" This is equivalent to a bank continuing to extend a line of credit and loans to an individual with no income. "
.
Indeed, and the banks all did exactly that during the MBS debacle, that led to total meltdown of the banking sector. The term was "NINJA loan"
No Income, No Job-Assets.
Credit will ALWAYS be extended as long as there is a BELIEF they are worthy. The whole fiat system is based on belief. I agree that if no revenue was collected, all BELIEF would be lost, and you would have a total collapse. Eventually that is what will happen anyway. You will just have a slow melt down collecting 60% of the revenues you need to run government, and creating the rest. Collecting nothing, and creating 100% would be a likely instant melt down as all belief would be lost overnight. Nonetheless, both ways will end in melt down. Everyone with any sense knows that this $16 trillion in debt is TOTAL pie in the sky. It will NEVER be "paid off", or never even reduced. Not with real $$'s anyway. It will eventually end in collapse as it always has with one civilization after another.

poobah:
I should be more clear that the money is not actually 'printed'. It's simply electronically created by the fed. Actual M3 money supply (physically printed money) is an entirely diffident subject. And yes, they can create whatever they want, and are. The fed buys $40,000,000,000 worth of treasuries every month now. This is not real money, it's simply created by the fed. This notion the GOP made during the campaign of China financing our debt is laughable. China, and many other foreign countries can't gobble up all the debt we are now incurring, and have also expressed grave concerns on it being a bad investment. It is all one big shell game of the government taking on debt, and the federal reserve buying the debt. All the while the giant banks who are all part of the oligarchy (Goldman Sachs and the like) make a fortune as they broker the whole transaction. It's simply one gigantic revolving door. I totally stand by my claim. No taxes are needed when $$'s can be created by a governmnet. That has always been the problem with fiat currency. When you have no backing to the money, and have full practically unaccountable power to create it, you don't need to tax anyone. The fed can create every $ needed to fund government. Of course that will devalue the currency, and everyone will be hit with massive inflation as their purchasing power reduces from a weakened dollar. That is what we will soon face in any event now, as the debt continues to grow with no end EVER in sight, and is consequently dissolved by the fed. If you simply printed it all now, it would just speed up the process of implosion.

Olderandornerier said, "I don't put that much faith in the credit of the US with so many freeloaders adding nothing to the credit of the Country."

Well, we can all be glad you aren't in charge of establishing the credit worthiness of our country!

Olderandornerier, I will add you to the list of Ezoner and kiowamohican.

Thank you, I am in good company then, ones who understand the effects of policy, rather than just being able to regurgitate it.

I don't put that much faith in the credit of the US with so many freeloaders adding nothing to the credit of the Country.

Gold standard sounds fair to me. No more Fed. No more loans, No more taxes either.

As for your note -- you think I should be happy they only rasied my taxes by x%. I say X as indirect fees have increased as well. We will all see significantly less disposable income. You think things are bad now -- wait until mid to end of 2013. They will get worse. Instead of a cliff -- we are just rolling down a hill --- the cliff is still out there -- just extended. Less buying power, less money in our pockets. More money sent out to those that do not work. Those that can work -- but choose not to, well thats until the jobs dry up as they tax the wealth of the nation.

Wait -- is the death tax back -- you work all your life to leave something for your children and they want that too. You far lefts have no clue what is being done to you -- but when the curtain falls, you sure will.

Olderandornerier, I will add you to the list of Ezoner and kiowamohican. That is the list of people who apparently think that money is being "printed out of thin air" and that taxes are no longer necessary. 916WI, you get a bit of break having been more accurate in that the Federal Reserve is currently injecting a higher percentage of the total government spending into the economy than the average over the last 100 years or so. And you didn't go as far as to say taxes are no longer necessary or that taxes are only "political posturing."

Take a look at the bills in your wallets. Chances are very, very high they say Federal Reserve Note on the top of them, and not United States Note. The Federal Reserve is authorized by the Federal Reserve Act to inject money into circulation in our economy. But the Act requires that the Federal Reserve has an amount equal to what they put into circulation in the form of government securities.

The Federal Reserve is a private corporation of bankers. Bankers are not going to continue to inject money into circulation that they must back with government securities that they have to purchase if that government is no longer taking in substantial revenues (tax revenues). This is equivalent to a bank continuing to extend a line of credit and loans to an individual with no income.

The math is quite simple. No revenues from taxes, no more money injected into circulation by the Federal Reserve as they simply won't buy government securities if that were the case. No tax revenues, no injection of Federal Reserve Notes into our economy.

Hard telling what would happen at that point, which probably is approaching. Perhaps America goes back on a gold or silver standard in a ridiculous attempt to assure investors and other governments of the solvency of our currency, but we're not going to fool too many people with that. We'll know we're reaching a true crisis point when taxes are twice or more what they are now to raise revenues that the Federal Reserve will no longer inject.

"What is paying for your roads and infrastructure, education, police and fire protection, Social Security and Medicare? Political posturing?"
--------
I'd say we're relying less on taxes and putting more and more of that on the credit card....no? Considering the government is spending over twice what it's bringing in and the fiscal cliff aversion plan leads to another $4 TRILLION over 10 years on top of the $16 trillion in debt we already have, it sounds like the tax collections will be even less of a factor in the future.....

You claim that, "They are using taxes as pure policial posturing only." Absolutely preposterous notion. What is paying for your roads and infrastructure, education, police and fire protection, Social Security and Medicare? Political posturing?

40% is printyed out of thin air, why not go with 100%? Then infaltion will tax everyone the same, it will be fair, there are no loopholes with inflation.

Ezoner said, "For those NOT paying attention. Please note that the recent vote raised your taxes."

For those incapable of simple math, please note that passage of the fiscal cliff aversion bill increased taxes by a SIGNIFICANTLY lower amount than they would have been increased if not for the bill. That is, of course, unless you make over $400,000 per year.

For those NOT paying attention. Please note that the recent vote raised your taxes. The gravy train keeps running. Your social security tax was increased from 4.2% to 6.2%. SO this claim that only the rich will pay more is garbage.

The left is trying to pull the wool over your eyes -- an so is the right. We just saw ALL our take home pay reduced and taxes were increased on every one of use that are working.

Poo the fact that you believe the dribble coming out shows how disconnected from reality you are.

Gandy -- what do you think we have now. The politicians are only interested in their own jobs -- few -- very few really care about much more. They are career politicians. They are laywers without a firm. DOctors that no longer care for people in a practice. They only have their own best interest at heart. Why do you think the tax proposal was to start at 200k - 250k -- just above the pay grade of our elected officials??? Get a clue people -- they are ALL screwing us.

Ezoner, actually kiowamohican is wrong, as he was on his take of how the fiscal cliff would play out, but, unlike yourself, kiowamohican is very seldom wrong.

kiowamohican said, "This is classic stuff. Notice it's the left up in arms, and claiming the GOP will take the sword. HAHA."

Drudge Report headlines at 7:55PM January 1, 2013:

"BOEHNER FALLS ON SWORD

ALL TAX, NO CUTS"

"The Senate-passed fiscal cliff bill that House Republicans now are debating is a “complete rout for Democrats” and ‘“complete surrender” for the GOP, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday." [ http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/kr... ]

You claim that, "They are using taxes as pure policial posturing only." Absolutely preposterous notion. What is paying for your roads and infrastructure, education, police and fire protection, Social Security and Medicare? Political posturing?

Poo -- actually Kio is correct. They really dont have a need to collect anything. They are using taxes as pure policial posturing only.

This country had a revolution of a 3% tax by England. How long will we continue to put up with their tax and spend policies, where they basically extort money from the citizens, to fund rediculous projects.

kiowamohican said, "There really is no point to taxes any longer."

That's surely one of the most sensational, and preposterous, claims you've made, kiowamohican. Do you seriously think the Federal Reserve would continue to pump money into our government that had zero tax revenues? Just preposterous.

"If RetiredAirForce's declaration were true, then we should be able to raise the tax rates to 100% on everyone, or lower them to 0% on everyone, without any effect on government revenues and outlays. "
.
They can literally do whatever they want. Raise them to 0 or to 100%. It's just a huge game for pure show. Taxes are meaningless now that the fed has full authority to monetize debt. Revenues are no longer needed to fund government. It's just a big joke for you all to argue about! You can run the whole government on borrowed and created $$$'s in this age of endless-created liquidity. There really is no point to taxes any longer. The government can simply create all the money they claim they need, and the tax will be on everyone via dollar devaluation-inflation.

