Spread the Wealth.

RickySlade · Post by **RickySlade** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:59 am

I either tip really well, or I don't tip at all. The former is usually the case, but the latter happens more than it should.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:53 pm

I thought this thread was gonna be about all the debt the baby boomers amassed and now expect my generation and our kids and grandkids to pay. That's an obscene redistribution of wealth.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:11 pm

I thought this thread was gonna be about all the debt the baby boomers amassed and now expect my generation and our kids and grandkids to pay. That's an obscene redistribution of wealth.

It's kind of crazy to think that we will be redistributing our wealth to generations who spent it already.

Along those lines, check out next year's proposed budget, graphically represented:

Note that this represents just discretionary spending, the funding for which comes from your income tax money. It doesn't include social security, medicare or medicaid, which is funded through separate "payroll" taxes.

Also, this is merely the budget requested by President Bush. Congress will of course make changes, but I would gather that they are going to increase the budget, not decrease it.

You can buy this is a poster from here.

wpfox16 · Post by **wpfox16** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:33 pm

Doc,

That poster is badass... I think I'm just going to get lost in it for the next hour.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:28 pm

Well, this example is ridiculous. The waiter in your example makes, at most, $30,000 a year (and that would be working more than 40/hrs a week). Under Obama's plan, which I assume is what you're no-so-subtly alluding to, only those making over $250,000 a year would see their taxes raised. Under Obama's Earned Income Tax Credit (conceived under that socialist Gerald Ford), which again I am assuming you are alluding to, only those who already work (but make very little) would see this wealth being "spread." Additionally, the upper level brackets would only be raised to the level they were under that socialist Ronald Reagan. Only two Presidents have had lower upper level tax brackets since income tax was first levied federally under the 16th amendment: George W. Bush, and George H.W. Bush.
a serious question johnny - if you were making $250,001 per year....would you like that plan?
Like Eric said, I would be paying 3% more on the one dollar I made over 250,000... I think I could handle it. In fact, if you know of anyone hiring someone of my qualifications for that salary, I would gladly shoulder the burden.

respectfully johnny...you say that now...i guarantee you aint saying that if and when you do get there....trust me.
I don't know, Rad. My sister and her husband make well over 250k a year and have an ungodly amount of money in the market, but they are still some of the most staunch democrats you will ever find. I'm not sure I'll ever change in that regard.

i'm not suggesting anyone change their beliefs based on their income...i'm just saying that i don't think you'd be so 'matter of fact' if you were on the giving end of the equation...it's easy to say it now...but if/when you get there, i'd bet your views change....not saying your political beliefs mind you...just your view on redistribution of wealth

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:21 pm

I was talking to our business accountant the other day and I had no idea where he stood on all this election stuff. He is a devout Jewish guy so I figured he could go either way, but I asked anyway about the taxes on our small business if Obama gets elected. I said, we're okay now because we haven't made a profit of over $250K a year yet. His immediate answer was "if you think that $250K number is not going to go down DRASTICALLY, you're nuts." He said that Clinton made the same kind of promise when campaigning and almost immediately raised taxes on the middle class.

I will sort of be relieved when all the campaigning and promising part is over with...I really think it will be quite surprising once we realize that either Obama is not going to be able to keep his promises OR he is going to end up raising everyone's taxes. Doing the math, I can't figure out how it will work otherwise.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:40 pm

You can do the same math for McCain. Neither of them have proposed a balanced budget.

That money and new spending is going to come from somewhere.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:45 pm

McCain and Palin have promised to balance the budget and I'm sure that is unlikely, so good point. But when it comes to raising taxes to pay for promises made I would bet the farm that it would be more likely to happen under Obama than McCain. Oh well, I guess we won't be expanding our business over the next four years, that's all. Good for me...less stress.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:53 pm

are you serious al?

you're purposely dead setting yourself against expansion the next 4 years?

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:05 pm

McCain and Palin have promised to balance the budget and I'm sure that is unlikely, so good point. But when it comes to raising taxes to pay for promises made I would bet the farm that it would be more likely to happen under Obama than McCain. Oh well, I guess we won't be expanding our business over the next four years, that's all. Good for me...less stress.

I don't care what they have promised. The numbers don't add up. Factcheck.org is a great site

Both candidates got ahead of themselves when it came to balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit. Obama said every one of his spending increases was paid for.

