U.S. reaching its credit limit.
By on Dec 29th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
U.S. reaching its credit limit.
Treasury Secretary John Snow warns that the federal government will exceed the statutory debt limit of $8.18 trillion by Feburary, asks Congress to authorize more borrowing.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I wish “borrow and spend” were somehow as dirty a phrase as “tax and spend.”
December 29th, 2005 at 9:57 pmI’m sure this will get blamed on Bill Clinton also…
December 29th, 2005 at 10:01 pmTHANK YOU THINK PROGRESS!
Make you comments count. I will be updating the Think Progress Report tomorrow on The Blackbird Radio Network.
Check the broadcast schedule for times and dates.
Make your comments count, they will be heard by over 700,000 people around the WORLD!
December 29th, 2005 at 10:03 pmYou certainly don’t think Ted Stevens is giving up his bridge to nowhere…
December 29th, 2005 at 10:04 pmIt’s a routine occurrence. No need to blame anyone.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:04 pmCorrected for accuracy:
Make you comments count. I will be updating the Think Progress Report tomorrow on The Blackbird Radio Network.
Check the broadcast schedule for times and dates.
Make your comments count, they will be heard by over 7 people around the WORLD!
December 29th, 2005 at 10:05 pmWhat’s worse tax and spend or borrow and spend? The US will become like Argentina. We will all have McJobs and the McMansions will be standing empty and Bush will say “let them eat cake”. That’s when we bring out the guillotine.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:12 pmwallace — Admit it, You just dont Like Susan, Do you? no Matter though, I,m sure there is no love lost for wallace —
December 29th, 2005 at 10:15 pmSusan ,you, Think preogress, and Debtonator are doing a terrific J.O.B.
Keep up the great fight against crime.
Sincerly, a retired Vet.
& A Father of a etsd Daughter vet.
wallace, IF you took the time to actually do some research before you make a foll of yourself (again) it is the first time in HISTORY that this type of thing has happened.
Once again you prove yourself to be EXTREMELY uninformed.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:16 pmOnce again the Debtonator has proven itself to be EXTREMELY uninformed.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:17 pmLOL! Good to see you cured that stuttering problem bro. It’s good to see you FINALLY got the help you so desperately need.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:18 pmBy the way wallace, do you know WHO your replying to? I doubt it.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:19 pm“Approximately 64 percent of the $8.6 trillion deterioration in the budget outlook is due to policy decisions over the last four years to cut taxes repeatedly while paying huge bills for the war in Iraq and spending large sums in other areas, such as homeland security and international affairs. For 2004, the tax cuts are responsible for 60 percent of the fiscal deterioration caused by policy decisions.â€
December 29th, 2005 at 10:21 pm– A Report by the Democratic Staff of the House Budget Committee, September 13, 2004
Debtonator says,
But the Washington Post says it has happened many times before:
Hmmm, who to believe??? ROFLMAO!!!
December 29th, 2005 at 10:28 pmNow there’s an unbiased source! ROFL!
December 29th, 2005 at 10:32 pmWASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Treasury Secretary
John Snow warned lawmakers on Thursday that a legally set limit on the government’s ability to borrow will be hit in mid-February and urged Congress to raise it quickly.
Failure to do so potentially risks throwing the country into its first default in history, Snow warned in what has become virtually an annual rite as U.S. borrowing needs spiral.
“The administration now projects that the statutory debt limit, currently $8.184 trillion, will be reached in mid-February 2006,” Snow said in a letter to 21 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate released by Treasury after financial markets had closed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051229/pl_nm/economy_debtlimit_dc;_ylt=Arxh.NPQOiid2Wx90HRVY4Ss0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3
December 29th, 2005 at 10:36 pmPersonally, I like surpluses, you know the thing Clinton left Bushie with.
Wait… Wallace quotes an article that proves our point and disproves his? I don’t get it…
December 29th, 2005 at 10:40 pmHmmm, I like a checking account that has negative $500 or a positive $500.
Normal thinking people prefer the positive.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:40 pmClinton didn’t propose any balanced budgets until after Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took control of the House in 1995.
Clinton also raised the debt ceiling in 1997, though Debtonator says it’s never happened before. ROFL!
December 29th, 2005 at 10:40 pmParrotlover, wallace is not a normal thinking person.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:41 pmAny non-illiterate willsee that I documented my assertion. The debt limit has been raised a number of times. Therefore this will not be the first time in hitory it is raised. Clinton raised it in 1997. Hence, Debtonator and parrotlover are idiots. ROFL..
December 29th, 2005 at 10:43 pm$8.18 TRILLION
Abnormal thinking people think that this is a minimal amount of debt?
December 29th, 2005 at 10:44 pmSusan, I agree. We should cut the federal budget at least in half. Where do Democrats want to start cutting?
December 29th, 2005 at 10:47 pmWhen has any President of the United States threatened to deny Social Security benefits in order to meet budget goals?
When has any President of the United States threatened to refuse funding for reconstruction caused by a natural disaster to meet budget goals?
December 29, 2005
December 29th, 2005 at 10:52 pmSusan, I agree. We should cut the federal budget at least in half. Where do Democrats want to start cutting?
Comment by wallace
We can begin by cancelling the contracts we have with Halliburton.
That should save us about 5 billion dollars.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:54 pmWallace, how about we cut Illegal Surveillance programs and any wars where we invade another country who hasn’t attacked us…
Then we can cut the tax cuts…
And Pork (like Ted Stevens (R, AK) Bridge to nowhere)…
How does that sound?
Z.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:55 pmAny Idea how much money has been wasted so far(to date) in Afganistan & Iraq?
December 29th, 2005 at 10:56 pmHas War ever been a source of weapon on Terrism before in History?
What an idiotic comment. You really are a know-nothing. The 7 listeners who listen to you for financial advice must be reall morons. LOL
Unless you cut the program they’re contracted to perform, they’ll just be replaced with a different contractor. Programs have to be cut to cut spending. NEXT! ROFL!
December 29th, 2005 at 10:57 pmwallace isn’t the sharpest knife in the draw is he. He voted for Bush… twice.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:58 pmAny amount is a waste of MY tax dollars.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:58 pmMaybe Agramoff can cut the Deficit, eh wwallrus?
December 29th, 2005 at 11:00 pmSusan, I agree. We should cut the federal budget at least in half. Where do Democrats want to start cutting?
Comment by wallace
The military.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:00 pmwallace, once AGAIN, you prove just how ignorant (stupid) you are. You spew forth nothing but bullshit backed by NOT ONE piece of FACTUAL evidence.
You must make your parents proud.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:00 pmRaising taxes is not a spending cut, you fool. Iraq attacked Americans routinely throughout the 1990s. Bosnia and Kosovo never attacked the US, and posed no threat to the US. But Demcorats supported those wars, because they are partisan hypocrites.
I don’t know of any illegal surveillance programs. You don’t either.
I’m all for cutting pork. I said the federal budget should be cut in half, at least.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:01 pmDebtonator, once AGAIN, you prove just how ignorant (stupid) you are. You spew forth nothing but bullshit backed by NOT ONE piece of FACTUAL evidence.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:02 pmwallace — read #32. Now theres an Idea.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:03 pmLOL! How very original.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:03 pmOf course ‘Dull Knife’ wants to cut the military first. Democrats’ last priority is national defense.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:04 pmWHEN did Iraq attack America? Gee wallace, what color is the sky on YOUR planet?
December 29th, 2005 at 11:05 pmHow about big oil cut the budget? along with the military ?
December 29th, 2005 at 11:05 pmwallace is really Natalie Holloway.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:06 pmStop picking on wallace. It’s not nice to make fun of the mentally challanged.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:07 pmOf course ‘Dull Knife’ wants to cut the military first. Democrats’ last priority is national defense.
Comment by wallace
It’s a great plan. It’s your plan, the GOP and the bush administration’s. It’s genius! That’s why I am no longer a Democrat. I’m a Republican, like you! We give up our freedumbs and they won’t want to attack us! Ergo, we don’t need all that expensive military!
December 29th, 2005 at 11:09 pmWallace, you’ve got the Scott McClellan schtick down cold.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:12 pmLook y’all, this particular troll has proven
December 29th, 2005 at 11:12 pmto be … well let’s just say “not the sharpest
tool in the shed”, so maybe it is best to let
him talk to him or herself rather than waste
the bandwidth talking back.
You are soooooo very right afterthought. It’s like the itch in the center of your back that is just out of reach. Ignore it and it goes away.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:14 pmCalling me names will never change the facts I’ve posted, or help you come up with an argument.
ROFL
December 29th, 2005 at 11:20 pmFACTS??? ROFLMAO!!!!!
Consider yourself ignored.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:24 pmwallace — try changing your name. maybe, hummm, letsee, oh! i know.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:24 pmhow about Lyle#2 or Uway2
wallace-
Just remember, if this country goes into its’ second depression, we, except for you and your troll friends, are blameless. We’ll be wearing shirts saying, “Don’t Blame Me. I Voted For Kerry.”
