347 replies to this topic

[concert andy]

And ~47% pay nothing. It's the same side of the same coin.

Not sure that is accurate. I think it was ~47% are on some type of government entitlement, what I believe Romney was referring too.

I think that is different.

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm referring to federal income tax.

[concert andy]

But this is an all time high, this is not the norm. We are trying to get back to a normal place, and the fiscal cliff could increase this instead of decrease.

Hence why I am for workable solutions to our current situation.

PS. I am all for fiscal responsibility, but that is an oxymoran in our current system.

[TakeAStepBack]

But this is an all time high, this is not the norm. We are trying to get back to a normal place, and the fiscal cliff could increase this instead of decrease.

Hence why I am for workable solutions to our current situation.

PS. I am all for fiscal responsibility, but that is an oxymoran in our current system.

Based on the graph, it looks like a pretty steady increase in the amount of folks not paying into federal income tax. I'm not sure what a "norm" would be based on that graph. It's a nice steady increase with a few flux periods.

As for this normal place, how do we get there? Is increasing the tax burden on the rch going to increase the number of people paing in? Is govt. stimulus ( such as for instance Krugman's idea to prepare for a fake alien invasion) going to do it? If so, how much spending and how long will that artificial boom have to last? We did 800 billion in stimulus a few years ago and it didn't do anything. The federal reserve has been stimulating through asset purchases (money "printing") for the last few years and even ramped up that effort with QE3. But it seems like a fleeting success.

How to we get a workable solution to the problem if fiscal responisbility is an oxymoron? That sounds like a self defeated purpose right from the gate. I'm just trying to understand where you come from on this.

[concert andy]

Based on the graph, it looks like a pretty steady increase in the amount of folks not paying into federal income tax. I'm not sure what a "norm" would be based on that graph. It's a nice steady increase with a few flux periods.

As for this normal place, how do we get there? Is increasing the tax burden on the rch going to increase the number of people paing in? Is govt. stimulus ( such as for instance Krugman's idea to prepare for a fake alien invasion) going to do it? If so, how much spending and how long will that artificial boom have to last? We did 800 billion in stimulus a few years ago and it didn't do anything. The federal reserve has been stimulating through asset purchases (money "printing") for the last few years and even ramped up that effort with QE3. But it seems like a fleeting success.

How to we get a workable solution to the problem if fiscal responisbility is an oxymoron? That sounds like a self defeated purpose right from the gate. I'm just trying to understand where you come from on this.

Would say less than 30% since from 1960 to 1990, and since it has grown.

I blame Reagan tax cuts, because the rich are not paying the same as they used too. I say roll back the Reagan tax cuts and get out of reaganomics forever. I feel the tax burden with this tax cut led to the rich not paying their fair share, and now it sounds political to ask them to pay more. I am ok with just a small increase, the burden dropped 20% since 1980.

The oxymoran portion is the people in charge, they worry more about reelection than actually doing something to help the people, and compromise is a thing of the past. Not saying it should be, just reality of the situation.

Not sure the Stimulus was a bust since all but AIG and one other I think Citibank with interest and Detroit still has jobs, and so do I since I work for a company that accepted the bail out. But this chart may say otherwise.

I think the Dems (10 trillion) and Reps (2 Trillion) should take their two offers and compromise on a solution and meet in the middle at 5 or 6 trillion dollar decrease to the deficit over 10 years.

Not sure there is a correct solution, but I do not think blowing it all up or letting it fail is the way to go either.

[TakeAStepBack]

Would say less than 30% since from 1960 to 1990, and since it has grown.

I blame Reagan tax cuts, because the rich are not paying the same as they used too. I say roll back the Reagan tax cuts and get out of reaganomics forever. I feel the tax burden with this tax cut led to the rich not paying their fair share, and now it sounds political to ask them to pay more. I am ok with just a small increase, the burden dropped 20% since 1980.

How does the amount of taxes the rich pay in, contribute to less people overall paying federal income tax?

[concert andy]

To think that the wealth of this country lies in the pockets of republicans is partisan blindness beyond belief and only shows your agenda of, "if it hurts the republicans more, I'm for it.". Play your red vs blue politics but know that you add to the problem rather that help solve it.