Obama: Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. ... Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches.

McCain said he could balance the budget within one term.

Schieffer: Do either of you think you can balance the budget in four years? You have said previously you thought you could, Sen. McCain.
McCain: Sure I do. And let me tell you...
Schieffer: You can still do that?
McCain: Yes.

These are pie-in-the-sky predictions. We've looked at McCain's balanced-budget promise before – it's out of reach unless he cuts spending to an unrealistic degree. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that by 2013, at the end of his first term, McCain's tax plan would have him facing a $662 billion deficit. That could come to more than half of that year's discretionary spending, which the Office of Management and Budget projects to be $1.1 trillion. And we've previously disputed Obama's claim that "every dime" of his proposed spending is covered. The Tax Policy Center estimated that Obama’s plan – and McCain's, too – "would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years" unless the candidates come up with "substantial cuts in government spending" that they haven't yet specified. More recently, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget also estimated that in 2013, Obama’s major budget proposals – including spending cuts – would increase the deficit for that year by $281 billion.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:19 pm

Neither one will balance the budget, and neither one should be responsible for it, as the House controls all spending. Of course, Obama would have a better chance since he will have a majority in Congress just as Bush had a chance when he had a majority. But balancing the budget hasn't seriously been on the table for any politician for decades.

It's impossible to really predict tax revenues. Logically, a strong economy will produce high revenues and a weak one will produce low revenues. The problem is that no one knows what kind of economy is coming down the pike.

So policy-makers have a balancing act when it comes to tax rates. Too low during a strong economy will result in a less-than-optimal revenue to the gub'ment. Too high during a weak economy and you make a bad situation worse by making it more difficult for businesses to buy and sell (and to hire!).

I'm sure taxes have some marginal effect on the economy itself. I think it makes sense to lower rates when you fear a weak economy. Likewise, I think it makes sense to raise taxes when businesses are booming.

And so, since you can't really predict future revenues, the government's main role should be to control its expenditures. That's something that no man - War Hero or Messiah - can accomplish.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:20 pm

Well, this example is ridiculous. The waiter in your example makes, at most, $30,000 a year (and that would be working more than 40/hrs a week). Under Obama's plan, which I assume is what you're no-so-subtly alluding to, only those making over $250,000 a year would see their taxes raised. Under Obama's Earned Income Tax Credit (conceived under that socialist Gerald Ford), which again I am assuming you are alluding to, only those who already work (but make very little) would see this wealth being "spread." Additionally, the upper level brackets would only be raised to the level they were under that socialist Ronald Reagan. Only two Presidents have had lower upper level tax brackets since income tax was first levied federally under the 16th amendment: George W. Bush, and George H.W. Bush.
a serious question johnny - if you were making $250,001 per year....would you like that plan?
Like Eric said, I would be paying 3% more on the one dollar I made over 250,000... I think I could handle it. In fact, if you know of anyone hiring someone of my qualifications for that salary, I would gladly shoulder the burden.

respectfully johnny...you say that now...i guarantee you aint saying that if and when you do get there....trust me.
I don't know, Rad. My sister and her husband make well over 250k a year and have an ungodly amount of money in the market, but they are still some of the most staunch democrats you will ever find. I'm not sure I'll ever change in that regard.

any btw - you really think your sister and your brother-in-law make over 250K?

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:29 pm

Neither one will balance the budget, and neither one should be responsible for it, as the House controls all spending. Of course, Obama would have a better chance since he will have a majority in Congress just as Bush had a chance when he had a majority. But balancing the budget hasn't seriously been on the table for any politician for decades.

It's impossible to really predict tax revenues. Logically, a strong economy will produce high revenues and a weak one will produce low revenues. The problem is that no one knows what kind of economy is coming down the pike.

So policy-makers have a balancing act when it comes to tax rates. Too low during a strong economy will result in a less-than-optimal revenue to the gub'ment. Too high during a weak economy and you make a bad situation worse by making it more difficult for businesses to buy and sell (and to hire!).

I'm sure taxes have some marginal effect on the economy itself. I think it makes sense to lower rates when you fear a weak economy. Likewise, I think it makes sense to raise taxes when businesses are booming.

And so, since you can't really predict future revenues, the government's main role should be to control its expenditures. That's something that no man - War Hero or Messiah - can accomplish.

