Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Deficit reduction

Deficit reduction
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 11:12 PM
 
Is this correct?

"Our deficits are absolutely out-of-control, we need to pay the deficit"

"Okay, how about we repeal the Bush tax cuts which were never paid for which would save $300 billion/year?"

"Oh no, we must not let those tax cuts expire, but we need to get back to sound fiscal responsibility. This administration is bankrupting the country!"
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 11:22 PM
 
According to John Boehner, you don't need to pay for tax cuts because they aren't spending.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 11:25 PM
 
Prediction: some populist sort of "you don't want your taxes raised" political message for Joe Average (who these tax cuts were not designed for) used as a 2010 campaign strategy
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2010, 11:28 PM
 
Don't tax me, bro.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 12:00 AM
 
I think we should have a separate income tax for the National Defense budget and War spending.

All wars funding must be paid for with a tax hike. Every-time congress wants to fund the war, it must be accompany with a tax increase to pay for it.

Call it the War Tax.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 01:11 PM
 
Gee, maybe if congress could actually go a week without pissing away more billions then maybe the stock market wouldn't react by dropping a few hundred points each time.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 05:35 PM
 
So whose fault is it this time. [email protected]$h? The Libs or the Dems?
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 06:07 PM
 
Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has been flat for the last 50 years.

The US (and many states) have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
     
TheoCryst
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
So whose fault is it this time. [email protected]$h? The Libs or the Dems?
Obviously it's the Lib Dems.

Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 01:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has been flat for the last 50 years.

The US (and many states) have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Perhaps the increase in spending in National Defense from $600 billion in 2000 to over $1 trillion in 2011?

Not even including the $1 trillion for the Iraq and Afghan Wars.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
So whose fault is it this time. [email protected]$h? The Libs or the Dems?
You haven't figured it out yet? CONGRESS. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend. Nothing but debt to show for it. No Jobs, No recovery.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 09:37 AM
 
That's not specific enough. I need to know their political stance so that I can love/hate them. Knowing the issues or the actions isn't enough.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
 
Mind readers might be able to help you. I can't tell you their true motives.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:38 PM
 
The proper role of government is to protect individual rights. It does not do that favoring one group over another. Therefore, targeting a particular group of individuals for extra taxation is immoral and unjust.

The government has a spending problem. Period. "Because the government needs it" is not justification for government to confiscate private property. Even if the tax cuts expire the deficit will not magically go away (it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem).

It does no good for the government to get financially healthy if it's morally bankrupt.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Mind readers might be able to help you. I can't tell you their true motives.
What? I don't need mind readers. I just need to know which party they belong to. Then I can tell if their stances are retarded or rational.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 05:24 PM
 
Dems and libs!
Dems and libs!
Dems and libs!


*starts a wave*
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
It does not do that favoring one group over another. Therefore, targeting a particular group of individuals for extra taxation is immoral and unjust.
So is purposefully including loopholes so individuals in higher income tax brackets pay less in taxes than those at the lowest income tax bracket. These loopholes need to be closed before we can properly address a more balanced tax system.

Unfortunately the lobbying restriction was removed, so, that'll never happen.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 05:45 PM
 
Pros and Cons
Pros and Cons
Pros and Cons

*starts a wave*
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has been flat for the last 50 years.

The US (and many states) have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Yes, nominally.

However, factor in that the GDP is hopelessly fudged by including all kinds of transfer payments that add no value (created by fiat through the Fed), and artificial inflation of the GDP through household spending financed by debt.

If you take this into consideration, tax revenue over the last decades has been falling, despite increasing tax rates.

-t
     
kylef
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2010, 06:40 PM
 
I wish Congress had more economists and less elections. Then things might actually get done without compromising everywhere.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 10:11 AM
 
People, especially our glorious leaders, tend to view the budget like hoarders do their shitpile. They know it's ****ing mess, they know they are doing wrong, but when it comes to picking out trash to throw away…

"OH! but I NEEEEEEEED that!"

All this posturing over these or those tax cuts are an evasion of the issue. The spending by our government goes way…WAY beyond the role of government, and even if it were within it's role it goes beyond anything even close to what is needed. Then in order to even have they money to spend on all this unethical crap, they have to force private citizens money from them. Then the thanks we get for giving up our property is them borrowing hordes of cash putting us further behind the eight ball, and an ever increasing list of new and exciting things that they say we free adults are not allowed to do.

