Obama Announces Deal To Raise Debt Limit, Cut Spending

[uptheos]

That's only assuming the money saved would have been spent on bridges. The last couple years of the Clinton administration we had a surplus. It would have been nice if some of that went to repair bridges, strengthen the levees in New Orleans or even feed the poor. BUT IT DIDN'T.

Governments don't spend money to feed the poor in their own country, it's left up to charities.

[up-country_sinclair]

Actually, it's President Obama, and taxes are at their lowest levels in approximately 60 years.

Wrong!

Right.

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Facts are facts, Ulysses G.

Even if they don't provide support your particular ideology.

Edited August 3, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[up-country_sinclair]

Also what kind of meglomaniac proposes 3.7T in spending when they know what current revenues are? Must be that Yes We Can thing?

President Bush's final budget proposal was for $3.1 Trillion. I wonder if you posted about his megalomania?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020400493.html

[up-country_sinclair]

That's only assuming the money saved would have been spent on bridges. The last couple years of the Clinton administration we had a surplus. It would have been nice if some of that went to repair bridges, strengthen the levees in New Orleans or even feed the poor. BUT IT DIDN'T.

Governments don't spend money to feed the poor in their own country, it's left up to charities.

In November 2008 (3 months before President Obama took office), 30 million americans were using food stamps.

Food stamps are issued by the US govt. to feed the poor in the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112502553.html

Edited August 3, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[cloudhopper]

In November 2008 (3 months before President Obama took office), 30 million americans were using food stamps.

Food stamps are issued by the US govt. to feed the poor.

http://www.washingto...8112502553.html

And now over 45 million rely on them, over 50% increase. How's that for change?

Food stamps are another way the US prints money.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/food-stamp-use-surges-most-years-alabama-foodstamp-recipients-double-may

[up-country_sinclair]

^Actually, it's President Obama, and taxes are at their lowest levels in approximately 60 years.

I read recently that if the tax rates were brought back to the levels they were at during the 1990s (arguably the largest economic boom in the history of the US), it would wipe trillions of dollars off the deficit.

Actually it is anything we want to call him

I suppose it's a question of how one is brought up.

[up-country_sinclair]

In November 2008 (3 months before President Obama took office), 30 million americans were using food stamps.

Food stamps are issued by the US govt. to feed the poor.

http://www.washingto...8112502553.html

And now over 45 million rely on them, over 50% increase. How's that for change?

Do I need to remind you of the financial crisis that took place in 2008?

Take a look at the unemployment numbers for 2008. Are you seriously claiming that the millions of people who lost their jobs in the final quarter of 2008 are on food stamps because of President Obama?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023170.php

Edited August 3, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[cloudhopper]

Are you seriously claiming that the millions of people who lost their jobs in the final quarter of 2008 are on food stamps because of President Obama?

No. Seriously.

[up-country_sinclair]

In November 2008 (3 months before President Obama took office), 30 million americans were using food stamps.

Food stamps are issued by the US govt. to feed the poor.

http://www.washingto...8112502553.html

And now over 45 million rely on them, over 50% increase. How's that for change?

Do I need to remind you of the financial crisis that took place in 2008?

Take a look at the unemployment numbers for 2008. Are you seriously claiming that the millions of people who lost their jobs in the final quarter of 2008 are on food stamps because of President Obama?

No. Seriously.

So then why did you post, "And now over 45 million rely on them, over 50% increase. How's that for change?"

Edited August 3, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[snarky66]

Fact. Pelosi proposed no budget for 2010. Fact Pelosi proposed no budget for 2011. Just a series of CR.

That's because they were too busy ramming through Obamacare.

The dumbocrats have run the House since 2006.

This mess belongs 100% to them. Obama does not propose any budget. That is the job of the house. It is gonna be fun when Boehner gets to propose a budget. We'll see Obama eat major crow. Community Organizer in Chief.

[cloudhopper]

So then why did you post, "And now over 45 million rely on them, over 50% increase. How's that for change?"

Merely to illustrate that what is taking place is the collapse of a global credit bubble that has been blowing ever since Nixon took the US off the last vestiges of a gold standard in 1971. Obama has only continued the monetary policies of the Bush administration and in fact every administration back to Nixon.

So "let me be clear" - no party, politician or policy can avert the collapse of this bubble, only affect (but not control) when and how bad.

[up-country_sinclair]

That's only assuming the money saved would have been spent on bridges. The last couple years of the Clinton administration we had a surplus. It would have been nice if some of that went to repair bridges, strengthen the levees in New Orleans or even feed the poor. BUT IT DIDN'T.

Governments don't spend money to feed the poor in their own country, it's left up to charities.

In November 2008 (3 months before President Obama took office), 30 million americans were using food stamps.

Food stamps are issued by the US govt. to feed the poor in the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112502553.html

I just thought of another US government funded program that feeds the poor in the US.

The National School Lunch Program.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/

This fantastic program provides a nutritional lunch to children from low income families.

[up-country_sinclair]

Actually, it's President Obama, and taxes are at their lowest levels in approximately 60 years.

Wrong!

Right.

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Facts are facts, Ulysses G.