You, on the other hand, will blame us for not allowing oil companies to rape the good state of Alaska by destroying wildlife and turning an artic oasis from big companies into
December 29th, 2005 at 11:26 pmand industrial wasteland.
Wallace –
No, but Cutting taxes is cutting income. Therefore Raising taxes should Raise income.
Think of it like your personal budget…
Your Johns pay you more so you make more money. You don’t need to spend less on Meth to balance your bank account and pay your rent.
You charge your Johns less you either go into debt or don’t buy so much Meth.
See… Taxes are like the money you get from your Johns, The Military industrial complex is like your Meth addiction. You either get more from your Johns or less Meth.. or you do both.
Simple…
Z.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:39 pmI sure am glad the Republicans favor small government.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:41 pmLet me be the first to predict that Senator Stevens (R-Ruin Pristine Wilderness) of Alaska will put a rider on the credit limit bill for drilling in ANWR.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:41 pmWwingnut:
GOP has controlled the Congress the whole time.
With Clinton, record surpluses.
With W, record deficits and debt.
See the difference? Even a wingnut like you can understand it.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:46 pmJeff says it all. Short and sweet.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:50 pmJIMBO, there’s no evidence that drilling for oil in Alaska will cause any environmental damage whatsoever. Your paranoid fantasies are not evidence. LOL
December 30th, 2005 at 12:01 amJeff, this is not true: “GOP has controlled the Congress the whole time.”
Zwack, cutting tax rates stimulates the economy and increases revenues.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:03 amThere really isn’t any legitimate argument against drilling in ANWR.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:19 amFolks, regarding WallASS, IRI etc. Why do you feel that they deserve a response. Most of the folks at this blog are intellectually and morally beyond these Trolls. If you igore them they WILL go away because they will no longer experience the masochistic thrill of being attacked. STAY ON POINT. There is so much worthy of discussion without wasting time with the Trolls.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:20 amOverlooking the fact that Big Oil still hasn’t paid for the last ecological disaster they created in Alaska…
Here are some legitimate arguments against drilling in ANWR.
1) If (not when, but if) an accident occurs and damage is done to the environment, you can’t repair it. Saying “my bad” isn’t going to fix the planet.
2) We don’t need the oil yet. Why cause potential damage for something that isn’t necessary.
3) There isn’t all that much oil there anyway.
So you have three legitimate arguments against.
Now give one good argument for. Just one. Be prepared to provide facts to back it up. Remember that this Oil would currently be sold to China and Japan…
Z.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:28 amRemember, cutting Federal Income taxes to 0.0000001% will mean nearly infinite tax revenue according to the tax cuts increase tax revenue koolaid drinkers. But wait, I thought they wanted to “starve the beast” – shouldn’t they want to raise taxes then?
December 30th, 2005 at 12:30 amZwack, those aren’t legitimate arguments at all, they’re pure drivel. There’s no basis for anything you said.
Blue in a Red State, your last post contained no arguments or any point. It was purely ad hominem. Troll.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:34 amThe argument for drilling in ANWR is simple – we need oil, there’s oil in ANWR, lots of oil, and no down side.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:38 amWallace,
There is a basis for every argument I have made…
1) The cost of cleaning up after a potential spill in ANWR is HUGE. the damage would be irreperable. Why take the risk. If you think that this is drivel please give a refutation. Prove that either no spills could happen or that they could be cleaned up easily and quickly without damaging the ecosystem.
2) The oil pipeline is already running at capacity. If we need the oil then how are we going to fit it into the pipe. If you disagree show me that the pipeline is not running at capacity.
3) Estimates of the amount of Oil in ANWR are that it would last the US six months (6 months). Prove that there is more oil there than I said.
Until you stop calling everything that is said Drivel and actually either provide proof that it is wrong, or provide an argument for, with proof, then don’t even try posting.
Blue used no more of an Ad Hominem attack than you just did, and he was a lot politer. Mind you having just called you a Meth Whore I don’t expect any better. :-P
Z.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:45 amProve it.
Z.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:47 amI’m pretty sure Bush thought there was no “downside” to invading Iraq.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:48 am#57
Jeff, this is not true: “GOP has controlled the Congress the whole time.â€
Comment by wallace — December 30, 2005 @ 12:03 am
Ummmmm…
Elections of:
1994: In those elections [of 1994] the Republicans won a majority in both houses of Congress. It was one of the most dramatic upheavals in Congress in the 20th century. (Source: MSN Encarta)
1996: But the election did not alter Clinton’s problems with Congress. While Democrats gained seats in the House of Representatives, they lost more seats in the Senate, and Republicans continued their control of both houses of Congress. (Source: MSN Encarta)
1998: In an election in which all but six of 401 House incumbents were returned, the GOP retained control of Congress, its third majority in a row. (Source: USA Today)
Well, maybe not the whole time. But still, all but 2 years of Clinton’s 8 years. I do believe the Repubs have maintained control of Congress since Clinton left office, as well.
Oh, and wallace, you are still an ass.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:54 amZwack, there’s no basis for your idiotic assertions, which helps explain why you haven’t backed any of them up. Everything you’re saying is baseless drivel.
WC, the Republicans took the majority in the House in January 1995. Clinton took office in January 1993. Therefore, it is a fact that the Republicans did not control Congress “the whole time” Clinton was in office, and it is a fact that you are an ignoramus. LOL
December 30th, 2005 at 1:07 amOh, and since we are way off topic and talking about oil, wallace, just how much of an effect on prices do you expect the oil from the ANWR to have, once the wells are producing output? 5 cents? 25 cents?
All it would take to wipe out any advantage is a massive hurricane hitting the gulf coast, or a terrorist attack, or war with Iran. As for “reducing” our dependence on foreign oil, the amount produced from the ANWR would barely be a blip on the radar screen.
We would be better off instituting voluntary conservation methods, such as cutting unnecessary trips, combining multiple errands into one trip, and driving a bit slower on our trips. As I understand it, this is one of the major reasons we had such a relatively quick drop in gas prices that spiked above $3.00 a gallon in the days after Katrina; The so-called “experts” at that time were predicting $4 for a gallon of gas for the next 6 months. 6 weeks after Katrina, here in TN we were paying $1.80 a gallon; it’s currently averaging about $2.04.
December 30th, 2005 at 1:22 am#68
Oh, big f**king deal. 2 years. Ok…fine. Let’s say a majority of the time Clinton was in office. Better? It still does not change the jist of Jeff’s assertion. Speaking of which, you still haven’t addressed his other two statements.
December 30th, 2005 at 1:26 am#70
Ummm…”gist.” Sorry.
December 30th, 2005 at 1:46 am“JIMBO, there’s no evidence that drilling for oil in Alaska will cause any environmental damage whatsoever. Your paranoid fantasies are not evidence. LOL”
Two words:
Exxon Valdez
See how easy to refute trolls?
December 30th, 2005 at 1:56 am“Of course ‘Dull Knife’ wants to cut the military first. Democrats’ last priority is national defense.”
Comment by wallace
How about SDI? It’s been the biggest mutt in the arsenal, and hasn’t worked since its inception.
And how about stopping corporate welfare (Halliburton)?
Or how about killing those wasteful faith-based programs?
How about making the rich pay the same taxes as the rest of us? Eliminating the cap on Social Security would raise a lot on taxes – and it would show that the rich also believe in “sacrifice for the common good”.
December 30th, 2005 at 2:09 amDude… You’ve spent over half a trillion dollars to create a new province for Iran, complete with two Talibans…
Isn’t it time you kick your government out? If I spent money like that I’d have been put behind bars ages ago.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:34 amI have built it. Will you come?
http://www.boycott-republicans.com
December 30th, 2005 at 5:16 amAhhh, let us repeat.
“GOP has controlled the Congress the whole time.
With Clinton, record surpluses.
With W, record deficits and debt.”
George W. Bush is NOT a conservative.
You guys who defend him are stuck in a loop of defending and denial, where politics trumps policy, and all to the detriment of the people and good standing of the United States of America.
You are lost. You’ve lost your soul and you don’t even know it, or don’t care. Certainly Ronald Reagan would be shocked at the mishandling of the economy.
December 30th, 2005 at 7:58 amEven his dad is shocked at the mishandling of everything of his son, but sonny stopped him an unpolite “shut up” in a number of things. Now daddy is conveniently parked up in the Tsunami relief program…
December 30th, 2005 at 8:13 amwhat exactly do conservatives conserve?
December 30th, 2005 at 8:36 amThey will simply raise it again. Because of:
December 30th, 2005 at 9:16 amThey will simply raise it again. Because of:
December 30th, 2005 at 9:17 am#78,
Brain processing “cycles”?
