Online Now 3552

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2580
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3599
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Govt budget question?

  • dgoz said...

    My best guess is that Obama wants to raise taxes on wealthier individuals not because of revenue alone, but perhaps to suppress much of the speculative activity fueling the financial sector. Wealthy people aren't the spenders which drive the production of real goods and services. What you hear in the media is not necessarily the real story or the real strategy, but how it's played out in the political arena and what emotion it creates amongst the population. Just a thought..

    The problem is that only 70% of eligible workers in the US actually pay taxes

    Leppycole

  • Leppycole said...

    The problem is that only 70% of eligible workers in the US actually pay taxes

    This isn't factual

    Everybody who works in America is paying to Fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Thats half of the US budget.

    However, 30-40% of Americans aren't paying anything on deficit interest, defense, and discretionary spending.

    People who don't pay Income tax, still pay SS. Medicare, and Medicaid withdrawals.

    rms02d ●

  • rms02d said...

    This isn't factual

    Everybody who works in America is paying to Fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Thats half of the US budget.

    However, 30-40% of Americans aren't paying anything on deficit interest, defense, and discretionary spending.

    People who don't pay Income tax, still pay SS. Medicare, and Medicaid withdrawals.

    and a good portion of those that don't pay to fund everything minus the entitlements get money back via the EIC. So not only do they get food stamps, phones, gas, and homes, but also cash.

    NLeininger

  • NLeininger said...

    and a good portion of those that don't pay to fund everything minus the entitlements get money back via the EIC. So not only do they get food stamps, phones, gas, and homes, but also cash.

    If you get welfare, you can't get the EITC. If you make jack shit and want to live in subsidized (not entirely free) housing and get subsidized (not entirely free) phone service and get food stamps, then go do it dude.

    The EITC isn't controversial. That is if you aren't right right of Reagan or Friedman. Lol.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    If you get welfare, you can't get the EITC. If you make jack shit and want to live in subsidized (not entirely free) housing and get subsidized (not entirely free) phone service and get food stamps, then go do it dude.

    The EITC isn't controversial. That is if you aren't right right of Reagan or Friedman. Lol.

    Keep believing that dumbass.

    NLeininger

  • dgoz said...

    WADR, it doesn't work like that. The government has a planned amount of outlays, roughly 3.8 trillion per year and has been holding steady last few years. So, it spends money into the economy based on forecast overall size of the economy, roughly 20% of GDP. Then, depending on wages, and consumer and business spending that is occurring, a certain % is returned in taxes. The deficit is nothing more than the money saved in the private sector, beyond what was taxed. So, the deficit is money that households, businesses, banks are saving. Each year the private sector saves, which is the deficit, and the accumulated amount of deficits overtime is the debt. Government debt is an equal amount of net private sector savings overtime. We rarely ever achieve a government surplus, and it is not the goal. Whatever amount the annual deficit is, we tend to issue securities in an equal amount so that individuals, corporations, and various other individuals can safely park their extra cash into. This is mainly done as a means to control inflation and/or interest rates. So, we are experiencing high deficits right now, not due to extreme government spending, but because of a financial crisis which caused consumers and businesses to slow spending. Households are deleveraging from underwater mortgages etc. Wages are lower and thus, less taxes returned. If you raise taxes on people trying to spend, then you just make the problem worse. Make sense?

    I hope you seriously don't believe that...

    signature image signature image signature image

    Go Vols

    orangeasylum ●

  • NLeininger said...

    Keep believing that dumbass.

    Lol. Yea. You're off the rocker extreme. Pretty much expected.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • orangeasylum said...

    I hope you seriously don't believe that...

    Where do you disagree?

    dgoz ●

  • Did you pick that up in an economics class at a university?

    i801568

  • dgoz said...

