I didn't watch the show, but I read where Obama is freezing nonsecurity discretionary spending for 5 years. The estimated savings were about $500,000,000,000 over 10 years. Let's see....if we allow for a $3,5000,000,000,000 annual budget, over 10 years that's $500 billion divided by $35 trillion, or a whopping 1.4% in spending cuts. Quite a hefty axe there, Barry. This percentage is likely too high as the budget will certainly grow from year to year. The R's offered $2.5 trillion over 10 years or 7.1%, which is still too light, IMO, but 5 times better than the Spender-In-Chief's paltry pittance.

fish82;654125 wrote:That's their share of income growth, not their share of total AGI. You're thinking of the "rich keep getting richer" talking point.

Try this instead. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html




The numbers for the "Super Rich" are no better.

fish82;654125 wrote:That's their share of income growth, not their share of total AGI. You're thinking of the "rich keep getting richer" talking point.

Try this instead. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html




The numbers for the "Super Rich" are no better.

Well I had a detailed reply but my browser decided to crash which is very, very frustrating especially since this is just recreational time that I don't like to waste but my stubbornness compels me to reply. I will just use your numbers since they're in the thread.

The U.S. Earned had about 11.7 trillion in GDP in 2004. The Feds brought in about $800 billion from income taxes in 2004, not all taxes collectively. This information is available. Using your number from 2004. Meaning, the top 1% earned. 2.23 trillion in 2004 but paid 295 billion in federal income taxes.

Also when you consider that they own > 40% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 40% owns < 1%; some might say that, if the u.s. defense budget is designed to protect those assets, it's tough to see why the bottom 40% should be obligated to contribute more than 1% of the consideration for that (not counting what their lives are worth of course). Adam Smith, the founder of Capitalism, would agree. "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."

Also, when you consider the declining marginal utilities of dollars, the real value that these dollars have to these rich persons giving them up is not nearly has high as the real dollar values to tax payers in lower incomes.

Pretty upset that I lost most of my post but don't feel like doing it again. I hope this is at least some what effective. But as is the case, our tax code is not in line with fairness norms and it's not because the very rich pay too much, it's because they do not pay enough given the amount of economic growth they absorb out of the economy and the overwhelming amount of national assets they own being protected by our monstrously large military.

Nevertheless, I should point out that I'm not necessarily for "fair" taxation. Most of the time I'm for neutral taxation and you can't satisfy both norms at once. But, if we're going to say we want fairness...for heaven's sake we have to at least look at the facts and be honest and at least accept that reducing the very rich's tax burden will not achieve that norm. Just say you don't care if the tax code is fair and you want it to be neutral. Stop pretending you care about fairness.

BoatShoes;654219 wrote:Well I had a detailed reply but my browser decided to crash which is very, very frustrating especially since this is just recreational time that I don't like to waste but my stubbornness compels me to reply. I will just use your numbers since they're in the thread.

The U.S. Earned had about 11.7 trillion in GDP in 2004. The Feds brought in about $800 billion from income taxes in 2004, not all taxes collectively. This information is available. Using your number from 2004. Meaning, the top 1% earned. 2.23 trillion in 2004 but paid 295 billion in federal income taxes.

Also when you consider that they own > 40% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 40% owns < 1%; some might say that, if the u.s. defense budget is designed to protect those assets, it's tough to see why the bottom 40% should be obligated to contribute more than 1% of the consideration for that (not counting what their lives are worth of course). Adam Smith, the founder of Capitalism, would agree. "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."

Also, when you consider the declining marginal utilities of dollars, the real value that these dollars have to these rich persons giving them up is not nearly has high as the real dollar values to tax payers in lower incomes.

Pretty upset that I lost most of my post but don't feel like doing it again. I hope this is at least some what effective. But as is the case, our tax code is not in line with fairness norms and it's not because the very rich pay too much, it's because they do not pay enough given the amount of economic growth they absorb out of the economy and the overwhelming amount of national assets they own being protected by our monstrously large military.