Like there was any doubt a meaningless compromise would be passed. Once it passes the house, and is signed into law, short sell the markets. All the big $$ players on wall street (who are all tied right in with the hill...AKA: oligarchy) knew a compromise would be made at the last hour. It will be a classic case of selling the news. This whole thing is such a game, that I laugh so many on here take it seriously. The path of non stop monetary creation is set in stone. Government, and equity markets, will be run on on the creation of of $$'s (and illusion that the economy is growing) until the big pyramid scheme ultimately implodes. It's so laughable to hear some of you guys argue back and forth. This stuff is more staged then a WWF event is!

Happy New Year RAF!

Ford interesting not only do you not understand the economy you have no idea what talking parts are either. Btw please keep patting poo on the back she likes attention.

I still like what Adrian Rogers said, "What's this wing stuff?, I just know right from wrong".

Please poobah.....your link to factual information does not fit into RAFs right-wing talking points view of the world so it cannot be true :)

RetiredAirForce said, "The biggest part of that comes down to two issues, the first spending and the second was a great economy thanks to the tech boom. Taxes had nothing to do with it."

When discussing revenues and outlays under the Clinton administration, RetiredAirForce ignores economic experts, historical data and simple mathematics when stating that, "Taxes had nothing to do with it."

If RetiredAirForce's declaration were true, then we should be able to raise the tax rates to 100% on everyone, or lower them to 0% on everyone, without any effect on government revenues and outlays.

I would refer people back to the Senate testimony I cited earlier from the Director of the CBO about the effect of taxation on government outlays and revenue. [ http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c... ]

RAF - we have discussed the Clinton numbers before and you refuse or are incapable of paying attention. Go back through your posts and I think one or more have addressed this quite clearly. But of course, if there is anything that you can create and issue on, then you can disbelieve everything about the facts. I assume you are being “educated” on this by all of the history challenged organizations like…well, the Tea Party Republicans to give the highest level overview (I see the articles by them). Ignorance is bliss - remember, Romney will win in a landslide based on the right wings study of "the facts".

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-bud...

Regarding the poor and the needy, if we do away with the government programs and turn this over the churches (right-wing dream and talking point), every church in the US will need to increase their budgets by $50K. How many churches have that much slack in their budgets? Is this your goal?

"Open your eyes and educate yourself." and then you post a link from the Heritage Foundation (a blog at that)? How laughable is that - an organization that cloaks itself in conservative principles - basically "helping" the needy by getting rid of any programs that assist them (safety net is a hammock), 100% Tea Party/Republican agenda, anti-tax, anti-democracy, win at all costs, only support the wealthy, and I could go on and on. If this is your version of education, no thanks. I could just join the John Birch Society and read their doc.

"You do not have to say that you want to make it harder on the poor which will result in some dieing,"
-
Typical contemptible liberal. You have no idea what I want or how I feel but you step to the lowest level to accuse me, or others of wanting something bad for others. To this point you have offered no substantive comments to show you even grasp the fiscal situation this country is in, but some how you know what others want, even though that has never been stated.

You might want to look at the liberal track record on helping the poor, the same track you think is the answer. Open your eyes and educate yourself.

"A half-century into the War on Poverty, liberals can hardly declare victory. But they can claim the dominant anti-poverty narrative: Fight poverty by spending more, by starting another federal program."
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/31/morn...

Ford if you took the time to look at the facts, the budget numbers under Clinton did look good. The biggest part of that comes down to two issues, the first spending and the second was a great economy thanks to the tech boom. Taxes had nothing to do with it.

Here are the numbers shown as a percentage of GDP:
Year Receipts% Outlays%
1993 17.5 21.4
1994 18.0 21.0
1995 18.4 20.6
1996 18.8 20.2
1997 19.2 19.5
1998 19.9 19.1
1999 19.8 18.5
2000 20.6 18.2
2001 19.5 18.2
2002 17.6 19.1
2003 16.2 19.7
2004 16.1 19.6
2005 17.3 19.9
2006 18.2 20.1
2007 18.5 19.7
2008 17.6 20.8
2009 15.1 25.2
2010 15.1 24.1
2011 15.4 24.1

RAF - I want to see a budget that is balanced and our debt paid down. This would be like we had when Clinton handed a very healthy government over to the neo-cons and Bush in 2001. If our taxes have to go up to do that....so be it. Now in the past you have stated that you pay more in income tax than you make from your USAF pension. From what I can tell that is $20K to $40K per year depending on your rank/time in service. I know a tax increase may hit you harder than most as you have a very good income, but it appears to me that you should be able to afford it.

You do not have to say that you want to make it harder on the poor which will result in some dieing, but if that is the net result, what is the difference?

Ford repeatedly you have stated the poor this last time claiming they would die off to be rid of them. I provided an answer to your questions no please answer mine, who has declared they want anyone, based on financial means, to die off? Based on the information we know, higher tax rates don't always bring in more (as a percentage of GDP) why do you want higher taxes?

So in other words, you are more intelligent than the people that I and others have pointed out to you. Is that right? Or could it be that you are only looking at segments of data that do not show a complete picture? Or taking into account all of the cause and affect possibilites? Could you possibly be wrong?

I can generally agree with you that we should spend no more than we take in, but if we always desire to reduce what we take in as many on the right advocate for, what do we do about the poor, the needy and people that are caught up in natural disasters. Does this turn into a natural selection process? The poor and needy can die off to be rid of them? Or are you saying that you would support additional taxes for the Hurricane Sandy bill that was just passed?

Ford real historical spending, revenue, tax rates, and GDP numbers are the furthest thing from anecdotal. If you were honest the anecdotal information is yours, links to editorials.

As a nation the budget, IMHO, should be based on what we can afford. History has shown regardless of tax rates the nation has only collected, on average, ~18% of GDP in revenue. The problem is since the late 50's we have always spent more than collected, the majority of that has been during the past 4 years. There are many that argue some debt is not bad, I agree with that to a point; it must remain manageable. Our nation has failed to pass a budget for over three years, this during 4 years of record deficits. This fiscal mismanagement should be held in disdain by all tax payers, those that are responsible for the problem.

Repeating the same bad fiscal patterns is insanity, yet too many tax payers condone this year after year.

RAF - the reason I asking the question is that you seem to get your hands on a lot of anecdotal information supporting trickle down economics even in the face of an overwhelming number of professional analysts saying in writing that it does not work. I am curious if you have a financial background and also if you would cut benefits to SS, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that help the poor subsist at a minimal level. Now I am not opposed for forcing better monitoring of social programs as I do believe there is waste frauds and abuse in them. This, however, would require hiring more people to do the monitoring. If we hired a person $150K (burdened cost) to monitor and report waste fraud and abuse and they saved us $1.5M, wouldn’t that be a good payback in your mind?

I would like to see all foreign entitlements cut off completely, make Americans priority one.

Amazing RAF that you will not answer simple questions. So again...
what would your budget look like for the poor, the people who get a government pension, the people who live on SS and need Medicare for health care. Would you suggest cutting them by some percentage? If so, how much? Did you work in the USAF Financial Management & Comptroller's office?

ford if you choose to read only the words provided I have already answered your rhetorical question.

So RAF - what would your budget look like for the poor, the people who get a government pension, the people who live on SS and need Medicare for health care. Would you suggest cutting them by some percentage? If so, how much? Did you work in the USAF Financial Management & Comptroller's office?

I did not say that, I said revenue increased every decade.
"Even as tax cuts have failed to boost economic performance, they have reduced revenues substantially. In the recently completed fiscal year 2005, the cost of all the tax cuts passed since 2001 combined was $260 billion (of which $35 billion was interest), a sum that would wipe out most of last year’s unsustainable $317 billion deficit. If the tax cuts are extended and reasonable assumptions about future spending are accepted, the deficit will remain near 3% of GDP (or higher) indefinitely."
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatur...
Without the tax cuts, we could very well have had a surplus in 2005, but because of less revenue we didn`t.
It`s going to take tax increases and spending cuts, not just either.

