A Trillion here, a trillion there

[executioner]

I'm alot like you Brent in if I can't go out and buy it with cash then its not for us to have. We bought a home in 2001 and we really enjoyed but it got to a point to where we no longer felt comfortable in owing a bank that much money over 30 years, so we sold it last year and with God's Grace made a sizable profit off of it. We are very comfortable leasing a nice home for about the same amount as our past mortgage and have a landlord that is on the ball with repairs, upgrades and such and now we don't have a mortgage over our heads. We have no personal credit cards(just one for our business) and choose not to have anything of that nature, and anytime since we have been married when we have gone out and purchased a new car we've always have rounded are payments up to the next $50 plateau and made sure that amount always went to the principle. Nothing we own(except vehicles) has ever been put on credit, everything we have we've paid cash for. If its a big ticketed item like a some electronics we just save! save! save!
I know this way is not for everyone, but it truly works and it helps keep you within your budget guidelines.

[gman]

yeah. Save, save, save for the big ticket stuff. Use the credit card for the extra consumer protection, if that's a concern for you, and pay it off right away.
If the U.S. budget was balanced, the debt frozen with no more interest, and the Gov't could somehow find an extra billion dollars a year to pay down on the debt, it would take, according to my math, 15,000 years to pay off the debt. Zoikers. That everybody doesn't agree or know at this point that we're screwed is astounding to me.

[adpetrafan]

Let's analyze this honestly:

1) Paying 2 billion in taxes on 5 billion in income is 40% - not 7%...
2) Their twisted logic is that he is not paying taxes on stock he has not sold (which is income he did not get), so that is how they claim he is paying a lower rate. It is a lie!
2) They say that 7% tax rate is less than most americans... Although technically correct, MOST people you and I know pay far less than 7%. I paid an effective tax rate of about 3.5% last year. Deductions can really reduce your tax debt... The reality is that more than 95% of americans pay less than 12%. This is not hard information to find, and it proves that stories like this one are being trumped up to perpetuate class warfare for political reasons.

Now I understand why Brent gets frustrated with people on the zone.

Why is that?

[CatNamedManny]

It's interesting to me that the first few responses to my snarky little comment were, "We don't need more revenue. We need more cuts!" This was followed by a series of posts all talking about how little everyone actually pays in taxes. Which would seem to actually support the notion that perhaps the government is not making as much money as it needs to.

In the developing world, the U.S. is a very low-tax country. Among all OECD nations, we are third from the bottom, with tax revenues at 24 percent of our GDP. Meanwhile, Sweden, which provides many more services, does not run a deficit and also happened to essentially avoid the recession, has taxes at 46.4 percent of GDP. I'm not saying we need to go there, but it's an indication of how much room there actually is. We are not overtaxed here, no matter what the Tea Party types try to say.

Also, go ahead and take a look at the highest income-tax brackets from the 1950s-70s, the period of largest growth in modern American history. In 1951, it was 91 percent, and it was above 70 percent from 1940-80. Currently, the highest tax bracket sits at 35 percent.

[adpetrafan]

We are not overtaxed here, no matter what the Tea Party types try to say.

No one I know who leans that way says that... They say our government spends far too much. Much, much more than it takes in. Raising taxes might help a tiny bit, but it is not going to solve the current problem. The recent Buffet measure that got shot down would only have reduced our current debt problem by 0.5%. It was a joke... Deep spending cuts are what are needed most, and that is what I hear people talking about.

[brent]

I get sick of that "we don't pay as much for x as other countries". We are not other countries. We don't have the same economy as other countries. Thank God! If we were taxed as much and had to pay as as other countries do for imports, exports, oil, etc, we would surely be in the crapper. History has proven, when taxes are cut, we have economic growth. It's Reaganomics. He proved it. There was so much growth that Bill Clinton's administration reaped the benefits, and try as they did, could not kill it completely.

Look, it is biblical. Owe no man nothing. Do not borrow because you become a slave. The government is a huge machine that cannot be stopped. It is out of control. Obama talks about fiscal responsibility in his campaign. That lying sack of dook has spent more in his first three years than the last three presidents did in all of their terms combined! We will NEVER be able to balance this! NEVER.

[rexreed]

Your home budget is not the same as a government budget. Please stop comparing them- THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. You may have a job and earn money- the U.S. does not. Your household does not issue money- the U.S. does. For most of U.S. history the country has been in debt. Finally, you do not levy taxes- the government does. They are not the same and to try and compare the two is retarded.

