OFF THE CLIFF!

[guido911]

^^^^ Gaspar, you listen to talk radio on KRMG far too much. Find new talking points. Look forward not back....something might be gaining on you. Leave the nuts that got us here behind.

Um, the nuts that got us here have been in office since 2008. Sorry to break that to ya.

[shadows]

--QUOTED---

For all the people who like to drink the government's Kool-Aid, here is your poison:

•Medicare: $24.8 trillion

•Social Security: $21.4 trillion

•Federal debt: $9.4 trillion

•Military retirement/disability benefits: $3.6 trillion

•Federal employee retirement benefits: $2 trillion

•State, local government obligations: $5.2 trillion

THESE ARE UNSECURED OBLIGATIONS AND DO NOT INCLUDE OUTSTANDING  SECURED DEBTS.

This represents many times the GNP.

Did you take your glass of Kool-Aid to drink on you way down?



   

[guido911]

^^^^^ What was the point of that with regards to the fiscal cliff?

[shadows]

^^^^^ What was the point of that with regards to the fiscal cliff?

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Good buddy you must be kidding.   Surely you have read the news or some one turned on the TV and your sub-conscious mind recorded that the US is bankrupt for the tune of $15 trilling dollar to as much as $211 trillion dollars while the gross nation product could be as little $15 trillion dollars. 

The thread is based on like we are standing on the rim of a cliff ready to jump if no solution is found.   How would you feel if you lost all necessary resources (stocks, bonds, money deposits, pensions and SS) to carry on your present quality of life. It happened in the 30’s. and could happen tomorrow as the FDIC cannot cover the loses.

The saving my folks had finally paid .03 cents for each dollar on deposit.  Do you think people should be informed that it is being reported everyday.?       

[Red Arrow]

I am beginning to believe we should go "off the cliff"

It will make every one recognize they have a stake in our future.

[guido911]

I am beginning to believe we should go "off the cliff"

It will make every one recognize they have a stake in our future.

I am all for it.

[Gaspar]

10-4 Good Buddy.  I'm thinking that the only way to wake the people and force both Republicans and Democrats to face their spending problems is the Cliff.  I think it will also cause the tax and spend revolt necessary to reform the tax laws, and flush out members of the house and senate that cannot control their spending habits. 

26 states have now rejected Obamacare.  Depending on how may states you think their are (50 or 57), that puts more than half the financial burdon on the Federal government to develop and administrate the exchanges.  The program is already on the path to be more than twice as expensive as the charlatans promised, now, like every single government program in the history of the planet, it is becoming exponentially more expensive than estimated.  With sequestration there is little chance it will have an opportunity to be implemented in the president's second term, and the likelihood  that it can be completely defunded and replaced with a reasonable free market solution agreed upon, and passed with the people's consent is far greater.

Because so much is riding on this, I am confident that President Obama will express the leadership necessary to get a deal done! 

[nathanm]

I am beginning to believe we should go "off the cliff"

The only thing that bothers me about this is that those with very low incomes get hit the hardest The first $8750 of income will be taxed at 15% instead of 10%, leaving those who make very little paying the greatest (rate) increase. No other bracket increases that much. I don't mind the $150ish more a month that will be going to the tax man that much because we have it. I worry about the people who don't.

[Red Arrow]

The only thing that bothers me about this is that those with very low incomes get hit the hardest The first $8750 of income will be taxed at 15% instead of 10%, leaving those who make very little paying the greatest (rate) increase. No other bracket increases that much. I don't mind the $150ish more a month that will be going to the tax man that much because we have it. I worry about the people who don't.

I find it interesting that when the Bush cuts were put in place, the lament of the day was that the cuts did virtually nothing for the lowest income earners.  Now the screams (not just you Nathan) are that the little guy will really get hammered.