December 30th, 2005 at 9:18 amI hope you all know Dick “Scrooge” Cheney cast the tie breaking vote on the Wednesday before Christmas to increase the fees charged to Medicaid recipients, let states cut Medicaid benefits, reduce enforcement funds for child support, and lots more.
But all the mean-spirited cuts didn’t make a dent in the deficit. The cuts only came to about one-third of 1 percent of total federal spending. Meanwhile cold-war era missile defense lives on. And Repubs can’t get enough of “shift-the-burden-to-the-middle-class” tax cuts for the rich.
Truly compassionate, don’t you think?
December 30th, 2005 at 9:21 amDecember 30th, 2005 at 9:21 am
Wont work..
December 30th, 2005 at 9:22 amThe PNAC crazies..
“Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran”
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=centralAsia
Bush is a little girl playing tea party with Iraq knowing that someone else will fix it. What a sham. We need to demand that members of congress state positions on being bypassed by the President.
December 30th, 2005 at 9:25 amI think a general “enema” of ALL these political wack jobs needs to be done. I have wriiten to Durbin and Obama demanding impeachment of the cocksucker in the white house and thier reply was that a member of the house needs to sponsor a petition of impeachment.
No one from the house has even BOTHERED to respond.
So, lets all remember these thing come election time. Remember the LACK of action by our ELECTED leaders. Remember the crimes of the bushy administration.
Remember BETTER times with a SURPLUS budget. But most of all REMEMBER THE ADMINISTRATION THAT BANKRUPT AMERICA AND THOSE WHO LET IT HAPPEN.
December 30th, 2005 at 9:44 amWasn’t it Reagan who kept asking “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?” It’s astonishing to me just how f–ked up things have gotten in 6 short years…record debt, lost jobs, lost benefits for the poor, wars and rumors of wars and now a constitutional crisis. There is a special place in hell for the people who have done this.
And while I’m thinking about it, I don’t go into chat rooms anymore but when I first got Internet access I especially liked the feature where you could put someone on “ignore” and wouldn’t see their posts.
December 30th, 2005 at 10:01 amAnd the Buschco Back-loaded taxes havent even kicked in yet..that will be when monkey boy is safely out of office. When the so called ‘Compassionate ones’ cry about the Debt years from now, and try to blame it on the Current Administration (2012-2013) remember this Bush monkey..
December 30th, 2005 at 10:08 amand remember those who backed him, and his friends, for you have not seen the last of the Carians.
December 30th, 2005 at 10:10 am$8.18 billion dollars… that’s about 30,000 cubic feet of gold.
December 30th, 2005 at 10:24 amSomeone should start a blog called “THE NEW DEMOCRATIC VISION” using the format in the link above. People could send in their little links re: who Democrats are and it could be a really unifiying thing. And fun.
December 30th, 2005 at 10:27 amBushco: The largest, most brutal money laundering business in the history of the world.
December 30th, 2005 at 10:40 amScrew it, just print more money. Or find more gold or something.
December 30th, 2005 at 10:40 amThe stock market is tanking again today. The stock market will end the year without a net gain. But in Bush world that is success.
Now lets see what happens as the housing market continues its decline and the new Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke gets his “test” as the new chairman always seems to get.
Can anyone say recession or depression?
-GSD
Heckuva job George W. Or will the new recession be blamed on Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress?
December 30th, 2005 at 10:56 amWe’ll lay down the Merican people’s money and spin the terra wheel of fortune. Can’t lose when yur gamblin’ with other people’s money and other people’s futures.
If we we win, Bushco reaps the rewards, Avg. Merican gets nothing or worse.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:02 amIf we lose, we go back to being multi-millionaires, most of America is plunged into depression. hanhaann han
Don’t ya see now, how the rich work, just that much harder than the rest of you losers. hanhaann han
To the taxpayer and Merican citizen; Thanks for bankrolling our personal fortunes! And for the record, I wouln’t lend any of you a dime.
dano, since “the rich” pay much more than average now, what you’re actually suggesting by saying they should pay the same as everyone else is a massive tax cut for the rich. ROFL
December 30th, 2005 at 11:03 amcmon wallace, accept my invite. COWARD!!!
December 30th, 2005 at 11:18 am#87, yes Reagan asked if you were better off than 4 years ago. What he didn’t say was that the bulk of economic growth was from the advent of the computer age, in particular the personal computer — a liberal invention.
That’s how it works in this country. We create wealth, and we get blame and ridicule from those who don’t.
And face it, these so-called supply siders don’t care how much debt we have. They don’t into the future, they just want gimme gimme gimme right now.
And how about the obesity rates in the red states? Yes, good decision making skills all around for Bush supporters.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:44 amHow much longer now before King George will say “Let them eat cake?”
December 30th, 2005 at 11:45 amThe red states are eating too much cake already.
It points to the same thing. If you look at a nationwide map of obesity rates, it looks nearly identical to the 2000/2004 electoral map. Red states are fatter. But that makes sense. Inability to make small short-term sacrifices for long term gains. Poor planning for the future. Cannot see the hidden costs of what they do right now. And of course, they have to guzzle as much fuel (whether oil or cake) as they can, and woe to anyone who tries to tell them to slow down.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:49 amWallace, did you notice that it is a routine occurance during the current administration more than anything?
December 30th, 2005 at 11:51 am#96-Wally, Not true! I made over $200,000 a year and never paid more than 12%. All it took was $2,000 for tax advice-all legal.The worst I got hit was when I sold $1,000,000 in stock options and had to pay 22%. You repeat a big repub lie.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:53 amWallace is correct about the debt limit being raised,it’s happened before and is a non-event.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:53 amThe total debt is over $8 trillion and $3.5trillion of that is interagency borrowing. For example,the on-budget deficit in FY05 was close to $500 billion reduced by $159 billion borrowed from the SocSec trust.
Income taxes (not including Social insurance taxes) updated for census data thru FY03 show that the lowest quintile pays an effective tax rate of -5.9% of average income and the 2nd quintile pays -1.1%. The top 10% pay an effective income tax rate of 13.9%. For FY03 the lowest quintile paid -2.9% of total idividual income taxes and the 2nd quintile paid -1.1%. The highest quintile paid 82.8% of total individual income taxes.The top 1% of earners paid 33% of the total individual income taxes paid.
Source: CBO Income categories are defined by ranking all people by comprehensive income adjusted for household size;quintiles contain equal numbers of people.
Cake is too good. Let them eat a Twinkie, filled with saturated fat.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:54 amWallace said…
So my idiotic assertions are…
1) Cleaning up ANWR after an oil spill would be costly if one happened.
Let’s see… Exxon Valdez was a big Oil spill, in a similar part of the world…
Clean up costs around $2.5 billion dollars.
Article 1
Article 2
In the UK in 2003 there were 585 spills at sea. That’s almost one a day. 388 of them were from Oil and Gas installations, and of those 325 were Mineral oils. 38 of those were 1/2 a tonne or larger. One of the larger (36 tonne crude oil spills) was explicitly the result of equipment failure on a drilling rig. Source
So there you have proof that accidental spills are not only possible but likely and that clean up costs can be VERY expensive. 1) is NOT a baseless assertion.
2) We don’t need the Oil. This is based on the capacity of the oil pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 and what proportion of capacity it is running at. If we needed the oil the capacity of the pipeline would be increased.
Capacity of the pipeline (maximum throughput) 2 million barrels per day. Source
According to one pro-drilling article I found the area they are talking about is 10 billion barrels. That is about thirteen years running that pipeline… Source
Allegedly the USGS mean estimate from 1998 is 3.2 to 5.2 Billion Barrels (half of the Washington Times assertion). Even the higher figure is only six months of the US oil usage levels. Source
But the pipeline is already at capacity. So for the moment we have no need to get that oil… We would have to store it somewhere… So what is the point? Baseless assertion? Pure Drivel? I’ve shown proof for everything except my claim that the pipeline is already running at capacity. I have found various places that suggest that but none that can give figures .
Finally, Estimates that ANWR contains six months or less of US Oil consumption have already been shown. In 2000 USGS gave a 95% chance that 2 billion barrels would be found, a 50% chance that 5 billion barrels would be found and a 5% chance that 10 billion barrels would be found. So they reckon that there is a 5% chance that there is a six month supply there, and a 50% chance that there is a three month supply. Source already given.
Now please feel free to take these “Baseless assertions that are pure drivel” and provide refutations. Or has your idiocy now been shown to you.
Or are you too busy with your Meth or your “clients”?
Z.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:56 amsince credit repayment requirements were changed by Republicants, it looks like we may be SOL…
December 30th, 2005 at 11:57 am- FACT
December 30th, 2005 at 12:03 pmFederal bankruptcy is necessary for a streamlined transition to an “Ownership Society”.