Even if they don't provide support to your particular ideology.

I was just thinking about this post, and the above statistic is for all taxes (local, state and federal), so I did a bit of searching and found this graph which shows federal income tax levels for the past 50 years on average, middle-income families.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151

[Ulysses G.]

You really should do a little research before making such statements.

Taxes are not at their lowest level in approximately 60 years. In 1991 the tax rate was raised from 28% to 31% where it remained until 1993 when it was raised to 39.6%. In 2001 the tax rate was lowered to 39.1% and was lowered again in 2002 to 38.6%. It was then lowered to its current 35% in 2003.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

You seem to be ignoring this for some reason.

[snarky66]

Obama has done great harm to himself during this fiasco. I remember him saying he couldn't accept 5 billion in cuts.

His approval rating has fallen 15 points. he is somewhere near 40%. Not looking for a second term. We tried the socialist thing. It didn't work out. (Never does). Need to repeal Obamacare.

[BuckarooBanzai]

I know that my previous family back in the states has no money except unemployment. And this is not by their choice.

Every politician out there should be tarred and feathered as that is the appropriate punishment for self serving thieves.

[up-country_sinclair]

You really should do a little research before making such statements.

Taxes are not at their lowest level in approximately 60 years. In 1991 the tax rate was raised from 28% to 31% where it remained until 1993 when it was raised to 39.6%. In 2001 the tax rate was lowered to 39.1% and was lowered again in 2002 to 38.6%. It was then lowered to its current 35% in 2003.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

You seem to be ignoring this for some reason.

The link provided is to The Tax Foundation which is a DC group funded by Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers. But even more important than this obvious bias, they are known for using suspect methodologies in compiling their data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation#cite_note-39

Now, about this 'ignoring" claim.

Why haven't you commented on my post which provides evidence that local, state and federal taxes are at their lowest levels in approximately 60 years?

[Ulysses G.]

Look under the article that you linked.

Averages mean nothing when you are speaking of individual experiences.

Statistics can be used to present information slanted toward whenever view you are trying to present.

If you take all of the personal income as a whole and the divide by the amount of income taxes paid,

you are including in that total income people who do not pay any taxes at all. Doing so, of course, brings down the average.

When you calculate in this manner, sure taxes paid as a percent of income looks low, but to the INDIVIDUAL person paying about 35-40% of their income as taxes of some sort, is that any consolation? Of course not.

Taxes are not deducted from my pay based upon what the average ishttp://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

[uptheos]

China holds $2 trillion of U.S debt. If you think of each trillion as one testicle, that's what they're holding...........now cough

[up-country_sinclair]

Look under the article that you linked.

Averages mean nothing when you are speaking of individual experiences.

Statistics can be used to present information slanted toward whenever view you are trying to present.

If you take all of the personal income as a whole and the divide by the amount of income taxes paid,

you are including in that total income people who do not pay any taxes at all. Doing so, of course, brings down the average.

When you calculate in this manner, sure taxes paid as a percent of income looks low, but to the INDIVIDUAL person paying about 35-40% of their income as taxes of some sort, is that any consolation? Of course not.

Taxes are not deducted from my pay based upon what the average ishttp://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

You're citing the reader comments section on the USA Today website?

Thanks for the laugh, but as far as our discussion is concerned, it does nothing at all to dispute what I posted.

And despite all the evidence I've posted to support what I claimed (and you refuted), it seems clear that you're never going to admit you were wrong, so I'm just going to stand by the facts that I've presented and move on.

Edited August 3, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Steely Dan]

China holds $2 trillion of U.S debt. If you think of each trillion as one testicle, that's what they're holding...........now cough

Add to that an even larger amount held by the Fed in long dated bonds in order to plug the deficit in the short term. Oroboros the mythical snake eating it's own tail comes to mind.

[koheesti]

China holds $2 trillion of U.S debt. If you think of each trillion as one testicle, that's what they're holding...........now cough

So if the dollar really crashes, China is taost? (pun intended)

[Ulysses G.]

Look under the article that you linked.

Averages mean nothing when you are speaking of individual experiences.

Statistics can be used to present information slanted toward whenever view you are trying to present.

If you take all of the personal income as a whole and the divide by the amount of income taxes paid,

you are including in that total income people who do not pay any taxes at all. Doing so, of course, brings down the average.

When you calculate in this manner, sure taxes paid as a percent of income looks low, but to the INDIVIDUAL person paying about 35-40% of their income as taxes of some sort, is that any consolation? Of course not.

Taxes are not deducted from my pay based upon what the average ishttp://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

You're citing the reader comments section on the USA Today website?

As opposed to your opinion on Thai Visa. At least he seems to understand something about statistics.

[chuckd]

You really should do a little research before making such statements.

Taxes are not at their lowest level in approximately 60 years. In 1991 the tax rate was raised from 28% to 31% where it remained until 1993 when it was raised to 39.6%. In 2001 the tax rate was lowered to 39.1% and was lowered again in 2002 to 38.6%. It was then lowered to its current 35% in 2003.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

You seem to be ignoring this for some reason.