Using 2012 numbers:
The first $8700 of taxable income will go from 10% to 15% for single taxpayers.  The standard deduction ($5800) and one personal exemption ($3700) make the lowest $9500 not subject to Federal Income Tax.  Married, filing jointly the numbers are $11,600 + 2*($3700) = $19,000 not subject to Federal Income Tax.  For married filing jointly, the 10% bracket also goes to $17,400.  Being over 65 an/or blind increases the amount of income not subject to Fed Income Tax.

Back to the person filing single.  $8700. x .15 = $1305.  $8700 x .10 = $870.  ($1305-$870)/12 = $36.25/month increase.  I guess you figured your personal increase to get the $150/mo number. I expect that the person who would really be affected by $36/mo probably won't see that increase due to other benefits already in place to over come that amount.

Social Security benefits are not taxed if your overall income is below a certain amount.  That helps my mom out a bunch.  She doesn't get a free ride though.

The Bush tax cuts created the 10% bracket out of the lowest part of the Clinton 15% bracket.  The dollar levels for the brackets were also changed so a direct comparison to the Clinton tax becomes tedious.


http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Edit:
A person filing single making $18,200 would pay $1305 (using 15%) for an overall Federal Income Tax rate of .0717 or approximately 7.2%.
A person filing single making $10,000 would pay $75 (using 15%) for an overall Federal Income Tax rate of .0075 or approximately 0.75%.

[shadows]

Quoted
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.- Albert Einstein
_____________________________________________________________________
In order to pay off the US debts it would require a 100% tax rate for years.  The system whereas those who supposedly represent the citizens have the choice of voting to increase the national debt or being confronted with “Do you want to get paid”.  China, our largest debtor,  has warned us that they are not to be paid by inflating the dollar.  We will not need to jump off the cliff because we are going be pushed off.. Ripley marching Chinese marching at six abreast, military speed, can march off a cliff forever. 

[guido911]

The only thing that bothers me about this is that those with very low incomes get hit the hardest The first $8750 of income will be taxed at 15% instead of 10%, leaving those who make very little paying the greatest (rate) increase. No other bracket increases that much. I don't mind the $150ish more a month that will be going to the tax man that much because we have it. I worry about the people who don't.

If by hit the hardest you mean they will have to pay a little more? Because being hard hit when it comes to the government taking property from someone is relative. Still, does it really matter how they are affected? In the words of heiron, too bad. If they don't like it, they can pack up and leave. I'm sure France would love to have those folks move on in.

Taxes are not supposed to be pain free or painFUL for people. It's supposed to pay for things our government is supposed to provide.

Bring on the cliff right now please.

[dbacks fan]

You know, we created the cliff. Through all of the tax breaks and deductions over the last 30 years we have created this problem. It's like a business that keeps cutting the price of an item, while the cost of producing the item has gone up. We are beyond the break even point, the gov't is spending more than it takes in, and the intake from revenue from taxes, fees, tarriffs, import taxes, export taxes, revenue from producers, consumers, and citizens can not keep up with our spending. If this was a business, it would create a $4.00 part, but it's sold for $1.95 in hopes of selling enough to compensate for the price, but it won't work. This is where we are now.

[Gaspar]

If by hit the hardest you mean they will have to pay a little more? Because being hard hit when it comes to the government taking property from someone is relative. Still, does it really matter how they are affected? In the words of heiron, too bad. If they don't like it, they can pack up and leave. I'm sure France would love to have those folks move on in.

Taxes are not supposed to be pain free or painFUL for people. It's supposed to pay for things our government is supposed to provide.

Bring on the cliff right now please.

With standard deductions and credits, most in that bracket currently pay nothing.  In fact, many in that bracket actually receive more than they pay.  Nate is still correct though, because the impact on the middle class will create less spending, and therefore fewer low income jobs, and the impact on the high income (job creators) will be passed along in the form of price increases for goods and services, as well as reduction in labor expenses to balance against the increased loss.

This holds true of taxation, regulation, and trade restriction.  The impact is rarely felt by the wealthy, and always becomes a yolk on the poor.

So, cliff or no cliff, no matter what bracket is adjusted, the primary effect is always felt most dramatically by the working poor.

