10 Steps to Defeat Boehner

[StrangeSox]

And why is it that with every thing that someone brings up on here to cut or fix to save money, the argument is always "Well, it's only XXX% of the problem, so that wont matter" It ALL matters. Drops add up. There is no magic bullet that will fix everything in one swoop. Take the changes where you can. Just doon't stop with only a few 'drops'. 1% here, 3% there, .5% in several other places, you start making dents that matter. The "Oh, it's only..." argument really is weak.

 

Well, it's more to point out that cutting welfare or "pork" isn't actually going to fix the budget, even though it's presented as a panacea. They're relatively tiny parts of the budget, so focusing so heavily on them to get the thing balanced does not make sense.

 

Here's the discretionary budget for 2009, which is roughly 1/3 of the total budget:

 

And compared to the total budget for 2008:

[caulfield12]

Conservatives are all racist white people who hate minorities and f**s! They want to keep as much money as possible and game the system however they can! They do everything in their power to find loop holes and tax shelters, and still b**** about taxes! They trick gullible middle and lower class whites into supporting their largess and voting for policies that actively hurt their own situation while benefiting the rich!

 

See, we can all come up with ridiculous, stupid, unproductive stereotypes.

 

 

F--- the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and Rupert Murdoch, lol.

 

Actually, it's quite genius, to convince the middle class that trickle down economics will actually create jobs and stimulate the economy.

 

Well, I guess if we just wipe out every regulatory agency the "free market" will regulate itself and...oops!!!

[Balta1701]

And why is it that with every thing that someone brings up on here to cut or fix to save money, the argument is always "Well, it's only XXX% of the problem, so that wont matter" It ALL matters. Drops add up. There is no magic bullet that will fix everything in one swoop. Take the changes where you can. Just doon't stop with only a few 'drops'. 1% here, 3% there, .5% in several other places, you start making dents that matter. The "Oh, it's only..." argument really is weak.

In reality, there are 2, maybe 3 magic bullets that will fix everything in one fell swoop.

 

1. Medical costs grow at the rate of inflation rather than at 10% annually.

2. Getting the economy back to normal rates of employment and growth

 

3. (The maybe) letting the Tax cuts expire.

 

If you care about the long-term deficit, you kind of have to care about #3. The Affordable care act took a slice out of #1, although there's still more to go. #2 doesn't seem to interest anyone making policy. #3...well, if you let them expire, by 2013-2014, the budget is balanced.

[NorthSideSox72]

In reality, there are 2, maybe 3 magic bullets that will fix everything in one fell swoop.

 

1. Medical costs grow at the rate of inflation rather than at 10% annually.

2. Getting the economy back to normal rates of employment and growth

 

3. (The maybe) letting the Tax cuts expire.

 

If you care about the long-term deficit, you kind of have to care about #3. The Affordable care act took a slice out of #1, although there's still more to go. #2 doesn't seem to interest anyone making policy. #3...well, if you let them expire, by 2013-2014, the budget is balanced.

LOL @ bolded. Seriously, every politician wants job growth, because no growth means their jobs are on the line. Its a question of how to do it, and an understanding that government can't be the creator of enough jobs to power out of a recession. It has to set the table for private industry to do most of it.

 

[Balta1701]

LOL @ bolded. Seriously, every politician wants job growth, because no growth means their jobs are on the line. Its a question of how to do it, and an understanding that government can't be the creator of enough jobs to power out of a recession. It has to set the table for private industry to do most of it.

(that was deliberate hyperbole...but I think both sides of the aisle would agree. My side wants the government to get out and build things. The other side wants less regulation...basically, both sides can offer arguments that a big problem right now in creating job growth is happening at the government level).

[Balta1701]

I caught this piece from earlier this year this morning and it made me think of the 50% tax quote from earlier in this thread.

The first question that was asked concerned the size of government. Tea partiers were asked how much the federal government gets in taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product. According to Congressional Budget Office data, acceptable answers would be 6.4%, which is the percentage for federal income taxes; 12.7%, which would be for both income taxes and Social Security payroll taxes; or 14.8%, which would represent all federal taxes as a share of GDP in 2009.

 

Not everyone follows these numbers closely and tea partiers may have been thinking of figures from a few years ago, before the recession when taxes were higher. According to the CBO, the highest figure for all federal taxes since 1970 came in the year 2000, when they reached 20.6% of GDP. As we know, after that George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress cut federal taxes and they fell to 18.5% of GDP in 2007, before the recession hit, and 17.5% in 2008.

 

Tuesday's tea party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times higher than they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median was 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944.

 

To follow up, tea partiers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710 and the median was $10,000. In percentage terms, this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.