Taxes are not some mystical source of revenue from the great void. Taxes are private property taken from people by force. The idea that they shouldn't be allowed to cut them without "paying for them" is ridiculous, immoral, unethical, un-intellectual, ignorant, retarded demogoguery. (I just wanted to string together a bunch of negative words) What's even MORE ridiculous is that this inane argument actually works on most of you people.

Our government needs money , yes we all know that. But NOTHING in our constitution, and nothing by any honest application of reason justifies the level of robbing and spending that has been going on for so long. This is not a democrat issue, this is not a republican issue. This is not even a "bipartisan" issue. This is problem of philosophy. To greatly oversimplify for briefness: The idea that there are so many things that are just "too important" to leave to people to take care of on their own, the idea that we are all responsible for taking care of other people, and the idea that the government is the one who can most properly and most competently handle these things. All of which are absurd.

What the HELL is so hard about "They are spending way too much money?" Why is this concept so difficult for you people to accept without pointing angry fingers at those "evil" people who expect that when government spends too much money, the answer isn't to just take more money from those who need it and <gasp> actually OWN it?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
So is purposefully including loopholes so individuals in higher income tax brackets pay less in taxes than those at the lowest income tax bracket. These loopholes need to be closed before we can properly address a more balanced tax system.

Unfortunately the lobbying restriction was removed, so, that'll never happen.
The problem Pigeon, is that income taxes… especially progressive income taxes…are inherently flawed. When you have a tax system that is designed as a means of societal manipulation, and that separates people into classes and makes values judgements about those classes, unfairness is the nature of the beast. It is inherently unfair in-and-of-itself and is ripe for the kinds of misuse and abuse that you lament.

We can never, EVER have anything resembling a fair tax system as long as "we" embrace the idea that the tax code should be used in this manner.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
What the HELL is so hard about "They are spending way too much money?" Why is this concept so difficult for you people to accept without pointing angry fingers at those "evil" people who expect that when government spends too much money, the answer isn't to just take more money from those who need it and <gasp> actually OWN it?

It's difficult because there are people, such as yourself, who some feel would go too far in the other direction in reducing expenditures such as eliminating public education, or possibly if you agree with the wisdom behind doing this, doing so without an actionable phase-out plan and adequate replacement.

What we agree upon as far as what the government should be spending money on is a difficult issue. I believe in safety nets, for instance, for a similar reason that many people believe in insurance policies - it helps spread the risk and damage so that it isn't as catastrophic and expensive. I also feel that the costs of *not* having a safety net are often overlooked by those who want to eliminate them.

So, it is not as simple as you'd like it to be.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I also feel that the costs of *not* having a safety net are often overlooked by those who want to eliminate them.
You feel like having 2 years of unemployment is enough of a safety net ?

Because I know that many people don't even start looking for work until the benefits are running out.

So the adequate safety net for unemployment benefits should be eleventy billion years

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You feel like having 2 years of unemployment is enough of a safety net ?

Because I know that many people don't even start looking for work until the benefits are running out.

So the adequate safety net for unemployment benefits should be eleventy billion years

-t

A little projection?

I was speaking in broad generalities...
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Perhaps the increase in spending in National Defense from $600 billion in 2000 to over $1 trillion in 2011?

Not even including the $1 trillion for the Iraq and Afghan Wars.
That *clearly* doesn't count. Clearly that increase wouldn't have happened if it weren't completely necessary.

Governments are incapable of spending money responsibly ... except when it comes to military spending, where they suddenly and miraculously become responsible.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You feel like having 2 years of unemployment is enough of a safety net ?

Because I know that many people don't even start looking for work until the benefits are running out.
2 years does seem rather long. What if the unemployment program had required the recipient to be actively looking for work while receiving the benefits?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
2 years does seem rather long. What if the unemployment program had required the recipient to be actively looking for work while receiving the benefits?
Not in the US, AFAIK.

And Obama wants more. Plus, there are ideas that unemployment would pay *FULL* mortgage and insurance cost for home owners, on top of the regular unemployment benefits.

WTF ? Why even bother to work.