Yes, I engaged, now I'm out.

I am not saying that at all. Not all republicans are rich, just the ones who speak out on behalf of the republicans are usually rich. I feel the Reps suffer from poor media representation or represent themselves less appealing to all, when many voters of Reps are not wealthy.

While the Dems parade out individuals for their cause and hide behind them like pussy's.

While there is truth to what you say and some people feel this way is awful, but some people are so passionate for their cause, they are blinded by the hypocrisies abound on both sides. Then it turns into a tit for tat, which gets us no where.

Politics are a oxymoran.

[concert andy]

Would say less than 30% since from 1960 to 1990, and since it has grown.

I blame Reagan tax cuts, because the rich are not paying the same as they used too. I say roll back the Reagan tax cuts and get out of reaganomics forever. I feel the tax burden with this tax cut led to the rich not paying their fair share, and now it sounds political to ask them to pay more. I am ok with just a small increase, the burden dropped 20% since 1980.

How does the amount of taxes the rich pay in, contribute to less people overall paying federal income tax?

If they paid in a little bit more, their would be more money for the government (to waste), which leads more jobs, and more people paying taxes, in theory.

The wealthy will still be wealthy, a little more is not going to make them go hungry.

[TakeAStepBack]

If they paid in a little bit more, their would be more money for the government (to waste), which leads more jobs, and more people paying taxes, in theory.

The wealthy will still be wealthy, a little more is not going to make them go hungry.

So, the government creates jobs by taxing the wealthy, and these jobs pay federal income tax, which raises the pool of federal income tax payers?

It sounds like grabbing a bucket of water from one end of the pool and dumping it (minus what was splahsed on the pool deck) back into the other side. It's not a wealth generating scheme, in my view, or theory. It's actually regressive, because the government taxes the same money twice, which decreases the overall pool for consumers. Even the new ones that the government created by wealth redistribution.

[TakeAStepBack]

So the money we tax from teh 1% would go toward making other jobs (building programs, etc..) instead of paying down the deficit or the debt? It all just seems like running in circles.

[concert andy]

So, the government creates jobs by taxing the wealthy, and these jobs pay federal income tax, which raises the pool of federal income tax payers?

It sounds like grabbing a bucket of water from one end of the pool and dumping it (minus what was splahsed on the pool deck) back into the other side. It's not a wealth generating scheme, in my view, or theory. It's actually regressive, because the government taxes the same money twice, which decreases the overall pool for consumers. Even the new ones that the government created by wealth redistribution.

Well the situation is pretty bad and we are in debt to our eye balls. Only way in my opinion to help is asking for a little more from people who have it. Remember the early 2000's when every celebrity thanked Bush for the extra money in tax cuts?

Obama's plan is to pay down the debt by 10 trillion dollars over ten years a nice chunk, so it would be used to pay down the debt, and stimulate the economy. Two fold solution.

The Rep propose just cut the spending and no new taxes. Over time the reduction is 2 trillion.

I lean toward paying down more, because our credit increases, and we have flexibility to stimulate the economy if needed without burdening the tax payer.

[TakeAStepBack]

That's not Obama's plan. His plan is to reduce deficits by 1.6 trillion over ten years. Asking for another 80 billion in stimulus for another round of shovel ready, and a permanent presidential authority on debt ceiling raises instead of congressional.
The republican counteroffer, would reduce it by 2.2 trillion. By making vague comments about cuts and 800 billion in tax increases through deductions and loopholes.

Neither one fully reduces the deficit for any year through the ten year cycle. And with the typical go on faith that "we'll look at spending cuts later", it's probably a fools errand to tax anyone a single fuirther cent.

[concert andy]

That's not Obama's plan. His plan is to reduce deficits by 1.4 trillion over ten years. The republican counteroffer, would reduce it by 2.2 trillion.

Neither one fully reduces the deficit for any year through the ten year cycle. And with the typical go on faith that "we'll look at spending cuts later", it's probably a fools errand to tax anyone a single fuirther cent.

Ah, I thought I read 10 trillion, that is what I would like.

