On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:10:40 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:15:29 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:26:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:50:12 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:10:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:09:01 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the
idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver
bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that
rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people
in the US it wouldn't balance the budget.
Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in
military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the
teahadists have in mind.

The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those
taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore.
You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the
obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like
Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is
very happy to have them.

Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another
year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was
less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line
on page 2 of the 1040.

They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to
see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you
have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly
deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code).
Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS
is taxable at your current rate.
It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom
line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"?
,.. "Send it in".




Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and
should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very
wealthy to game the system.

I am not sure how you enforce that.

It's call tax reform. Talk to people who are involved and you'll find
some solutions.

I have seen the federal income taxes "reformed" many times over the
last half a century (I filed my first tax return in 1963) but I am
not sure any of the reforms actually raised the taxes higher on the
really rich.
They have the kinds of income that allows them to exploit tax
avoidance schemes and they have the money to elect politicians who
give them the tax avoidance loopholes to exploit. Usually it is in the
name of advancing some social policy or some kind of economic
stimulus.

So, your solution is to do nothing and have no engagement outside our
borders.

Another non-responsive answer but if you do want to change the
subject, yes I do think we should pull back our imperial adventures
around the world. There is a whole lot of room to pull back in a $800
billion defense budget and a $15 billion foreign aid budget without
becoming totally isolationist.

Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says
they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they
want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic
controllers. (although both could easily be privatized)

My response was very responsive. You want to go back to isolationism.
That doesn't work.

Feel free to try and blame your troubles on Dems.

Well we were talking about tax reform and you went off on your rant
about isolationism. That is not responsive.

It was very responsive. It's in line with all your previous comments.
Too bad if you don't like me pointing that out.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:27:29 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:18:34 -0700, wrote:


You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are
only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year????

No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is
a hockey stick.

I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people
only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do
and assume that will fix the debt.

Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle
class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good
start, but you deny that.

I only deny that limiting this to people who make more money than you
will not make that much difference. In this case the difference is
about 10% of the whole tax cut.

More than me? Your figures are wrong. It will make a huge difference
even if you don't want to accept that.

OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on $250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the $250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)

You continually claim that the argument being made is that it'll fix
the debt. Nobody is making that claim. Another diversion and lack of
facts.

I hear it every day by guys like Bernie Sanders. They blame the whole
budget crisis on the Bush tax cuts and use platitudes like "going back
to Clinton tax rates when the budget was balanced".
I agree we should go back to the Clinton tax rates and I have said
that repeatedly. I also point out it won't make a dent in a $1.5
trillion dollar deficit.

A huge percentage of the problems can be laid at the feet of the Bush
admin. Sorry if you're not willing to admit it.


Changing the subject again?
I agree. Bush was a huge part of the problem but he had a congress
that actually spent all of that money. If the president could actually
spend money, we wouldn't have all of this shut down the government
talk.

The point is, even if there were no Bush tax cuts, we would still be
well over a trillion in the hole.($1.13T)

If Bush was a huge part of the problem, then Obama, oh and the House
Republicans need to come to a reasonable agreement about how to fix
the problem. Claiming that it all has to be fixed immediately is
nonsense, right wing fear mongering.

Even assuming your number of $70B a year is right (who knows, since
you continually make up facts). The right wing just went down to the
wire about social programs and $1B. That's so adult of them.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:33:55 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:


OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on$250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the$250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)

Double the tax rates on those whose income is more than $500,000 a year,
single or couple.

Make all income except income used to open or build up an individual's
own business, one that hires people, subject to the higher tax rates.

Sounds reasonable to me.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:19:59 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

I_am_Tosk wrote:

The fact is, it is not Bushs fault at all. It's the congress that spends
the money and Pelosi was in charge of that. I remember the lying sack of
**** saying "gas prices will be my first issue if I am elected"... Among
other things, depending on who she was talking to at the time. Either
way, this recession is right at the feet of Pelosi, Obama, Kerry, and
Frank...


It's Stunatz Scotty, our own little Glenn Beck.

I wonder if he's picking up Beck on the tiny transistor in his head?
Sort of like Knuckles claiming he can't get Beck in Canada only in his
case he thinks the voice he hears is Beck and he thinks its his own.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:00:42 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:43:33 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:27:29 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:18:34 -0700, wrote:


You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are
only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year????

