This is a placeholder text
Group text
by luvdemdogs on 06 June 2009 - 05:06
Maggie - don't assume you know where I live, and don't assume to that you speak for all of the US posters, let alone the people of the US generally. From my vantage point - the one waaaaay up here on this horse you put me on - you (and several others) are as funny as hell. I just want to thank you for that. :)
by SitasMom on 06 June 2009 - 05:06
Obama's Plan For A Debt-Ridden Future
By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A. ROBBINS | Posted Friday, June 05, 2009 4:20 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=329091224620125
President Obama has officially begun the era of bigger big government by proposing to go on a multitrillion dollar borrowing spree that risks doing to the "full faith and credit of the United States" what excessive borrowing during the housing bubble did to private credit.
Under his budget plan for America's future, spending will average 23.7% of GDP for at least a decade (a whopping 20% higher than in 2000-08).
Near-record deficits increasing at record rates will push the public debt of the U.S. beyond the economy's plausible capacity to pay — 70% of GDP by 2012, heading quickly to 82% of GDP in 2019 and on pace to be astronomically higher soon thereafter.
The Avalanche
American families over the last year have already lost 8% of their net worth — in part as a result of inept government meddling, past and present. For many of the same reasons, they are also buried under a mountain of mortgages and private-sector debts gone bad. On top of that, if the president has his way, they will soon be hit with more than a 100% increase in public debt (from $8 trillion this year to $17.3 trillion in 2019).
Furthermore, the Treasury (and taxpayers) will soon have to begin repaying to Social Security more than $5 trillion in payroll tax revenues that the government had taken from the trust fund and spent for earmarks and other purposes.
Even without the Obama surge in debt — and taxes to pay it off — taxpayers face the prospect of 60% to 70% income-tax rates in the future to pay for $48 trillion in unfunded liabilities under existing entitlement programs. Now the president plans to burden the economy's limited taxpaying capacity with a universal health care entitlement.
Foreigners purchased two-thirds of the Treasury debt sold during 2004-08 — and now own 50% of U.S. public debt.
Scholars at the Peterson Institute for International Economics warn that the "net foreign debt" position of the U.S. is becoming unsustainable.
Even if the bond rating of Treasury obligations is not formally downgraded for risk, foreign investors may start to resist buying more U.S. debt and, if the situation gets worse, may start withdrawing from the U.S. economy the trillions of dollars of capital they have already lent us. Then what?
The current level of private saving in the U.S. is grossly insufficient to make up the shortfall. In fact, Washington is doing nearly everything possible to prevent Americans from adding to their savings.
In theory, the U.S. government can always pay its debts by increasing taxes, but the problem with taxes — and ultimately with big-spending government — is that tax increases harm the economy disproportionately and quickly reduce the economy's taxpaying capacity.
Before she became the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer demonstrated in a research paper prepared for the National Science Foundation in 2007 that it costs the private-sector economy $4 ($1 of tax and nearly $3 of economic damage) to provide the government with $1 to spend.
In a research paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2006, former CEA Chairman Martin Feldstein concluded that the private-sector cost of an additional dollar of income-tax revenues for the government is $2.50 ($1 of tax and $1.50 of economic damage).
Paying off Obama's 10-year string of deficits that add up to $9.3 trillion with incom
By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A. ROBBINS | Posted Friday, June 05, 2009 4:20 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=329091224620125
President Obama has officially begun the era of bigger big government by proposing to go on a multitrillion dollar borrowing spree that risks doing to the "full faith and credit of the United States" what excessive borrowing during the housing bubble did to private credit.
Under his budget plan for America's future, spending will average 23.7% of GDP for at least a decade (a whopping 20% higher than in 2000-08).
Near-record deficits increasing at record rates will push the public debt of the U.S. beyond the economy's plausible capacity to pay — 70% of GDP by 2012, heading quickly to 82% of GDP in 2019 and on pace to be astronomically higher soon thereafter.
The Avalanche
American families over the last year have already lost 8% of their net worth — in part as a result of inept government meddling, past and present. For many of the same reasons, they are also buried under a mountain of mortgages and private-sector debts gone bad. On top of that, if the president has his way, they will soon be hit with more than a 100% increase in public debt (from $8 trillion this year to $17.3 trillion in 2019).
Furthermore, the Treasury (and taxpayers) will soon have to begin repaying to Social Security more than $5 trillion in payroll tax revenues that the government had taken from the trust fund and spent for earmarks and other purposes.
