Saturday, December 04, 2010

"Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks"!


Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!

Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!

Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!

Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!
Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks!



68 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Field... Most Americans are delusional; they still don't get it - they want it this way. God bless us all.

G'Man

Anonymous said...

Republicans refuse to increase the deficit and raise taxes!
Republicans refuse to increase the deficit and raise taxes!
Republicans refuse to increase the deficit and raise taxes!
Republicans refuse to increase the deficit and raise taxes!
Republicans refuse to increase the deficit and raise taxes!
Republicans refuse to increase the deficit and raise taxes!


Yes.

Chris Albertson said...

Mr. Right-wing anonymous, your blinders are transparent and yet you can't see beyond them!

Wesley R said...

Field,

I watched this on C-Span and after the vote Mcconnell gave comments to the Foxnews news crowd and got the f outta dodge. The Lousiana Senator Landreau wanted to ask him how could he seriously bargain with Obama when he said his priority was to make Obama a one term President. She never got a chance to ask him directly because his mad dash looked like Usain Bolt and Tyson Gay wrapped up in one.

Rasmer said...

@Field: You mistake these votes as anything other than political theater; a last act of obeisance of the democrats before their raving liberal base (of which you count yourself). These votes needed to be taken so that the Democrats will have the Republicans on record as holding continued tax relief for the middle class hostage to continued tax relief for higher earners. Now that the votes have occurred, Congress and the administration can get on more seriously with the business of preventing everyone's taxes from going up in a few weeks.

To accomplish this, Republicans will agree to a lengthy extension of emergency unemployment benefits. This will add to the deficit, but will be small price to pay for starting to rebuild trust in government by ending uncertainty about taxes. This is the first step in healing the economy. Just watch how much better things will start to look by next summer.

hennasplace said...

Don't understand that the will raise the deficit because there is no such as a tax cut. Taxes will have to be raise whether you like or not because the federal will have figure out how to play for the tax cuts because they have to be paid. Spending has to be reduced and where is the reduction coming from. Another, what will you thin will happen if China should call in the loans and have to pay with the country has borrowed from them.

The average American doesn't understand the different between the deficit and the debt, but what do you expect when politicians use the two terms interchangeably. In the easiest where to explain it when you need have to install new plumbing, so you pay to have the job done. This will create debt, but it's good debt in regards to that your home is an investment and the value of that home will appreciate in the long-term. It was better for the country had good debt by spending on infrastructure. The roads and public transportation are falling apart. It returned in the NYC area, and NJ Transit had to suspend service due to rain. Rain shut down NJ transit because the infrastructure is outdated. Other countries in the world have better transportation systems than we do, and used the technology that was created in this country to do it. We are ass-backwards, and Bill Maher said it best that we are not on the road to the 21st century but on a bus to Atlantic with a roll of quarters.

What is so interesting to me is that other people love wealthy people and really don't get why. Their interests are the same as the rest of the country's. Bill Gates needs a tax cut, really? However, in the meantime, underemployment benefits were not extended. Of course, they always decide to make this decision around the holidays, Merry Christmas everybody! Why would vote against your interest? Here is a news flash, you not like the wealthy and will never become wealthy. So what is your point?

Anonymous said...

Umm...FakeAnon...the deficit will go on as the taxes your betters don't pay won't cover the services...like highways, military, Medicare, aid to States, Faith-Based kickbacks, etc.
Oh where, where will those tax monies come from? How about idiot taxbaggers who are too stoopid to have the rich pay a fair share? Why not...the 'morans' wanted the rich to have no taxes.
History did not begin with st reagan. During the Great Depression the same soap was being sold. Give the rich all the money and all will be well in Magical Pony Island. Why, some rich person might, like, actually hire you! Horatio Alger happened! Glenn beck told me!
Where were you deficit whiners when st reagan spent all the money? Where were you when bush spent money?
Repeating economic nonsense because it makes you sound smarter than Sarey...only shows you need to get out of your 'special' neighbourhood.
Oh, you might want to check out the, like, Facts concerning taxes and economic well-being. Seems you beleeve only through faith. If you repeat the dogma of low tax...then you can cheats those 'urbans'(glory be to Beck) and prove how much you like to lick master's boots. Wonder how that works for you? Make less than Dad or Gramps? How's your retirement? Can you travel to Florida every year?
We gave tax breaks all through the bush pResidency...how did you fare?
Mold

Anonymous said...

hennasplace,
It is that they have a 'miggger' who has it worse. It is even more delightful when the 'migger' has a degree or any sort of qualification.
Nobody ever accused them of having sense.

Mold

Anonymous said...

Rich peole's soup is manna from st. Reagan and sarey Pain's moose. Fox news. my grampaw had soap that i don't. chigger mcgee.

Fungus

Hathor said...

I do hope that the next liberal presidential nominee comes out of congress, is familiar with DC and has taken note as to where all the bodies are buried and what in everyone's closet. It times like these that I miss Lyndon Johnson. Not that I was at all fond of him.