Nevertheless, I should point out that I'm not necessarily for "fair" taxation. Most of the time I'm for neutral taxation and you can't satisfy both norms at once. But, if we're going to say we want fairness...for heaven's sake we have to at least look at the facts and be honest and at least accept that reducing the very rich's tax burden will not achieve that norm. Just say you don't care if the tax code is fair and you want it to be neutral. Stop pretending you care about fairness.

Then redo the tax code to make it a "Proportionate DOD Protected Wealth Percentage Tax," or some other convoluted bullshit. As of today, it's called Income Tax. And as of today, the rich pay more than their "fair share" of it. End of story.

I am so happy that Obama is going to create a website so I can track where my tax dollars are spent...what a waste of time, money, efforts, and web-space.

I watched/listened to the whole speech, I was cooking at it was going on. I was less than impressed with what he had to talk about. Okay, he wants to get the percentage of college graduates to the highest in the world...so what if there's not jobs for the degree-holders. Okay, so he wants to increase this "green" energy stuff...what is he going to do in the next 2 years (or even 6 years) about the price of fuel today? To me, everything he had to say didn't have a whole lot to do what he did or is going to do. He said a lot of stuff about where we've came from (yes, I realize that is what part of the SOTU is supposed to do) but never said a whole lot about what he is going to do.

He did lay out that we will be GREAT in 25-35 years though...we have to make it there first.

The more government gets involved in education, the further we fall behind. Sorta like how I noticed that the more we push sex ed down the throats of those in schools, the higher the pregnancy works.

What's the common denominator?

That's not accurate Center. Notice how many other nations that perform better than us in Math and Science have more centralized control over their educations?

And the sex ed thing that you keep bringing up doesn't jive with nearly all the research on the topic. The problem is that it isn't being taught properly, not that we're teaching too much.

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/26/obamas-plan-would-cost-another-20-billion


Change we can believe in ........

QuakerOats;654322 wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/26/obamas-plan-would-cost-another-20-billion


Change we can believe in ........

why don't you wait until he submits the budget to see what the tag will be for some of this stuff? It's kind of pointless to speculate. Also, there are things that actually need investment...cut where needed, invest where needed...makes sense to me.

derek bomar;654330 wrote:why don't you wait until he submits the budget to see what the tag will be for some of this stuff? It's kind of pointless to speculate. Also, there are things that actually need investment...cut where needed, invest where needed...makes sense to me.

OK, fair enough. We can evaluate it based on last year's budget, too.

Oops....ummm....wait a sec....uhhh....well....hmmm....I guess we could if we HAD a budget last year. Thanks also to Nancy and Harry, more spineless turds.

BGFalcons82;654348 wrote:OK, fair enough. We can evaluate it based on last year's budget, too.

Oops....ummm....wait a sec....uhhh....well....hmmm....I guess we could if we HAD a budget last year. Thanks also to Nancy and Harry, more spineless turds.

We did, it was a CR based off of the 2009 budget.

But, we did not have a FY 2010 budget, and blame both parties for that one.

ptown_trojans_1;654350 wrote:But, we did not have a FY 2010 budget, and blame both parties for that one.

I forgot....Bush's fault. My bad.

Seriously, how do you blame both parties when the Dems are in control of everything? I'm pretty sure this wasn't filibustered and the House didn't produce one.

Thanks for the laugh. There may be an "official" Federal budget but it's a facade for spending far beyond our means and finding all possible avenues of taxation to fund the spending. Guess which side of the ledger is winning?

BGFalcons82;654392 wrote:I forgot....Bush's fault. My bad.

Seriously, how do you blame both parties when the Dems are in control of everything? I'm pretty sure this wasn't filibustered and the House didn't produce one.

Haha. Right, never mentioned Bush so I didn't blame Bush. Nice try though.