 

Of course, it's hard to know what any particular individual or family pays in taxes, but according to the IRS tax tables, a single person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669.

 

But these numbers are high because to have a taxable income of $50,000, one's gross income would be higher by at least the personal exemption, which is $3,650, and the standard deduction, which is $5,700 for single people and $11,400 for married couples. Owning a home or having children would reduce one's tax burden further.

 

According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%.

 

Even though the tea partiers were specifically asked about federal income taxes, it's possible that they were thinking about other federal taxes as well, such as payroll and excise taxes. According to the JCT, when all federal taxes are included, those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average tax rate of 12.3%, and those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay a rate of 14.5%.

 

In short, no matter how one slices the data, the tea party crowd appear to believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are, whether referring to total taxes as a share of GDP or in terms of the taxes paid by a typical family.

 

Tea party goers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.

[Controlled Chaos]

BTW I've gradually worked into the tax brackets where I really start to feel the pinch and here's my opinion on that... the truth is, if your taxes are killing your finances or otherwise putting a painful dent in your budget, you really suck at managing finances. Some people who make $120k or so need a reality check on what's essential to their life and what's really going to hurt if they didn't have it. They aren't as rich as they like to think they are but they probably live in a neighborhood in the suburbs next to someone who makes $1M or whatever, and their kids go to the same school, etc.

 

Stuff that is essential to virtually everyone and most people struggle to pay month to month (in this order):

Mortgage

Car Payment

Groceries

Utilities

Insurance (health, auto, homeowners etc)

Phone/Internet/Cable

Home security system (if it can be afforded)

 

Stuff that some yuppies in my tax bracket think falls into the above category but the vast majority of people see as a luxury:

Sending kids to private school

Putting a significant amount into savings every month (like 20%. This is NOT an expense)

529 for kids' college

Landscaper and/or maid

Annual vacation

Home improvement

 

You get the idea but it's always like "if my taxes go up (like... a couple of percent) I won't be able to go to Europe next year while I do all these other things! Seriously now. None are as entitled as those who were born into privilege. Tell that to my parents 15 years ago when they were working just as hard but making 1/4 that, they'd have LOVED to have a problem like that.

It's boggling you don't see how arrogant this is. Just who the hell do you think you are to decide what is essential to someone.

[Rex Kickass]

It's boggling you don't see how arrogant this is. Just who the hell do you think you are to decide what is essential to someone.

 

Funny, I tend to think the same thing when someone says the same about someone on some form of assistance.

[Chisoxfn]

You sound kind of like a Democrat here... lol

How so?

[Jenksismyhero]

Conservatives are all racist white people who hate minorities and f**s! They want to keep as much money as possible and game the system however they can! They do everything in their power to find loop holes and tax shelters, and still b**** about taxes! They trick gullible middle and lower class whites into supporting their largess and voting for policies that actively hurt their own situation while benefiting the rich!

 

See, we can all come up with ridiculous, stupid, unproductive stereotypes.

 

What's hilarious about this is that everything I've read of yours on this board indicates that's exactly what you think.

[StrangeSox]

What's hilarious about this is that everything I've read of yours on this board indicates that's exactly what you think.

 

Oh I'm sorry, those two paragraphs weren't related.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Those 30,000,000 people without insurance obviously don't deserve it. See, our economy is really just a sorting algorithm for human value. Poor? Can't afford medicine? Well, you probably did something to deserve that!

I've tried to think this out as a life long, social conservative Christian who has more liberal tendencies when it comes to government. Jesus taught "love your neighbor as yourself". He taught to help the poor and lame. He taught parables about the rich who hoard their money. The bible says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

But all I hear from these so called evangelical neo-cons is that people with money (those who can afford health care worth having) deserve priority over those who have nothing. I hate the argument that Universal Healthcare will create long lines and people will die while waiting for care. What they are saying, without saying it, is that people WITH good insurance deserve the care MORE than those who don't have it. If you cant afford insurance, then screw you, you're not worthy.

[StrangeSox]

I've tried to think this out as a life long, social conservative Christian who has more liberal tendencies when it comes to government. Jesus taught "love your neighbor as yourself". He taught to help the poor and lame. He taught parables about the rich who hoard their money. The bible says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

But all I hear from these so called evangelical neo-cons is that people with money (those who can afford health care worth having) deserve priority over those who have nothing. I hate the argument that Universal Healthcare will create long lines and people will die while waiting for care. What they are saying, without saying it, is that people WITH good insurance deserve the care MORE than those who don't have it. If you cant afford insurance, then screw you, you're not worthy.

 

Well, there's prosperity theology, which I find pretty abhorrent.

