 4, 2013 In theory I'm thinking about that stat that has been going around talking about how the deficit was 10% of GDP in 2009, 9% of GDP in 2010, and 8% of GDP in 2011. From a pure policy perspective, I think I would prefer fiscal policy that kept our countries finances from 3% of GDP surplus to 3% of GDP deficits year-to-year (of course the problem with this is that our fiscal policy has been "off" of this for 40+ years). The real question I have, and it should be one the GOP is talking about, is how are we going to keep up with interest payments on the national debt? If we keep running deficits at like 5% of GDP... won't we reach a point where our interest payments are too high and start to take up too much of the fiscal pie? Is this the issue the GOP should have a laser focus on? But I don't think the GOP ever talks about really balancing the budget (aside from the hard-core conservatives). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallen5862 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/us-postal-service_n_2410441.html U.S. Postal Service Looks To New Congress For Rescue By Elvina Nawaguna WASHINGTON, Jan 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress that expired this week might have steered the nation away from the "fiscal cliff" of potentially devastating tax hikes and spending cuts, but it did not do much to save the U.S. Postal Service from its own fast-approaching cliff. The cash-strapped mail carrier that lost almost $16 billion in the past year, ran into its legal borrowing limit and defaulted twice on required payments to the federal government, now turns to the newly sworn-in Congress for help. The Postal Service loses $25 million every day, it says, as more Americans communicate by email and the massive payments for future retiree benefits take a toll. It could run out of money in a little more than nine months, according to some estimates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 i see... so i assume the point of the picture is to point out that even in the face of the most significnat economicdownturn in 80 years, spending only very temporarily blipped above its long run growth trajectory, but governemtn revenues have been hammered badly.... so TWA... are you saying we need to raise taxes ? (this chart would be much more useful if the y-axis was %-of-gdp, ratehr than straight $$$) We certainly need to raise revenues, which is best accomplished by fixing the economy....rather than idiocy like this http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-04/hilda-solis-paying-people-not-work-saved-millions-jobs fwiw spending is at 24% of GDP per Krauthamer http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-return-of-the-real-obama/2013/01/03/9f5f9b0c-55d9-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html and of course the CBO found another 600B to add to the nearly 4T cost of this piece of tripe http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-04/friday-night-dump-cbo-admits-error-now-expects-another-600-billion-deficits-obama-ta what's that smell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.