-t
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 02:50 PM
 
if that's the case, then I certainly agree with you. I completely support the idea of unemployment insurance (having had to use it for about a month once when I was laid off just before Christmas), but it shouldn't be something that people abuse and it should require people to get back to work as soon as possible.

one of the things I like about the Canadian system (though it has many problems) is that you can apply for funds to take courses that will improve your skills or help to make a career change.

as far as I know, the Canadian system only provides support for one year at a decreasing percentage of your salary, which seems no where near as socialist as the US system.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It's difficult because there are people, such as yourself, who some feel would go too far in the other direction in reducing expenditures such as eliminating public education...
Public education is paid for by state and local governments. Federal government involvement should be eliminated!
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
Public education is paid for by state and local governments. Federal government involvement should be eliminated!

Fair enough, perhaps that wasn't the best example to use.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Is this correct?

"Our deficits are absolutely out-of-control, we need to pay the deficit"

"Okay, how about we repeal the Bush tax cuts which were never paid for which would save $300 billion/year?"

"Oh no, we must not let those tax cuts expire, but we need to get back to sound fiscal responsibility. This administration is bankrupting the country!"
Ok, how about we let the tax cuts expire AND repeal that stupid health care reform bill? Combine that with getting the hell out of the M.E. and we'd be in the black in a matter of years.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Ok, how about we let the tax cuts expire AND repeal that stupid health care reform bill? Combine that with getting the hell out of the M.E. and we'd be in the black in a matter of years.

And what would we replace the health care bill? The old way was a *huge* money pit, much larger than the wars and tax cuts combined.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Not in the US, AFAIK.

And Obama wants more. Plus, there are ideas that unemployment would pay *FULL* mortgage and insurance cost for home owners, on top of the regular unemployment benefits.

WTF ? Why even bother to work.

-t
At least in Texas and NC, those getting have to be looking for work constantly. Or they don't get anymore. It's always been that way in NC AFAIK. Used to shock those Yankees who came down from faraway places like Lawn-Guy-Land that they had to actually LOOK FOR WORK to draw benefits once their NY benefits ran out.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
Public education is paid for by state and local governments. Federal government involvement should be eliminated!


On the original topic:

Some of you on the Leftie-Wacko side of things seem to forget that 1) Federal tax dollars start out as my money, and b) the Federal govt. only has a few LEGITIMATE purposes. Like border defense, waging war, moving the mails, etc. Not to include welfare, workfare, or any OTHER fair that involves taking money from ME and giving it to OTHER PEOPLE.

All this talk of how the govt. NEEDS my money is laughable. The current govt NEEDS my money to buy votes, pure and simple. Or to pay off those votes that it bought last time (a lot of the current spending since the changeover.) Government doesn't NEED money. It needs to spend on patronage.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2010, 11:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post


On the original topic:

Some of you on the Leftie-Wacko side of things seem to forget that 1) Federal tax dollars start out as my money, and b) the Federal govt. only has a few LEGITIMATE purposes. Like border defense, waging war, moving the mails, etc. Not to include welfare, workfare, or any OTHER fair that involves taking money from ME and giving it to OTHER PEOPLE.

All this talk of how the govt. NEEDS my money is laughable. The current govt NEEDS my money to buy votes, pure and simple. Or to pay off those votes that it bought last time (a lot of the current spending since the changeover.) Government doesn't NEED money. It needs to spend on patronage.


I don't understand this whole "legitimate" argument.

In a Democracy a government is going to want to get themselves elected and re-elected. In order to do this they must do what they can to help create an ideal economic environment. Not *create* that environment or be a persistent referee even, but to setup the best conditions for it to succeed. I know that many of you disagree with the particulars of what Obama has done, but I would simply argue that the government has a role in the economy, and also takes blame for it when it doesn't go well.

It would follow that having *no* safety net whatsoever has a cost. *If* a safety net can be established to keep our costs down and help our economy thrive, I would argue that this could fall into the category of helping create ideal economic conditions.

Anyway, the whole "legitimate" thing is contentious and not black and white. Even if you want to play the constitution card and get into all of the legitimacy stuff from a legal standpoint, you still have to find a way to pull the plug on things without having negative economic ramifications.

There is a reason why the federal government goes on and on about the status of the economy and jobs and stuff: it is expected to be responsible, rightly or wrongly.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 12:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There is a reason why the federal government goes on and on about the status of the economy and jobs and stuff: it is expected to be responsible, rightly or wrongly.
Yes, there is exactly ONE reason: power-hungry, corrupt politicians.

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yes, there is exactly ONE reason: power-hungry, corrupt politicians.