I agree, there is nothing good on the table. How about cut the deficit 10 trillion.

#wishful thinking

[TakeAStepBack]

Exactly why the fiscal cliff is the best route to go. This was the negotiation that already was, not needs to be done. They made these decisions, now we should hold their feet to it and allow the tax cuts to expire for all, and let the automatic spending cuts go into effect.

[PeaceFrog]

so you're saying that attempting negotiations is a waste of time, and they shouldn't even bother trying?

that's a stellar attitude

what do we pay these people to do, then?

[TakeAStepBack]

They already negotiated these terms. As was pointed out.

I don't know what we pay these people for. i didn't vote for them. Seems to me we voted for them to collect large salaries with the best bennies on the planet and after that, fuck shit up as best they can and try to get re-elected in the process.

[PeaceFrog]

really? best bennies on the planet? I thought government couldn't do anything right? Those are government bennies, you know.

The terms were negotiated, correct. It is Republicans that are frantically trying to come to another deal before the end of the year, not Democrats.

As I've said, Democrats have more to gain by stalling.

If you'd like me to find several "liberal" articles and videos that basically support this premise, I can easily do so... I have to look no farther than Krugman and moveon.org, and maybe Huffington Post.

Another way of looking at it, though, is that the Republican party needs to be re-vamped. "Going over the fiscal cliff" will assure this to happen after the 2014 election. So, it might be good for them, too.

Trust me, I would love to have two viable candidates who are both rational enough to make it a competitive race where I have to actually decide who to vote for. A real choice would be nice. Maybe the Republican party needs to be completely burnt to the ground so they can rise from the ashes.

[TakeAStepBack]

[TakeAStepBack]

[PeaceFrog]

I know, you're still butt-hurt over Ron Paul.

I don't know what to tell you. My advice is to get over it.

[PeaceFrog]

is that bust you bought worth the scrap metal it's made of?

[TakeAStepBack]

Good advice. That's the same advice I got from the giant shit i took and flushed down the toilet this morning. Fahwoosh!

[PeaceFrog]

were you thinking about Ron Paul while taking the shit?

[PeaceFrog]

breathe in... breathe out... breathe in... breathe out.

eat, shit... eat, shit... eat, shit... it's circular thinking dammit! It's a boom and bust cycle! You gotta stop the cycle! Stop breathing and shitting... see what happens.

You breathe in, it's a boom. You breathe out, it's a bust.

expansion and contraction. spring, summer, fall, winter. planets spinning around the sun and electrons spinning around atoms. Where is eveything going? Nowhere.

[TakeAStepBack]

I always wondered how a mouthbreather can manage to think while shitting. It's a breathing technique. Thanks for clearing that up.

[PeaceFrog]

awesome. glad I could help you learn to think on the shitter.

[Joker]

so you're saying that attempting negotiations is a waste of time, and they shouldn't even bother trying?

that's a stellar attitude

what do we pay these people to do, then?

The terms were negotiated, correct. It is Republicans that are frantically trying to come to another deal before the end of the year, not Democrats.

As I've said, Democrats have more to gain by stalling.

[hoagie]

appropriate video

[PeaceFrog]

The breathing technique is actually to clear your thoughts. However, you can also concentrate them.

I'm only able to observe them as they roll in and out like the tide. without thinking or judging them. I just let them bubble up to the surface, explode then return to the source.

[PeaceFrog]

Hey Joke, why don't you take a minute or two to try and figure out what I'm saying instead of being a clown.

[TakeAStepBack]

I'll never understand why we waste our time on this mouthbreather. Some sort of glutton for punishment. But the guy NEVER makes a valid point. Never. it's always some run in circles backwards talking jibberish.

[TakeAStepBack]

He's like the trainwreck you just can not avoid rubbernecking over. And sure as the day is long, it's the same outcome every. Single. Time.

[PeaceFrog]

ok maybe I'm hard to understand... I'll explain... why don't you just ask me exactly what I mean instead of showing how ignorant you are.

It appears to me that congress has already had several proposals, and Republicans rejected them. Their time in congress is running out. It's only a "fiscal cliff" for Republicans in congress.

