USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[st_dux 26]

Has the Republican congress finaly managed to destroy the US economy?

Do you really think a Democratic congress would be any different? All any of those politicians want to do is spend other people's money.

[GRS 10]

Oh yes, because the democrats are perfect and the decline of the US dollar clearly happened because of the republicans and not years of back and forth control and stupid amounts of spending by both sides on stupid ****. :rolleyes:

[walker 0]

Hi all

At the time Clinton left office the US was not in Debt in fact quite the reverse; it had a surplus.

When Bush came in he imediately brought in his Welfare for the Wealthy plan and shifted the majority of Tax burden on to the poor and middle class and reduced government income by a trillion and 1/4 per year while still increasing government spending to record levels, much of it went on Iraq Pork like the 6 billion Dollar bailout of Cheneys Halliburton; which is incedentaly an arab owned and based company and the steady drip feed of Iraq Pork to Halliburton and KBR.

In order to pay for this Republican Pork Profligacy the Republicans took out loans with China and Arab sovereign Wealth funds. At the end of the Bush Presidency US Government Debt had gone from Clinton's Surplus to a Republican Debt of 12.5 Trillion dollars.

Since then the Republicans scream every time their Welfare for the Wealthy entitlements are threatened but without those Tax benefits being removed US debt will continue to rise.

Despite every attempt to balance the US budget the plane fact is that Foreign owned companies continue to drain the US economy and on all the billions that they take, they pay less taxes than even the poor do in America.

Until the Republicans can face up to Murdoch and their foreign masters, US debt will continue to rise.

Kind Regards walker

[dmarkwick 261]

I had read that the US had a surplus at the end of Clinton's reign, but I don't know enough about the situation to know whether or not it was "creative" accounting.

[walker 0]

Hi DMarkwick

It is here in Wikipedia I know some say it is a leftwing source but you can use it to pursue the original sources which are mostly national statistics figures and so beyond reproach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

No Matter which way you look at it Debt Declined under Clinton and rose Under Reagan and both Bush's the highest percentage rise being under Bush Jnr. mostly as a Result of following Cheny's philosophy of "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" The main spending was on to Welfare for the Wealthy benefits programs paid for with loans from the Republican Party's new foreign masters.

Kind Regards walker

[dmarkwick 261]

Oh yeah, I'm sure it's correct. It's just that I'm too clueless and generally disinterested to actually find the motive to learn about it. I much prefer to read other's links ;)

[Baff1 0]

It is certainly true that Clinton had the U.S. deficit well in hand before Bush came along.

However, defecit under Obama has lept by an order of magnitude that makes the leap from Clinton Administration to Bush Administration look positively mundane.

Just as Bush was in a league of his own.... Obama now is.

This is the sort of graph of it you can expect to find in the British financial media.

This one is a little more Bush Jnr friendly.

Usually I expect to see his defecit come in at larger than his fathers. But it rather nicely displays the presidents by name, which I think is quite pictorially helpful.

This one is CNN's.

Here is one that is uptodate with 2010's figures and has an estimate of 2011's.

This last one is what I would expect to see, Bush Jnr's years, looking like 50% higher defecit than any who came before him. Clinton having made it into Credit...and then a massive sky rocketing of defecit under Obama that makes Bush pale into insignificance.

Broadly speaking they all make an enormous leap in the Obama administration.

He has had a few of really big spending sprees' I would guess.

A surge n Afghanistan, a war in Libya.

Fiscal stimulous and medicare.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Baff1

[GRS 10]

Not having a deficit while a democratic president is in office does not mean that democrats are better at this and its all republicans' fault. I mean, Bush Sr. had the highest approval rating ever at one point did he not? So isn't he the best president ever? Not to mention the differences is events during different administrations. They had a good run back then, but now look at them, its just plain stupid.

Edited July 28, 2011 by GRS

[walker 0]

Hi all

The thing about debt is you can fool voters with it.

You can claim to be reducing taxes while all you are doing is putting off and increasing the amount the Tax Payer ends up having to pay, usually so you can leave it for the next guys term.

