The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 12:47 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:11 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
what about this?

CNSNews

For the link impaired:
Spoiler:
article linked wrote:
Default? Under Obama, Tax Revenues Have Exceeded Combined Costs of Interest, Entitlements and Federal Wages
Friday, July 08, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - Federal tax revenues have exceeded federal interest payments on the national debt by more than 10-fold during the presidency of Barack Obama, according to the daily accounting statements published by the U.S. Treasury Department.
There is no way the U.S. government would need to default on its interest payments on the federal debt if the debt limit were not increased and the government allowed to borrow more money than it already has.
Also, with the current revenue stream, the federal government can afford to pay entitlement and veterans benefits and wages and insurance payments for federal workers--without having to borrow new money.
Specifically, during the Obama presidency, total interest on the federal debt has equaled $426.988 billion while total federal tax revenues have equaled $5.009005 trillion—or 10.8 times what was needed to simply pay the interest that the federal government owes on the money it has already borrowed.
Additionally, the $5.009005 trillion in tax revenue that the federal government has taken in since Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009 has been more than ample to pay the combined $4.517179 trillion the federal government has spent on interest, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, federal workers salaries and insurance payments for federal workers.
In fact, since Obama has been president, after the government paid the interest on the debt, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, and federal workers’ salaries and insurance, it still had $491.826 billion in tax revenue left to spend on discretionary items.
In fact, the government has increased the total national debt by $3.716145 trillion since Obama has been president (from $10.626877 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009 to $14.343022 trillion on July 6, 2011) because all federal spending--above and beyond interest payments, entitlement payments and federal workers' wages--has outstripped federal revenue by that much while Obama has been president.
This pattern of federal tax revenues bringing in more than the federal government has to pay out for interest, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, and federal workers’ salaries and insurance has persisted through the current fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, 2010 and will end on Sept. 30, 2011.
Thus far in fiscal 2011, according to the Daily Treasury Statement for July 6, federal tax revenues have been $1.622312 trillion while the combined expenditures for interest, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs and federal workers’ salaries and insurance have been 1.467127 trillion. That has left $155.185 billion in additional tax revenue to spend on other things.
Payments to defense vendors—as opposed to salaries for military personnel—are the single biggest non-entitlement expenditure on the Daily Treasury Statement. Thus far this fiscal year, these payments have equaled $298.221 billion. So, maintaining the current level of payments to defense venders on top of paying the interest on the debt and Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, and federal workers’ salaries and insurance, would in fact put the government in the red for the year—and force new borrowing.
But it also a fact that the government could pay for the interest on the debt, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs and federal workers salaries and insurance out of the current level of federal tax revenues without having to borrow new money.
However, in a press availability yesterday after meeting with congressional leaders to discuss a deal to raise the debt limit, President Obama suggested that the federal government would “default” on “its obligations” if the debt ceiling was not raised by Aug. 2.
“Everybody reconfirmed the importance of completing our work and raising the debt limit ceiling so that the full faith and credit of the United States of America is not impaired,” Obama said.
“[E]verybody acknowledged that we have to get this done before the hard deadline of August 2nd, to make sure that America does not default for the first time on its obligations,” he said.
The numbers and calculations published in this article were derived from the revenue and spending levels reported in the U.S. Treasury Department’s Daily Treasury Reports for Jan. 20, 2009, which was the day Obama was inaugurated; Sept. 30, 2009, the last day of fiscal 2009; Sept. 30, 2010, the last day of fiscal 2010; and July 6, 2011.


Anyone care to reconcile this?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Last edited by darksiege on Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Hannibal wrote:
Giving the most fiscally irresponsible president in history more to spend is absolutely ludicrous.


Congress spends money. Yeah, he's no good, but the finances are Congress' responsibility.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:48 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
There's a possibility that Obama's thinking about a people's vote(not sure what this means in the US?), if so, does this mean you guys can vote him off if you wanted?