And how do you blame both parties, do you know how Congress works? The minority still holds much influence, especially in the Senate.
Nothing can really come out of the budget committees without both parties approving. Plus, both parties really do not want to make cuts, especially if it is in their state.
Also, much is done behind the scenes in the budget committees where both parties go through and add or cut certain sections. As a result, if a few members of 1 party decide to buck what most are doing, the committee can be gridlocked and not produce a budget bill. This is what happened in the House as R's and D's could not agree on anything related to Health Care, as well as other areas, in the budget. As a result, the budget never really got to the floor until late because no one worked on those issues.

In the Senate, they can't really move on it until the House moves on the budget. Since the House took so long as R's and D's could not agree, the Senate couldn't move.
Then what happened was the R's disagreed on issues DADT as well as funding for other areas. While there was no "filibuster", there were numerous threats of one and the Senate could never get to that 60 vote (which would take R's) So, as a result, it was during the Lame Duck that they just decided to pass the CR, and that took really D's and R's (McCain and Levin really).
So, it is both parties at fault.

I Wear Pants;654304 wrote:That's not accurate Center. Notice how many other nations that perform better than us in Math and Science have more centralized control over their educations?
And the sex ed thing that you keep bringing up doesn't jive with nearly all the research on the topic. The problem is that it isn't being taught properly, not that we're teaching too much.

haha! I knew that would ramp ya, Pants.

Well played.

ptown_trojans_1;654405 wrote:Haha. Right, never mentioned Bush so I didn't blame Bush. Nice try though.

And how do you blame both parties, do you know how Congress works? The minority still holds much influence, especially in the Senate.
Nothing can really come out of the budget committees without both parties approving. Plus, both parties really do not want to make cuts, especially if it is in their state.
Also, much is done behind the scenes in the budget committees where both parties go through and add or cut certain sections. As a result, if a few members of 1 party decide to buck what most are doing, the committee can be gridlocked and not produce a budget bill. This is what happened in the House as R's and D's could not agree on anything related to Health Care, as well as other areas, in the budget. As a result, the budget never really got to the floor until late because no one worked on those issues.

In the Senate, they can't really move on it until the House moves on the budget. Since the House took so long as R's and D's could not agree, the Senate couldn't move.
Then what happened was the R's disagreed on issues DADT as well as funding for other areas. While there was no "filibuster", there were numerous threats of one and the Senate could never get to that 60 vote (which would take R's) So, as a result, it was during the Lame Duck that they just decided to pass the CR, and that took really D's and R's (McCain and Levin really).
So, it is both parties at fault.

Nice try, ptown. Well thought out. Yes, I know how Congress works.....or is SUPPOSED to work.

The answer lies in the election year. While the Dems tried to deny the existence of the Tea Party and the fiscal discipline they espoused daily, they were quite aware that publishing a budget in an election year was akin to political suicide. Their lack of intestinal fortitude is directly tied to their wanting to hide from the record deficits they were responsible for creating. The R's couldn't stop anything in the House. Nancy was in charge and she wasn't going to expose numbers to the public that could be used against her on November 2nd.

Funny...when deficits were created in Reagan's era, only he is blamed and the Dem-controlled Congress is completely forgotten. When deficits quadruple to unimaginable heights under a Dem POTUS and Dem-dominated Congress, then Republicans are to blame. I'm thinking the voters didn't quite see it this way on November 2, 2010.

BGFalcons82;654416 wrote:Nice try, ptown. Well thought out. Yes, I know how Congress works.....or is SUPPOSED to work.

The answer lies in the election year. While the Dems tried to deny the existence of the Tea Party and the fiscal discipline they espoused daily, they were quite aware that publishing a budget in an election year was akin to political suicide. Their lack of intestinal fortitude is directly tied to their wanting to hide from the record deficits they were responsible for creating. The R's couldn't stop anything in the House. Nancy was in charge and she wasn't going to expose numbers to the public that could be used against her on November 2nd.