Didn't Clinton balance it and leave a surplus? I am not being argumentative but I seem to remember that happening. Please correct me if I am wrong.

wpfox16 · Post by **wpfox16** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:44 pm

a serious question johnny - if you were making $250,001 per year....would you like that plan?
Like Eric said, I would be paying 3% more on the one dollar I made over 250,000... I think I could handle it. In fact, if you know of anyone hiring someone of my qualifications for that salary, I would gladly shoulder the burden.

respectfully johnny...you say that now...i guarantee you aint saying that if and when you do get there....trust me.
I don't know, Rad. My sister and her husband make well over 250k a year and have an ungodly amount of money in the market, but they are still some of the most staunch democrats you will ever find. I'm not sure I'll ever change in that regard.

any btw - you really think your sister and your brother-in-law make over 250K?

Yeah... My Brother-in-law is a venture capitalist and my sister is a Ph.D epidemiologist and works for companies like Shell oil. The crazy thing is how old money my bro in law is... His Great Grandfather was attorney general of the United States under Woodrow Wilson (Thomas Watt Gregory. The gym at the University of Texas is named after the dude. The other side his family was in on the ground floor at Exxon... Crazy shizzle.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:46 pm

forgot you had another sister...thought you were referring to the beaconites...apologies.

wpfox16 · Post by **wpfox16** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:53 pm

forgot you had another sister...thought you were referring to the beaconites...apologies.

Oh god, no! Kara and Steve will probably be recipients of Obama's Earned Income Tax Credit!! haha. Kara's a teacher in Harlem and Steve is a Defensive Line coach at Marist... They're just making it, god love 'em.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:20 pm

Didn't Clinton balance it and leave a surplus? I am not being argumentative but I seem to remember that happening. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Nope. There's a good explanation here.

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intergovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intergovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:

{TABLE OMITTED}

Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intergovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intergovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the lie.

When Clinton (and others) said that he had paid down the national debt, that was patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings.

Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intergovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intergovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.

The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:28 pm

Just so I'm clear here: Clinton came closer to actually having a surplus than any other President since Nixon.

He had the good fortune of a robust economy during his entire 8 years in office and his tax increases went into effect during his first couple of years in office. It's no surprise, then, that government revenues were pretty high.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:31 pm

I can't see how it could be that hard to balance the budget. All they have to do is say no. I realize that is hard for a politician to do but if the money ain't there, it ain't there.

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:49 pm

Eric, that is one of the things that I've liked that Obama said. He said in the 2nd debate that the government needs to be more of a lead by example when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Before he said that I had stated I was going to vote for the first candidate that said something to that effect.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:54 pm

I can't see how it could be that hard to balance the budget. All they have to do is say no. I realize that is hard for a politician to do but if the money ain't there, it ain't there.

The problem is that to the government, money isn't a finite resource like it is to you and me.

Don't have the money in the discretionary fund? Borrow it from Social Security!

Can't borrow from SS? Issue bonds! We're good for it! We're the United States of Fucking America! Print more money!

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:01 pm

AND...................the united states of america (or any other gov't and/or municipality) can RAISE TAXES on it's constituents to cover it's debt to debt holders.....a similar rated AAA rated corporation can not.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:19 pm

I can't see how it could be that hard to balance the budget. All they have to do is say no. I realize that is hard for a politician to do but if the money ain't there, it ain't there.
The problem is that to the government, money isn't a finite resource like it is to you and me.

Maybe it should be. But once again, none of these politicians know the meaning of the word no.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:05 pm

AND...................the united states of america (or any other gov't and/or municipality) can RAISE TAXES on it's constituents to cover it's debt to debt holders.....a similar rated AAA rated corporation can not.

Which is exactly why our government can be technically insolvent while maintaining the scheme. So we give them power to be totally irresponsible. Therein lies a glaring flaw in our current governmental scheme. It's structural. Of course, it also is the root cause of the economic lurches we seem to experience every 8 years or so and the dislocations every 20 years or so. Why? Because of the massive economically incorrect choices allowed by our system.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:09 pm

(love it when AA chimes in....LOVE IT!!!!!)

ANY gov't, municipality, and/or taxing agency can be technically insolvent while maintaining the scheme...what scheme then would you suggest to remedy the 8 to 20 year issues this current scheme does have?