That is exactly what Bush Junior did. He ran up a National Debt of 12.5 trillion dollars on the US Tax Payers credit card.

Now Obama is left with a trillion dollar a year interest payment.

Basically Bush and the Republicans Debt enslaved the US Tax Payer to China and the Arab Sovereign Wealth funds. The American tax payer is paying for the Bin Laden families pension fund and the expansion of the Chinese economy oh and still paying out a trillion dollars a year in Welfare for the Wealthy.

And of course the other major thing that the Republicans presided over was the biggest and steepest decline in US GDP ever.

That is because and Tax benefits payed to the wealthy do not get invested instead they get saved in the most secure place they can find usually outside the country in tax havens. The small amount that was invested in the US was invested in the property market, and of course that was what created the property bubble.

For every one tax dollar invested in wealthy people the economy looses about ten cents. If you invest the money in the poorest people you gain about 1 dollar and 10 cents. That is because wealthy people invest in bubbles and try to ensure they keep the maximum amount of all money they have for them selves, thus moving money into off shore tax havens. On the other hand poor people spend the money on food and clothing bought at local stores, which transfers and expands the local businesses that supply those goods and in turn buy better goods for them selves and invest in their business and employing more staff so that it can capture more profits.

Tax cuts only work if they are directed at the poor, they should also only be exact monetary amounts and never be percentages.

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 28, 2011 by walker

[Baff1 0]

Tax benefits paid to the wealthy.

Hahahaha.

I think you'll find that tax benefits were paid by the wealthy, not to them.

The idea that the US government has been giving dollars out to the wealthy is ROFLglorious.

You do understand that taxation is when the government collects dollars not hands them out.

Not taking something from someone, is not the same as giving them something.

For example,

I didn't come around your house and take your car today. That doesn't mean I gave you your car.

similarly I didn't come round your house and take your computer. That does not mean I gave you your computer.

The idea that people might keep their own money for themselves!!! Wow, just wow. I don't really think Americans get on well with the idea of communism. It's not really a solution that is likely to work there.

U.S. Bond yeilds in Bushs era were less than one percent. So his $12.5 trillion in loans doesn't cost the Obama administration $1 trillion in intrest payment, it costs them $0.1 trillion in intrest payments.

The other $1.1 trillion Obama has added to the defecit by his additional public spending commitments.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Baff1

[ralphwiggum 6]

U.S. Bond yeilds in Bushs era were less than one percent. So his $12.5 trillion in loans doesn't cost the Obama administration $1 trillion in intrest payment, it costs them $0.1 trillion in intrest payments.

Mostly not true

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/Historic-LongTerm-Rate-Data-Visualization.aspx

Here are two graphs. The T-bill yield rate for 10 yr normal and 30 year real

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3228/ustbillyields.jpg

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/6630/ustbillyields2.jpg

Notice that most of the time during Bush administration, the yields on both 10 and 30 year bonds were above 1%, and more close to 3% on average.

[HyperU2 11]

Clinton rode the dotcom bubble, Bush was there for the pop. Simple enough.

[Baff1 0]

Mostly not true

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/Historic-LongTerm-Rate-Data-Visualization.aspx

Here are two graphs. The T-bill yield rate for 10 yr normal and 30 year real

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3228/ustbillyields.jpg

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/6630/ustbillyields2.jpg

Notice that most of the time during Bush administration, the yields on both 10 and 30 year bonds were above 1%, and more close to 3% on average.

And nowhere even remotely near 12.5%

Wrong by an order of magnitude.

And this is my core point the deficit under Obama has risen by an order of magnitude.

It is no longer comparable to Bushs defecit.

We can't look at Bushs humungous defecit and say "it's in the same league as Obama's" It isn't.

Obama's defecit is twice as far away from Bushs as Bushs was from Clintons.

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ----------

Clinton rode the dotcom bubble, Bush was there for the pop. Simple enough.

Clinton also provoked the debt/housing bubble.