Umm drilling for oil in Alaska will cause environmental damage. Drilling for oil anywhere causes environmental damage period. Punching a hole in the earth is punching a hole in the environment, so deal with it. Now the scale of the damage is debatable. If there are no laws in place or the laws are not followed environmental damage will be pretty bad. Just take a look at how the toxicity level in Wyoming have been rising during the natural gas boom of the last few years. Environmental laws are not being followed and their ground water (our actual most precious resource) is being contaminated on a very large scale.
My problem with the drilling is the prupose. Reports I have read, from the adminsitration no less, have indicated that if every drop of SUSPECTED reserves were drilled out of Alaska it would account for less than 6 months total usage for the US. Reports I have read from the industry have all pretty much said that the oil will not be used here in the states that it will end up in the far east where the emerging markets are closer to the oils source and will be able to pay the premium price that this oil will command due to the expense of getting it out of the ground.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:37 pm“Income taxes (not including Social insurance taxes) updated for census data thru FY03 show that the lowest quintile pays an effective tax rate of -5.9% of average income and the 2nd quintile pays -1.1%. The top 10% pay an effective income tax rate of 13.9%.” Comment by TJM — December 30, 2005 @ 11:53 am
And there is the stat that makes the rest meaningless. They specifically don’t include Social Security, because the rich don’t pay Social Security taxes over about $90.000. Including Social Security taxes into the mix significantly raises the tax rates for those making less than the cut-off of $90,000, and when it is included, invalidates the assumption that the rich “pay their fair share”. Include ALL taxes, not just the ones that prove your point.
So TJM, will you be posting data showing what the affluent would contribute if ALL of their income were subject to Social Security taxes? A person of intellectual integrity would admit that they’re only telling part of the story, especially after they’ve been busted!
December 30th, 2005 at 12:45 pmWallace, how do the rich pay more? Are you going with the tired old argument that it’s unfair for 5% of the people to pay 80% of the taxes or whatever the actual percentage is?
Here’s a twist on that argument. The last time the IRS released stats along those lines they said that the top 5% or so earned 80% of the income and paid 66% of the income taxes. Seems a bit out of proportion to me. Couple that with the 40% (a number that has increased every year under Bush) whose incomes are low enough that they pay no income taxes and that puts the balance of the tax burden squarely on the shoulders of the middle class.
Of course you would never believe that to be true, but in December 2002 the Wall Street Journal (hardly a liberal rag) ran an approving story about the GOP’s plan to shift the tax burden onto the middle class. I’m middle class, I don’t particularly like this one bit. I’m guessing from the fact that you spend so much time here you are either independently wealthy and in the top 5% (doubtful) or in the lower 40% because if you are middle class every tax act the president has pushed has been detrimental to you in the long run. Sure your taxes may be $600 lower, but overall the tax burden is more heavily on your shoulders today than it has been in ten years.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:48 pm“dano, since “the rich†pay much more than average now, what you’re actually suggesting by saying they should pay the same as everyone else is a massive tax cut for the rich. ROFL”
Comment by wallace — December 30, 20
Wallace lies again – the “rich” don’t pay their fair share – if they did, they’d pay Social Security taxes on ALL their income – not just the first $90,000 (investment income included). Wallace likes the taste of bootheel. And the rich laugh at him, all the way to the Cayman’s.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:50 pmThe red states are eating too much cake already.
It points to the same thing. If you look at a nationwide map of obesity rates, it looks nearly identical to the 2000/2004 electoral map. Red states are fatter. But that makes sense. Inability to make small short-term sacrifices for long term gains. Poor planning for the future. Cannot see the hidden costs of what they do right now. And of course, they have to guzzle as much fuel (whether oil or cake) as they can, and woe to anyone who tries to tell them to slow down.
Comment by cynical ex-hippie — December 30, 2005 @ 11:49 am
Have you seen any of those studies that show how the populations of rats will increase or decline based on the amount of food available to them? And how those studies also work for people?
Know why there are starving children in Ethiopia? The Red States ate their food. So if they’ll eat more than they need (eating someone else’s portions) and as a result allow children starve to death (no doubt the same children they fought to bring into this world by fighting against abortion), then why would they ever care about sharing anything else, including oil?
I hate to generalize, but I live in a red state (it used to be blue), and the people here are mostly grossly obese (National Geographic study). A constituency that easily reflects our “elected” pigs at the trough in Washington.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:55 pmI’m guessing from the fact that you spend so much time here you are either independently wealthy and in the top 5% (doubtful) or in the lower 40%.
Comment by Mark — December 30, 2005 @ 12:48 pm
He probably works for his Daddy since that’s the only way he could get a job.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:58 pmIf the rich pay SS tax on all of their income will they get it all back in the form of benefits or will their excess contibutions go to pay for many who will receive more than they have paid in?
December 30th, 2005 at 12:59 pmWell,dano my paranoid little friend, the discussion was about income taxes but if you want me to post the rest of the data instead of looking it up yourself I’ll be glad to help you out.
December 30th, 2005 at 1:02 pmThe effective tax rate for the same quintiles on all income for 2003 show that the lowest quintile pays 4.8% on pre-tax income of $14,800 (down from $15,000 in Fy02),the 2nd quintile paid 9.8%.The highest quintile paid 25% and the top 1% paid 31.4%
As a %of total taxes paid the lowest quintile paid 1%,the next quintile paid 4.5% and the highest quintile paid 65.7%. The top 15 of earners paid 22.6% of all taxes.
Had you bothered to actually read the post,you would have seen that I quoted the data as specifically excluding social insurance taxes and excise taxes.
Grow up and read the whole thing before your puerile response reflex kicks in.Bust this,kid.
Debtonator says,
“wallace, IF you took the time to actually do some research before you make a foll of yourself (again) it is the first time in HISTORY that this type of thing has happened.
Once again you prove yourself to be EXTREMELY uninformedâ€
But the Washington Post says it has happened many times before:
When Bush came to office, the debt ceiling was $5.95 trillion and had last been raised in 1997.
Since 2002, Congress has raised the borrowing limit by more than $1.4 trillion, as the government ran increasingly large deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $375 billion in 2003 and $413 billion for fiscal 2004, which ended in September.
Hmmm, who to believe??? ROFLMAO!!!
Comment by wallace — December 29, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
So, that proves this story??? Can’t argue with wallace on this one!
Since Bush has been in office he has borrowed, borrowed, and borrowed!!!
Where as CLINTON posted Record Surplus Re-Payments to the national debt!
Today, President Clinton will announce that we:
Estimate a surplus of at least $230 billion in FY2000.
Remain on track to pay off the entire debt by 2012.
Will reduce the debt by an estimated $223 billion in FY2000 and more than $360 billion over last 3 years.
and…
Instead of a $455 billion deficit, the surplus this year will be at least $230 billion. In 1992, the deficit in the Federal budget was $290 billion – the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $455 billion by 2000. Today, the Clinton/Gore Administration is estimating that the surplus will be at least $230 billion this year – the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation. Compared with original projections, these results mean that there is over $685 billion less of a government drain on the economy and over $685 billion more that is available for private investment in this one year alone.
and there’s more…
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_113400_2000.html
Damn, Clinton! He would have left us with lower taxes, more income, better health care, a cleaner environment, and more respected throughout the world…just to name a few…
What were we thinking?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha…
Wallace….YOU are an IDIOT!
December 30th, 2005 at 1:10 pm“If the rich pay SS tax on all of their income will they get it all back in the form of benefits or will their excess contibutions go to pay for many who will receive more than they have paid in?”
Comment by Ben — December 30, 2005 @ 12:59
There’s that “shared sacrifice for all” we Americans keep talking about. If the rich contributed what they owe, we wouldn’t have a problem with solvency.
The affluent have been “receiv[ing] more than they have paid in” for decades. Why should Paris Hilton be exempt from the “shared sacrifice” we on the bottom must pony up every day?
Hypothetically, many of the affluent, after paying in Social security taxes (on all of their income) would die, giving their offspring the same death benefits the rest of us recieve when a loved one dies. For a child or retired spouse that would mean financial support (calculated by the deceased’s contributions) until they reach adulthood – the rest of the contribution would revert to the fund – just like it does for the rest of us.
There is no good reason that we couldn’t phase in a gradual increase for the rich, except perhaps for political will.
December 30th, 2005 at 1:16 pmHere’s a twist on that argument. The last time the IRS released stats along those lines they said that the top 5% or so earned 80% of the income and paid 66% of the income taxes. Seems a bit out of proportion to me. Couple that with the 40% (a number that has increased every year under Bush) whose incomes are low enough that they pay no income taxes and that puts the balance of the tax burden squarely on the shoulders of the middle class.
Well, that would put about 34% or so of the burden on the middle class (maybe less since middle class usually tops out around 100K family income annually which still leaves 100K + who are not middle class but are also not “richest 5%”). It’s important to also look at the number of individuals that fall under these income categories.