[brent]

Look, if you are simple minded enough to fail to see that I am talking about a principle, operating within the bounds of the law, doing what you can only afford to do and no more, then you should not be here in this discussion. Holy crap. It is economics. A-B=C. You cannot take away more B than you have A and still end up with a positive number. It does not work in any part of the universe. I understand that we need some debt to make our system work. I am not a complete idiot and uneducated in economics. I do know that there is huge corruption in our government. We have not stopped the pork. Obama is a liar. He and Pelosi had a ton of it in their stimulus packages. All of those green jobs were a farce. ALL of the companies that got stimulus money for green jobs were connected with the politicians and most are out of business or facing bankruptcy. We are building bridges to no-where (on land owned by the government officials that pushed for it and then had that land purchased from them by the government), funding rat protection in San Francisco, etc, etc. ALL KINDS OF STUPID SPENDING NEEDS TO STOP. WE DO NOT NEED TO PAY FOR EVERY STUPID IDEA THEY PULL OUT OF THEIR REARS!

The government represents us, protects us, and operates on our behalf. We are not slaves to the government, and our government should not be a slave to another debtor. Not over stupid decisions.

[rexreed]

Simple minded is trying to compare your family budget to that of a government.

[brent]

No. Simple minded is "Let's print more money (or write hot checks, because that is what printed money without value is) to spend." It is idiotic. You can't do it. The government should not do it.

[gman]

A responsible budget, regardless of where the money comes from, means you don't spend more than take in, and you don't take on debt that you can't pay off. Family budgets, for the most part, are based on one or more members of the family working and earning the money to cover the budget. Responsible budgeting adjusts to match the money coming in. Govt's, perhaps with the exception lotteries, do not earn money. They take it through taxes on the citizenry or through imposed fees. All the more reason to be responsible with the money, and to take as little as possible. Printing more money and introducing it into the economy is irresponsible. It lowers the overall value of our money and drives up inflation. The Gov't taking on debt it cannot pay, borrowing gobs of money from China or wherever is also irresponsible. We could balance the budget through reduced spending and a flat percentage tax that would be more fair, would eliminate all the gimmicks in the tax code, and allow people to keep more of their money. That would greatly benefit the economy long term, but I don't see how we can pay off the debt at this point. The math is not in our favor.

[CatNamedManny]

The United States is a larger, more complex economy than most others in the world, with more people and more complex problems, yet we raise less money in taxes than those countries as a percentage of our economy. This strikes me as foolish.

Now perhaps there should be further cuts in spending, but I'd like someone who advocates for further spending cuts to make the case for what exactly should be cut. Because you might call the paltry debt savings from the Buffet rule a joke, but they were far larger than such "deficit-cutting" measures as defunding public radio and Planned Parenthood. Our No. 1 expenditure is military and homeland security. But no one seems to want to cut those. Much better to remove health care and food stamps from the poor. I'm sure God's cool with funding the machinery of violence and leaving the needy to suffer.

And the problem is not debt. It's No. 3 on America's list of economic issues. First is unemployment, amelioration of which requires government spending (thousands of teachers lost their jobs when state and local governments ran out of federal stimulus money. It doesn't take much thinking to realize they would have spent more money and helped energize the economy had they been able to keep their jobs). Second is economic inequality, which has gone up as the tax rates for the top bracket have come down in the last 30 years. And then third is the long-term debt problem, which can only be resolved by fixing our health care system, spending for which is out of control and driving up the cost of Medicare. Once again, America lags well behind most other developing nations in both quality and affordability of health care – and those nations all have a much more robust role for government in their health care systems. I don't think that's a coincidence.

In other words, for 30 years, small-government conservatives have been saying things will get better if only we would get the government small enough. After having their chosen presidents – and their chosen economic policies – in office for 20 of those 30 years, things are worse now than they've been since the Depression. A steady diet of ultralow taxes and deregulation does not benefit anyone but the wealthiest few. It's time we had a wake-up call as a nation and realize that government is not the boogeyman; it is us. And until we start empowering ourselves to take care of the people without the resources to buy our votes, we will get more of the same trickle-down, oligarchic policies that have been disproven for three decades.

[executioner]

The United States is a larger, more complex economy than most others in the world, with more people and more complex problems, yet we raise less money in taxes than those countries as a percentage of our economy. This strikes me as foolish.

Now perhaps there should be further cuts in spending, but I'd like someone who advocates for further spending cuts to make the case for what exactly should be cut. Because you might call the paltry debt savings from the Buffet rule a joke, but they were far larger than such "deficit-cutting" measures as defunding public radio and Planned Parenthood. Our No. 1 expenditure is military and homeland security. But no one seems to want to cut those. Much better to remove health care and food stamps from the poor. I'm sure God's cool with funding the machinery of violence and leaving the needy to suffer.

And the problem is not debt. It's No. 3 on America's list of economic issues. First is unemployment, amelioration of which requires government spending (thousands of teachers lost their jobs when state and local governments ran out of federal stimulus money. It doesn't take much thinking to realize they would have spent more money and helped energize the economy had they been able to keep their jobs). Second is economic inequality, which has gone up as the tax rates for the top bracket have come down in the last 30 years. And then third is the long-term debt problem, which can only be resolved by fixing our health care system, spending for which is out of control and driving up the cost of Medicare. Once again, America lags well behind most other developing nations in both quality and affordability of health care – and those nations all have a much more robust role for government in their health care systems. I don't think that's a coincidence.