The higher entry standards imposed by licensing laws reduce the supply of professional services ... The poor are the net losers, because the availability of low-cost service has been reduced. In essence, the poor subsidize the information research costs of the rich. – S. David Young



 

[Townsend]

Lindsey Graham to Republicans: 'Be quiet'

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/graham-to-republicans-shut-up-84840.html

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Monday that it's time for Republicans "to be quiet for a while" and wait to see if Democrats are willing to negotiate reducing entitlements in the fiscal cliff negotiations.

"I'd put revenue on the table only if they do entitlement reform. Here's what I don't hear: I don't hear any Democrat of note saying, 'Here's what I would do on the entitlement side,'" Graham said on Fox News. "So if I were Republicans, I would be quiet for a while and see what the Democrats put on the table for entitlement reform."

Graham also had tough talk for President Barack Obama, saying that Obama would be in for a "rude awakening" if Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling.

"Here is where the President is going to have a rude awakening: We'll get to the end of the year, there will probably be a small deal to get to the end of the year," Graham said.

He continued: "[But] I can tell you this: there is a hardening on the Republican side. We're not going to raise the debt ceiling. We're not going to let Obama borrow anymore money or any American Congress borrow anymore money until we fix this country from becoming Greece."

Since Obama has won reelection, his administration has said that since he campaigned on increasing taxes on the wealthiest of Americans, that he has a mandate to do so.

Graham's take: "How about manning up, Mr. President, and use your mandate to bring this country together to stop us from becoming Greece?

"There'll come a day – and it's called the debt ceiling debate – when Republicans will have leverage to save this country from becoming Greece. I hope we're strong enough as a party to seize that moment," Graham said.

[RecycleMichael]

The fiscal cliff has across-the-board spending cuts of $110 billion per year. This is from wikipedia...

The effect on both defense and non-defense discretionary spending will be significant if the cliff is not avoided. Cuts totaling $110 billion per year will be applied from 2013 to 2022, split evenly ($55 billion each) between defense and non-defense discretionary spending. For scale, discretionary funding for 2011 totaled $1,277 billion: budget authority of $712 billion for defense and funding totaling $566 billion for non-defense activities.

During 2013, defense and non-defense discretionary spending would be maintained around 2012 levels due to the sequester. However, the spending begins to rise thereafter, but not at the pace projected prior to the sequester. In other words, the trajectory of spending increases is reduced, but spending is not frozen at 2012 levels. Defense and non-defense discretionary spending increases from 2013–2021 would be about 1.5% annually, significantly below the prior decade.

For example, according to the CBO Historical Tables, defense spending (including overseas contingency operations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) grew from $295 billion in 2000 to $700 billion in 2011, an annual growth rate of 8.2%. Non-defense discretionary spending grew at a 6.6% annual rate during that time, from $320 billion to $646 billion.

The austerity represented by the sequester is not unprecedented; from 1990–1999, defense spending actually declined by about 1% annually, from $300 billion to $276 billion, although non-defense discretionary spending grew by 4.5% annually, rising from $200 to $297 billion.

The CBO estimated the possible impact on defense spending in October 2011 testimony: "Compliance with the caps on discretionary funding could occur through many different combinations of defense and non-defense funding. For example, defense and nondefense appropriations might be cut proportionally relative to the funding that would be necessary to keep pace with inflation. In that case, funding for defense programs apart from overseas contingency operations would drop from $552 billion in 2011 to $538 billion in 2012 before rising again and reaching $637 billion in 2021.

Between 2012 and 2021, such funding would be $445 billion less than the amount that would occur if the amount of funding for 2011 grew at the rate of inflation. When measured as a share of GDP, funding for defense would decline by about 1 percentage point from 2011 to 2021, or by more than one-fourth. Funding for defense in 2021 (excluding overseas contingency operations) would represent 2.7 percent of GDP; by comparison, annual funding for defense (excluding overseas contingency operations) has averaged 3.4 percent of GDP during the past decade."