You have to actually do a little research on your own to see how negotiations are going, but Republicans are acting as if they have way more leverage than they actually do. Now, they're offering up a deal that was offered to them by Democrats in 2011! 2011! why didn't they just take the offer then when they had the chance. The longer they wait, the less they'll get.

So, basically, Republicans (in congress) have everything to lose, including re-election in 2014, and nothing to gain by holding Americans hostage.

[Joker]

I've stopped wasting my time on him when it comes to any type of serious discussion. He gets ridicule from me and that's pretty much it. Just sit back and wait, it doesn't take long before he'll open his flytrap and say something stupid.

[PeaceFrog]

oh, and TASB, it's in through the nose and out through the mouth

let the good energy in, and the toxic energy out

[PeaceFrog]

same with you Joke. It sounds like you need spiritual cleansing, and maybe even an enema.

[PeaceFrog]

[concert andy]

Exactly why the fiscal cliff is the best route to go. This was the negotiation that already was, not needs to be done. They made these decisions, now we should hold their feet to it and allow the tax cuts to expire for all, and let the automatic spending cuts go into effect.

What about the fear of falling into another recession?

That is the real fear.

[hoagie]

He's derp derp trainwreck you derrpity derp rubberderping derp.. And sure as the day is long, it's the same outcome every. Single. DERP

Right, is that how its done?

[PeaceFrog]

You ridicule me by calling me names. I ridicule you by poking holes in your logic. That's the real difference here.

[TakeAStepBack]

Noone is talking about which political party has more to gain on fucking Americans over one way or the other. That's what you fail at every time, derp. We're talking the merits of the negotiations, and you chime in with your Blue Donkey Goggles on and Blue dog cape and tights and start chanting which turd that brought us to this point, is going to get the upper hand out of it.

You're a partisan hack. You missed the point completely as usualy, and then want to explain yourself. Again. That's what makes you a mouthbreather. You're like that weird guy at the party that jumps into a conversation talking about something no one else was and then everyone wanders off while you're still talking.

Congratualtions.

[PeaceFrog]

What about the fear of falling into another recession?

That is the real fear.

I think it should be avoided, but not at the cost of giving millionaires and billionaires a taxcut.

[TakeAStepBack]

What about the fear of falling into another recession?

That is the real fear.

It's going happen eventually one way or the other. As i said before, there is no magical legislation or pill that can fix the fiscal/monetary mess we have without one. And if we keep dodging the inevitable with bandaids, eventually we're going to bleed out and the "receession" we fear will be an imploded economy.

[PeaceFrog]

[TakeAStepBack]

We're borrow/debase junkies that refuse to come clean because we fear the withdrawal. Meanwhile, we're killing ourselves.

[concert andy]

That is your opinion that a recession will eventually happen. That is where we differ. I have more faith then you.

The economy has been growing and showing signs of life. To kill that with the CLIFF now would to put it simply, be not good.

[PeaceFrog]

That is your opinion that a recession will eventually happen. That is where we differ. I have more faith then you.

The economy has been growing and showing signs of life. To kill that with the CLIFF now would to put it simply, be not good.

I agree with you, Andy. It would be nice to come to an agreement in a timely manner so that we at least have somewhat of an appearance of having our shit together to the rest of the world. It would definitely be a bump in the road to recovery, but it will be Republicans to blame if this happens and they will get voted out in 2014 because of it.

[TakeAStepBack]

It's not a question of faith. it's a question of accounting. If there is a way around impending disaster with tax increases, the current proposals and negotiations aren't the ones we need. Not even close. It's a nonissue. in the same fashion that taxing the rich for an additional 800 billion in revenue over ten years with 1.1 trillion (current) in annual deficits, solves the deficit problem.

[TakeAStepBack]

So we'll put a band aid on it for now, only to come right back to the problem again in the near future. And that is why this is the definition of insanity. We keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. The results are the same, we hate the idea of changing, so we do it again and hope this next time we solve the problem by doing the thing we did last time that didn't work.

[PeaceFrog]

how can you advocate sequestration?

there needs to be more transparency -- more cameras in congress, not less. They work for us, remember?

Even Grover Norquist agrees with this.