In other words, for 30 years, small-government conservatives have been saying things will get better if only we would get the government small enough. After having their chosen presidents – and their chosen economic policies – in office for 20 of those 30 years, things are worse now than they've been since the Depression. A steady diet of ultralow taxes and deregulation does not benefit anyone but the wealthiest few. It's time we had a wake-up call as a nation and realize that government is not the boogeyman; it is us. And until we start empowering ourselves to take care of the people without the resources to buy our votes, we will get more of the same trickle-down, oligarchic policies that have been disproven for three decades.

Thankfully, that era is coming to an end. Whether it happens in 2012, 2016 or 2020, the Republican Party's coalition of the white, wealthy and male will become a permanent minority and no amount of fear will make up for the huge numbers of blacks, Hispanics, women and young people of all races who are interested in a better way. Perhaps then the GOP will stop catering to the fringes and begin accepting responsibility for the damage it has done to the national discourse by smearing anything government-related as the next step to statist repression. Only then can true conservatives, those who actually want to solve problems rather than block any proposed solution, regain their voice in the national debate.

So your ready and willing for a better way like higher taxes, higher health care costs that are mandated by government, more people on welfare & food stamps for a longer period of time, being forced as a Christian to accept that abortion, gay marriage and other sinful acts are right and if we as Christians speak out against them we will be breaking the law and be punished(which in some cases this is already happening but will actually get worse if Obama is elected once again). I could go on and on.
I'm sick of giving my tax dollars to people that are on food stamps and Welfare. I have a 52 year old aunt that has no physical or mental disabilities but has never worked a day in her life and has for 30 some years gotten Welfare and food stamps and has been able to not only buy her own home but gets a brand new car every 2 years from the monthly checks that she gets from our government. My dad was telling me that his sister does nothing to get approval from these programs which she is suppose to reapply every 6 months, but has never had to do since 1979 and also she gets anywhere from 3%-8% what we would basically call a cost of living raise from these programs every 6 months. I wonder how many of these people like this have taken advantage of these programs.

Another example of what I call a broken and costly system but Obama calls "the bright future" his exact quote: In May 2010 my job at The Dallas Morning News was disposed of and I was given a nice severence package, well one of the requirements (because I had some stocks and 401K tied up in it) in order to get the package was I had 30 days to file for unemployment even if I had in those 30 days found another job, so I go down to my local Workforce Office and file, once I was in there I was hand fed a bunch of BS on how I needed food Stamps and also medicad for my children even though I was not in need of either. I was basically forced into taking all the benefits they offered in order to get my serevance package from my former employer. Three months down the road I receive a notice asking why I haven't used any of my benefits from these programs so I call in and tell them I'm not in need of them and wish to discontinue them, so I did. I now get notices about every six months saying your beneifts have been renewed which in turn I call in and dispute these clams.
Since 2010 my wife and I have started our own business and to the Glory of God is very healthy and profitable but til this day we continue to receive all these governmental benefits. I tried getting this problem reversed because #1 I don't need them #2 It's wrong and I believe illegal to use them, but even going down to the Dallas Regional Office doesn't seem to help. As of right now we have about 9K on the Lone Star Food Stamp card they gave us but we refuse to use it; I've thought about using it to help families in need or some type of soup kitchen or food pantry but wouldn't that be wrong?
I've contacted several lawyers but they say they can't help and basically tell me use it. I wonder how many right now are having this issue but say hey lets take advangtage and why not?

THIS IS JUST PLAIN SICK!!!!!!!

[CatNamedManny]

I've twice now posted at length about how the anecdotal evidence of abuses does not reflect the very real good such programs do for needy people. If you are unwilling or unable to read and retain that info, I'm not interested in rehashing it a third time. I recommend going back and reading them in the previous posts on this subject. You don't have to be convinced, but it sure would be nice if the argument changed once the data disproved your two examples.

Meanwhile, I'll gladly take a society in which kids don't die because their parents can't get help from those of us with enough money to buy Halloween costumes for our pets. If pretending those kids are middle-aged scofflaws watching big-screen TVs on the taxpayer dime makes you feel better, I'm happy for you, but my faith doesn't let me make those assumptions about the poor.

[CatNamedManny]

By the way, since exe's quote of my post contains an extra paragraph, I'll mention here I chose to delete it, partly because after thinking about it more, it was a little off-topic and more of a tangent than I felt necessary, and also because exe messaged me to say he found the description of the average Republican voter to be racist. Needless to say – and I do believe it needless to make this clear – I disagree strongly with that assertion, mainly because it's actually not racist at all. I wouldn't have made it public, but I feel I should explain the discrepancy.

With that said, things have gotten a little hot in here. I've made my points, so I'll check out for a while and let things settle down. Ciao!