You also said revenues increased ever year since the 30's when in fact revenues have fallen year to year 12 times since 1945. The fact remains increased tax rates are no guarantee to higher revenue just as reduced rates are no guarantee to lower revenue rates. Yet with all the historical data to look at the only thing the left wants is higher taxes when the only thing that has ever been the problem is spending, the very thing they refuse to address.

You can`t prove it was tax cuts that caused any revenue increase. I gave you cites to economists, experts, that say they don`t.

Pharm reduced taxes created the same revenue stream as high taxes; 1957-vs-2005. How can you say it doesn't work?

Deflecting again? Where did I say higher rates were the answer? I was refuting the claim that cutting taxes increases revenue, a spurious argument used by politicians, pundits, and some bloggers.Every decade since the 30`s revenue has gone up, albeit, only slightly in the Bush decade, whether taxes were cut or not. As long as there is no economic downturn, revenue rises.

Why isn't Grover Norquist demanding that Congress pass the tax cuts for 98% of Americans? It seems to me that if they don't act, they are causing a tax increase on 100%.

Starting January 1, all of our taxes increase. I guess I don't understand the nuances here because it seems like supporting an extension of tax rates for 98% of Americans is in keeping with the Norquist pledge. It's not a vote to increase anyone's taxes, because they ALL go up automatically on January 1.

Pharm if high taxes are the answer please explain my previous post Dec 29, 2012 at 4:45 p.m. where I showed the same percentage of GDP (revenue) was collected in 1957 with tax rates ranging from 20%-to-91% as 2005 when tax rates were as they are today 10%-to-35%.

Or you could just wonder more about unicorns...

"Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves. Economist Greg Mankiw, who also served as chair of the Bush Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), wrote on his blog on July 2, 2007:

I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.

[...]

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the [sic] same thing. [Greg Mankiw, 7/2/07]"
And, of course, unicorns are real!

a few articles from Bruce Bartlett - senior policy advisor to Reagan, Bush Sr., and served on staffs of Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is not exaclty a flaming liberal. Read 'em and weep righties...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/author...

Attempting to justify tax cuts by arguing they increase revenues is a simplistic view of a very complex system. A visualization of revenues and outlays (both as a percentage of GDP) helps in understanding the effects that tax cuts have had on revenue and, just as importantly, on outlays. People all too often forget the effect of tax policies (including cuts as were seen during the Reagan administration) on outlays. Tax cuts during the Reagan years only barely, and intermittently, took revenues above the 40 year average but maintained outlays above the 40 year average through various stimulus efforts. The argument has been made by many economists that it was the stimulus efforts, not the tax cuts, that were responsible for the minimal increases in revenue.

The Congressional Budget Office has provided the testimony of Director Douglas Elmendorf as presented before the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate entitled "Trends in Federal Tax Revenues and Rates" that was presented on December 2, 2010. [ http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c... ]

I recommend viewing "Exhibit 2 - Total Revenues and Outlays, Fiscal Years 1970 to 2020" (page 6, page 12 of PDF) and "How Taxes Affect Economic Activity: Marginal Tax Rates and Tax Expenditures" on (page 1, page 7 of PDF). While viewing Exhibit 2, look at the revenues and outlays just prior to, during, and just after the Reagan/Bush I administrations (1980-1992). The Clinton years (1992-2000) show a much different story - a reversal of the Reagan/Bush I years.

I am very pleased to finally see people using numbers as a percentage of GDP.

"Who gets to tell the child or children that only gets food from public aid that the government has just plain run out of money? "There was money so I could eat last year", they might respond."

Surely all of the liberals would step up and make absolutely sure that the children you speak of don't go hungry........although that might be a stretch seeing as though they seem to advocate spending everyone else's money but their own.

Walter as always a rhetorical rant is the best you can do. No one is proposing such a drastic change over night, as with most things a goal takes work to achieve. One simple method to get there is to cap all spending at current levels, with absolutely no increases in any spending. With the hopes of GDP increases and more people in the job pool revenues would increase until they equal spending levels then cap future spending to increases in revenue when it happens, not when projected. That being just one way to get there.

Or you could just keep going on your silly tangent about people wanting kids dumpster diving; pathetic.

RAF,
And what if we followed your plan? Do we start now? Who gets to tell the child or children that only gets food from public aid that the government has just plain run out of money? "There was money so I could eat last year", they might respond.
"Well, that was before we started spending only what we take in. We sure as hell weren't going to cut defense spending because that would make the country look weak. You going hungry on the other hand, that's not such a big deal, little one. Look. There's a dumpster over there. Best get to diggin", might be one way to retort.
You see it's very easy to propose just switching the spending model for our government to a strict, no frills, "spend only what you take in" set up. What that does is expose the absolute rigidity of so many in the GOP when it comes to raising taxes and reducing government for what it is, heartlessness. Because, when it comes down to it they're saying that they want to make it as difficult as possible for our country to address some of its social problems. They want to keep taxes at such a low rate that once the government, which is inherently enormous because its size is relative to the size of our country, runs out of money, that's it. There is no more. And if people are literally left out in the cold, so be it. We spend what we take in. Not one cent more. When the GOP did control the government in the first half of the last decade they cut taxes and not only didn't cut spending to account for the lost revenue, they spent billions upon billions more. If we were even to attempt to rein in the amount we spend, the economy has to rebound first. People are not spending money. Just look at what all this bickering in Washington has done. Holiday retail sales took a huge hit this year. The Republican model has not worked. President Obama's policies, as watered down as they were to try to placate the GOP (mistake), had the economy moving forward slowly but surely. Now, the Republicans want to stand in the way of what progress there was even at the expense of the middle and lower classes of this country. Anything to keep something from happening that could make the President look presidential. This stalemate is truly disgusting. And, sure it's not just the GOP that should accept the full blame, but the country chose President Obama without the help of intricately gerrymandered congressional districts. There is a mandate there that should be respected. Nobody's asking the GOP to lay down. They're not doing much more than that now. Compromises have been proposed. It's time to move ahead and if the plan doesn't work, it will be clear and then something else will have to be tried. But all this brinksmanship just hurts the economy, but most of all it hurts a lot of people that aren't protected regardless of the outcome like the wealthy of this country are. Playing games with the well being of people is unfair and its inhumane, and our government is wrong to to be engaging in such games.

Perfect historical example for those that think high tax rates are the answer: 1958 the start of the current historical run with increases in national debt every single year.

Stats from 1958:
GDP: 460 Billion
Receipts: 17.3% of GDP
Outlays: 17.9% of GDP.
Tax rates: 20%-to-91%

Stats from 2005:
GDP: 12,428.6 Billion
Receipts: 17.3% of GDP
Outlays: 19.9% of GDP.
Tax rates: 10%-to-35%

Stats from 2011:
GDP: 14,958.6 Billion
Receipts: 15.4% of GDP
Outlays: 24.1% of GDP.
Tax rates: 10%-to-35%

In case this is not clear let me spell it out. The HIGH tax rates of 1958 produced the same receipts, as a percentage of GDP, of the Bush tax cut rates.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repor...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/His...

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-fede...

"I think the best formula is easy, spend only what is collected, same thing most families and business' do all the time."

#1. Household budgets or business budgets are not the same as the the budget of the US government. There is no comparison, period.
#2. Name me a family or business that at some point doesn't have to go into debt to pay for a house, car, college, expansion, medical bills, or any one of a number of extremely expensive life occurrences. If you are comparing the US government budget to Bob and Judy Smith down on Main St, which is silly, loaning money and paying it back creates wealth. Our entire monetary system is based on debt.

Laffer? Yes, the right's Supply Side Jesus.

"American history supports these economists' conclusions. The economy took off dramatically in the 1960s when top marginal rates were slashed from the 90 percent level. But when taxes were cut sharply from relatively modest levels early in President George W. Bush's term, no growth resulted.

The real issue lies in understanding the huge gap between the "nominal rate" (the list price) and the "real rate" (the tax rate that most companies actually pay.) These two rates diverge widely. The nominal federal tax rate on the largest corporations is now 35 percent. State taxes, on average, bump this to 39.2 percent. This nominal rate ranks as the highest among developed countries.

However, no major company really pays the nominal rate—just as no one walks into a car dealership expecting to pay sticker price. Big companies enjoy a huge buffet of credits, shelters, deductions, and other preferences that reduce their rate to an average of 13 percent. Many profitable companies pay no federal income tax at all. Regardless of our nominal rate, our real corporate tax rate is among the lowest. Further cuts cannot stimulate growth."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/econ...