    WADR, it doesn't work like that. The government has a planned amount of outlays, roughly 3.8 trillion per year and has been holding steady last few years. So, it spends money into the economy based on forecast overall size of the economy, roughly 20% of GDP. Then, depending on wages, and consumer and business spending that is occurring, a certain % is returned in taxes. The deficit is nothing more than the money saved in the private sector, beyond what was taxed. So, the deficit is money that households, businesses, banks are saving. Each year the private sector saves, which is the deficit, and the accumulated amount of deficits overtime is the debt. Government debt is an equal amount of net private sector savings overtime. We rarely ever achieve a government surplus, and it is not the goal. Whatever amount the annual deficit is, we tend to issue securities in an equal amount so that individuals, corporations, and various other individuals can safely park their extra cash into. This is mainly done as a means to control inflation and/or interest rates. So, we are experiencing high deficits right now, not due to extreme government spending, but because of a financial crisis which caused consumers and businesses to slow spending. Households are deleveraging from underwater mortgages etc. Wages are lower and thus, less taxes returned. If you raise taxes on people trying to spend, then you just make the problem worse. Make sense?

    Question. This goes to everyone really.

    1). Do you believe the money you earn is your own money?
    Or
    2). Do you believe the money you earn is the governments money and the government decidedly how much you get to keep?

    dgoz post sounds more like the 2). option.

    signature image

    We are ND

    condoms USuCk

  • I agree w/ just about all of your post and would like to see that come to fruition, BUT it would never happen.
    Just look at how the politicians are acting now with the whole sequestration issue. I mean we have political leaders out and out lying to the American public on what these so called cuts will do. And that's not really making any cuts it just lowering the budget growth rate.
    We have a big problem in America when our so called government "leaders" act like 5th grade children and We the People let them get away with it, we get the government we deserve I guess.
    Unfortunate the only weapon we have to keep our leaders in check is the media, and lets be honest w/ ourselves. We have not had an honest and non political true media in over 70 years maybe even longer.

    signature image

    We are ND

    condoms USuCk

  • condoms USuCk said...

    Question. This goes to everyone really.

    1). Do you believe the money you earn is your own money? Or 2). Do you believe the money you earn is the governments money and the government decidedly how much you get to keep?

    dgoz post sounds more like the 2). option.

    Yes, and good pick up. So, I do understand this is controversial and it's not what we are led to believe. And really it's not the government creating money. In my simplified explanation, I am combining the federal reserve and gov't into one entity. The federal reserve creates money and banks create money. Your dollars are called federal reserve notes and meant as "legal tender to satisfy all debts public and private." Because currency is a means to track debts owed to one another. We receive dollars in exchange for our labor and then we spend dollars for the purchase of goods and services, and we pay taxes in dollars for public services. If the gov't takes in more taxes than it spends into the economy, then it does reduce private sector savings, so, this is definitely something that I am not advocating.

    dgoz ●

  • panic1013 said...

    What would the effective tax rate per person have to be in order for no cuts to be necessary?

    i would say its the amount that would allow "the working class" to quit bending over like the Aubs "39er" defense in 2012 & force the Govt to quit squandering Trillions at the same time.

    This post was edited by Crimson_Ghost on 3/1/2013 at 9:22 AM

    Crimson_Ghost

  • condoms USuCk said...

    We have not had an honest and non political true media in over 70 years maybe even longer.

    We have never had a non-political media.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre ●

  • Happy Sequestration Eve everybody.

    This post was edited by NLeininger on 3/1/2013 at 9:21 AM

    NLeininger

  • dgoz said...

    If the gov't takes in more taxes than it spends into the economy, then it does reduce private sector savings, so, this is definitely something that I am not advocating.

    You understand the economy, but for the love of God please make your way to a finance class.

    You are saying that it is ok for the government to run deficits because it saves the private sector money, but wouldn't it be easier to just save the private sector the money with lower taxes? Why run these deficits to save the private sector money, when you can save them money at the very beginning with lower taxes?

    I promise, Wal-Mart would rather take a tax break than thank the government for "private sector saving." Let me guess, the internet, the roads, the transportation services..."you (the business owner) didn't build that."

    If you called the CEO's of Fortune 500 companies and explained to them that their taxes were really their savings...they would punch you in the effing face.

    signature image

    RIP Lil Julio

    fat x nub

  • fat x nub said...

    You understand the economy, but for the love of God please make your way to a finance class.

    You are saying that it is ok for the government to run deficits because it saves the private sector money, but wouldn't it be easier to just save the private sector the money with lower taxes? Why run these deficits to save the private sector money, when you can save them money at the very beginning with lower taxes?