The link provided is to The Tax Foundation which is a DC group funded by Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers. But even more important than this obvious bias, they are known for using suspect methodologies in compiling their data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation#cite_note-39

Now, about this 'ignoring" claim.

Why haven't you commented on my post which provides evidence that local, state and federal taxes are at their lowest levels in approximately 60 years?

Here is another link that provides the same income tax rates as my earlier link. I don't know if this one is also a conservative reference but I can not understand why a conservative link is not believable when they are simply stating fact.

The current tax rate is not at it's lowest level in the past 60 years. You were wrong when you made the claim,but if you insist on trying to paper over your erroneous statement I will be forced to provide more links tomorrow.

Tonight I am tired and I have wasted more time on your mistake than it or you warrant.

http://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

PS: I wasted a few more minutes and found this link stating the tax rate was in the 70% range in the 1970's, 50% in the 80's and fell to 35% in 2003, dropping from a higher rate of 39.1%, which had dropped the previous year from 39.6%.

Quick, let me count my fingers but 60 years prior to 2011 would be in the neighborhood of 1951, i.e. the 1950's.

_______________________________________________________

The bottom line is that tax laws have been impacted by the regional, national and global conditions especially wars. Tax was first levied during the Civil war in 1861 and the highest ever tax was charged just after Pearl Harbor; 94%. During the times when the Cold War was at its peak, the highest income tax charged was 91%. It fell to 70% in the 1970s, 50% in the 1980s and 35% from 2003 onwards. Over the last few decades the government has realized that charging excessive tax is not a solution and the best way is to include as many people as possible in the tax bracket.

http://www.financeninvestments.com/finance/history-of-income-tax-in-the-united-states.html

________________________________________________________

Edited August 3, 2011 by chuckd

[flying]

Also what kind of meglomaniac proposes 3.7T in spending when they know what current revenues are? Must be that Yes We Can thing?

President Bush's final budget proposal was for $3.1 Trillion. I wonder if you posted about his megalomania?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020400493.html

Yes many times....you must have been absent that day

Dont confuse me with a Repub or a Dem.....

It matters not which group holds office... puppets are puppets & those who pull the strings remain the same.

The system is beautifully broken & has been for a long time.

Your illusion of choice & that which you like to argue for only keeps you too busy to realize.

Edited August 3, 2011 by flying

[flying]

^Actually, it's President Obama, and taxes are at their lowest levels in approximately 60 years.

I read recently that if the tax rates were brought back to the levels they were at during the 1990s (arguably the largest economic boom in the history of the US), it would wipe trillions of dollars off the deficit.

Actually it is anything we want to call him

I suppose it's a question of how one is brought up.

Or how one has been herded?

If your implication is respect

I was brought up & taught that it is earned not bought or given freely

[up-country_sinclair]

The current tax rate is not at it's lowest level in the past 60 years. You were wrong when you made the claim,but if you insist on trying to paper over your erroneous statement I will be forced to provide more links tomorrow.

As I posted earlier (and you curiously seem to have overlooked and/or not commented on):

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Facts are facts, Ulysses G.

Even if they don't provide support to your particular ideology.

When you feel "forced" to provide more links, why not take an extra minute to send an email to the Bureau of Economic Analysis to enlighten them on the error of their ways. The US Today might also appreciate the scoop and will be sure to print an immediate retraction.

[chuckd]

The current tax rate is not at it's lowest level in the past 60 years. You were wrong when you made the claim,but if you insist on trying to paper over your erroneous statement I will be forced to provide more links tomorrow.

When you feel "forced" to provide more links, why not take an extra minute to send an email to the Bureau of Economic Analysis to enlighten them on the error of their ways. The US Today might also appreciate the scoop and will be sure to print an immediate retraction.

Now I see. You were talking about tax BILLS and not tax RATES, even though RATES are what you mentioned in your original erroneous post, quoted below. You are still wrong claiming tax rates are lower than they have been in the last 60 years. Now spin away.

Your original post...

^Actually, it's President Obama, and taxes are at their lowest levels in approximately 60 years.

I read recently that if the tax rates were brought back to the levels they were at during the 1990s (arguably the largest economic boom in the history of the US), it would wipe trillions of dollars off the deficit.

[slapout]

Any one can take present percentages and spout some gibberish about present day vs 60 years ago. I notice they mention federal/state tax and conveniently forget property taxes, city taxes, utility taxes, fuel tax, airport tax, state sales tax, social security although some say this is not a tax, etc.

You can call it what you want, but when any group of authority charge a payment to the citizens to go about their daily life, two terms comes to mind, tax and baksheesh.

[snarky66]

Here is a different take & one that I & most TEA Party members would espouse.

10 Trillion Over 10 years

So I have a question for the libs. At what point does the burden of the debt crash the system?

Because what I hear out of Pelosi Reid Schumer & Obama is that they want to continue to run 1.6 1.7 trillion dollar current account deficits from now till doomsday.

10 trillion over 10 years has a nice ring to it.

We will decry no more bridges to nowhere. Kerry can park his yacht in MASS & pay tax on it.That's balanced.

Edited August 4, 2011 by snarky66