Spoiler:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-13-days-from-financial-disaster/story-e6frg6so-1226095186195

AMERICA is 13 business days from an unprecedented default on its national debt that could tip the country back into recession and set off a new financial crisis if not averted with increased borrowing, President Obama believes.
Backed by Wall Street but facing deadlock in Washington, a visibly angry Mr Obama walked out of a fourth day of debt crisis talks this week after saying he would risk his presidency rather than accept Republican demands.

He has set a deadline of today for both main parties to decide whether to seek a legislative deal or leave the White House to take full responsibility for raising the extra $2.5 trillion the US needs to meet its short-term obligations.

The showdown follows weeks of failed negotiations in Congress on how to tame the country's $14.3 trillion debt.

Talks resumed yesterday in the White House under the shadow of a warning from the Moody's ratings agency that it would downgrade US debt in the event of a default.

In his latest testimony to Congress, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve's chairman, said that failure to agree a deal to avoid default by raising America's statutory debt limit could lead to a "huge financial calamity".

Mr Obama said this week that, without a deal, up to 70 million pension and benefit cheques could not be sent.

Such warnings have so far failed to persuade die-hard fiscal conservatives in Congress.

In a week of high drama and even higher numbers, a "Hell, no" Republican faction loyal to its Tea Party base has only hardened its opposition to higher borrowing or taxes, opening a rift within its own party and setting the stage for the confrontation with the President.

Mr Obama insists that any deal to raise the borrowing limit should include tax increases on the rich as well as the steep cuts in public spending demanded by Republicans.

Eric Cantor, the House Majority leader and the Tea Party's new hero, has repeatedly ruled out tax rises.

Mr Obama hit back with what witnesses called a "stemwinder".

"Enough is enough," he told Mr Cantor, according to aides quoted by ABC television. "Don't call my bluff. I am not afraid to veto and I will take it to the American people ... This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."

Jay Powell, author of a non-partisan analysis of the effects of not raising the limit, said: "It is a certainty that on or around August 2nd the Federal Government will run short of cash and be unable to pay all its bills going forward."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:57 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
Barack Obama wrote:
"Enough is enough," he told Mr Cantor, according to aides quoted by ABC television. "Don't call my bluff. I am not afraid to veto and I will take it to the American people ... This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."


Gotta give him credit for stickin' to his guns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:55 pm 
Offline
The King
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:34 am
Posts: 3219
http://www.theindychannel.com/money/285 ... etail.html

Mitch Daniels for president.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:55 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Lenas wrote:
Barack Obama wrote:
"Enough is enough," he told Mr Cantor, according to aides quoted by ABC television. "Don't call my bluff. I am not afraid to veto and I will take it to the American people ... This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."


Gotta give him credit for stickin' to his guns.


Our last president did that and he was lambasted for being a cowboy.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:56 pm 
Offline
I am here, click me!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:00 pm
Posts: 3676
Müs wrote:
Lenas wrote:
Barack Obama wrote:
"Enough is enough," he told Mr Cantor, according to aides quoted by ABC television. "Don't call my bluff. I am not afraid to veto and I will take it to the American people ... This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."


Gotta give him credit for stickin' to his guns.


Our last president did that and he was lambasted for being a cowboy.


It's alright, though. Obama isn't Bush. Plus he's black. He gets a free pass.

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:10 am 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Aizle wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
You just know it should be more than it currently is for the "rich" or "wealthy"? Who's "rich" or "wealthy"?


Reread what I said. This was not it.



That's the thing, I read what you wrote multiple times and am still confused. Hence the question marks.

If you were being snarky because you thought I was, I wasn't, I'm just confused by what you mean. If you were being snarky because you didn't want to answer my questions, I'm about to waste a bunch of time...

You start off here:
Aizle wrote:
... the revenue side must also be addressed, because it is currently not equitable and fair.

Clarify with this:
Aizle wrote:
I believe there are far more challenges with the rich not paying their fair share than the Wage Class.