Even without the Obama surge in debt — and taxes to pay it off — taxpayers face the prospect of 60% to 70% income-tax rates in the future to pay for $48 trillion in unfunded liabilities under existing entitlement programs. Now the president plans to burden the economy's limited taxpaying capacity with a universal health care entitlement.
Foreigners purchased two-thirds of the Treasury debt sold during 2004-08 — and now own 50% of U.S. public debt.
Scholars at the Peterson Institute for International Economics warn that the "net foreign debt" position of the U.S. is becoming unsustainable.
Even if the bond rating of Treasury obligations is not formally downgraded for risk, foreign investors may start to resist buying more U.S. debt and, if the situation gets worse, may start withdrawing from the U.S. economy the trillions of dollars of capital they have already lent us. Then what?
The current level of private saving in the U.S. is grossly insufficient to make up the shortfall. In fact, Washington is doing nearly everything possible to prevent Americans from adding to their savings.
In theory, the U.S. government can always pay its debts by increasing taxes, but the problem with taxes — and ultimately with big-spending government — is that tax increases harm the economy disproportionately and quickly reduce the economy's taxpaying capacity.
Before she became the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer demonstrated in a research paper prepared for the National Science Foundation in 2007 that it costs the private-sector economy $4 ($1 of tax and nearly $3 of economic damage) to provide the government with $1 to spend.
In a research paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2006, former CEA Chairman Martin Feldstein concluded that the private-sector cost of an additional dollar of income-tax revenues for the government is $2.50 ($1 of tax and $1.50 of economic damage).
Paying off Obama's 10-year string of deficits that add up to $9.3 trillion with incom
by SitasMom on 06 June 2009 - 05:06
Paying off Obama's 10-year string of deficits that add up to $9.3 trillion with income tax increases of $9.3 trillion over 10 years would cost the private sector $23 trillion (Feldstein) to $37 trillion (Romer).
In effect, American families would over time lose an amount greater than an entire year of GDP — a blow far more severe than the damage being done to them by the current recession.
Dubious Direction
It is irresponsible stewardship for Obama and Congress to go on a borrowing spree that puts America in the same unsustainable position as an overstretched boomer with too much debt and too little income and whose only option is to refinance at higher costs just to pay the interest.
The responsible alternative is for Washington to spend less — a lot less. Otherwise, the next Washington-created bubble to burst may be the full faith and credit of the United States.
Christian and Robbins are, respectively, the executive director and the chief economist of the Center for Strategic Tax Reform (cstr.org) in Washington, D.C.
In effect, American families would over time lose an amount greater than an entire year of GDP — a blow far more severe than the damage being done to them by the current recession.
Dubious Direction
It is irresponsible stewardship for Obama and Congress to go on a borrowing spree that puts America in the same unsustainable position as an overstretched boomer with too much debt and too little income and whose only option is to refinance at higher costs just to pay the interest.
The responsible alternative is for Washington to spend less — a lot less. Otherwise, the next Washington-created bubble to burst may be the full faith and credit of the United States.
Christian and Robbins are, respectively, the executive director and the chief economist of the Center for Strategic Tax Reform (cstr.org) in Washington, D.C.
by SitasMom on 06 June 2009 - 06:06
Could this be good news?
Springfield Tax Revolt
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424597055790563.html#printMode
Taxpayer victories are rare these days, so let's cheer the good news in Illinois, where earlier this week the state House in Springfield voted 74-42 against a plan to raise the income tax rate on individuals and businesses by 50%.
When Governor Pat Quinn succeeded Rod Blagojevich in January, he immediately proposed raising the personal income tax to 4.5% from 3%, the business tax rate to 7.2% from 4.8%, and expanding the sales tax to services ranging from dry cleaners to Internet hookup. The Democrat says the income tax hike is "based on a principle as old as the Bible. Taxes should be based on the ability to pay." But voters can distinguish between rendering unto God and unto Quinn, and public dismay was so widespread that even 26 Democrats voted to kill this tax grab.
Just as surprising, not a single Republican voted for the tax increase. In recent times the ideological distinction between the GOP and Democrats has been as murky as the Chicago River. Former Governors "Big Jim" Thompson, Jim Edgar and George Ryan transformed Republicans into the tax-and-spend party.
