So the banks – some of them, anyway, who bet long on toxic assets and lent like 14 year olds with too-big-allowances – are in trouble. The government, rightly or (koff, koff) wrongly, is stepping in and socializing the major bank industry in all but name, and spreading the love downstream with an immense “stimulus” program that promises money to just about everyone.
The question is, how is this going to be paid for?
“Borrowing?” Sure – but eventually loans need to be paid back (unless the government has ordered Fannie and Freddie to underwrite the loans, but that doesn’t apply in this situation). And that’ll be “The taxpayer”
Who is this “taxpayer?”
Well, let’s find out who it’s not.
For starters, let’s leave out the 91 million Americans who pay no tax at all, leaving 209 million people to pay taxes.
Who are the patriarchs who caused the problem? Men! That leaves out the 51% of the population that are women, taking us down to 98 million.
Remove those in State and Federal prison, (3.8 million), as well as the 3% of Americans on parole (another 9 million), and you’re at just under 86 million people on the hook for these plans.
Of course, you can’t count the 73.5 million Americans who are below age 18, obviously. They’re kids. It’s not their fault. That leaves 12.5 million of us – except we’re going to have to leave out 10 million illegal immigrants, leaving us at 2.5 million), the military (since they’re busy), the employees of federal and state governments (since they’ll be the ones solving the problem and…
…that leaves two Americans. You, and me. We are the ones who are going to wind up paying for all this.
(With profound apolgies to PJ O’Rourke, whose original bit this was).
So,
When we were told Iraq would cost $5-15 B, and that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction, many people, me included said, “BS.” Yet, you neo-cons said, “not to worry.”
When we argued against massive tax cuts for the rich, warning that it would imperil the treasury, you neo-cons said, “not to worry.”
When we argued that no-bid contracts were nothing short of moving the government to prop-up business of choice (by the Admnistration) and were tantamount to robbing the treasury, you neo-cons called us ‘tin foil hatted fools.”
And so, the “surplusses” turned into massive deficits, yet no real complaint issued forth from neo-cons (like you) – oh you waived your hand about the debt, but no real movement was undertaken to restrain the costs of ‘wars of choice’ like Iraq.
You phumpered about debt during the 80’s, yet Reagan took the debt from under $1T to over $3.5T.
Bush took the debt from $4.6T (airc) to over $9T (not even including FY 2009 which will add ANOTHER $1.7T in debt)
But.. now you are concerned about debts created to try to stabilize an economy ravaged by idiotic ‘what me worry’ policies about regulation and oversight of the large players in the US economy.
The term is convenient ethics. You TALKED about concerns during Bush’s years, but did nothing meaningful, but now want to complain about debt in times of REAL ecnomic crisis, debt not created to line contractor (and donor) pockets for wars of choice, but rather to try to soften catastrophe.
Conversely, many liberals, including me, have directly voiced problems with Obama’s actions – not tangential complaints about ‘other spending’ like you might have done vis a vis Bush’s budgets – but about these attempts.
In the end, though, it comes down to adults and well-intentioned people working for a solution, not just complaining, or even worse, calling complainers stupid or traitors.
Penigma, stop being such a stupid traitor.
BTW, did you review John Boehner’s tax plan?
AS I read it, it goes:
10% for incomes up to $100k
25% above that.
Now, I don’t know if he scaled it, I’ll assume he did (near $100k). If he didn’t, then it’s a patently stupid plan, as it would cause someone making $102k to make dramatically less than someone making $99k.
So, dealing with the serious side of such a plan, my reaction is ‘typical Republican plan’, tax the middle-class and poor to give massive breaks to the rich.
First, those making less than $40 (as a family), now will be taxed – so let’s tax the poor, really great – in order to give the rich a 33% (net) tax reduction.
Second, for those making $100-$200k – a massive tax increase – msot in that scale pay an adjusted rate of between 15-17% – so we’ll see an increase of roughly 8-10%, wonderful. Meaning an increase in taxes of something between $8000-$10000 at the low end, and $16000-$20000 at the high end
In truth, the only people who benefit are those between about $50k and $99k of net family incomes. That’s a large band – but the benefit is generally small, they’ll see a drop from roughly 13-15% (where they are now after adjustments/deductions), to 10%, not inconsequential, but not huge. However, in real dollars, it’s maximally about $5000, but more likely in the range of $2500-$3000.
The BIG winners of course, and as always, are at the top – those making above $250k. They’ll see tax cuts of $25,000 at least, clearly more the more they make.
In short, it taxes those who never before had to pay because they were too poor to be fairly, increases taxes on the bright and up and coming higher wage earning middle class, cuts taxes on the sort of ‘average joe” a bit, and provides massive cuts for the wealthy.
Same old talk about middle class cuts, while in fact taxing many of them, in order to give the rich big cuts.
Great – and this is THE solution to our problems. We already tried this in 2001 and it flatly did nothing other than exploding the debt, the debt you just complained about,
Peev, you clearly have no idea how taxes work.