Then you say it's the loopholes that need to be closed because the "wealthy" and the "Wage Class" are "similarly reprehensible" in using them.

Then these two quotes seem to make it your intent that the wealthy should pay more because they get more:
Aizle wrote:
I believe in a progressive tax, as the wealthy reap a significantly larger reward for societies blessings.

Aizle wrote:
In the end, the taxes that we take in have to pay for the services that we expect out of the government.


That's why I asked if those who expect (use) the services should pay for them. Are you saying the revenue side isn't "equitable and fair" because:
The "wealthy" aren't paying their fair share?
Because of the loopholes (which you state everyone uses)?
Because the "wealthy" use more of "society's blessings" (What are "society's blessings"?) and should pay for them?
Or, that the "rich" should pay for the entitlement programs used by the "poor"?

Who's rich/wealthy, who's wage class, and who's using the Governmental services "we" expect?
Finally, who is the "we"? Those who use the services, those who create the services, or those who pay for the services?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:34 am 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Lenas wrote:
Barack Obama wrote:
"Enough is enough," he told Mr Cantor, according to aides quoted by ABC television. "Don't call my bluff. I am not afraid to veto and I will take it to the American people ... This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."


Gotta give him credit for stickin' to his guns.


The Democrat aids would be happy to know that their message resonated.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:37 am 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Lydiaa wrote:
There's a possibility that Obama's thinking about a people's vote(not sure what this means in the US?), if so, does this mean you guys can vote him off if you wanted?


No, we can't, yet.
What he means by "taking it to the people" is that he'll give a speech saying that the mean old Republicans are forcing him not to pay grandma and grandpa's SS check.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Müs wrote:
Lenas wrote:
Barack Obama wrote:
"Enough is enough," he told Mr Cantor, according to aides quoted by ABC television. "Don't call my bluff. I am not afraid to veto and I will take it to the American people ... This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."


Gotta give him credit for stickin' to his guns.


Our last president did that and he was lambasted for being a cowboy.


Yeah, but Bush used real guns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
It's almost comical reading Bernanke. He also just told everyone that if things don't turn around soon, he's prepared to institute another round of quantitative easing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:04 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Ladas wrote:
It's almost comical reading Bernanke. He also just told everyone that if things don't turn around soon, he's prepared to institute another round of quantitative easing.
Hmmmms ...

Someone here said something about more quantitative easing leading to more quantitative easing and that ...

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:30 am 
Offline
The King
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:34 am
Posts: 3219
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seym ... pposition-

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Come on Nitefox, you know that the administration knows what's good for the people better than we do!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Vindicarre wrote:
That's why I asked if those who expect (use) the services should pay for them. Are you saying the revenue side isn't "equitable and fair" because:
The "wealthy" aren't paying their fair share?
Because of the loopholes (which you state everyone uses)?
Because the "wealthy" use more of "society's blessings" (What are "society's blessings"?) and should pay for them?
Or, that the "rich" should pay for the entitlement programs used by the "poor"?

Who's rich/wealthy, who's wage class, and who's using the Governmental services "we" expect?
Finally, who is the "we"? Those who use the services, those who create the services, or those who pay for the services?


Thanks for the clarifications. I took your comments wrong, so let me try and clarify.

The revenue side isn't equitable and fair mostly because of the various loopholes and tax exemptions that are out there.
In general, the wealthy are much more able to take advantage and exploit those loopholes than the wage class. Similarly, when they do exploit those loopholes, the impact on the revenue side is much greater for someone who's wealthy than someone who isn't. In short, the wealthy have many more resources at their command to "game" the system for their benefit.

Who is wealthy and who is wage class is tricky, they were terms that Khross used that I basically ran with. There's a lot of grey area in that and it's a sliding scale depending on what city you live in. But in general, I would classify anyone who makes more than 500k/year as wealthy, tho that bar is probably lower. Wage class to me indicates someone who has to work. Probably anyone who makes 250k/year or less. But as I said there's a lot of grey.