Solidarity has given Republicans new leverage in the budget debates because majority Democrats are terrified to pass a tax hike on their own. Mr. Quinn may call for a new tax vote, but the GOP can now instead demand spending and ethics reforms in a state where political corruption is at New Jersey proportions. One reason Mr. Quinn's tax plan failed is because there was little effort to slow down spending that has increased 45% (to $4,700 from $3,250 per person after inflation) in the past decade.
Following the defeat of California's tax increase, the Illinois revolt is more evidence that voters are rejecting tax-and-spend politics. Beltway Democrats, take note.
Springfield Tax Revolt
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424597055790563.html#printMode
Taxpayer victories are rare these days, so let's cheer the good news in Illinois, where earlier this week the state House in Springfield voted 74-42 against a plan to raise the income tax rate on individuals and businesses by 50%.
When Governor Pat Quinn succeeded Rod Blagojevich in January, he immediately proposed raising the personal income tax to 4.5% from 3%, the business tax rate to 7.2% from 4.8%, and expanding the sales tax to services ranging from dry cleaners to Internet hookup. The Democrat says the income tax hike is "based on a principle as old as the Bible. Taxes should be based on the ability to pay." But voters can distinguish between rendering unto God and unto Quinn, and public dismay was so widespread that even 26 Democrats voted to kill this tax grab.
Just as surprising, not a single Republican voted for the tax increase. In recent times the ideological distinction between the GOP and Democrats has been as murky as the Chicago River. Former Governors "Big Jim" Thompson, Jim Edgar and George Ryan transformed Republicans into the tax-and-spend party.
Solidarity has given Republicans new leverage in the budget debates because majority Democrats are terrified to pass a tax hike on their own. Mr. Quinn may call for a new tax vote, but the GOP can now instead demand spending and ethics reforms in a state where political corruption is at New Jersey proportions. One reason Mr. Quinn's tax plan failed is because there was little effort to slow down spending that has increased 45% (to $4,700 from $3,250 per person after inflation) in the past decade.
Following the defeat of California's tax increase, the Illinois revolt is more evidence that voters are rejecting tax-and-spend politics. Beltway Democrats, take note.
by BabyEagle4U on 06 June 2009 - 06:06
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFz35lntOc8
by SitasMom on 06 June 2009 - 06:06
interesting..........lots of truth, but not all of it true......
by CrysBuck25 on 06 June 2009 - 06:06
You know, I wonder what they teach at those Ivy-League schools. Is it Theoretical Finance? Wherein they learn that to get out of debt, you just keep borrowing money, at ever-increasing interest, until you get yourself out of a hole?
Those highly educated people have dragged America's corporations down to the ground, to the point where the gov't, with more of these over-educated fools throw money at the debt and make it worse. I think that the people should vote to get rid of ALL income taxes, federal and state. Since the gov't is already deep in debt, they'll go bankrupt in no time and then maybe we can start again. Okay, okay, that's small thinking, and the lack of taxes, coupled with the debt that they have put us in with other countries, could lead to much worse problems than we already have. Nonetheless, we need fewer rich people in government, people who spend money without thought, because they are used to doing so. Each and every dollar needs to be pored over, examined from all angles, and agonized over before it is ever spent.
And there needs to be far more accountability to the people. Forget oversight committees. If you waste OUR money, WE will demand that YOU sit down with US and explain exactly where every dollar went and why it was necessary. Don't want to bother? Then don't spend it.
Tax money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to each and every one of us that pays it.
Crys
Those highly educated people have dragged America's corporations down to the ground, to the point where the gov't, with more of these over-educated fools throw money at the debt and make it worse. I think that the people should vote to get rid of ALL income taxes, federal and state. Since the gov't is already deep in debt, they'll go bankrupt in no time and then maybe we can start again. Okay, okay, that's small thinking, and the lack of taxes, coupled with the debt that they have put us in with other countries, could lead to much worse problems than we already have. Nonetheless, we need fewer rich people in government, people who spend money without thought, because they are used to doing so. Each and every dollar needs to be pored over, examined from all angles, and agonized over before it is ever spent.
And there needs to be far more accountability to the people. Forget oversight committees. If you waste OUR money, WE will demand that YOU sit down with US and explain exactly where every dollar went and why it was necessary. Don't want to bother? Then don't spend it.
Tax money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to each and every one of us that pays it.
Crys
by BabyEagle4U on 06 June 2009 - 06:06
by trace755 on 06 June 2009 - 13:06
Where were you right wingers the last 30 years? You so called fiscal conservatives. I have a few questions? Which president saw the national debt triple during his 8 years? Could it have been the fiscal conservative Ronald Reagan? Yes, it was. Did anyone of you right wingers complain? How much did George Hubert Walker Bush add to the national debt in his four years of continuing Reaganomics he once called voodoo economics? 1.4 trillion dollars. With Clinton raising taxes and republican gaining control of the house and strengthen their position in the senate how much debt was added after 8 years 1.5 trillion. Where were you Obama haters when George "the Moron" Bush brought back Reaganomics and doubled the national debt in his 8 years. He added more debt than George Washington thru Bill Clinton. Yet, you lick his ass and said nothing.
He left Obama or McCain if he would have won? Personally, I wished McCain would have won then the republicans would own the shit George Bush left us in. 2 wars, a military with 300 to 500 billion dollars worth of equipment that needs to be replaced, a recession that started 13 months before the new president was to take office, a banking crisis, bush added 700 billion to this years debt, so about half of Obama's deficit was the Bush bailout and so on.
Republicans talk a good game about being fiscal conservatives but the last 3 republican presidents with the help of democratic and republican led congresses are responsible for 70% of our 11.6 trillion dollar national debt. Carter left office with a national debt of 900 billion. Ronald Reagan left the nation owing 2.7 trillion in debt. Bush 41 left office with us owing 4.1 trillion. After 8 years of Clinton, the nation was burdened with 5.6 trillion. Eight years of a borderline retard, Bush left this nation 11.6 trillion dollars in debt if you add his part of the bailouts.
Republican say they know how to create jobs but the facts don't bear it out.
Since WWII, D Harry Truman saw 8.4 million jobs created, Dwight Eisenhower 3.5 million jobs, JFK 3.6 million jobs, LBJ 11.9 million jobs, Richard Nixon 9.4 million jobs, Gerald Ford 1.8 million, Jimmy Carter 10.5 million jobs. Ronald Reagan 16 million jobs, Bush 41 2.5 million jobs, Bill Clinton 23.1 million jobs. Bush 43 had 5.8 million jobs before the recession but by Jan. 2009 down to 3 million.
Since 1945, 57.5 million jobs created when democrats in white house and 36.2 million with republicans in the white house. Where did I find these numbers? Did I find them in some article or blog written by a pinko commie left wing rag? No, it was published by the Wall Street Journal owned by Right wing wacko Rupert Murdock the man who brought us Foxnews.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
He left Obama or McCain if he would have won? Personally, I wished McCain would have won then the republicans would own the shit George Bush left us in. 2 wars, a military with 300 to 500 billion dollars worth of equipment that needs to be replaced, a recession that started 13 months before the new president was to take office, a banking crisis, bush added 700 billion to this years debt, so about half of Obama's deficit was the Bush bailout and so on.
Republicans talk a good game about being fiscal conservatives but the last 3 republican presidents with the help of democratic and republican led congresses are responsible for 70% of our 11.6 trillion dollar national debt. Carter left office with a national debt of 900 billion. Ronald Reagan left the nation owing 2.7 trillion in debt. Bush 41 left office with us owing 4.1 trillion. After 8 years of Clinton, the nation was burdened with 5.6 trillion. Eight years of a borderline retard, Bush left this nation 11.6 trillion dollars in debt if you add his part of the bailouts.
Republican say they know how to create jobs but the facts don't bear it out.
Since WWII, D Harry Truman saw 8.4 million jobs created, Dwight Eisenhower 3.5 million jobs, JFK 3.6 million jobs, LBJ 11.9 million jobs, Richard Nixon 9.4 million jobs, Gerald Ford 1.8 million, Jimmy Carter 10.5 million jobs. Ronald Reagan 16 million jobs, Bush 41 2.5 million jobs, Bill Clinton 23.1 million jobs. Bush 43 had 5.8 million jobs before the recession but by Jan. 2009 down to 3 million.
Since 1945, 57.5 million jobs created when democrats in white house and 36.2 million with republicans in the white house. Where did I find these numbers? Did I find them in some article or blog written by a pinko commie left wing rag? No, it was published by the Wall Street Journal owned by Right wing wacko Rupert Murdock the man who brought us Foxnews.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
by Red Sable on 06 June 2009 - 14:06
Luvdemdogs, glad you are having a good laugh now, just remember, He who laughs last, laughs loudest. 
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