 

But, basically, you find people using religious doctrines (or treating things like the Constitution as religious doctrines) to justify their pre-existing biases and beliefs, not to form their beliefs and morals and ethics. Everyone is guilty of confirmation bias to some degree, but some take it a wee bit farther than others.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Well, there's prosperity theology, which I find pretty abhorrent.

 

But, basically, you find people using religious doctrines (or treating things like the Constitution as religious doctrines) to justify their pre-existing biases and beliefs, not to form their beliefs and morals and ethics. Everyone is guilty of confirmation bias to some degree, but some take it a wee bit farther than others.

Anyone who believes in prosperity theology has clearly never read the bible.

[Soxbadger]

No, Democrats give away other people's money. And then the ones in power do everythign they can to avoid paying their fair share, while trying to make everyone else feel guilty for not thanking the government for taking what they do.

 

Yep Democrats give away other peoples money.

 

There are no Democrats that pay taxes, there are no Democrats in the highest tax bracket.

 

I know you werent joking, but I am truly saddened that you can believe something that is so unbelievably false. Im pretty sure on this board I ran some numbers and showed that Democratic states pay a larger percentage of taxes than Republican states, and thus Democrats end up giving away their money to pay for Republicans.

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

 

For example, in 2005 the Democratic state of Illinois paid more taxes to the Federal Govt than it received (99,776 >80,778). Other states that paid more than they received, California, NY.

 

Now lets look at some Republican states, South Carolina received more than it paid, TN received more than it paid, VA received more than it paid, Mississippi received more than it paid.

 

It seems to me that there is absolutely no facts to support the idea that Democrat's give other peoples money away, when the facts show that Republican's are the ones who receive more govt hand outs than they pay for.

 

Kind of a peculiar fact. NV is the only "Republican" state who actually pays more to the govt than they receive, yet its the Democrats who are "getting a free ride". Gimme a break.

 

I actually would find it hilarious if they got rid of most federal taxes, because half of those Republican states would lose tens of millions of dollars in funds that come from Democrat states.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Yep Democrats give away other peoples money.

 

There are no Democrats that pay taxes, there are no Democrats in the highest tax bracket.

 

I know you werent joking, but I am truly saddened that you can believe something that is so unbelievably false. Im pretty sure on this board I ran some numbers and showed that Democratic states pay a larger percentage of taxes than Republican states, and thus Democrats end up giving away their money to pay for Republicans.

 

For example, in 2005 the Democratic state of Illinois paid more taxes to the Federal Govt than it received (99,776 >80,778). Other states that paid more than they received, California, NY.

 

Now lets look at some Republican states, South Carolina received more than it paid, TN received more than it paid, VA received more than it paid, Mississippi received more than it paid.

 

It seems to me that there is absolutely no facts to support the idea that Democrat's give other peoples money away, when the facts show that Republican's are the ones who receive more govt hand outs than they pay for.

 

Kind of a peculiar fact. NV is the only "Republican" state who actually pays more to the govt than they receive, yet its the Democrats who are "getting a free ride". Gimme a break.

 

I actually would find it hilarious if they got rid of most federal taxes, because half of those Republican states would lose tens of millions of dollars in funds that come from Democrat states.

 

There's no room for rational dialog when you don't even know what the opposing viewpoints[/] (not just D vs. R) are. How many people who rant about communists and Marxism have ever read anything written by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, or, hell, even guys like Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, von Mises, etc?

[StrangeSox]

Anyone who believes in prosperity theology has clearly never read the bible.

 

Yeah, it's clearly post hoc justification for their materialism, at least from my viewpoint.

[Jenksismyhero]

I've tried to think this out as a life long, social conservative Christian who has more liberal tendencies when it comes to government. Jesus taught "love your neighbor as yourself". He taught to help the poor and lame. He taught parables about the rich who hoard their money. The bible says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

But all I hear from these so called evangelical neo-cons is that people with money (those who can afford health care worth having) deserve priority over those who have nothing. I hate the argument that Universal Healthcare will create long lines and people will die while waiting for care. What they are saying, without saying it, is that people WITH good insurance deserve the care MORE than those who don't have it. If you cant afford insurance, then screw you, you're not worthy.

 

The US is still the most charitable country in the world, and it's not even close. So I think we do a pretty good job of helping/looking out for others.

 

[Soxbadger]

Just because people arent as well versed in political theory doesnt mean they cant have rational dialogue.

 

You just hope that when people are presented with facts that they can objectively view them and some times realize what they thought was true, may not be true.

[Balta1701]

The US is still the most charitable country in the world, and it's not even close. So I think we do a pretty good job of helping/looking out for others.