No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is
a hockey stick.

I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people
only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do
and assume that will fix the debt.

Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle
class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good
start, but you deny that.

I only deny that limiting this to people who make more money than you
will not make that much difference. In this case the difference is
about 10% of the whole tax cut.

More than me? Your figures are wrong. It will make a huge difference
even if you don't want to accept that.

OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on $250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the $250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)

You continually claim that the argument being made is that it'll fix
the debt. Nobody is making that claim. Another diversion and lack of
facts.

I hear it every day by guys like Bernie Sanders. They blame the whole
budget crisis on the Bush tax cuts and use platitudes like "going back
to Clinton tax rates when the budget was balanced".
I agree we should go back to the Clinton tax rates and I have said
that repeatedly. I also point out it won't make a dent in a $1.5
trillion dollar deficit.

A huge percentage of the problems can be laid at the feet of the Bush
admin. Sorry if you're not willing to admit it.


Changing the subject again?
I agree. Bush was a huge part of the problem but he had a congress
that actually spent all of that money. If the president could actually
spend money, we wouldn't have all of this shut down the government
talk.

The point is, even if there were no Bush tax cuts, we would still be
well over a trillion in the hole.($1.13T)

If Bush was a huge part of the problem, then Obama, oh and the House
Republicans need to come to a reasonable agreement about how to fix
the problem. Claiming that it all has to be fixed immediately is
nonsense, right wing fear mongering.

Even assuming your number of $70B a year is right (who knows, since
you continually make up facts). The right wing just went down to the
wire about social programs and $1B. That's so adult of them.


The $700b over 10 years is straight from CBO (the cost of the tax cut
on $250k people) and it is widely reported., You will get a dozen
hits if you google it.

They certainly have to start fixing this problem pretty soon. You do
understand, most of the $4 gas is because the world has devalued the
dollar. If we don't get a handle on this debt that will only get
worse. Why would anyone loan us money at a percent or two when the
money we will be paying them back with is losing value faster than
that. You can continue in your blissful denial but remember where you
heard it. We are rapidly approaching the tipping point and the only
solution from both sides of the aisle is borrow more money.

So, now you believe in the CBO. Previously that wasn't the case. Which
is it?

Most of the $4 gas is uncertainty driven. Sorry if that doesn't mesh
with your view of Obama and/or the Democrats.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:31:03 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:12:02 -0700, wrote:

Even assuming your number of $70B a year is right (who knows, since
you continually make up facts). The right wing just went down to the
wire about social programs and $1B. That's so adult of them.


The $700b over 10 years is straight from CBO (the cost of the tax cut
on $250k people) and it is widely reported., You will get a dozen
hits if you google it.

They certainly have to start fixing this problem pretty soon. You do
understand, most of the $4 gas is because the world has devalued the
dollar. If we don't get a handle on this debt that will only get
worse. Why would anyone loan us money at a percent or two when the
money we will be paying them back with is losing value faster than
that. You can continue in your blissful denial but remember where you
heard it. We are rapidly approaching the tipping point and the only
solution from both sides of the aisle is borrow more money.

So, now you believe in the CBO. Previously that wasn't the case. Which
is it?

I understand this is just a wild guess but you think everything they
say is gospel and I was talking to you.

Wow... you just flip-flopped from quoting the CBO to claiming they're
full of it. Please show me where I've ever said "everything they say"
is gospel.


Most of the $4 gas is uncertainty driven. Sorry if that doesn't mesh
with your view of Obama and/or the Democrats.

I am just repeating what the people who know more than both of us are
saying. They did back it up with numbers.
I also understand a lot of it is just speculation but some of that
speculation is also based on the value of the dollar.


Which people? Rush? I'd say listen to NPR, but they're just commies
with a secret mission to destroy this country, right?

In article ,
says...


OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on $250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the $250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)


I don't know where this $250k idea came from.
Probably because those who proposed it make less than $250k.
But $160k puts you in the top 5%.
Taxes should come up for everybody.
Even the lowest bracket should get a 1% bump so everybody is in the
game.
Here's all you want know about the possibilities for erasing the debt.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc...TheDeficit.pdf
I didn't bother to look whether this assumes the "Bush tax cuts"
expired. No doubt it also didn't anticipate Obama cutting the SS tax.
The income tax revenue table only gives totals gain from 1% increase for
everybody.
In reality, higher incomes should increase by multiple points to make a
dent as far as revenue.
There are plenty of other revenue enhancers in there.
VAT is a big hitter.
And plenty of spending cuts, which are equally important.
As a % of GDP revenues are historically low, spending high.
So it adds ups to a fracas of special interests and bought pols.
Simpson-Bowles took a balanced approach, and couldn't get the needed 14
of 18 commission vote to bring it to Congress.
Opposition was bipartisan.
Paul Ryan took a partisan approach, and should be spat upon.
It's coming out now how Ryan's plan is pure bull**** and will actually
increase the deficit while stripping the middle class and poor bare.
Wonder where that increased deficit money is going?
Socialism for the wealthy.
Any 2 sensible adults with basic math skills could come up with a
balanced solution that would erase the debt in 10 years or less.
Simpson-Bowles were gentle on both revenues and spending in an attempt
to get 14 of the 18 goofball pols to agree.
Didn't work.
Gentle as they were, they broke too many precious eggs.
I really think this will all come out badly because we have a broken
political system and a country full of spoiled deadbeats.
Rich and poor alike.
BTW, I saw Simpson on Hardball today and he said something about
Medicare that I didn't see in his report.
He basically said the real solution to Medicare was to go after the
doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals that are
raping the government.
Sometimes I don't like Simpson. This time I did.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:49:01 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:01:49 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:31:03 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:12:02 -0700, wrote:

Even assuming your number of $70B a year is right (who knows, since
you continually make up facts). The right wing just went down to the
wire about social programs and $1B. That's so adult of them.


The $700b over 10 years is straight from CBO (the cost of the tax cut
on $250k people) and it is widely reported., You will get a dozen
hits if you google it.

They certainly have to start fixing this problem pretty soon. You do
understand, most of the $4 gas is because the world has devalued the
dollar. If we don't get a handle on this debt that will only get
worse. Why would anyone loan us money at a percent or two when the
money we will be paying them back with is losing value faster than
that. You can continue in your blissful denial but remember where you
heard it. We are rapidly approaching the tipping point and the only
solution from both sides of the aisle is borrow more money.

So, now you believe in the CBO. Previously that wasn't the case. Which
is it?

I understand this is just a wild guess but you think everything they
say is gospel and I was talking to you.

Wow... you just flip-flopped from quoting the CBO to claiming they're
full of it. Please show me where I've ever said "everything they say"
is gospel.

You are just spinning now. Do you think the $700b over 10 years is
wrong? Prove it. It is the most optimistic number the CBO has.
Personally I think the money we would get is lower than that.

I wouldn't know. You love the CBO until you hate it.


Most of the $4 gas is uncertainty driven. Sorry if that doesn't mesh
with your view of Obama and/or the Democrats.

I am just repeating what the people who know more than both of us are
saying. They did back it up with numbers.
I also understand a lot of it is just speculation but some of that
speculation is also based on the value of the dollar.


Which people? Rush? I'd say listen to NPR, but they're just commies
with a secret mission to destroy this country, right?

Actually the federal reserve. They peg the dollar to a broad index of
currencies and the dollar has dropped 5% in 4 months.
Since that includes the Euro that is also in trouble it is actually
worse than that, You really need to compare it to China, India and the
emerging markets who are competing for oil with us on the world
market. China can easily throw a lot of dollars at oil. They have
ours.
Since the speculators may really buying future contracts for oil that
is still be in the ground, the value of the currency has a whole lot
to do with how high the prices get bid up. That is the speculative
part of oil prices. The only bright side of that is they frequently
guess wrong and oil prices can crash.
Do you feel lucky?