    I promise, Wal-Mart would rather take a tax break than thank the government for "private sector saving." Let me guess, the internet, the roads, the transportation services..."you (the business owner) didn't build that."

    If you called the CEO's of Fortune 500 companies and explained to them that their taxes were really their savings...they would punch you in the effing face.

    He is basically saying that the deficit is money spent that the government could have taxed you for but didn't. So therefore since they didn't tax you for it it was money they saved you. It's a very screwed up way of looking at things. It also ignores that eventually they will have to tax you for it to pay back the money they borrowed to "save" for you in the first place.

    It's like saying I could have punched you in the face and took $100 from you, but since I didn't and I went to the bank and borrowed the $100 instead I just saved you $100 dollars. Lol.

    TroyTide

  • TroyTide said...

    He is basically saying that the deficit is money spent that the government could have taxed you for but didn't. So therefore since they didn't tax you for it it was money they saved you. It's a very screwed up way of looking at things. It also ignores that eventually they will have to tax you for it to pay back the money they borrowed to "save" for you in the first place.

    It's like saying I could have punched you in the face and took $100 from you, but since I didn't and I went to the bank and borrowed the $100 instead I just saved you $100 dollars. Lol.

    He is also ignoring the fact that no institution (and yes that includes the government) can carry that large of a debt burden and remain afloat. Too be an advocate for deficit after deficit confuses the hell out of me.

    signature image

    RIP Lil Julio

    fat x nub

  • fat x nub said...

    You understand the economy, but for the love of God please make your way to a finance class.

    You are saying that it is ok for the government to run deficits because it saves the private sector money, but wouldn't it be easier to just save the private sector the money with lower taxes? Why run these deficits to save the private sector money, when you can save them money at the very beginning with lower taxes?

    I promise, Wal-Mart would rather take a tax break than thank the government for "private sector saving." Let me guess, the internet, the roads, the transportation services..."you (the business owner) didn't build that."

    If you called the CEO's of Fortune 500 companies and explained to them that their taxes were really their savings...they would punch you in the effing face.

    Yes, an alternative option would be to lower taxes. Never said it wasn't. Just saying that deficit spending creates money as bank loans do. Deficit spending is the norm, not the exception, and there is a reason why our deficit spending is currently so high, yet falling. It's a closed loop, a system. And yes, people take risks and start businesses and work hard to grow them. The taxes they pay are part of the system. Congrats to the achievers in that system. I'm all for the small business owners and them some. They are way overtaxed. Huge rent seekers?...not as much, but it is what it is.

    dgoz ●

  • fat x nub said...

    He is also ignoring the fact that no institution (and yes that includes the government) can carry that large of a debt burden and remain afloat. Too be an advocate for deficit after deficit confuses the hell out of me.

    Can we agree that we have always run deficits? Except for only a few exceptions in our history.

    dgoz ●

  • nm

    This post was edited by dgoz on 3/1/2013 at 1:24 PM

    dgoz ●

  • dgoz said...

    Can we agree that we have always run deficits? Except for only a few exceptions in our history.

    Yes....but does that make it ok?

    signature image

    RIP Lil Julio

    fat x nub

  • TroyTide said...

    He is basically saying that the deficit is money spent that the government could have taxed you for but didn't. So therefore since they didn't tax you for it it was money they saved you. It's a very screwed up way of looking at things. It also ignores that eventually they will have to tax you for it to pay back the money they borrowed to "save" for you in the first place.

    It's like saying I could have punched you in the face and took $100 from you, but since I didn't and I went to the bank and borrowed the $100 instead I just saved you $100 dollars. Lol.

    Did he still punch me in the face? That's the important part.

    NLeininger

  • dgoz said...

    Can we agree that we have always run deficits? Except for only a few exceptions in our history.

    So now we are saying Clinton sucked as a president because he worked with Newt to balance the budget and ran a surplus, the fucking nerve of that womanizing pig.

    I love when Carney says that we should go back to the Clinton rates, too which I'm waiting for the a reporter with the stones to immediately follow up with the obvious question, "Are we going back to the Clinton spending levels?"

    NLeininger

  • NLeininger said...

    Did he still punch me in the face? That's the important part.

    No he punched you in the nuts. Jokes on you.

    twitter: nszullo

    DCHokie88 ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports