PDA

View Full Version : THE OBAMA REGIME: El Dubb Dubb was right!



LWW
08-07-2011, 09:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>IRS: Not enough rich to cover the deficit</span></u>
August 5, 2011 by Don Surber

Soak the rich, eh?

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>They do not have the money.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich — 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more — earned a total of $240 billion in 2009.

Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days.</span>

Of course, about a quarter of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So make that 18 days.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009.

Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.

They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year.</span>

Barack Obama was the first president to sign a budget with a $1 trillion deficit into law.

In fact, all the taxpayers — including the ones who get a refund check bigger than the withholding taxes they paid — have the money.

From Reuters: “Total adjusted gross income reported on tax returns, measured in 2009 dollars, was $7.626 trillion, down from $8.233 trillion in 2008 and $8.989 trillion in 2007. Total adjusted gross income was up only slightly from the $7.475 trillion reported in 2001, when there were 10 million fewer taxpayers. Adjusted gross income is the amount on the last line of the front page of a Form 1040 tax return.”

Individual tax collections totaled $1,175,422,000,000 in 2009 — or 15.4% of all income.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Doubling federal income taxes for everyone would still leave us $400 billion or so shy of balancing the budget.</span>

We must cut. We cannot afford to buy everything we want. </div></div>

<span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>THE PAINFUL TRUTH (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/39534)</span></span>

Reactions from the O-cult:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/256552-bigthumbnail.jpg
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://freedombunker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/this-is-an-outrage.jpg
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://faithparley.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/scared.png

Sev
08-07-2011, 09:16 AM
They will scatter like cockroaches when the lights come on.

Link please. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Soflasnapper
08-07-2011, 02:11 PM
The same analysis applies to the drill, baby drill types.

Any named reservoir of supposed savior oil would fuel the US economy for a couple months at most, if it were all available all at once, as it cannot be.

What do we hear from those people, when this is brought up?

It's a start, and we have to do something.

Back atya.

LWW
08-07-2011, 04:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The same analysis applies to the drill, baby drill types.

Any named reservoir of supposed savior oil would fuel the US economy for a couple months at most, if it were all available all at once, as it cannot be.

What do we hear from those people, when this is brought up?

It's a start, and we have to do something.

Back atya. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><u>CAUTION!</u></span></span>

The quoted post contains massive doublethink.

How is it that you argue that the Chinese and Cubans and Brazilians ... get ready to swear you didn't even though you did, doublethink allows for such insanity ... pumping oil in the gulf of Mexico would expand supply and lower prices, but the US doing the same won't?

What's that?

That's what dear leader told you to believe?

But ... I already knew that.

Next delusion?

Soflasnapper
08-07-2011, 04:37 PM
There's an adequate answer to your confusion, except that you won't understand it, or will pretend not to understand it. (*see below).

But why do you change the subject?

You've claimed if all that taxing the whole wealth of all the top bracket can only fund THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT OF THE US for a couple of months, then obviously it cannot have any true role in helping get our deficit spending under control. (Or something like that-- always hard to say with your suppressed assumption-based argumentation.)

And yet, as is clear, if all of ANWR's oil were ready to go right now, and that was all we used to fuel America, it would be gone in the same few months time. Same with any off-shore area you'd care to name on the outer continental shelf (within our claimed off-shore territory). A couple of months worth.

The argument that it's worth it nonetheless, as to this new proposed drilling in currently blocked locales, is that it helps on the margin when supplies may be tight, and is more secure a source than anything overseas might become if world tensions mount.

Same argument applies to taxing the top bracket some more. No, it won't fully fund the government for more than a few months. However, it helps on the margin, and is more secure a source of funds than relying on the Chinese or others to buy extra debt. The more we can finance the existing debt and the extra debt that is in the pipeline locally, in our country, the less debt we need to borrow for, and the less we need from the capital of other countries.

It's easier to see when you break it down. If we have a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit, to close it, you'd need to find six $200 billion dollar slices of a combination of either reduced spending, or increased revenue (per year). Any one of these would be inadequate to the task, only 16.7% of what is necessary. But that's why you need to find several of this size (or a multiple of that number, if the component size of the dollar savings per sector of saving/additional revenue is smaller than $200 billion). If you only get three such areas at this size, you still have made a 50% start on the whole of the deficit, and that is better than anything proposed to date.



*Yes, any addition to supply of oil, from whatever source, has a tiny additional effect on total world oil production volume, and a corresponding tiny effect on world prices. Nothing done here does any more or less than something done somewhere else (as the world's oil price is set world-wide). If we want a cheaper price for oil pumped here, that is a return to the regulation that Carter ended over a several year-phase out, which Reagan then accelerated to occur almost immediately. I doubt you're calling for that.

I don't think any of the announced new oil drilling projects will do much of anything to the supply or pricing of oil. And since it won't, my position is that we should save what we have declared off limits here for a real emergency down the road, lest we then be far more at the mercy of foreign conditions where the main oil is from.

Sev
08-07-2011, 07:26 PM
The surest ways to get rid of the deficit and start paying off the national debt is to eviscerate the government. It is by far to top heavy and rife with duplicate programs and waste.
Get rid of the baseline budgeting.
Pass a balanced budget amendment.
Pull back on regulations that hamper both small and big business.
promote the reindustrialization of America.
Provide a fertile ground for business in America so that it can compete in the world market.
Begin a strategy for insourcing.
Eliminate the IRS.
Pass the Fair Tax.
Change Welfare to Workfare.