Bush was also there for two wars and the pop of the debt/housing bubble.

Obama is also on the recieving end of the debt bubble and some wars.

The Clinton adminstration might look good in thiose graphs, but they screwed things up on an enormous scale. No single person has done more dmage to the global economy in the history of mankind.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Baff1

[dmarkwick 261]

Tax benefits paid to the wealthy.

Hahahaha.

I think you'll find that tax benefits were paid by the wealthy, not to them.

When your bill is reduced from what you ought to have paid, that's a benefit. If the process is that you actively claim back money - well that's definately a benefit. If Walker owed you a car, and you said "keep it", what would you call that?

The idea that people might keep their own money for themselves!!! Wow, just wow. I don't really think Americans get on well with the idea of communism. It's not really a solution that is likely to work there.

I see this sort of argument a lot. Anything other than a minimum level of right-wingness = communism. Its a dullwitted argument.

[Baff1 0]

When your bill is reduced from what you ought to have paid, that's a benefit.

"ought to have paid"

If your tax bill is reduced, you didn't "ought to have paid" more. You ought to have paid less. Which is why they reduced it.

At no point ever is taking peoples money away from them "a benefit". It is a net loss to them every time.

If Walker didn't owe me a car, but someone said he did, I wouldn't complain about Walker when he didn't give it away.

Especially, I wouldn't complain if it turned out that Walker was already giving away far more of his possesions than I am.

If that turned out to be the case, I would instead be congratulating Walker on his superior beneficence not breaking his balls for not donating more.

When someone gives away more of their wealth to good causes than you do, you don't get to call them a C***. They get to call you one.

My Communism comment has nothing to do with the level of taxation. It has to do with personal ownership.

Walker doesn't believe in your rights to property. I do.

The government has the ability to tax me, but not the right. You and Walker do not own my or anyone elses money. You don't get to choose what we "ought to pay". It's none of your business.

Thank god.

There is a fundamental principle here and that is private ownership. Do I own what I own, or do I owe everything in my possession to society, to be re-alocated as my political masters see fit. Capitalism vs Communism.

If you feel you earn too much money and you should pay more tax, then do. This is one of those things where I will need you to be leading by example before I will be able to take you seriously.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Baff1

[mrcash2009 0]

When someone gives away more of their wealth to good causes than you do, you don't get to call them a C***. They get to call you one.

Sound like that chap IS a **** then if he thinks he's got the right to act that way soley based on his charity. Charity and wealth isnt some auto get out clause from individual c**tism.

Especially, I wouldn't complain if it turned out that Walker was already giving away far more of his possesions than I am.

Thats a choice like any other and also based on that individual having the possessions enough to give it away when making that choice, some dont have a choice, and people can still complain given the situation. Well, would depend on what the complaint was about regardless of charity choices. Edited July 28, 2011 by mrcash2009

[dmarkwick 261]

The government has the ability to tax me, but not the right. You and Walker do not own my or anyone elses money. You don't get to choose what we "ought to pay". It's none of your business.

Thank god.

Oh now I get it, you're butt-sore because tax exists. Well if I'd realised that I wouldn't have responded at all. Good luck flailing at the wind my friend.

"ought to have paid"

If your tax bill is reduced, you didn't "ought to have paid" more. You ought to have paid less. Which is why they reduced it.

My God, if that's how you view it.... well then it's no wonder you see what you do. If everyone pays a fair amount, but then some people get to pay less because they're already rich... you know what? Screw it. Can't reason with the types who rally against the realities.

---------- Post added at 02:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

When someone gives away more of their wealth to good causes than you do, you don't get to call them a C***. They get to call you one.

What a truly, stupid remark.

[walker 0]

Hi all

First up you are confusing treasury notes with treasury bills, bonds, Savings bonds that are sold to the public, and government loans. They are all used in different way's and pay interest in different ways. For-instance the ten year year treasury notes pay a flat guaranteed interest rate and are used to pay down Government Debt!

http://www.ehow.com/info_8452427_10year-notes.html

Baff1 and several others are also confusing Deficits with Debt, they are not the same!