-t

If you believe that the politicians were solely responsible for the bank failures, for instance, I can see how this viewpoint would fit in with your view. I happen to think that it takes two to tangle.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 01:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If you believe that the politicians were solely responsible for the bank failures, for instance, I can see how this viewpoint would fit in with your view. I happen to think that it takes two to tangle.
no, politicians are responsible that the banks did NOT fail.

Rather, they took our hard earned money and shoved it up the banker's asses.

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 01:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
no, politicians are responsible that the banks did NOT fail.

Rather, they took our hard earned money and shoved it up the banker's asses.

-t

True, although the ass shoving was an attempt at damage control. No matter what the government did the bank failure was going to have drastic and severe repercussions.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It's difficult because there are people, such as yourself, who some feel would go too far in the other direction in reducing expenditures such as eliminating public education, or possibly if you agree with the wisdom behind doing this, doing so without an actionable phase-out plan and adequate replacement.
"Too far" in whose opinion? By what standard?

What we agree upon as far as what the government should be spending money on is a difficult issue. I believe in safety nets, for instance, for a similar reason that many people believe in insurance policies - it helps spread the risk and damage so that it isn't as catastrophic and expensive.
Yeah…spread out among all of us…whether we like it or not. I have yet to hear a logical explanation from you or anyone else as to why this "pain relief" takes precedence over another person's property rights. Where do you get this notion that one person's misfortune…or very often poor choices…warrants the taking of my money by force?

I also feel that the costs of *not* having a safety net are often overlooked by those who want to eliminate them.
No, it's not overlooked. It's just beside the point. These "costs" you refer to are not my responsibility, or yours, or "society's". Now, you may believe that it is, but again…why? Why does this belief of yours and people who agree with you take precedence over my right to keep money that I earned by my own effort in a private arrangement between myself and another private party? Where so YOU get the notion that you have the right to enlist the help of the government to take my stuff by force and give it to someone else?

So, it is not as simple as you'd like it to be.
The fact that there are differing views doesn't mean it's complicated. It just means that there are more people who will need to get over it when the right decision is made.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
Public education is paid for by state and local governments. Federal government involvement should be eliminated!
Of course in a perfect world state tax money wouldn't be used either IMO.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Fair enough, perhaps that wasn't the best example to use.
There may be hope for you yet…maybe
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If you believe that the politicians were solely responsible for the bank failures, for instance, I can see how this viewpoint would fit in with your view. I happen to think that it takes two to tangle.
That's TANGO I think you meant to say. It takes two to TANGO.

OT:

The politicians WERE solely responsible for the bank failures. How do I know this? Because regulations control everything banks can do. Everything. The politicians (on both sides) passed regulations opening up banks to a lot of things without controlling for or accounting for risk. Banks do nothing without politicians or regulators letting them do it, for better or for worse. Banks operate at the whim of Congress.

The other part of it was absolutely politics. Let's give everyone a house! Let's take Freddie and Fannie, two institutions that work real well for controlling legitimate risks, and open the spigot. Let's take a functioning effort to open markets and turn it into a money pump for socialism. Pouring money into the markets raises housing prices and creates phantom demand. Bond ratings aren't believable anymore because who could possibly think that Freddie and Fannie aren't "AAA-rated" securities?

But shouldn't EVERYONE be able to own a house? Isn't that FAIR? Sure it is. Everyone CAN own a house. But it's going to be much smaller, probably with a thatched roof and near some open running water for facilities. My father was 40 before he got a mortgage - that's just how it was. And brother, believe me when I say that's how it will be again. Thanks to politicians.

Yeah, there's some banker greed involved, and some bank shareholder greed involved. But there was also greed from the folks who wanted to put their money into Washington Mutual and pay no fees, and those who wanted to get a mortgage with a 500 credit score. Those folks that bought $60,000 Hummers on credit? Yep, they're included. Anyone who leases a car? Throw them in too, because they benefitted from the asset-backed paper market.

Finally, let me add this and we'll see if I'm proven right or not. In catching up on my current events over the weekend, I started to sense a feeling of dread in some parts of the markets, with irrational euphoria in other parts. I think we're headed for a huge meltdown, within the next 60 days. I saw the "Hindenburg" thing today, too. I'm not sure WHY my spider-senses are tingling, but it just seems like we're ready for an implosion. We'll see.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 12:19 PM
 
Pajamas Media Why Did Bank of America Pay ACORN?

Why Did Bank of America Pay ACORN?