"There's an old joke that if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they wouldn't reach a conclusion. Well, not quite. A panel of prominent economists recently came to a decisive conclusion: Despite a widely held notion to the contrary in powerful circles, tax cuts cost revenue.

First, let's be clear that we're not talking about a biased group of economists. The IGM economic experts panel, run by the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, was created to explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues, and it includes Democrats, Republicans, and independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel is surveyed regularly, each time on a different topic.

When asked recently about the proposition, "A cut in federal income tax rates in the U.S. right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut," none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers, 96 percent disagreed and 4 percent were uncertain."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/econ...

"Q: Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?

A: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves. "

http://factcheck.org/2008/01/the-impact-...
Just because you want to believe something does not make it so.

"I think the best formula is easy, spend only what is collected, same thing most families and business' do all the time."
+1.........Let ALL of the Obama tax cuts expire and demand that we see a corresponding decrease in spending. The best thing that can happen for the long term viability of the country is to go over this "fiscal cliff" where these things will automatically be imposed.......We'll see if we're lucky enough to have it happen.......

But you said by reducing what you take in, it will increase what you take in. According to this on the Laffer curve.....not so much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curv...

"Tax rate at which revenue is maximized
A possible non-symmetric Laffer Curve with a maximum revenue point at around a 70% tax rate, based on "How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited" by Mathias Trabandt and Harald Uhlig.[9]

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%.[2] Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%.[10] A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%.[11] A 1981 paper published in the Journal of Political Economy presented a model integrating empirical data that indicated that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[12] A recent paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER presented a model that predicted that the US and most European economies are on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue).[9]"

Ford there are many economists who have models, Laffer being one. I think the best formula is easy, spend only what is collected, same thing most families and business' do all the time.

If you want the numbers they are not hard to find.
Year, GDP Trillions, Receipt%, Spending%
2000 9,821.0 20.6 18.2
2001 10,225.3 19.5 18.2
2002 10,543.9 17.6 19.1
2003 10,980.2 16.2 19.7
2004 11,676.0 16.1 19.6
2005 12,428.6 17.3 19.9
2006 13,206.5 18.2 20.1
2007 13,861.4 18.5 19.7
2008 14,334.4 17.6 20.8
2009 13,937.5 15.1 25.2
2010 14,359.7 15.1 24.1
2011 14,958.6 15.4 24.1
2012(e) 15,601.5 15.8 24.3
2013(e) 16,335.0 17.8 23.3

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/His...

Mouse deflecting your racism on to others is something you should see a specialist for.

...or better yet, what level should the taxes be further reduced to so we get more revenue? I have asked this of others and no one has a solid answer. Have you seen a study on this - surely there must be a model that we can follow to know what the roadmap looks like.

RAF - we have the reduced taxes as none have been raised since Bush. We are in effect, still under the Bush tax policies. So where are the revenues as a percent of GDP?

So you want to step up to the plate now and say that the Bush neo-cons and their "deficits don't matter" trickle down style of governance is wrong but you still want to go back? I sure don't. The people who put us in this position need to step up and offer more than their share to get us out. We can avoid the fiscal cliff, but only if they fully participate. Otherwise, over we go because the math does not add up any other way.

Ford also ignored the 2001 recession caused by the tech bubble burst, and with that, the "predicted" revinues fell far short of CBO estimates. Ironicly the reduced taxes rates were paired with increased revinues, the same things liberals claim cant happen.

fordfan...you are confusing poor choices in your personal responsibilities and poor choices (in your opinion) the govt has made. And believe me both sides have made poor decisions. You are the only one who can make financial choices for yourself. Whether they be good or bad choices, you have to live with them. We all have to live with the choices the govt makes.

OK – I see some factual errors from my post of 12/27 at 9:52 AM. It should have read:

In 2001 the US had a pretty good revenue stream that was taking care of its bills and paying down the debt. When the Republicans took over, they inherited a house that was in good order; we had some good revenue and the bills were being paid – in other words, no fiscal cliff and no out of control debt. But in 2001 we made some bad moves. We were attacked on 9/11/2001 when some 3,000 of our citizens were killed in one day (nearly 190 times the number of people killed on 9/11/2012). Some say this could have been avoided if we had paid attention to intelligence reports, but regardless we needed to go to war with those who attacked us and those who harbored the attackers (Afghanistan). Then, ignoring the cost of the war, we gave a tax cut that reduced our revenue/income. Then we decided that we should do a war of choice for….well, who knows why but we did it anyway- kind of a collectors’ edition war (Iraq). Ignoring the cost of the first war and now this one, we did another unneeded tax cut, further reducing our revenue/income. Then, due to lack of funds and lack of interest, we ignored our nation’s infrastructure to the point that we must get our house back in order with major associated cost (bridges need to be replaces, roads need rebuilding, and much other infrastructure needs work). Then we had a huge downturn in the economy in 2008 or so and our revenue stream through taxes dried up even more. The real problem now is that even though we can add to our revenue through specific taxes, we really don’t want to do that because….well just because the wealthy really likes their bank account statements along with the joy and low stress that it brings. They blame the victims of this economy for being where we are today rather than looking in the mirror to see the real culprits. Now if we go off the fiscal cliff, we will lose more of our revenue stream. Maybe we can just default on our bills early in 2013 – will that help? Will it hurt our credit rating at all and raise our rates when we see our interest portion of the budget growing as it is? (See RAF's chart)

Now, I know that some would say things to the neo-cons like “so you want us to feel sorry for you because of all your bad decisions over the last few years! You made your choices, you live with them or make some hard choices.” But the neo-cons “ARE” blaming someone else for” THEIR “bad decisions” unlike the advice that some neo-cons would give others…(donnaw perhaps?).

Sorry for my original errors and the confusion on this…… :)

Walter you might not grasp the issue all to well. Laws pertaining to magazines and ammo are all part of gun laws. Expecting you to understand the issues has never really been high on the probability list.

RAF,
As Keene stated during that interview, the position of the NRA is that anyone using a gun while commiting a crime should be prosecuted. He went on to say that he did not consider what David Gregory did during the interview should be viewed as committing a crime. He had every chance to speak about conflicting gun laws. The most that the President of the NRA could muster was mentioning the "craziness" of some gun laws. He did not elaborate on what exactly "craziness" means to him or the organization. These guys that head up the NRA pretty much wet the bed when the camera comes on. I'd had to see what they would do with a gun while taking live fire. Yikes!

I appreciate the info Donna, but I saw the real world real time benefits. Maybe my perspective is flawed because I milked the cash cow at the time, but in my opinion it worked. That $3 billion did more for the auto industry than any other program/dealer incentives I've seen since that whole STUPID 0% interest hit the market after 9/11.

wislady...I didn't believe this was possible until I looked it up. This really makes me furious! This boob of a president is unbelievable. Raises for Biden, federal workers and congress! He is so arrogant giving his people raises while the rest of Americans sit with baited breath waiting to see what will happen January 1st. How arrogant!

Walter you might want to look at the whole NRA position on the gregory incident...but that would require you to get past your silly huff post, daily kos, and socialist party usa talking points and read something on your own.

The NRA is critical of the mass number of conflicting laws based upon city, county, and state borders.

When the ATF asked the DC Police, somebody with DC police told the ATF that it wasn't a problem. I guess when the police are ignorant of the law it certainly does help out the civilians.
Personally, I think there's still a case there and Gregory should be charged. Breaking the law is breaking the law.
Someone else disagrees with that, too.
"NRA President David Keene said on CNN Thursday he didn't think Gregory should be prosecuted for possessing the magazine, calling the D.C. law 'silly.'"
I guess he doesn't think that breaking the law is breaking the law either. Seems like Keene is extremely well suited for his current position.