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm

A lot of US debt pays annually, Semi-annually, monthly, weekly and even daily:Compounding interest amazing how many people do not understand it. Which is what you need to know about Government loans:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/help/tdhelp/faq.htm

It is obvious that many do not understand the difference between: APY and APR

And finally you are assuming that owning US Debt does not have other benefits, which of course it does; Tax benefits!

To get the total value you need to include all benefits.

All of which means that most bonds across their period yield far more than the headline rate, and thus cost far more for government, than the amounts you are confusing them with!

http://www.money-zine.com/Calculators/Investment-Calculators/Bond-Yield-Calculator/

Generally speaking total yield on government debt is currently running at around 9.3% some put it at nearer to 13%. Accordingly that is the amount that a business you run has to beat in order for it not to be more profitable to just invest it in government bonds!

So if you are investing money in property say then that is the rate you have to beat, either by; selling at a greater than ~9.3% profit or by getting a greater than ~9.3% annual income yield on the property value in rental income, you also have to include maintenance costs in the latter.

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 28, 2011 by walker

[Baff1 0]

My God, if that's how you view it.... well then it's no wonder you see what you do. If everyone pays a fair amount, but then some people get to pay less because they're already rich... you know what? Screw it. Can't reason with the types who rally against the realities.

.

The reality is that rich people pay more tax.

What is fair is that everybody pays the same becuase everybody uses the same resources.

But tax isn't about being fair, it is about getting the maximum income without starting a riot.

So a rich person, with more weatlh to lose, can be taxed more before he will fight.

I can't imagine why you think rich people pay less taxes than poor people. Poor people barely pay any taxes at all. Never have, never will.

This is a totally stupid remark.

some people get to pay less because they're already rich

And I mean totally stupid.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Baff1

[walker 0]

...I can;t imagine why you think rcih people pay less taxes than poor people. Poor people barely pat any taxes at all. Never have, never will.

Hi Baff1

Because simply there are more poor people than wealthy people, and because under the Bush Welfare for the Wealthy plan they pay more actual dollars in tax per person than those who earn 10 million dollars a year or more, who all got a million dollar tax benefit check under Bush's plan.

Which they promptly invested in the Property Bubble and thus blew the US economy.

The idea that all rich people in the US got to being rich by sound investments and entrepreneurial skill is fallacious. Most wealthy people in the US became wealthy because their parents were wealthy. Most wealthy people in the US do not know how to invest and thus give the money to their portfolio managers to invest for them, usually with instructions to invest it so as not to loose it, hence in the early noughties when the Bush Welfare for the Wealthy Windfalls came in they invested in property, as that was secure.

The rest of the money and the profits they initially made from property investment they shipped out to offshore tax havens.

Hence the massive decline in US GDP during the Bush administration.

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 28, 2011 by walker

[dmarkwick 261]

The reality is that rich people pay more tax.

Generally, they do yes.

What is fair is that everybody pays the same becuase everybody uses the same resources.

I think the generally accepted view is that everyone pays a percentage of earnings. Which ought to be consistent across the board. That sounds fair to me.

But tax isn't about being fair, it is about getting the maximum income without starting a riot.

True enough.

I can't imagine why you think rich people pay less taxes than poor people.

I don't think I did say that. Not in the way you mean anyway. As a percentage, some of the super-rich are beneficiaries of the great Bush tax giveaway. (Or, to be more in line with your philosophy, great Bush don't-take-as-much.)

This is a totally stupid remark.

OK I guess I can see the motive behind the comment, but really, Bush excelled himself looking after his peers.

[st_dux 26]

I think the generally accepted view is that everyone pays a percentage of earnings. Which ought to be consistent across the board. That sounds fair to me.

Most tax systems (including the U.S. tax system) don't actually work that way, though. They're "progressive," which means that people with more money actually pay a higher percentage than people with less money. The top 1% of earners in the United States pay the vast majority of the taxes.