Currently the tax brackets (single) are:
10% up to 8025
15% up to 32,550
25% up to 78,885
28% up to 164,550
33% up to 357,700
35% beyond that
First, if you make 8,026 per year, you aren’t taxed 15% of 8,026, you are taxed at 10% of 8,025 and 15% of the extra dollar. So, no, someone making 101k would not make less take home income than someone making 99k.
Second, under the plan you listed, everyone will recieve a tax cut (provided they make more than 8,025, in which case their tax will remain the same). Yes those at the top will recieve more of a tax cut, but that is because they pay more in the first place.
Peevee’s Liberal Fascist talking points…
“Yet, you neo-cons said, “not to worry.””
Without a supporting source you appear to be a LIAR. Just who do think you are quoting?
A neo-con is a former liberal that got mugged by reality.
“When we argued against massive tax cuts…”
“We” argued against JFK’s tax cut policies? Really?
“When we argued that no-bid contracts ,”
You argued against President Clinton on on-bid contracts? Really?
“…massive deficits…”
Care to opine on Obama’s current rate of adding $8 trillion to the debt in one term? Why not?
The road to hell is paved with Obama’s intentions.
Hey, Peevee, I took you to task once again but this time you can’t delete my comments. Bwwwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I can spot your Liberal Fascism a mile away.
A point I made in another comment:
Federal receipts in 2001, before Bush’s ‘massive tax cuts’=1.991 trillion
Federal receipts in 2008, after Bush’s ‘massive tax cuts’=2.521 trillion
Sometimes I think peev is really working for the conservative side.
Looky here… Pernicous Peev is mischaracterising conservatives and Republicans again.
I’m shocked – shocked – to discover there’s gambling going on here, Peev.
Miss Peev, no one said “not to worry”. I suspect you won’t even try to find actual quotes from… anyone. Why do i suspect that? Because you are a lying, libelous jackass with an obsession with run-on sentances.
Peev,
You are a treasonous, America-hating douchebag… and you wouldn’t know reason if it jumped up and licked you on the ass.
you wouldn’t know reason if it jumped up and licked you on the ass.
That’s Anal Sheikh’s job, damnit! Stop moving in on her territory.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5062032/Married-barrister-had-affair-with-client—and-charged-her-250-an-hour-.html
I would ask why, when confronted with these harsh realities all Peev can do is say “but Bush”. Sad, but typical.
However, in real dollars, it’s maximally about $5000, but more likely in the range of $2500-$3000.
I’ll take it.
Mitch wrote:
“Who are the patriarchs who caused the problem? Men! That leaves out the 51% of the population that are women, taking us down to 98 million.”
Women don’t pay taxes, only men do?
Really? Since when?
That’s going to come as a big surprise to a friend of mine, a CPA specializing in tax matters…. who is a senior partner in a major accounting firm. SHE has been in that line of work for oh, just a few decades now.
I’m sure she has a lot of her own money as well as clients funds that she should be getting back, by this reasoning.
Jeff McA wrote:
“Yes those at the top will recieve more of a tax cut, but that is because they pay more in the first place. ”
The figures you gave for the the federal tax brackets are fine as far as they go… which is not far enough. If you track the regressive nature of the amount of taxes those in the highest bracket, 35%, down from 38%, you would be aware how few people are actually paying at that highest rate. If anyone really believes the wealthiest tax payers are paying even 10%, you need to invest in some time with the kinds of accountants and other financial advisers who routinely specialize in those brackets, savy in how to shelter or otherwise protect income, other forms of compensation and assets.
The usual figures the wealthiest pay is regularly calculated as around 9%, or less, not 35%.
“You would be aware how few people are actually paying at the highest rate.” So if follows that if very few people pay at the highest rate, and those in the top 1% of income pay almost 40% of total income taxes, then what you are doing is arguing that the tax code, if anything, is too progressive. A small amount of people that pay the most taxes = progressive.
Megan McCardle (who is an actual MBA as well as a journalist) writes about the deep and abiding difficulties that GM is facing:
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/03/whither_gm.php
Bottom line: if it just required more capital to make GM a profit making company again it wouldn’t need a public sector bailout. The government’s plan consists of pointing to Toyota as an example without ever laying out a workable plan that will turn GM into a Toyota.
I bet that the bank plan — such as it is — is similar. Lots of ideas about how the banks got into this mess, without a real plan to make them work better.
For the peev’s in the world, the GM execs concentrated on building large SUV’s and pickup trucks because there is not as much competition involved in building and marketing those vehicles, so they returned a level of profit that building and selling smaller cars simply could not match. The GM execs did what they were payed to do, they built & sold vehicles that could return a profit, given GM’s intractable high manufacturing costs.
Peev’s ingrained hate of those who make more money than he does is simply stunning. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone so irrationally consumed by such anger and hate outside of a divorce. It’s almost scary that he is so far gone. It is absolutely bone chilling and depressing that people like him are allowed to have a role in destroying the American way of life and the standard of living we enjoy.