It depends on how you count charitable. The U.S. gives the most but the U.S. is also the wealthiest by far. When you ratio the total amount given to indicators of how wealthy the nation is, the U.S. drops significantly down the list.

[Jenksismyhero]

It depends on how you count charitable. The U.S. gives the most but the U.S. is also the wealthiest by far. When you ratio the total amount given to indicators of how wealthy the nation is, the U.S. drops significantly down the list.

 

I bet if taxes and other costs of living weren't so high people could provide more!

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

I bet if taxes and other costs of living weren't so high people could provide more!

Probably true. Assuming you're talking about those Socialist Swedes.

[caulfield12]

It depends on how you count charitable. The U.S. gives the most but the U.S. is also the wealthiest by far. When you ratio the total amount given to indicators of how wealthy the nation is, the U.S. drops significantly down the list.

 

 

But does that study take into consideration charitable donations to churches, which is a HUGE percentage of total charitable giving in the US?

 

I haven't looked at the methodology, but it LOOKS like from the title that it's talking about donations/assistance to NGO's, or possibly organizations like US AID?

 

I guess it depends on the definition of "development assistance."

 

 

To qualify as official development assistance (ODA), a contribution must contain three elements: 1.) be undertaken by the official sector (that is, a government or government agency); 2.) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and 3.) at concessional financial terms (that is, with favorable loan terms.) Thus, by definition, ODA does not include private donations.

 

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the countries giving the highest amounts of money (in absolute terms) are as follows:[1]

 

1. United States - $28.67 billion

2. France - $12.43 billion

3. Germany - $11.98 billion

4. United Kingdom - $11.50 billion

5. Japan - $9.48 billion

6. Spain - $6.57 billion

7. Netherlands - $6.43 billion

8. Sweden - $4.55 billion

9. Norway - $4.09 billion

10. Canada - $4.01 billion

 

 

 

According to The NonProfit Times, Americans donated $240.92 billion to charity during 2002, up 1 percent from 2001. Total giving represented 2.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). It has remained above 2 percent since 1999. Corporate donations grew 10.5 percent (8.8 percent when adjusted for inflation) from the revised 2001 estimate of $11.03 billion (The NonProfit Times, Posted July 1, 2003).

 

Donations from living individuals remained the largest portion of the giving pie, representing more than 76 percent of all giving. Donations by foundations (not including corporate foundations) experienced a 1.2 percent decline (-2.7 after adjusting for inflation). Donations to foundations fell even more dropping an estimated 14.3 percent (-15.6 percent after inflation.) (ibid).

 

The single largest sector that received donations were religious organizations. They received $84.28 billion, representing 35 percent of the total estimated giving in 2002. The next largest sector remained educational institutions, though donations to such organizations decreased 1.1 percent (dropping 2.6 percent after inflation). Education represented 13.1 percent of all estimated donations (ibid).

 

The third were health organizations. Fourth were human services which represented 7.7 percent of donations. 5) Arts and cultural organizations, 6) Public-society benefit organizations, 7) Environmental organizations, 8) International affairs (e.g. peace and human rights organizations) (ibid). Figure 7 below gives a summary of where the donations went.

Edited November 5, 2010 by caulfield12

[EvilMonkey]

Yep Democrats give away other peoples money.

 

There are no Democrats that pay taxes, there are no Democrats in the highest tax bracket.

 

I know you werent joking, but I am truly saddened that you can believe something that is so unbelievably false.

Yes, the over-the-topness is for reaction sake. But how many members of Obama's admin and the house and senate were found to have not paid taxes over the last 2 years? And not because they had massive deductions, but because they 'forgot', or because they outright lied to the IRS? There was a stretch there where every damn appointment he made owed back taxes. Kerry gets caught trying to duck taxes on his damn boat, but the taxes are good enough for the average mand to pay. My statements referred to the politicians, ALL of whom like to spend other peoples money, some more than others, to make themselves feel better. But lately, the ones not wanting to also pay thier share have had a D after their name.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, the over-the-topness is for reaction sake. But how many members of Obama's admin and the house and senate were found to have not paid taxes over the last 2 years? And not because they had massive deductions, but because they 'forgot', or because they outright lied to the IRS? There was a stretch there where every damn appointment he made owed back taxes. Kerry gets caught trying to duck taxes on his damn boat, but the taxes are good enough for the average mand to pay. My statements referred to the politicians, ALL of whom like to spend other peoples money, some more than others, to make themselves feel better. But lately, the ones not wanting to also pay thier share have had a D after their name.

 

The wealthy are the ones in charge and rig the system for their own benefit. This is not shocking, and this applies to just about all politicians everywhere.