Obama is so serious about the fiscal cliff he's ordering a pay raise for VP Biden, some congressmen, & federal work, with an Executive Order.

http://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2012/201...

tttthomp.....do your homework before you trump the success of Obama's "Cash for Clunkers"program, which was initiated to get gas guzzlers off the road and be a big stimulus to the car industry. When the results were analyzed, it was determined that the cost was $24,000/car to the taxpayers, 45% of those who took advantage of the program would have bought a new car anyway without the program, and fuel efficiencies were lowered about half a percent. It was a very short term stimulus. I drove around the back of the dealership that services my car during this period. I couldn't believe the cars that were being dumped. They weren't very old and were not big gas guzzlers. The other thing that bothered me is the environmental issue. Think of all the cars that were destroyed and not being used for parts to fix other cars. What ever happened to the philosophy of recycling? Like most govt programs....it sounds good but is not well thought out. The politicians just want to look good and give freebies for votes.

Laws Are for Little People
And not for David Gregory. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...

"Three days after scofflaw Gregory committed his crime, a bail hearing was held in Massachusetts for Andrew Despres, 20, who’s charged with trespassing and possession of ammunition without a firearms license. Mr. Despres was recently expelled from Fitchburg State University and was returning to campus to pick up his stuff. Hence the trespassing charge. At the time of his arrest, he was wearing a “military-style ammunition belt.” Hence, the firearms charge.

His mom told WBZ that her son purchased the belt for $20 from a punk website and had worn it to class every day for two years as a “fashion statement.” He had no gun with which to fire the bullets. Nevertheless, Fitchburg police proudly displayed the $20 punk-website ammo belt as if they’d just raided the Fitchburg mafia’s armory, and an obliging judge ordered Mr. Despres held on $50,000 bail. Why should there be one law for Meet the Press and another for Meet Andrew Despres? Because David Gregory throws better cocktail parties?

The argument for letting him walk rests on his membership of a protected class — the media. Notwithstanding that (per Gallup) 54 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the NRA while only 40 percent have any trust in the media, the latter regard themselves as part of the ruling class. Which makes the rest of you the ruled. Laws are for the little people — and little people need lots of little laws, ensnaring them at every turn."

Walter since when is ignorance of the law a valid defense in breaking it?

So sad. Now RAF has to come up with something else. Not only has Gregory not been convicted. He has not and probably will not, given the conflicting information, even be charged. Yet somewhere out there, LaPierre continues to foam.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...

As usual RAF spinning like the human top that he is.
The debt clock starts for Obama the MINUTE he is sworn in, thats painting a clear picture isnt it? Posts get more pathetic by the thousand for that right wing clown.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/politic...

RetiredAirForce, here is a definition of corruption for you:

cor·rup·tion - noun

1. the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt.

2. moral perversion; depravity.

3. perversion of integrity.

4. corrupt or dishonest proceedings.

5. bribery. [ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/c... ]

Need I start reminding you of the recent spate of guilty pleas and convictions of the cadre of Walker conservatives? Or of the perversion of integrity in the proceedings of the cadre of Fitzgerald conservatives in the state legislature? Corruption is not always a crime, RetiredAirForce, that a finding of fact will ever be available for. Do you think it was honest or moral of Walker to not make voters aware of his intentions on collective bargaining during his campaign? Yes, the 2012 elections have indeed marginalized the cadre of Walker/Fitzgerald conservatives to a great degree, as is evidenced by many of Walker's recent seemingly inexplicable policy announcements. Thanks for providing the opportunity to remind you of these things.

Her is just another, of the many, example of poo and her hypocrisies. She stated the following, "Making uninformed pronouncements as to someone's guilt prior to having the benefit of the findings of the court is not prudent."

When she has also said this, "Once we marginalize the corruption in state politics that is your cadre of Walker/Fitzgerald conservatives, that quirk will be corrected."

Just more of the same from the party of do as I say not as I do.

LOL, keep spinning poo girl, keep spinning.

RetiredAirForce said, "You have yet to question his banishing of an illegal item, the same item the local DC police dept told NBC they could not use. Your only retort was a response to someone else bringing up is illegal actions."

I have not seen a determination by a court that what David Gregory was "banishing" was an illegal item. I would imagine this is something D.C. investigators are attempting to establish prior to submitting the case to prosecutors and the court. Making uninformed pronouncements as to someone's guilt prior to having the benefit of the findings of the court is not prudent.

RetiredAirForce said, "Interesting how you took every effort to ignore his illegal actions while at the same time wanting more gun laws."

"His illegal actions?" I'm sorry, but again, I'm not aware of any court having found him guilty of illegal actions. Nor did I ignore his actions. I acknowledged the incident and advised prudence in waiting for findings of fact before making your pronouncements as to his guilt.

Let's get back to the point you're attempting to deflect from while remembering that you also had just told readers that, "every child that breaks a leg (needing crunches) or every elderly person needing help walking (needing a walker) will be paying a "fee" (tax) under obamacare starting next year."

That is simply not a factual statement. Taxes will be paid by entities other than the end-users you noted (children and elderly) and pricing schedules for "crunches" and walkers will not be increased to absorb the taxes. Your attack on my character is nothing more than a sideshow, an attempt, as tthompson has aptly pointed out, to deflect from your errant comment on medical device taxes.

RET, those debt facts will get them every time.

poo you are so sad. You have yet to question his banishing of an illegal item, the same item the local DC police dept told NBC they could not use. Your only retort was a response to someone else bringing up is illegal actions. This of course after you took great effort to pat gregory on the back for his interview.

Interesting how you took every effort to ignore his illegal actions while at the same time wanting more gun laws. Imagine that, giving a pass to those that break existing gun laws while wanting more gun laws...just more of the same from the do as I say not as I do crowd.

RetiredAirForce said, "Kid pointing out poo's continual hypocrisies is an ongoing saga. In this instance her wanting to proclaim wanting to prosecute for a law being broken (if/when) while the previous incident she choose to be silent and ignore the broken law; lack of conviction, just more of the same from the do as I say not as I do bunch."

RetiredAirForce, I guess you have forgotten my comment directed to you and in reply to your comment about the Meet The Press interview with Wayne LaPierre. I was not silent as you state I was. The only lack of conviction appears to be your lack of conviction in honestly portraying my comments. To refresh your memory, I will repeat my entire comment on the Meet The Press incident here:

RetiredAirForce said, "The sad lengths the media will go to include breaking gun laws during their own shows. On sunday's show David Gregory waved around a 30 round magazine while trying to make his emotion filled point. His show is filmed in the District of Columbia."

Real or replica, the comment quoted above is more extreme than the comments of the right fringe pundits and publications (samples below) that have tempered their reporting by using qualifiers such as "DID this person violate gun laws," or "This person MAY have violated gun laws." The prudent thing to do is to wait to see if this person is arrested, prosecuted and found guilty of breaking gun laws prior to making such irresponsible comments about the "sad lengths the media will go to include breaking gun laws during their own shows."

"Did NBC’s David Gregory Violate D.C. Gun Law on National TV?" The Blaze [ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-nbcs... ]

"David Gregory may have violated DC ban on high-capacity magazines" Twitchy [ http://twitchy.com/2012/12/23/david-greg... ]

"Did NBC’s David Gregory violate DC gun law on Meet the Press?" MichelleMalkin.com [ http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/23/dav... ]

Bush debt
01/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08
Increased 4,899,100,310,608.44 in 8 years.

Obama debt
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08
12/27/2012 16,338,243,391,747.08
Increased 5,711,366,342,834.00 in 3 years 11 months.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogi...

Kid pointing out poo's continual hypocrisies is an ongoing saga. In this instance her wanting to proclaim wanting to prosecute for a law being broken (if/when) while the previous incident she choose to be silent and ignore the broken law; lack of conviction, just more of the same from the do as I say not as I do bunch.

I appreciate the translation Eagle:)

RAF: So anyone who reads these posts should either join the convo or not post anything?? Was I wrong in pointing out the fact that you deflected poo's point??

Midnight: You want me to use my own place of business?? Ok. I have sold as many or more cars every year since Obama took office. This year, not boasting here but stating facts, I have reached an income level that I have only topped once in 13 years at this game. My boss just hired 3 more people last month. I jokingly asked him if he gave Walker or Obama credit and he gave me a factual answer in that he didn't credit either. Cash for clunkers was a failure?? You should tell the car dealers that who cleaned up MASSIVE amounts of inventory. We literally had people waiting in line to buy cars on that program. Or the junk yards who were paid to destroy the gas guzzlers. You should ask the consumers who took advantage of the program and upgraded their cars and fuel economy. You can debate whether the gov't should do such things, but you can't debate whether that program was successful or not. It did 'almost' exactly as intended.

I blame Benghazi Barry. Poverty, unemployment, and disability claims didn't skyrocket under Bush. While the national debt went up, it didn't nearly double as with Beng.Bar.
Fiscal cliff has already come under Barry. Now he just wants to throw dirt on our grave.
Thriving companies 4 years ago are either downsized or closed. I'm sure Thompson can take a look at his own place of business from the failed cash for clunkers government involvement to today. Letting the market dictate sales not the government.

You're being asked because you decided to add your comment. If you don't want part of the discussion you should stay on the side lines. The question about your business, presuming you know something about it was not really a stretch, if you prefer a different business model please bring it up. Back to the heath care law, as with all laws there are loop-holes. You could look up information on your own or continue to be spoon feed by poo, your choice.

"Anticipating the excise tax, numerous companies already have announced layoffs or withheld investments. Recent surveys show that medical technology executives are examining a host of other options that will have negative consequences, including passing along the added costs through price increases. Even if the market would tolerate that—which is surely questionable given the current pressure to drive down costs—it would, ironically, raise the costs of medical care. That was not supposed to be an outcome of ObamaCare."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/...

tthompson, let me translate for bowlgal, she is utilizing a classic practice by partisans when their guy isn't in office, the dems did the same thing during the Bush years and after by blaming Bush for EVERYTHING, sometimes it was warranted but most times not so much, same as the case with Obama getting the blame by the GOP.

RAF: a) The manufacturer sets the invoice and MSRP b) Why the heck are you asking me this anyways?? Poo showed you that if someone did pass the cost on to the end user that they'd be breaking the law. Rather than acknowledging that post you brought up David Gregory breaking the law. I merely pointed out that you were deflecting. You should REALLY think about putting down the keyboard and walking away for a bit. Just some friendly advice;)

Bowlgal: I'm not even sure what the heck that last post is trying to say. You mentioned 'all the greed in Washington' and then said how disastrous the 'last 4 years' are. If that's not an implication of who is to blame then I apologize. Of course I also apologize for engaging you in the first place knowing that any response is merely blah blah blah, as evidenced by whatever that last post is.

gandalff perhaps you should get your facts straight before pretending you grasp a subject.

"In the immediate-term, legislation must be enacted to extend all of the 2001 and 2003 tax rates (including current marginal rates, dividend and capital gains rates, and estate tax relief), to extend vital expired and expiring business tax provisions, and to provide alternative minimum tax (AMT) relief."

http://www.votervoice.net/chamberfriends...

tthompson
Dec 27, 2012 at 12:46 p.m

It's also a 'shame' that with so much acknowledged greed in Washington you manage to blame only one person.
-Really? You said that?

tthompson, are you claiming the hyprocrisy double-standard post?

Blame one person?? You mean like the left blame Bush? Even though Democrats have not told us what they will do with our money in over 3 years with a budget. Only what we've seen as tax and spend overdoses.
And now Obama gives Congress and Federal Workers A Raise!
The NRA has a higher favorable rating then Obama.

Speaking of the dealerships when there is far less money to purchase big ticket items. Better to invest in the back yard mechanic then purchase something else. Who will you blame?

So kid when taxes are raised on your boss's dealership you think there will be no added padding to offset the costs?

Good post poo. Nice deflection Ron.

Prosecuted for breaking the law? You mean like David Gregory..

RetiredAirForce said, "yeah okay, just because you think so."

No, the reason has nothing to do with me. It is because the law says so. If providers don't follow the law, I'm sure you'd join me in wanting to see them prosecuted.

Congress reflublicans are STILL on vacation.....HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!

" end users price (those children on "crunches" and elderly people with walkers) can not be raised to recoup the fee."
-
yeah okay, just because you think so companies will willing take a cut to their bottom line without passing off the costs.

RetiredAirForce said, "...every child that breaks a leg (needing crunches) or every elderly person needing help walking (needing a walker) will be paying a "fee" (tax) under obamacare starting next year."

RetiredAirForce, you seriously need to do more research prior to making such incorrect comments. Children needing "crunches" and elderly people needing walkers will not be paying a "fee" (tax) under ObamaCare starting next year. The medical device manufacturers will be paying the fee and due to fixed fee schedules of the Affordable Care Act, the end users price (those children on "crunches" and elderly people with walkers) can not be raised to recoup the fee.

"Regarding the medical device tax, due to fee schedules, the end user’s price is already set and can not be raised. Therefore, who will be impacted from this tax?

“Who this tax should really make nervous are the individual providers who are going to be purchasing those devices,” Gustin said. “Ultimately, the tax gets passed down to the consumer, but in this case, the provider is the consumer, not necessarily the patient.”" [ http://www.healio.com/orthotics-prosthet... ]

Guess the leftest poo thinks only rich people get hip replacements.

"On January 1, 2013, a 2.3-percent excise tax on the total revenues of medical-device companies — regardless of whether they turn a profit or suffer a loss — will take effect. The tax will hit everything they sell, from x-ray machines and pacemakers to surgical tools and artificial hips. The levy could extract as much as $29 billion over the next 10 years."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2...

Yes, I will revise the statement poohboy.......the beneficiaries should receive all of the money that their families were forced to invest, unless one plans on turning it into a welfare/income redistribution program as you and your example suggest. Is that what you want the program to evolve into? To remove the cap, limit the benefit and enact what would be a massive tax increase on anyone earning over the cap?

"The tax that’s drawn the most heat in Congress is the one on medical devices — a 2.3 percent levy on most medical products"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/ne...

916WI said, "The government is "investing" your money for you in an effort to cover your expenses during your retirement. What you put in is what you get out. Is that easy enough for you to comprehend?"

"What you put in is what you get out." Do you wish to modify that statement?

Historically, Social Security was a great investment in the early years of the program. That has now shifted and "People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives." [ http://business.time.com/2012/08/07/soci... ]

"What you put in is what you get out." That was never the design goal of Social Security. Additionally, many people put in tens of thousands of dollars over their lifetime and die before receiving a cent. Their beneficiary, of course, receives a hearty $255 death benefit.

"What you put in is what you get out." Sure thing, 916WI.

RetiredAirForce, there is nothing in the article you cited that mentions "crunches" or walkers.

"How do you know that "higher income people would definitely be allowed to receive much larger payments" by raising the cap on Social Security taxes? You have absolutely no idea what legislation Congress would put in place if they raised, or entirely removed, the cap on Social Security taxes. For instance, Congress could raise, or entirely remove, the cap on Social Security taxes while capping the maximum benefit."
--------
Because by definition Social Security is an "income insurance" program. The government is "investing" your money for you in an effort to cover your expenses during your retirement. What you put in is what you get out. If the liberals choose to turn it into an income redistribution plan, as your example would suggest, you would be redefining the intent of the program........Is that easy enough for you to comprehend?

poor poo guess you missed how every child that breaks a leg (needing crunches) or every elderly person needing help walking (needing a walker) will be paying a "fee" (tax) under obamacare starting next year...what was that silly remark about rich people?

I should have said...That's like being forced to buy the Gold Package and then being told your getting standard coverage.

"Same thing that happens when Social Security retirement ages are increased after years of paying taxes with the understanding of a given retirement age."
This would happen to all beneficiaries. What is your point?
As for the rest...that's what the Tort courts are for.

Pastafarian said, "That feels like theft."

Same thing that happens when Social Security retirement ages are increased after years of paying taxes with the understanding of a given retirement age. Little difference from an insurance company deciding to pay only $80,000 on a $100,000 life insurance policy because they are having financial problems, except that paying your life insurance premiums was a choice, not a legal requirement.

"Congress could raise, or entirely remove, the cap on Social Security taxes while capping the maximum benefit."
That feels like theft.
That would be the same as paying for the "Gold Package" health insurance and then receiving standard coverage.

RetiredAirForce said, "Happy New Year — here are your new health law taxes."

"Your?" Addressing your rich buddies again, RetiredAirForce? I doubt that a significant percentage of reader's incomes exceed $200,000 per year or $400,000 per year in the following examples taken from the link [ http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/ne... ] provided by you:

"But the bigger story is in the Medicare tax hikes that high-income earners will see both on wages and investment income. That would be a heavy tax hit, but only for the wealthiest couples — about $2,500 for some couples making as much as $400,000 a year."