On September 29, the article “Bank of America Pulls ACORN funding” appeared on the CNN political ticker. While the short piece thankfully does list some of ACORN’s recent scandals, such as the Breitbart video investigation and the voter registration fraud, it didn’t answer the question that was surely on every reader’s mind: What exactly was Bank of America paying ACORN for?

Let’s not fault writer/editor Amy Sabha for not addressing the topic, as she was clearly very busy working on this video in which she goes up and down the UN escalator.

Instead we can just go to the Bank of America community website, which notes that the firm works with ACORN in more than 20 cities to provide “special mortgage products.” Or we can go to the ACORN Housing website, which describes a program that produced $246 million in mortgages from Bank of America with “flexible underwriting and discounted pricing.” Or this page, which describes a program with low down payments, no private mortgage insurance, no cash reserve necessary, and flexibility on income requirements, such as being able to include public assistance.

Yes, ACORN and Bank of America joined forces to become the ultimate subprime lender. So much for the organization’s lofty social justice rhetoric.

Yet there’s more. In February, right after the inauguration, Bank of America reported that it had made $2 million in national grants to ACORN Housing Corporation between October 2007 and June 2009 (planned). Only a handful of conservative outlets (Michelle Malkin, for example) picked up the story.

It’s easy to pick on Bank of America. The firm has received more than $45 billion in taxpayer money during the bailouts, was fined for securities fraud — specifically withholding information — in the purchase of Merrill, paid out millions in bonuses, and even introduced bank accounts for illegal aliens a few years ago, a sound practice that surely had nothing to do with their financial troubles today. They are an embarrassment to an industry that has little shame left.

Still, they’re not the only ones that gave millions to ACORN, and we should expect further announcements in the coming days. JP Morgan Chase is already under fire, identified more than a month ago as a multi-million dollar ACORN donor or partner by the National Legal and Policy Center. (Story picked up by CNN? Of course not — try Glenn Beck and Judge Andrew Napolitano.)

In this sordid tale, the unsympathetic banks are more victims than villains. The Community Reinvestment Act gives groups like ACORN considerable power over the institutions. It can accuse them of economic discrimination against minorities, forcing them to defend their business practices and reputations against de facto charges of racism. The penalties can be hefty fines and even blocked mergers.

ACORN perfected this “pay for protection” business model in the 1990s. And it is a business. While some of the ACORN organizations are non-profit, others are not, which means that by working together they can get the best of all worlds: political actions, union-style organization, tax-exempt status, privacy, and profit.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 12:20 PM
 
Double post...
( Last edited by BadKosh; Aug 16, 2010 at 02:27 PM. )
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 12:25 PM
 
Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans

UPDATED: Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans | Media Circus

Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act which was a factor in causing the economic crisis (see HERE ) … well look at what some fellow bloggers have dug up while researching Obama’s legal career. Looks like a typical ACORN lawsuit to get banks to hand out bad loans.

In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back?

It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is. ACORN filed tons of these lawsuits and ALL of them allege racism.

Thanks to the IUSB Vision Weblog for providing additional details of this story.

We pulled the docket down, but here’s a brief for your summary:

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 12:33 PM
 


GOVERNMENT BAAAAAD

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 11:58 AM
 
120 Days to Go Until the
Largest Tax Hikes in History

In just 120 days, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%

- The 25% bracket rises to 28%

- The 28% bracket rises to 31%

- The 33% bracket rises to 36%

- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care tax credit will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The top capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The top dividends tax rate will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.


Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The Tanning Tax. This went into effect on July 1st of this year. It imposes a new, 10% excise tax on getting a tan at a tanning salon. There is no exemption for tanners making less than $250,000 per year.

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Brand Name Drug Tax. Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers. This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.

Economic Substance Doctrine. The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly-legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks “economic substance.” This is obviously an arbitrary empowerment of IRS agents.

Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on a W-2. This will start for W-2s in the 2011 tax year. While not a tax increase in itself, it makes it very easy for Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits later.


Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Until this year, a retired person with an IRA could contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.


Read more: 120 Days to Go Until the<br> Largest Tax Hikes in History



Read more: 120 Days to Go Until the<br> Largest Tax Hikes in History
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 11:11 PM
 
Wait, the government needs those taxes. They have to have money so that they can take care of us. That's why there are deficits, not enough taxes. Why are you so selfish?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 11:18 PM
 
Can someone name a country that has taxed itself into prosperity?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:41 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,