Number of “Families” in the US – 109 million or so
Percent “middle class” (earning 50K to 99K) = 29.2%
Percent of families in the “richest 5%” of income = .86%
Middle class = 32 million families
Richest 5% = 937 THOUSAND families
It doesn’t appear that the middle class bears either the financial or numerical burden here. I think the rich should pay more, but I do not like the income redistribution concepts that are often voiced here.
December 30th, 2005 at 1:17 pmDano,I’m not sure if it’s just naivete or something else but Social Security taxes are paid on salary and wages (earned income) nobody pays SS taxes on dividend income (unearned income in the IRS’s eyes) or capital gains. You may have to look up the definitions of those terms since you seem unfamiliar with them.
December 30th, 2005 at 1:27 pmThe current SS system collects taxes on 82% of total payroll in the US. If you raise the threshold from $90,000,in effect the employer share would also increase. That results in less money (ceteris parabis) available for salary and wages generally since the current system is assumed by economists to be unavailable for increases in wages generally.
The entire pot of earned income would yield relatively little benefit to overall revenue.
The Medicare tax of 1.65% matched by the employer is not capped now.
Social Security isn’t broken but your suggestion would help turn public opinion against it. The truly broken part of the system in embodied in Medicare. That’s the visible evidence of the flawed health care system where costs have risen faster than income for all.
Thats cause the rest of the world is boycotting your induatrial goods cause the mess of the atmosphere your making also boycotting other goods cause of your foreign policy …GOOD EH …
December 30th, 2005 at 1:31 pmIs it time for the pitchforks and the torches yet?
December 30th, 2005 at 1:52 pmGiacomo, do you agree that 1% of the income should cover 1% of the tax burden? Is that an unfair proposition? Yet somehow it is fair for 80% of the income to pay 66% of the income taxes?
Raising the income tax rates on the middle class won’t do the trick and you know it. That is not where the icnome is at. Raising the taxes on me to 34% across the board will net the government a few thousand dollars at best. the difference lays in the fact that the wealthy have options that ordinary people do not have. They can pay for advice and set up options to pay no tax. For instance there was a farmer near a central illinois town in the early 1980’s. he owned some land that a car manufacturer wanted. The manufacturer was able to muscle congress to get a section written into the tax code exempting the land they wanted from tax law changes. This Farmer took the milliosn he made selling his land and invested it in high yield muni’s (remeber where the interest rates were back then) In illinois certain Muni’s are exempt from state tax, they are also exempt from Federal tax. This guy was earnign millions and paying $0 in taxes. Fair? probably not. Legal? At the time yes. It was one of the situations that led to AMT being enacted. The whole point of this is that people with money can avoid tax while thosae of us in the middle end up paying because we need our funds to live on.
Here’s another one for you. Kerry’s wife paid a relatively low effective tax rate in 2003. Much was made of this by virtue of the pundits twisitng their panties in a bunch. Anyhow little was discussed as to how this occured. In her case the funds are in trust which allowed a certain amount of tax shielding, and there were tremendous charitable contributions made. SO her 8 million or so in income was taxed at rates approaching my level. Another example is the presidents father, he gave all of his income to charity one year allowing himself to get a negligible effective tax rate.
Charitable givng is very admirable, but most of us can not aford to give 50% or more of our income to charity.
Of course there is the ultimate plans for screwing the middle class. First is the flat tax as I have seen it proposed. the other is the use tax or national sales tax. commonly referred to as paying for what you use. If I don’t travel overseas do I have to pay for military usage overseas? Do I have to pay for embassies? Do I have to pay for farm subsidies? What Am I really using? These are both the ultimate in trickle up economics.
Oh well, gotta go, hope 2006 is even better than 2005. Impeachment, imprisonment, etc…
December 30th, 2005 at 1:52 pmdano I appreciate the response.
I was really going to make a point about SS. Here’s how I see it for starters. The premise of American capitalism is risk. You take risks you create oppurtunities to earn more. You don’t take risks and you are left whatever the economy dictates for the majority of people. Now if and when you reach the finish line and you have done well then good for you. But why do you need one dime of SS? Why can’t you be satisfied that you ran a great race. Those individuals do not need the benefit. Just like the person who continiously made mistakes or had misfortune. He ran a not so good race. But no one wants to see anyone suffer in their senior years. I favor a disqualification of benefits based on all income passive or not. So no loopholes. If for some reason that disqualified person becomes qualified he or she could begin receiving benefits. SS should be there for those who need it. Those who don’t should be grateful not to.
The craziest part about the arguments concerning taxation is that taxation is not the problem. The problem is compensation. Let me give an example. Why does Michael Eisner get to make $80 million in one year? You mean to tell me in the US we can’t find someone of comparible talent that would do it for 5 or 10 million? Who agrees to his compensation levels? The Board of Directors? How do they in good conscience not excercise fudiciary responsibility? Here comes the answer. Back prior to mutual funds the Board was elected by shareholders. So any irresponsible behavior was held in check since shareholders could use the power of the 1 share 1 vote. Mutual funds now control almost 3/4 of the shares outstanding. The individual has lost his ability to hold Board members accountable by virtue of their vote. Fund managers do that. Want to speculate about those possible arrangements? There are too many situations like this. They trickle down from top to senior management(to fund managers?). The rich and powerful are working the compensation side of the equation while behaving upset over taxation. What a great diversion away from the real scam. If liberals or democrats really wanted to sink their into something that would resonate amongst all Americans that might take a closer look at this.
By the way I am a registered replubican conservative but I think this is definitely some of the BS that is ignored by my party. It’s not right and something should be done about it.
December 30th, 2005 at 2:03 pmOne of these days I will learn to check my spelling before posting.
December 30th, 2005 at 2:08 pmGiacomo, do you agree that 1% of the income should cover 1% of the tax burden?
At face value, sure. That scenario doesn’t account for coporate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. …. so ultimately no, a 1 to 1 is not needed at any tax level.
This Farmer took the milliosn he made selling his land and invested it in high yield muni’s (remeber where the interest rates were back then) In illinois certain Muni’s are exempt from state tax, they are also exempt from Federal tax. This guy was earnign millions and paying $0 in taxes. Fair? probably not. Legal? At the time yes. It was one of the situations that led to AMT being enacted.
I agree the rich have more options. Munis are still tax free in most states to add incentive for investors to put money in townships and such and not into corporate issues or bonds. The AMT was indeed created for similar cases (but likely wouldn’t trigger in this scenario).
Kerry’s wife paid a relatively low effective tax rate in 2003. Much was made of this by virtue of the pundits twisitng their panties in a bunch. Anyhow little was discussed as to how this occured. In her case the funds are in trust which allowed a certain amount of tax shielding, and there were tremendous charitable contributions made. SO her 8 million or so in income was taxed at rates approaching my level. Another example is the presidents father, he gave all of his income to charity one year allowing himself to get a negligible effective tax rate.
1) Trusts are not as good as most think to avoid taxation. They still remain a part of the estate and, as such, are a part of a death tax.
2) Gifts can be taxed as well and gifts to qualified charities have limits as to the deductions that can be claimed.
3) Don’t confuse income tax with total tax burden … often times, rich people can offset income tax with items that you mentioned but other categories of income (passive and investment) cannot be offset so easily.
First is the flat tax as I have seen it proposed. the other is the use tax or national sales tax. commonly referred to as paying for what you use.
I happen to be a proponent of a flat tax for income levels above 40K (family income) … a flat percentage with ZERO deductions and credits would work extremely well. Everyone would pay less, wiggle room would be removed, the “poor” would pay zip. A large sales tax could also work (a consumption tax) b/c those with means would pay the lions share for “consuming”.
December 30th, 2005 at 2:23 pm“If the rich pay SS tax on all of their income will they get it all back in the form of benefits or will their excess contibutions go to pay for many who will receive more than they have paid in?â€
Comment by Ben — December 30, 2005 @ 12:59
I hate this argument. Why should the rich pay more? The rich don’t have need. What is the problem of them paying “excess”? They have “excess” where millions of poor don’t have “sufficient” to live functionally in this society. The paying excess is justified because it maintains a stable society which allows them to be rich!
So the rich have to buy a smaller yacht so that thousands of poor people can actually have dinner. Gee, what a huge burden on the rich. These people have more than they need by an obscene amount. Should our desire to have more and more extravagance out way the responsibility to build a stable society?
December 30th, 2005 at 2:28 pmI don’t know of any illegal surveillance programs. You don’t either.
Actually, now we all do. Hell, even Republicans have been calling it that.
December 30th, 2005 at 2:32 pmPagan, it’s outweigh and Karl Marx has a much better treatise on this topic than you. Been there,done that,next!
December 30th, 2005 at 2:44 pmTJM, I wouldn’t pretend to have the intellect of Karl Marx or to write as well as he (I have never read Karl Marx). I don’t believe it negates my point though. Why should the rich citizens be allowe to hoard wealth while other citizens dont’ have enough wealth to have food?