"The Affordable Care Act funds a substantial share of its cost through high-income Medicare taxes that will affect individuals making more than $200,000 and joint filers making above $250,000. The tax will go up by 0.9 percentage points on wages above those levels, and there will be a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income."

"Here’s how the new taxes would hit a family of four making $400,000. Assuming the two parents made $360,000 in total wages and $40,000 through investments, they will pay more than $2,500 next year in new health law taxes, according to Nick Kasprak of The Tax Foundation."

Or a large gold nugget could be found in everyone's yard and then there would be no need for social security. Gosh these "games" of made up reasons are fun to play...

916WI said, "Higher income people would definitely be allowed to receive much larger payments as a result of their much larger contributions. The net effect of raising the cap would be voided out."

How do you know that "higher income people would definitely be allowed to receive much larger payments" by raising the cap on Social Security taxes? You have absolutely no idea what legislation Congress would put in place if they raised, or entirely removed, the cap on Social Security taxes. For instance, Congress could raise, or entirely remove, the cap on Social Security taxes while capping the maximum benefit.

Happy New Year — here are your new health law taxes

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/ne...

916... I see your point. I always thought there was a ceiling on how much in soc sec monthly payments one could receive. I guess that's not true.

raising the cap on SS wouldn't resolve any of the problems. Social Security was established as an insurance/investment instrument. Higher income people would definitely be allowed to receive much larger payments as a result of their much larger contributions. The net effect of raising the cap would be voided out. Let the people invest their own money, the more the government takes the more those that contribute lose on their "investment".......

Pastafarian....I think there should be no ceiling for soc sec tax...all wages all the way up should have the deduction. Why stop at 80%?

Pasta, SS also originally had 16 workers for every 1 recipient, that is soon to be under 3... it is a broken system.

Social Security use to tax 90% of income. Now SS only taxes 80% of income. Go back to taxing 90% like originally planed and SS will survive.
Raise the cap to $200K (90%).

fordfan, I have sympathy for your situation, a few years back I was self employed making a very good living in another state, I made a couple bad business decisions and boom I lost everything, literally everything, I don;t blame anyone but myself, not even the guy the was stealing from me, I should have seen it coming. So I started out at the bottom of a stable company and I am moving my way up after 2.5 years, I can't really give you any advice other than hard work it has always worked for me and many others. BTW I see you went back to RAF definition of ponzi, yes from a biased source, rather tan the one I posted form the 'beloved' government.

Well said Maynard.

I also think Social Security has effectively become a Ponzi scheme that will eventually collapse. I do not believe it was intented to be one from the start. I believe no one's projections in 1937 saw the huge baby boom after World War II, the baby bust after that, the greatly increased life expectancy from 1938 to the current expectancy in 2012, and the many additional programs that were added to Social Security. Or for that matter, that our politicians on both sides would buy votes by a feel good payroll holiday of 2% for the last 2 years from rates. Granted that loss of money has to be replaced with money from the general fund but, unfortunately, it is being replaced with additional borrowed money. Once again, another example of my favorite Law of Unintended Consequences. That law so often goes into affect when our politicians fail to look at the effect of anything past the next election cycle. BTW: I will accept items as being true cuts when they are reductions in the original amount of the program and not just a reduction in the rate of increase. That is the way I have to run my budget. Actually spend less when times are tough, not just reduce the extra I was planning to spend by a bit and claim it is a saving. Kind of like all of the "saved jobs" by the stimulus plan. Our government reminds me of how my daughter would come home from shopping and brag about how much she had saved and I would tell her that did not matter. What mattered was if she really needed it and how much she spent. Never got through to her though and she is still living paycheck to paycheck.

RAF - I ask for a credible source and you provde The Krauthammer? I think I now see the real problem that you have with this concept - you seem to be a student of the far right which seems to have taken you over. You were not like this in the USAF were you?

donnaw - I do kind of blame the people who hold the lean on my T-Bird for not being flexible since I need a new roof and furnace. And the utility companies to but I can skip the power payments now as it is winter. I don't think it will hurt my credit rating....do you?

...and please don't tell me to get a better job. Though I could easily do that, it would be right back to the old rat race....

donnaw - can't you show a little sympathy for me and others in my postion? At least tell me what you think I should do as you seem to be pretty successful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8QEYj4Yj...

"[L]ike a Ponzi scheme, Social Security paid early participants incredible returns on their money, because they contributed to the system for only a few years but received a full retirement's worth of benefits. A person who retired in 1950 received around a 20 percent annual return on the taxes he paid (which happens to be exactly the same return that [Bernie] Madoff promised to his investors)....

[A]n average wage earner born in 1950 will receive around a 2.2 percent return from the system, which is less than what you could earn on guaranteed government bonds. A person entering the workforce today will receive only around a 1.7 percent return."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles...

http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/w...

Fordfan...so you want us to feel sorry for you because of all your bad decisions over the last few years! You made your choices, you live with them or make some hard choices. At least you are not blaming someone else for your bad decisions.

fordfan:

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.

With the exception of promises of high returns I think SS fits this definition from http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

Ohhhh cnn, the home of piers morgan yep that is the gold standard...if they say so...well.

Got it RAF, but again you never answered the question. Show me a reputable reference that says this is a Ponzi Scheme. It is only in the right wings type of dreams.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-12/polit...

ford a ponzie scheme pays people from the profits/deposits of others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_schem...

"Q1: When did Social Security start? A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940."
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Gandalf while I applaud the President proposing any cuts at all, $1 trillion over 10 years is a joke considering last years deficit was $1.3 trillion and that number will continue to grow as maintenance on the debt continues to climb. Neither party is doing anything of substance to fix this mess they have caused, Ryan proposed a budget with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit, so much for fiscal conservatism. For a Partisan to point at another partisan of the opposing party and label them challenged is perhaps the funniest thing I have read all week. BTW taxes tied to Obamacare will also become effective January 1st, if I recall doesn't the official name of that Act contain something about affordable healthcare? My insurance is rising 10% next year, Government is great at solving problems isn't it? I am counting on my taxes being raised next year to go along with my health insurance, so I am lowering my 401k contribution to make up the difference, by the time I get ready to retire we will be so far gone anyway so no point in worrying about it I guess.

I would like to see all foreign entitlements cut off completely, starting with a stop-payment on Obama's 170 million dollar check to Myanmar.

RAF - I am so sorry that you only pick and choose what you read.

I think my #2 option has something to do about making the healthcare system more efficient. "2) address the cost of medical care in our nation (the basis of the cost of the above programs) which is WAY out of control. Fixing this major problem will benefit all of us in multiple ways." Of course if Obama tries to do anything with healthcare there is right wing snarling, complaining, back biting, obstruction, refusal to discuss, outright lying, etc. (let us just call it Republican Strategic Governance for short). I will tell you, people are getting really sick of the right wing tactics even if you do think they are the way to go.

Regarding SS - is it Obama that WANTS to implement Chained CPI which in effect cuts payments to beneficiaries? I thought that was a demand brought forward by the Tea Party Republicans. And please share any intelligent documentation (in other words, no right wing blogs or the highly conservatively biased and inaccurate Fox News) that says this is a Ponzi scheme….

Regarding the debt – thanks for the lesson (you must be financial whiz to have figured that one out). You need to factor in the GDP growth also. Bottom line is, how can you possibly cut enough from the budget without putting the nation into a recession that will reduce GDP and which will automatically make the debt a higher percentage of the GDP which in your model will require more cuts and make the recession even deeper? You know, like Europe is trying right now.

Regarding Obama’s spending – sorry but this is your chart….

If nobody is saying that new taxes will fix anything, then why are we even bringing it up? Is it so they can use the tax cuts of 2002 to be the scapegoat for a rotten economy, which is truly laughable, there are many factors why the economy was good in the 90's and why it was bad in the 2000's, little of either had to do with taxes. There are people that think if taxes get raised on the rich it will bring some sort of balance to the government, in reality it will bring about 40-80 billion dollars, we borrow more than that a month. The bottom line is both parties have lead us to this point by continually overspending and putting us in a position where we now spend over 40% of all revenue just to maintain the 16 trillion dollar plus debt. This continuation of kicking the can on the debt is dangerous. The continuation of the rhetoric by one party to completely ignore it (dems) and one (GOP) that talks about it but isn't willing to step up and do anything about is ridiculous and the people that buy the BS are fools.