The we is every citizen. Everyone should pay in something to society for enjoying it's benefits. That said, while everyone should, not everyone can, and I do support the idea that if you're living below the poverty line or some similar threshold, that you should not have to pay income tax. That is with the understanding that you still pay some taxes through sales taxes, etc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:22 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
You know. A flat tax would with no or very few exemptions would fix this loophole problem you keep bringing up. If you exempted the first 10,000 in wages I think that would help the very poor and bring us back from the point where half the people pay no taxes.

Ideally after the 10k you wouldn't have any kind of deductions or personal or business choices.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Rorinthas wrote:
You know. A flat tax would with no or very few exemptions would fix this loophole problem you keep bringing up. If you exempted the first 10,000 in wages I think that would help the very poor and bring us back from the point where half the people pay no taxes.

Ideally after the 10k you wouldn't have any kind of deductions or personal or business choices.


Yup. I think what you would probably call a "progressive flat tax" would be the best option. And I'd like it to be tied to a major indicator, so that it flexes with the economy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Apparently, 80% of us want higher taxes. This according to PresBo, citing 'poll after poll'...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... iling-deal


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Nitefox wrote:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2011/07/15/only-2-network-reports-debt-ceiling-battle-mention-public-opposition-


Love to know where they got that data, as CNN, which is definitely left-slanted, ran this at the beginning of May:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/05/cnn-poll-half-favor-obama-on-budget-but-majority-oppose-raising-debt-ceiling/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:47 am 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome

It's exceedingly stupid once you learn to see through it.

What Obama is really telling us that in the entire universe of federal government spending, the only way that he can conceive of reducing expenditures is to cut social security and veterans' benefits. That's it. There's nothing else he can imagine cutting first before resorting to that. What does that say about him?

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Historical_debt_ceiling_levels

Look at this chart. I mean, seriously **** look at it. What Obama wants is nothing more or less than what all of Washington has wanted (and, sadly, gotten) for a very long time -- not an increase in the debt ceiling, but rather the practical abolition of the debt ceiling. There is no ceiling, here. There never has been. In Washington, there is no gravity. Screw them all.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Midgen wrote:
Apparently, 80% of us want higher taxes. This according to PresBo, citing 'poll after poll'...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... iling-deal


I'd gladly pay higher taxes if it got the debt under control.

However, I have no confidence that it would. I'd just end up paying higher taxes, with an out of control debt.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Wait, Stathol. Are you saying you oppose abolitionists?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Stathol wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome

It's exceedingly stupid once you learn to see through it.

What Obama is really telling us that in the entire universe of federal government spending, the only way that he can conceive of reducing expenditures is to cut social security and veterans' benefits. That's it. There's nothing else he can imagine cutting first before resorting to that. What does that say about him?


The government does not have enough money coming in to fund Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the Dept of Veteran's Affairs. Even if all other government spending were abolished one of those three would still have to be cut in order to not borrow money.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:33 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Xequecal wrote:
The government does not have enough money coming in to fund Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the Dept of Veteran's Affairs. Even if all other government spending were abolished one of those three would still have to be cut in order to not borrow money.


Really?

Quote:
Thus far in fiscal 2011, according to the Daily Treasury Statement for July 6, federal tax revenues have been $1.622312 trillion while the combined expenditures for interest, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs and federal workers’ salaries and insurance have been 1.467127 trillion. That has left $155.185 billion in additional tax revenue to spend on other things.
Payments to defense vendors—as opposed to salaries for military personnel—are the single biggest non-entitlement expenditure on the Daily Treasury Statement. Thus far this fiscal year, these payments have equaled $298.221 billion. So, maintaining the current level of payments to defense venders on top of paying the interest on the debt and Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, and federal workers’ salaries and insurance, would in fact put the government in the red for the year—and force new borrowing.
But it also a fact that the government could pay for the interest on the debt, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs and federal workers salaries and insurance out of the current level of federal tax revenues without having to borrow new money.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 136 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group