December 30th, 2005 at 3:02 pmOne of [George] Wallace’s hip-’Net-acronym-strewn posts blubbered: “… no basis for your idiotic assertions, which helps explain why you haven’t backed any of them up. Everything you’re saying is baseless drivel.”
Tch. Typical wingnuttery. In other words: “When I post facts they are facts; when you post facts they are drivel. Q. E. D.”
There is no intelligent debate in this country. It’s too bad.
December 30th, 2005 at 3:15 pmTJM is here for his ego. His first posts on this site were very critical of TP and those that comment here. Just another boy/girl genius, looking to take energy from others.
December 30th, 2005 at 3:17 pmWho says they’re hoarding wealth? And why would you use a phrase like allowed to? Do you think “wealth” should be illegal? Or do you want the kind of confiscatory tax scheme that led to tax havens in the first place? Every tax law that is passed leads directly to the interpretations that permit one to avoid taxes. It seems here that there is a presumption that avoiding taxes is the same as evading taxes.
December 30th, 2005 at 3:19 pmKurt Vonnegut in “God Bless You Mr. Rosewater gives the best description when he talks of the rich constructing aqueducts,canls,dams and ponds to tend to their cash flow.
Why do you think there’s something wrong with money?
casual,my good man,this post is a fun fact but if you google federal debt limit you would see that almost every calendar year end in years where the federal debt has increased the limit is raised. This isn’t news,it’s a complete non-event.
December 30th, 2005 at 3:32 pmYou are correct in one thing,though. I use these comments to show my kids why they need a good liberal arts education. One without the frantic overtones of most of what I read here from left and right. You,for example,posted an excellent comment in the utterly superfluous category. Thanks.
I can’t imagine someone like uh like Osama Bin Laden celebrating uh Chanukka (sp?)— George W. Bush
Hilarious yet off topic
December 30th, 2005 at 3:46 pmTJM, an 8 trillion dollar debt is not news and a non event? I remember demanding impeachment when Bubble boy reached a 3 trillion dollar debt.
Join the real world, not only is it news, it is catastrophic.
December 30th, 2005 at 3:51 pmBubble boy has made the history books with the largest debt ever.
132— Yes there is something wrong with money.its THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!
December 30th, 2005 at 3:51 pmYes there is something wrong with money. Its THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!
In point of fact, the quote is actually “the love of money is the root of all evil” … subtle, but big, difference.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:01 pmThe debt has been news, although nothing has had much of an impact on slowing it down. The debt “limit” isn’t news but there’s not much discussion here of what to do about it, is there? I mean except for caps and bold lettering about it. In the real world,by the way,he’s been making news about the debt level every year he’s been in office.
Clinton had only two years of an on-budget surplus,1999 and 2000. The first was $1.9 billion,rounding error in a government this size (the financials are unaudited), and the second was $89 billion in 2000 when people cashed out of the stock market on its way down. Individual tax receipts were up in 2000 vs. 1999 by $125 billion and spending (on-budget) increased in 2000 by $87 billion.
Bush is driving the country bankrupt along with healthcare spending.
But whenever you detect anything that looks like it doesn’t conform to your reality, the reaction is always the same,left or right.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:06 pmJoin the real world,that’s rich!
I feel so NEGLECTED!
Won’t someone read MY comment? (Number 87)
I’m leaving the office now so have a happy, healthy, and satisfying new year everyone. Here’s wishing you good health, freedom from fear, and purity in your natural bodily fluids in 2006.
All the love!
Twice the caffeine!
Half the calories!
PEACE out!
December 30th, 2005 at 4:10 pm“I was really going to make a point about SS. Here’s how I see it for starters. The premise of American capitalism is risk.”
How much risk does inherited wealth incur? You are walking down a fairytale path with this assertion. I live in the real world, where the Ken Lays risk opm – other peoples’ money, for those without a liberal arts diploma – and reap rewards obscene by historical standards.
“[. . .] but if you want me to post the rest of the data instead of looking it up yourself I’ll be glad to help you out.”
How about posting a link to you data? Us little paranoids have seen conservatives post self-serving “data” before, and usually it tells half the story – no offense intended. If you link says “all income” (including interest income) I might be persuaded.
“Had you bothered to actually read the post,you would have seen that I quoted the data as specifically excluding social insurance taxes and excise taxes.
Grow up and read the whole thing before your puerile response reflex kicks in.Bust this,kid.”
Comment by TJM — December 30, 2005 @ 1:
My post was about how the assertion that “the rich pay more in taxes” is crap – because they don’t pay what the rest of us pay, when SSI is included. Since it isn’t currently included tell me how your data proves they are paying their fair share, kid.
I specifically included inherited wealth in the equation – and you seem to think this is off limits for discussion. Methinks this would cause you to pay significantly more in taxes, were it to seriously be tried, correct?
December 30th, 2005 at 4:13 pmJoin the real world, not only is it news, it is catastrophic
Susan … it IS news, I agree. Catastrophic it is not … now, if the US defaulted (we never have before) THAT would be catastrophic as other nation/states would change their fiscal policies about the purchase of US bonds. Our government bonds are one of the few, perhaps only, international investments that are considered to be “risk free” … that cannot change.
The purchase of US bonds (by other nations) is a good thing as it makes the US a continually more attractive investment vehicle … this injects money not only into our bond market but our equity market … this adds to the profitability of our companies, which in turn drives up tax receipts from both the company and individuals (capital gains) … and so on. This doesn’t always work as nicely as I explained but, generally, it does. (Please note however that I’m not making a broader “tax cut” argument here.)
Lastly, I’ve read a lot of people saying stuff like “China owns us” or “We’re in debt to China” … for those people.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:19 pm1) Who buys our bonds is largely irrelevant.
2) Japan (not China) is the largest nation bond holder by far (because their interest rates continue to hover around .5%).
3) The USA is 34th in debt as % of GDP in the world (better than Germany, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, Italy, Greece, etc.)
“The current SS system collects taxes on 82% of total payroll in the US. If you raise the threshold from $90,000,in effect the employer share would also increase.
Why? In this discussion, all things are on the table – including employer contributions – a new formulation wouldn’t necessarily translate into higher employer contributions. Since this is hypothetical, let’s hypothetically assume that we DON’T increase it for employers (self-employed people already pay, so no harm there; as income increases, so does the tax) but just for employees. What’s the down side?
“That results in less money (ceteris parabis)[wow, I'm impressed] available for salary and wages generally since the current system is assumed by economists to be unavailable for increases in wages generally.”
Which economists? Heritage Foundation? AEI? Show me a link, and I’ll judge for myself.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:25 pmMy post was about how the assertion that “the rich pay more in taxes†is crap – because they don’t pay what the rest of us pay, when SSI is included. Since it isn’t currently included tell me how your data proves they are paying their fair share, kid.
I specifically included inherited wealth in the equation – and you seem to think this is off limits for discussion. Methinks this would cause you to pay significantly more in taxes, were it to seriously be tried, correct?
Are you saying they don’t pay more (which is easy to empirically prove otherwise), or that they don’t pay their “fair” share (which would be more opinion based). The argument must contain income from all arenas; earned, inherited, passive, investment … in order to be accurate. Most people, correctly, assert that the rich manage to wiggle out of income taxes by using various shelters and trusts … these arguments fail to account for the oter types of income (not to mention other taxable events).
December 30th, 2005 at 4:26 pmdano,you make less sense each time you post. I answered the effective tax rates and % of total taxes paid earlier in the post you quoted from. You may have missed it. Inherited wealth? Do you mean the estate tax? If so,you didn’t say that. If you mean a tax on total assets,to be paid each year,you’ll need a new name for that, this was about income tax not a wealth tax (which by the way is fraught with worse issues than those relating to defining income).
I’ll recap the post for you in slightly different terms. The highest quintile (for FY2003) had average pre-tax income of $184,500 and paid an effective tax rate (including social insurance and excise taxes) of 25% versus the lowest quintile (average income of $14,800) which paid 4.8%
Of total taxes paid (including social insurance and excise taxes) the top 1/5th paid 65.7% of all taxes versus the lowest 1/5th which paid 1%.
Now,you may not like those numbers or you may “feel” they should be different. If you read my posts,I stated the information,period. You drew the inference you did because you had already decided what the “facts” were and just wanted to bleat your opinion.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:29 pmIt’s not just the Fox watchers who are usually misinformed, it’s a much more prevalent disease than otherwise thought.
Which economists? Heritage Foundation? AEI? Show me a link, and I’ll judge for myself.
The key to his statement is the use of “ceteris paribus” (he spelled it wrong) … as the SS tax is currently administered/written, a change in rates would effect both employers and employees. Employers have to pay more taxes (6.2% of whatever the new level is) so they must reduce wages (or go out of business) … the resultant reduction in wages reduces the employees taxable basis (to 6.2% of the new amount) … thus reducing the employee share of the SS tax … the end result is, theoretically, no gain. Ceteris paribus. (”Economists” need not enter the equation.)