'It's a shame, really so much greed in Washington will cost all of us even more then the 1st four devastating years'

It's also a 'shame' that with so much acknowledged greed in Washington you manage to blame only one person.

Once again for the left fringe...Gandalf the current presidents plan is more taxes, with FUTURE (unspecified) cuts combined with MORE spending; tax and spend sounds familiar ehh. Are you ignoring his plan?

Will the 4 million dollar vacation only cost us 2 million instead?

All show. Reid has made it clear he has no intension of trimming the fat, passing a budget, or spending our money responsibly.

It's a shame, really so much greed in Washington will cost all of us even more then the 1st four devastating years.

ford yes. Your fear based response, "defund it and let the recipients suffer or die", is hardly truthful. The fact is the government to include obamacare has done NOTHING to address costs. The whole approach, derived by big government types, is to keep driving up costs with the goal being single payer; hardly a sane approach.

Your fear based response to SS, "defund", is the furthest from true. The ponzie scheme is falling apart due to less people in the work pool and more becoming elderly (baby boomers). Ignoring the problem will not fix it, short or long term.

Your take on the debt is ignorant. Debt is the accumulation of deficits. The current admins plan, even with new taxes, is to keep having a huge deficit by increasing spending. Borrowing more money in no way makes the debt smaller. The govt is spending ~24% of GDP yet has never collected more than ~20% of GDP even with a strong economy. Ignoring the problems of spending by pretending a new tax scheme will fix it, is ignorance.

Your "claim", that Obama is doing great based on the other category in the chart is laughable. The chart is a projection not a actual spending, only the current year is real numbers. Not passing a budget for the past 3 years might be your idea of doing a good job, it is not mine.

RAF - is that directed at me?

Gandalf, I agree completely with you on your last post but you NEED to include Democrats in that blame as well, they have had there hands in increasing spending just as much if not more than the GOP. This whole fiscal cliff thing is just a distraction as to the real looming disaster on the horizon, this will be a walk in the park when the dollar becomes worthless and inflation skyrockets, it is where we are headed with our current path and nobody willing to address it.

The ignornant are so blind...

Ok people. Confession time from me and why I really need the national leaders to avoid this fiscal cliff.

I had a pretty good job with a high five figure income. My house was paid for (inherited it), had good investments that made me some money and I had some credit card debt that I was paying down. In 2007 I made a bad move. I bought a new Mustang that was fun and I needed reliable transportation but then I also bought a ’57 T-Bird that I really didn’t need (collector’s car). I bought these on credit. I don’t have a garage so they sit outside and I didn’t take care of them so now I can’t really sell them – kind of stuck with them. I left my job that helped me to be able to pay for these and took a low wage job that was low stress and close to home to allow me to have a better stress free life. I was not too concerned about my debt obviously. I never considered that my house would need some maintenance which it does now – a new furnace and a roof. I still have my investments which are doing well now even though I took a real hit in 2008. I cannot afford for the markets to take a hit if we go over the fiscal cliff as I will lose more of my income. I don’t know how many others are in my place and don’t know what to do. Any advice?

You know RAF, even though this chart is from a right wing blog, it is pretty telling of what is going on.

- Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCares, CHIP is growing the most rapidly. There are a couple of solutions – 1) defund it and let the recipients suffer or die or 2) address the cost of medical care in our nation (the basis of the cost of the above programs) which is WAY out of control. Fixing this major problem will benefit all of us in multiple ways.

- Social Security – is not growing all that much over the period of time so why are the Tea Party Republican Party so bent on defunding this?

- Net interest – so why are we letting this grow so rapidly? Lets get some revenue to pay down debt like we did under Clinton. Why are you fighting that so much? If you have debt, you are going to have interest. Typically the larger the debt, the larger the interest payment that is due.

- Other – it certainly looks like Obama has been doing quite well in this area which is contrary to what we heard from the Tea Party Republicans (Obama haters). How about a little honesty for a change?

The facts are hard for some to understand.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/26/char...

donnaw, You forgot to mention that Obama gave Myanmar 170 million dollars on his recent visit. Total fiscal irresponsibility.

Obama says, "yeah we'll have some spending cuts later, much later. First we must raise taxes. Let's see, what new projects can we spend those increases on." The govt takes in $5 billion a day and spends $11 billion. Sounds like good fiscal policy to me! NOT ! Where are his spending cuts? He doesn't talk about that part of the equation. Just taxes, taxes, and more taxes. Wait til Obamacare fully kicks in with all the added taxes and fees.

Gandalf the current presidents plan is more taxes, with FUTURE (unspecified) cuts combined with MORE spending; tax and spend sounds familiar ehh. Are you ignoring his plan?

Manufactured crisis? With only one party at fault? The delusions continue....

The fed has been PUMPING money, after they print it, during the current QE1, 2, 3...never ending, this combined with external selling of bonds to the tune of 40 cents on every dollar the current admin spends. That would be the same admin that has seen to it no budget has been set for the last three years. Why no budget? Simple. If they did spending would be reduced. The current artificial baseline, which all spending is automatically increased, created by never removing the stimulus spending would never make it in a new budget. Even reducing that would have a marginal impact, as current spending is still beyond a TINY stimulus of over than 800 billion. History of what causes most countries to fail, great and small, is very telling, debt. The current approach is much like the lefts view on socialism, the fact it has failed before is not a deterrent, blind ignorance leads many to think it has just not been done right YET.

The signs are very clear to see, there are many...here is just one.
"Social Security Ran $47.8B Deficit in FY 2012; Disabled Workers Hit New Record in December: 8,827,795"

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/social-s...

"Government failure" can be viewed at debtclock.org. It is extremely simple and self explanatory.

Right, Retiredairforce...and you alone, an anonymous commenter on the Janesville Gazette website, have found the true path out of the fiscal wilderness? funny. Dems and Repubs math may be fuzzy, but you do realize that all economic theory is fuzzy? We don't live in a gold standard world.
This is a manufactured crisis, largely by the Republicans, to push the point that government fails, by making sure, to the best of their ability, that government fails.
Demand is the driver of any economy, and tax revenues sharply fell because demand fell. By all means, lets cut spending. We can cut half of the military budget today, and still spend more than any other country on the planet. That's job #1, and will never happen.
I'm still waiting for the supply side Jesus to come and be our savior.

The lefts ability to do math is funny. Erasing all tax levels even back to the insane amount from the 1950's wouldn't produce enough confiscated revenue to cover spending for a single year, let alone have a chance to start paying down the debt. The problem has always been spending, yet for some reason the class warfare cries from the msdnc crowd only want to take (redistribute). They have no idea what it would really take to make a true difference and fix the economic issues the two party system has created during the last 6 decades.

Someone finally told the president, "we have a problem". Or, is this a John McCain moment, and the president is returning to Washington to save us in this time of national emergency?

janesvillean:
You should be happy going over the cliff, being a proud member of the left. The evil Bush tax breaks will all be reset to what they were prior to him cutting them for everyone. Big cuts will be made to the military, something the left has always advocated. I'm surprised you'd be against it. It's quite clear that you just like to assign blame. Have some stones, and join the crowd to advocate going over it! Let the evil Republicans take all the blame, as you all on the left all so believe they will. It should be the end of the party when the economy tanks, right? And who cares if we go into recession. Like the whole pyramid scheme isn't going to completely implode eventually anyway, if we don't go over it.

There is no such thing as the "fiscal cliff". It's time for us to pay our debt. End of story.

The "fiscal cliff" was always an artificial deadline created by the Republicans. If we go over the "cliff" (it's more like a gradual slope, due to the timing), it will likely cause a recession. Good job, Republicans! Wrecking the economy is sport to you guys.

GWB took far more vacation than Obama.

A massive snow storm is also heading out to the east coast. These clowns might not even be able to fly back in!! PERFECT TIMING!!
With any luck this thing goes over the cliff!
Keep your fingers crossed.

Wait, the repubs have done so much.....ROTFLMAO

Thank God King Barry's cutting his vacation short so he can get back to disecting the country again.... I feel so much more confident now.

"The Ones"entire first term has been a vacation.

There is no way the President or any member of Congress should of ever left Washington. They should of been doing the job they were elected to do.