[dmarkwick 261]

Most tax systems (including the U.S. tax system) don't actually work that way, though. They're "progressive," which means that people with more money actually pay a higher percentage than people with less money. The top 1% of earners in the United States pay the vast majority of the taxes.

I can agree that that is an unfair system. Should be a simple, one-value only percentage tax across the board, no exceptions.

[ralphwiggum 6]

And nowhere even remotely near 12.5%

Wrong by an order of magnitude.

And this is my core point the deficit under Obama has risen by an order of magnitude.

It is no longer comparable to Bushs defecit.

We can't look at Bushs humungous defecit and say "it's in the same league as Obama's" It isn't.

Obama's defecit is twice as far away from Bushs as Bushs was from Clintons.

I don't think I claimed 12.5%, but 3% is at 3 times higher than what you argued for. On top of that it also depends on when the debt was mostly incurred. Had most of it been incurred in the second term, the actual debt would have been higher as the rate was higher in the second term than the first.

The reality is that rich people pay more tax.

What is fair is that everybody pays the same becuase everybody uses the same resources.

But tax isn't about being fair, it is about getting the maximum income without starting a riot.

So a rich person, with more weatlh to lose, can be taxed more before he will fight.

I can't imagine why you think rich people pay less taxes than poor people. Poor people barely pay any taxes at all. Never have, never will.

This is a totally stupid remark.

And I mean totally stupid.

The dollar amount of top earners paying in tax is definitely higher than the bottom earners. But the ratio/percentage of tax paid may not be so

http://www.datapointed.net/2011/03/relative-us-income-taxes-1913-2011/

The upper part of social-economic groups pay less proportional to their income.

So the idea of flat rate tax might seem logical, but at the same time it is not to those in lower incomes. For example, if there was a 10% flat rate income tax, then someone making $20,000 a year would pay $2,000 in tax. Someone with $200,000 would pay $20,000. Considering that the price of foods and other goods/merchandises is not proportional to income, the impact of that $2000 is more detrimental to those who make $20,000 than to those who make $200,000.

For example, if someone spends $200 per shopping trip for groceries. Then $2000 would mean 10 shoppings. IIRC, currently, income of $20,000 don't pay as much as income of $200,000 in taxes. That means flat rate tax would take away 10 grocery shoppings away from $20,000 earners.

For those who earn $200,000, even assuming they end up losing more money(which most likely will not happen as their effective tax rate is higher), the impact of increase would be not as dramatic as one that affects $20,000 earners.

So if we remove the current system and go with flat rate tax, lower income earners will be more affected (negatively) compared to higher wage earners.

One of the perspective is that lower taxes will trickle down to creating more jobs. That has been quite easily shattered this time as companies are saving cash waiting for signs of recovery rather than hiring people right now. If anything, this recession showed that social programs like unemployment can cushion the fall a bit. IIRC, almost all the money given out via unemployment gets spent in market since those who receive unemployment benefits more or less spend it all.

Hi Baff1

Because simply there are more poor people than wealthy people, and because under the Bush Welfare for the Wealthy plan they pay more actual dollars in tax per person than those who earn 10 million dollars a year or more, who all got a million dollar tax benefit check under Bush's plan.

Which they promptly invested in the Property Bubble and thus blew the US economy.

Not entirely true. The housing crash was not just because the rich were buying up properties, but more because the credit was available to a lot more people. Many people bought houses using more credits, and that drove the price up in many places. When it went bust, a lot of middle class got stung by it. The financial industry did not do a good job either since they used derivatives too.

The rest of the money and the profits they initially made from property investment they shipped out to offshore tax havens.

Hence the massive decline in US GDP during the Bush administration.

Kind Regards walker

The idea that the money was shipped out to off shore tax havens is just as incorrect. The riches have suffered in this recession just as others did, but because they had better system, they were able to take less impact. I think you are using a very wide brush.

[thomas c 0]

A visualization of the United States debt

http://www.wtfnoway.com/

Not sure if it's been posted befor.