Yes, the dollar dropping is causing some problems. It's not the only
thing and prices aren't as high as they've been. Nice try.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:10:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on $250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the $250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)


I don't know where this $250k idea came from.
Probably because those who proposed it make less than $250k.
But $160k puts you in the top 5%.
Taxes should come up for everybody.
Even the lowest bracket should get a 1% bump so everybody is in the
game.
Here's all you want know about the possibilities for erasing the debt.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc...TheDeficit.pdf
I didn't bother to look whether this assumes the "Bush tax cuts"
expired. No doubt it also didn't anticipate Obama cutting the SS tax.
The income tax revenue table only gives totals gain from 1% increase for
everybody.
In reality, higher incomes should increase by multiple points to make a
dent as far as revenue.
There are plenty of other revenue enhancers in there.
VAT is a big hitter.
And plenty of spending cuts, which are equally important.
As a % of GDP revenues are historically low, spending high.
So it adds ups to a fracas of special interests and bought pols.
Simpson-Bowles took a balanced approach, and couldn't get the needed 14
of 18 commission vote to bring it to Congress.
Opposition was bipartisan.
Paul Ryan took a partisan approach, and should be spat upon.
It's coming out now how Ryan's plan is pure bull**** and will actually
increase the deficit while stripping the middle class and poor bare.
Wonder where that increased deficit money is going?
Socialism for the wealthy.
Any 2 sensible adults with basic math skills could come up with a
balanced solution that would erase the debt in 10 years or less.
Simpson-Bowles were gentle on both revenues and spending in an attempt
to get 14 of the 18 goofball pols to agree.
Didn't work.
Gentle as they were, they broke too many precious eggs.
I really think this will all come out badly because we have a broken
political system and a country full of spoiled deadbeats.
Rich and poor alike.
BTW, I saw Simpson on Hardball today and he said something about
Medicare that I didn't see in his report.
He basically said the real solution to Medicare was to go after the
doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals that are
raping the government.
Sometimes I don't like Simpson. This time I did.




I'd support $160K and above. I would not support less than about $80K.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:10:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


I agree with the idea that we need to raise Revenue and I also agree,
chipping away at small programs is not going to do anything
significant to the deficit. Those are ideological crusades, not
deficit reductions. Deal with that in separate legislation if you need
to.
We need more revenue and we need to make big cuts in spending.
That means higher taxes, less DoD budget and doing something
significant to SS/Medicare. Those are the programs that eat up most of
the government revenue.

There are plenty of "small items" that add up.
On the nondefense discretionary discretionary side for 2010 there's
$660B to scalpel. Defense is $689B.
Knocking $200B total off those is trivial.
Except the crybabies will wail, the lobbyists will get in high gear and
the pols will be paid off.
As I said, the system is broken.
Good example is this newsgroup, where name-calling and opposing "the
other side" is deemed a substitute for common sense.


Defense is low fruit. We spend twice what it should cost to defend
this country.
SS/Medicare need to be bracketed up in age and needs to be means
tested. The reason it was successful for so many years is that they
always had plenty of workers paying for a few recipients, who weren't
really going to live much longer. When the boomers started hitting the
system you had a lot of recipients who will be collecting for 20-30
years and less people paying in. It is also ridiculous that rich
people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates get SS.
Unfortunately then you would just have to admit SS is a welfare
program for old people and abandon the whole idea that it was ever
some kind of pension or insurance.

The Medicare solution is mostly clamping down on costs - Simpson agrees
with me on that. A Medicare tax rate bump will help.
The main problem is the socialist medical/insurance industries.
Drug companies, hospital companies, doctors, etc., all like to crow
about "free enterprise." But they're really already 60% socialists.
Touting "free enterprise" just allows them to stiff American rubes.
About 60% of medical costs in this country is funded by the taxpayer.
Other countries pay half for the same results.

You still don't get SS, because THERE IS NO SS DEFICIT.
SS is $2T in the black! SS taxpayers have already kicked it in.
No matter what your - right wing in this case - ideology, you can't get
around that. The SS Trust Fund is accounted for in black and white.
Everybody knows that.
If not they can go to the SS website to get educated.
That's a U.S. government debt like any other and has to come from
general revenue.
You can count on any change in SS being directed to extending SS Trust
Fund solvency. I don't see that accounted trust fund going away.
There is a limit to American voter stupidity.
Only a right winger would call a paid for old age pension system
"welfare."
All other 1st world countries call their version of SS
"old age pension."
You're welcome to call it what you want because we can freely speak
here. But most Americans who worked all their lives and now collect SS
will just say "**** you" if you tell them they're collecting welfare.
That's the difference between ideology and the real world.
As far as I can see all the other 1st world countries pay richer
benefits than the U.S. system.
Some don't even bother with a separate income stream, but fund it from
general tax revenues.