Funny...when deficits were created in Reagan's era, only he is blamed and the Dem-controlled Congress is completely forgotten. When deficits quadruple to unimaginable heights under a Dem POTUS and Dem-dominated Congress, then Republicans are to blame. I'm thinking the voters didn't quite see it this way on November 2, 2010.

Yes, the election year did play a difference, but so did the gridlock on the House Budget Committee. Remember Hoyer saying they won't get a budget. It was because both sides could not agree on any budget. R's and D's could not agree on anything for weeks. So, the lack of balls is on both sides. And yes, the R's did a pretty good job at slowing things, like all minorities have before.

And you forgot the Senate, and the fact anything needs 60. That is both R's and D's.

I'm not sure people totally forget Tip O'Neil and that Congress, at least not people around here. As to the election in November, I thought it was more voter angst toward both party established ways.

My whole point is both sides have screwed up the situation so bad over the last 10+ years. Blaming one over the other makes no sense and ignores the shady, back dealing crap that both sides do to get votes.

ptown_trojans_1;654429 wrote:Yes, the election year did play a difference, but so did the gridlock on the House Budget Committee. Remember Hoyer saying they won't get a budget. It was because both sides could not agree on any budget. R's and D's could not agree on anything for weeks. So, the lack of balls is on both sides. And yes, the R's did a pretty good job at slowing things, like all minorities have before.

And you forgot the Senate, and the fact anything needs 60. That is both R's and D's.

I'm not sure people totally forget Tip O'Neil and that Congress, at least not people around here. As to the election in November, I thought it was more voter angst toward both party established ways.

My whole point is both sides have screwed up the situation so bad over the last 10+ years. Blaming one over the other makes no sense and ignores the shady, back dealing crap that both sides do to get votes.

The Dems never even tried to submit a budget. There's no reasonable way to claim both parties are at fault here. Lack of Pub cooperation didn't stop them from shoving HCR through with reconciliation...which ironically is supposed to be used to get budgets done. Sorry...not biting here.

CenterBHSFan;653836 wrote:IF he can stop sucking up air through his nose in between sentences. That annoyed the hell outta me!

He's from Wisconsin. That's how people talk up there. I've heard a lot worse.

Little Danny;654451 wrote:He's from Wisconsin. That's how people talk up there. I've heard a lot worse.

I just read the response. I liked the ideas, but need to see some more substance on the budget cuts.

I Wear Pants;654304 wrote:Notice how many other nations that perform better than us in Math and Science have more centralized control over their educations?

Centralized power over education has not and will not work for the US. If you look at history and these performance numbers the US began to drop after federal involvement and the creation of a new federal bureaucracy, the department of eduction. No coincidence.

Central control over 300+ million people with diverse values and beliefs simply will not work. The nations that are currently performing better and have central control of their education system are not comparable to the US. Most are homogeneous nations and have small populations. Roughly the size of a medium to large US state.

Canada and Australia are more diverse but their populations are similar to that of large US state. Japan is far more is more populous than any US state but is very homogeneous. There are individual EU nations ranked higher than the US. If the EU were to centralize control over all its citizens and states they would drop too overall. If you averaged all of the EU states together they would rank below the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

Why can't you simply take the good ideas from the successful EU states like the Netherlands, Germany, etc and places like Japan and use them in the US?

What do people's values and beliefs have to do with a good education system?

How so?

I Wear Pants;654516 wrote:How so?

hmmm... I'm gonna give you an abundance of credit in saying that I absolutely think you know the answer to that. Because I don't think that even you want to give federal government central control.

fish82;654447 wrote:The Dems never even tried to submit a budget. There's no reasonable way to claim both parties are at fault here. Lack of Pub cooperation didn't stop them from shoving HCR through with reconciliation...which ironically is supposed to be used to get budgets done. Sorry...not biting here.

That was my thought exactly. March 2010, when the Dems wanted to get something done, they didn't need any Republicans.