I can’t imagine they would change the entire Social Security funding structure (to disparate contributions) but maybe.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:34 pmIm not an Economist Giacomo
December 30th, 2005 at 4:38 pmand im trying to understand what it is you say, the media says alot, but nothing. You can see the working mans blinders.
You mention the Chinese Bond Rates and the GDP. Many Politicians say Globalization. How can a global economy work, and I ask this because I truly do not know, if the Wages and the Bond rates are so Disparate? That is simply, if the Working Man in the US makes more than the Chinese Worker, what incentive does the Corporation have to hire higher paid workers, that live in a Country with higher Living costs? I cannot afford to work for less than say, as a Human, with the normal bills, 12-15 Hr.
I cannot, as business does, just pick up and move to another country. How can Ecomomic theory account for this?
dano, the assumptions about wages are so common that it is in the footnotes to the CBO compilation of the data I quoted from. As well as any elementary econ text,try Samuelson,that’s the one I used 30 years ago.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:47 pmCan you TJM answer my last question(s) Thx
December 30th, 2005 at 4:51 pmWill the economists please admit, that their theory is no better nor more correct than say Quantum String theory? or Spacial Time theory? or Religion?
Do any of these theories answer, or solve the Human equation?
Is or is NOT the cost of living in America higher due to inflated means?
December 30th, 2005 at 4:57 pmWhy is it that I can live better, for less in another country?
Is this Globalization? or just profit, and greed redefined?
Your silence speaks much
December 30th, 2005 at 5:02 pm“No nation ought to be without a debt. A national debt is a national bond.”
-Thomas Paine
December 30th, 2005 at 5:03 pmlemme splain, your question is too complex for a comment section but one way that higher wage rates in say the US are offset is through higher productivity. I live in an area which 30 years ago had 16 steel mills,today there is one but the steel tonnage produced is roughly the same. Unfortunately for the economy of the towns around the closed mills, that tonnage is produced with 5,000 workers instead of more than 55,000.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:03 pmWhen you hold your newborne son or daughter in your arms, for the first time, what is it you think of? Class? Cars?, Material things? your house? Neighbors? the Debts you Owe, or owed?
Nay, you think nothing but Love and appreciation.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:05 pmHow can a global economy work, and I ask this because I truly do not know, if the Wages and the Bond rates are so Disparate? That is simply, if the Working Man in the US makes more than the Chinese Worker, what incentive does the Corporation have to hire higher paid workers, that live in a Country with higher Living costs? I cannot afford to work for less than say, as a Human, with the normal bills, 12-15 Hr.
Because the domestic economy, in a macro-focused way, evolves. We were once largely industrial … now we move toward “digital” or technological (where manual labor is replaced by “intellectual” labor). We have outsourced many of these jobs to countries who are able to manually labor far cheaper … those US citizens who lose jobs must either 1) gain a new skill or 2) starve. It’s not really pretty and I can’t think of a case where a capitalistic society is able to support 100% of its people (unless social programs are implemented well and fairly). The USA is (and will likely continue to be) the world’s innovator … that is our capital. Does this mean that everyone in the US is such, nope … but it does speak to our role in a global economy. Competition forces companies to find the least expensive means to bring a product or service to market but doesn’t demand that they act like total bastards to do so. Sadly, many of them do. The truth is, the system is far from perfect, but is better than most in that 1) hard work and education tend to be rewarded 2) success is not capped or limited 3) competition makes for better options and prices for the consumers 4) competition drives creativity and invention. This is way to cursory an explanation (I have to go home)… post some more questions that I didn’t answer (that is, if I answered any) and I’d be happy to try and address them the best way I can.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:06 pm#
lemme splain, your question is too complex for a comment section but one way that higher wage rates in say the US are offset is through higher productivity. I live in an area which 30 years ago had 16 steel mills,today there is one but the steel tonnage produced is roughly the same. Unfortunately for the economy of the towns around the closed mills, that tonnage is produced with 5,000 workers instead of more than 55,000.
Comment by TJM — December 30, 2005 @ 5:03 pm
thank you for your kindly answer, but as a person whom has welded this steel, and stood outdoors, to help erect it, to help put the wiring, the walls, the ceilings in, why does the Cost factor always come first?
December 30th, 2005 at 5:09 pmAnd i understand the Numbers you give.
Are the builders people, as you?
why the application of numbers to that which cant be calculated?
#Kudos Giacomo
As you say is true, I am still an certified Jet mechanic, however I have retrained myself, with no cost to anyone, and have worked as an IT person, I know C++ programming, and am familiar with the protocols and network functions, I know how to watch the bosses emails and sniff his packets. I know technology very well, I used to work construction, but cheap illegal labor forced me out.
I see that you businessmen are stat counters? correct and deal in such things as body position, to amount of product produced. Yet all these calculations leave out the universal good.
Sure you can answer, my questions Giacomo, and Im quite appreciate of your offer to do so, but as in physics would it be an answer or an approximation of?
ecomomically you can answer the things markets define, but can you answer both humanitarian, and economically?
Does one man,exert more cost or energy than another?
December 30th, 2005 at 5:22 pmdoes the man that sweats exert more energy, or the one that sits behind the desk?
Can I Giacomo or TJM, apply a fair set of wage laws to what it is that you desire to work as?
December 30th, 2005 at 5:26 pmDo you Giacomo exert more energy and burn more body fat than TJM?
Do you TJM exert more energy on a Run, or a Workout in a Gym?
If what you, economists, are deciding is, The Value of work, then should we not define Work as calories Burned?
is this or is this NOT what economy is? to conserve costs? to pay as little as possible for work done? should we not then WEIGH both economist and the worker and then pay them on the amount of sweat lost?
December 30th, 2005 at 5:28 pmPray tell me O great ecomomists, why is it that I can fix your cars, your plumbing, your computers, and your Planes, that you cannot do the same for me?
Why is it that I can read and write, study your books, yet you cannot fix your own car, why is it that I can study Greek science or Stars, and you cannot turn a screwdriver in the desired direction?
OYE
December 30th, 2005 at 5:33 pmAs always economists, people of all types, are welcome to the blue collar bar, we may seem ignorant, we argue loudly, mostly its just heart speaking, one respects one that stands up for theirself, yet we arent ignorant, are knowledgeable in many areas, the code says its illegal to discuss work after hours, just blowing off steam, come have a beer and see what I mean..
December 30th, 2005 at 5:48 pmWell,company’s here so my phony friend,it’s time to go. I will leave you,the epitome of what’s wrong with our discourse, who are so quick to assume you actually can know anything about the person behind the name.
Sweat,toil,trouble. Too funny.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:52 pm#
Well,company’s here so my phony friend,it’s time to go. I will leave you,the epitome of what’s wrong with our discourse, who are so quick to assume you actually can know anything about the person behind the name.
Sweat,toil,trouble. Too funny.
Comment by TJM — December 30, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
And right there we see the neo-conservative mind at work. “You can’t possibly understand such mighty intellect and experience as mine, but I have no problem making blanket generalizations about you, you serf.”
Lemme splain, the truth is that Economics doesn’t take into account the human condition (I suspect that you know that already, but let’s play to the trolls). That is why it is as foolish to attempt to base a philosophy on it as it would be to try and form a religion from quantum physics.
Sadly, that is exactly what the neo-conservatives want to do, form a society where the Almighty Balance Sheet is king, and a man’s worth is measured by his bank account. I’m no Christian, and I doubt that the trolls here have read the passage, but your main man Jesus had something to say about that.
December 30th, 2005 at 6:39 pmIrish Drunk obviously is. LOL
December 30th, 2005 at 6:50 pmIrish Drunk, you poor wretch,you’ve picked the right handle. You accuse others of generalizations because that’s all you know how to do. The fact that I’ve worked my whole life to be able to send my kids to college and not have to borrow a dime to do it,that makes me a neo-con? I’ve been in the service,I’ve lost a kid and a limb,yet I still have a brain and try to use it. Many of the posters here don’t let facts get in the way a good screed. But keep it up ID, keep pissing on the potential allies in the anti-bush camp. Fool, that’s what you like to accuse GW for in his foreign policy,yet that’s how you want to conduct a domestic policy. What an ass. Go get drunk,it’s apparently what you do best.
December 30th, 2005 at 7:03 pmEcon101–The basis for a successful economy is the placement of more money into the hands of more people so that they can purchase the goods and services to insure a bustling economy. The Neocon view that concentrating wealth in the hands of just a few will not grow and sustain a viable economy. The Laugher curve(sp) developed by Professor Laffer during the Reagan deficits was only corrected during the “Golden Age” of the Clinton administration. Trinkle(sp)Down Theory is in the same category as intelligent design. Any one who believes that Bush and his economic advisers know what they are doing is completely delusional.