We need industry for growth and expansion. A service orientated produces nothing and therefore can not compete.

Soflasnapper
08-07-2011, 08:12 PM
The turn to a service economy was the doing of private industry, in pursuit of greater profits. Same with the 'free trade' treason-- a cover to allow them to off-shore capital and production facilities and bring in their cheaper produced goods without tariffs.

If you want anyone to promote the reindustrialization of America, it would have to be the government, because private industry is the author of our deindustrialization, and that has served them well over the years.

Look, the turn of America into the third-world style very very rich, with everyone else poor, is a model that big business likes, and enforces to be true in the third world. Why? Simply because those guys all turn out to be the very very rich ones.

I honestly don't know how anyone can not see this.

Qtec
08-07-2011, 10:38 PM
I see it. Its called the 'race to the bottom'.

Q

ugotda7
08-08-2011, 12:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The turn to a service economy was the doing of private industry, in pursuit of greater profits. Same with the 'free trade' treason-- a cover to allow them to off-shore capital and production facilities and bring in their cheaper produced goods without tariffs.

If you want anyone to promote the reindustrialization of America, it would have to be the government, because private industry is the author of our deindustrialization, and that has served them well over the years.

Look, the turn of America into the third-world style very very rich, with everyone else poor, is a model that big business likes, and enforces to be true in the third world. Why? Simply because those guys all turn out to be the very very rich ones.

I honestly don't know how anyone can not see this.

</div></div>

What you can't see is that everyone has the opportunity to be one of these reviled rich......without the government. But here's a clue - equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results....that's another thing it seems you can't see.

Qtec
08-08-2011, 01:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">El Dubb Dubb was right! </div></div>

LOL. Well that would be a first!

Q

LWW
08-08-2011, 02:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The turn to a service economy was the doing of private industry, in pursuit of greater profits.</div></div>

The turn to a service economy was due to a bunch of leftists getting into positions of power and practicing stupidonomics.

Stupidonomics dictated that we build up the nations with which we compete, then forgive their debt, then levy nearly zero import taxation while they hammer ours, then place countless regs upon our own industry while competing nations have none, and then use tax policy to force dollars to flee the country, and then blame the capitalists when the stupidonomics didn't work.

Soflasnapper
08-08-2011, 11:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The turn to a service economy was the doing of private industry, in pursuit of greater profits. Same with the 'free trade' treason-- a cover to allow them to off-shore capital and production facilities and bring in their cheaper produced goods without tariffs.

If you want anyone to promote the reindustrialization of America, it would have to be the government, because private industry is the author of our deindustrialization, and that has served them well over the years.

Look, the turn of America into the third-world style very very rich, with everyone else poor, is a model that big business likes, and enforces to be true in the third world. Why? Simply because those guys all turn out to be the very very rich ones.

I honestly don't know how anyone can not see this.

</div></div>

What you can't see is that everyone has the opportunity to be one of these reviled rich......without the government. But here's a clue - equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results....that's another thing it seems you can't see. </div></div>

That's not true now, if it ever was true in the first place.

You know the stats, I'm sure. The typical new startup company has a 95% chance of failing in 3 years or so-- often because of insufficient capitalization, failing to realize they will not typically even break even for a couple of years, let alone be able to pay the owner a salary during that time.

What people may still have is the chance to be relatively well off (not really RICH). Like the lower levels of the top bracket will tell you they are not really rich at all, with a lower 6-figure income, which is actually true.

Yes, if you have great skills, at least moderate business acumen, and some luck with the economy in general, then being a successful small business owner is within the reach of many. But again, about 98% of small business owners don't even reach the top tax bracket in terms of income ($250k+). Not rich. Perhaps comfortable, but that's all.

Now, even formerly successful small business people have been badly hurt through no fault of their own, but by the general slowdown of the economy.

Soflasnapper
08-08-2011, 12:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The turn to a service economy was the doing of private industry, in pursuit of greater profits.</div></div>

The turn to a service economy was due to a bunch of leftists getting into positions of power and practicing stupidonomics.

Stupidonomics dictated that we build up the nations with which we compete, then forgive their debt, then levy nearly zero import taxation while they hammer ours, then place countless regs upon our own industry while competing nations have none, and then use tax policy to force dollars to flee the country, and then blame the capitalists when the stupidonomics didn't work. </div></div>

That's a ridiculous take.

Powerful industry has been in control of government policy for decades, or a century or more.

The elite policy making institutes, the Council on Foreign Affairs (the dreaded CFR), the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, are all directly funded by and controlled on behalf of the interest of big business.

Government policies flow directly from such interests, as these same interests not only fund and control the recommendations their policy organs create, but own the Congress as well, through the power of their campaign donations.

Who authored NAFTA? That would have been Ronald Reagan, or rather, those whose influence he relied upon, such as the Heritage Foundation. Leftists, where?

Who found great leverage over unions, wrenching give backs of contracted wage increases and medical benefits from them, by using the threat of outsourcing the production and labor force? That would be the large manufacturing concerns.