December 30th, 2005 at 7:05 pmThe rich could not be rich if it weren’t for society, it’s labor and commerce. So do the rich have a social obligation to help the less fortunate?
December 30th, 2005 at 8:07 pmAs for Soc. Sec. If the cap were to be raised on income (now it is capped around $90,000) and ALL earned income were taxed –(note they could still have their dividend/interest unearned income to be dealt with by their tax accountants)– if all earned income were taxed, the payout would be capped. No one would be able to collect more than let’s say $60,000 a year in Soc. Sec. according to a math table.
Trickle down = pee on us.
December 30th, 2005 at 8:14 pmMarie, the rich create businesses and jobs, which helps society much more than any government social program.
December 30th, 2005 at 8:28 pmAn historical fact–The stock market does better under Democratic administrations than Republican. The Democrats spread the money around so that majority of Americans can purchase the goods and services that need to be consumed to grow an economy. No one argues the role of wealth in an economy, but being a stock holder, I recognize that any corporation suffers financially when no one has money to buy the capital goods and services that a corporation or business has to sell. Both are interdependent. Just look at the current status of such giants as GM and Ford. The stock market has been flat for years and is about 1100 points lower since Bush took office. Trade deficits,current account deficits, the money pit of Iraq,escalating defense budget,Katrina, personal debt,exporting jobs,loss of pensions,no pensions and a questionable tax policy will be interesting problems to deal with in the years ahead in a deteriorating economy, in which this government must pay high interest on its incurred debt. Thank goodness for China and the other nations who are willing to purchase treasury notes so that we can finance a phony war and help to pay for tax cuts.
December 30th, 2005 at 9:01 pmReagan and his trickle down economics advanced the notion that wallace exclaims. It’s wrong and it doesn’t work.
December 30th, 2005 at 9:18 pm#169, good summary. The chickens will come home to roost when China decides it wants a few payments on the loans it has extended, and our lopsided trade deficit makes it impossible.
December 30th, 2005 at 9:22 pmBush figures he will be out of office by then and the republican/conservatives will blame the democrats.
The Reagan economic boom of the 1980s continued into the 1990s, Marie. It worked great.
December 30th, 2005 at 9:25 pmMarie, do you know how much revenue would be raised if the $90,000 Social Security tax cap on salary and wages were eliminated totally? If you don’t or can’t estimate it then you have no argument. You have a “feeling” that things would be better but you can’t make an effective argument on that.
December 30th, 2005 at 10:01 pmHere’s a hint, it would be less than 25% of the on-budget deficit for FY05. It would not reduce the national debt total by one dollar.
TJM,
You clearly get all of your news from ‘faux news’ and the republican spin machine. The head controller of SS said that removing the cap alone would create enough surplus to completely make SS solvent indefinitely, and through the baby boomers. That’s a crap load of money, and just one of the many examples of ‘capping’ that occurs with the wealthy. Similar changes to taxes, fees and benefits that didn’t cap would produce tremendous increases in tax revenues. As would the removal of the ’second books’ that corporations are allowed to keep for wallstreet vs. the irs.
I can go on all night, and I can point you at lots of resources about the dis-economics of republican values, but I doubt you have the interest, capacity or ability to process the information I would provide. It’s not the ‘republican way’ to process facts.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:01 pmReagan screwed the economy. The GDP growth was horrible, especially under BushI, and it took a tax increase by Clinton to really heat up the economy.
It’s really funny when you get republican rank amateurs spraw their nonsense like a cat in heat, and have no idea how ‘useless’ their ideas, information or understanding really is.
For those that actually want to see historic norms in economics, I can provide a great amount of resources. Heck, the biggest boom in american history occurred in the 40s & 50s when the tax rate on wealthy americans was over 90%. The whole ‘reaganonics’, is just retarded nonsense by ‘pseudo-economists’, just like everything ‘pseudo’ that comes from the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific and anti-reason republican nazis.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:04 pmHere’s a little excerpt for the RepubliTards on ‘Reaganomics’.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Ryan, just in case you decide to read this: 3 posts you wrote around 11 pm; in the first one you didn’t answer the question I posed either, second had you bothered to read my earlier posts I said there that SS isn’t broken,it’s Medicare that’s the problem mainly due to excess cost growth for health care;
next: not one of my posts mentioned “Reagonomics”, but your forte is just as the Irish Drunk,you’d rather accuse than actually read;
but since you brought it up,this economy is growing for all the reasons Keynes said it would:deficit spending.
Unfortunately, you show up late,you don’t bother to read what I wrote, but you feel you can call me names? You,sir,may be smart but not wise.
December 31st, 2005 at 5:39 am“the rich create businesses and jobs”
… and also have a habit of taking them away when they please, which is why unions are so necessary. Which is why the rich so often decide to move their businesses to poor countries, where they can pay starving children 7c an hour to work all day making a myriad of things in the most squalid conditions imaginable. Viva the rich across the board.
Are no businesses started by the not-rich?
December 31st, 2005 at 4:54 pmOkay, trying to get up to speed here on PPP, socioeconomic, macroeconomic, inflationary indicators, GDP, GDP deflator, negative externalities….and on and on, But I gotta tell you, this is like string theory, its a FECKIN swamp of Opinons and numbers and heated debates, one of which seems to be USING the GDP as an Indicator of Standard of living,
Is this or is this not correct?
________________________
The major disadvantage of using GDP as an indicator of standard of living is that it is not, strictly speaking, a measure of standard of living. GDP is intended to be a measure of particular types of economic activity within a country. Nothing about the definition of GDP suggests that it is necessarily a measure of standard of living. For instance, in an extreme example, a country which exported 100 per cent of its production would still have a high GDP, but a very poor standard of living.
The argument in favour of using GDP is not that it is a good indicator of standard of living, but rather that (all other things being equal) standard of living tends to increase when GDP per capita increases. This makes GDP a proxy for standard of living, rather than a direct measure of it.
December 31st, 2005 at 5:05 pm“Religious insanity is very common in the United States”
(Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835).
December 31st, 2005 at 5:12 pmfisher: Distinguish “enjoyment of life” from “production of goods”
Fisher (1906) contended that “economic welfare depends on the psychic enjoyment of life,” not just the production of goods.
Hicks: Distinguish “income” from “capital depletion”
Hicks (1946) pointed out that the practical purpose of calculating income is to indicate the maximum amount people can produce and consume without undermining their capacity to produce and consume the same amount in the future. From a national income perspective, it is necessary to answer the following question: ‘‘Can a nation’s entire GDP be consumed without undermining its ability to produce and consume the same GDP in the future?’
Okay, Its gonna take me a Bit to wade thru this crappola, After reading what I have, and looking for balance;
December 31st, 2005 at 6:06 pmWhy havent we, or have you, considered a Steady State economics?
Happy New Year!
Paying off an 8 trillion dollar debt will be the United States biggest challenge to date. To all of those who don’t think that this enormous debt is a problem, please pay it off and we will thank you and forget about it.
To those who do think that this debt is a major problem, it’s nice to know that there are normal thinking people in this country.
If you want to hear my take on this subject, and your comments tune into my radio show called the Think Progress Report by clicking on my name. Check the broadcast schedule for times.
I offer solutions to eliminating this debt. I also offer a scenerio of a Republican I know who thinks Bushie is the greatest thing since sliced cheese and supports the war yet refuses to fight it.
The Republican scenerio is awesome, he has lost everything in a matter of 2 months. He didn’t know the rules before playing the game. His denial of his financial situation cost him big.
Yes, I enjoyed sharing his misery with the world.
December 31st, 2005 at 6:47 pmThe shall the gauntlet be war of the Whorlds? If memory perchance, as the human is nucleonic, in its way, operates physically, words, as physics show, light time, loop, stars synthesize, matter becomes dust, as heavy water and uranium, or ouranon, as greek said, thales indeed, as a magnet contains a soul, does not your dna, or perhaps the nuclear envelope (Kudos dr. walsh) does not these frequencies, life trees, and earth resonate, schumann resonance? is not baryon 1% of the Universe, then nature not abhors a vacuum, but endears it?
December 31st, 2005 at 8:15 pmTOP 10 OFFENDERS
Unpaid congestion charge fines
United Arab Emirates £452,650
Angola £392,750
Sudan £274,870
Nigeria £140,620
Tanzania £136,280
Sierra Leone £135,290
South Africa £122,590
Zimbabwe £96,390
Kenya £96,010
USA £62,250
Total: £1,909,700
January 1st, 2006 at 8:28 amATTENION WAL MART SHOPPERS.
The Chinese goverment has just called in its debt, for american interference with the redemocratization of tawian.
Repayment of the debt will be in the sum of 1 state of chinas’ choosing. alaska? california? hawaii?
argue symantics all you want… reality is RIGHT around the corner.
January 1st, 2006 at 3:44 pm