Anonymous said...

@hennasplace:
Spending needs to be slashed by cutting the federal workforce in half.

If China calls our loans in, Obama will either crank up the printing press at the mint or tell China to stuff an egg roll. Remember: If you owe the bank $10,000, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $10 million, the bank has a problem.

Ask Obama why he didn't use the stimulus money for "shovel ready" jobs fixing our infrastructure, and instead gave it all to public sector unions and the UAW.

Bill Gates earn his money from wages and doesn't pay income tax.

I vote on principle, not greed. I have no right to other people's property, and I refuse to steal for my livelihood.

Hathor said...

Shesh, only 7 votes!!

Hathor said...

anon 9:35,

Using your logic, you would steal from me, one who paying taxes on retirement income and other people who aren't Bill Gates.

I do assume that you are driving on the roads and bridges in this country, drinking clean water, are protected by police and perhaps by firemen, and maybe have trash pickup.

Anonymous said...

@Hathor: My water, police, and fireman are all provided from local tax revenue.

The federal government provides much of the financing for roads, but I would rather it was done by the states.

I pay much more in taxes then I receive in discernible benefits. I would abolish the income tax and replace it with consumption taxes.

Hathor said...

anon9:55,

You alone couldn't provide those services, so still using your logic you are still stealing from your neighbors.

If you are going to have government, it has to paid for by taxes. If it was a consumption tax someone buying a half million dollar car would still pay much more than someone who buys a thirty thousand dollars for one. What you insinuated is that Bill Gates should pay the same as you, if you think it is stealing from him for him to pay more than you. The way the tax structure is, it could be quite possible that Bill Gates would actually pay less than you, even if his tax rate went up from 36% to 39%. 3% increase is only what billionaires would expect.

When the tax rate for billionaires dropped from 70% to 39% during the Reagan tax cuts, mine dropped to nothing, because all those loop holes he closed were the only ones that affected the middle class.

I wonder do you even know what rate you pay?

hennasplace said...

Anon:

If China calls in the loans, it wouldn't matter how much the government prints because the US dollar will not be worth anything. Printing more money will deflate the value of the dollar and will cause inflation on top of a slow growing economy. In other words, we would be screwed. And Hathor is correct in her assessment. You can listen Rand Paul about we are all in this together if you want, but you will be in for a rude awakening. Let us not forget that Reagan ended up raises taxes part of the reason was due to the increased defense spending. Here is a reality check, taxes will have to raised and spending reduced which means cuts in defense. Medicare and Social Security will need to changes to the current structure for it to remain solvent There is no such thing as a tax cut because it has be paid for and this is something that many American do not understand. You want your taxes cut, but want the same services. You cannot have it both ways. Here is a question for you, what is going to happen to those individuals who no longer getting unemployment benefits because they are unable to find jobs because hiring will take a while to occur? You are going to have an increase in poverty and homelessness because these people are unable to pay for rent, food, and other types of spending that have a direct affect on the GDP. Again this is a problem when you have political analysis giving their opinions than experts giving the public cogent information to help the American better understand what's going on.
I am being silly again, I am allowing facts and logic to sway my thinking.

Anonymous said...

"If it was a consumption tax someone buying a half million dollar car would still pay much more than someone who buys a thirty thousand dollars for one. What you insinuated is that Bill Gates should pay the same as you, if you think it is stealing from him for him to pay more than you."


You obviously have no idea what a consumption tax is.

A consuption taxes you on hat you spend, not what you earn. the more you spend, the more you pay.

This way, you stop disincentivizing earnings, and encourage savings.

It could be set up for exemptions for food, housing, and education as well as deductions for initial levels of spending that would mean the poorest pay no taxes.

hennasplace said...

I think we know what is a consumption tax, it's a tax on spending on goods and services and the last time I checked, the money I used to pay for the goods and spending is from my income unless I have other money that I am not aware I have. It's an indirect tax. In other words, taxes are taking from my wages, then what's remaining from my wages, I spend on food, utilities, and purchasing items such as books, personal care products that are taxed

Anonymous said...

hennasplace said...
I think we know what is a consumption tax


Uh, based on what you just wrote, no you don't.

Hathor said...

anon 10:45
me
"If it was a consumption tax someone buying a half million dollar car would still pay much more than someone who buys a thirty thousand dollars for one."

you
A consu[m]ption taxes you on hat you spend, not what you earn. the more you spend, the more you pay.

How do these quotes differ?

field negro said...

Mold, you are killing it tonight.

Anon 10:45 PM, how can you guarantee that we will all see the exact same amount of services? I make more money than John Q citizen but I buy less groceries because I don't have children, am I paying my fair share towards the common good?

Hennasplace and others, good job in pointing out history and our boy reagan to some of my right wing friends.

"..vote on principle, not greed. I have no right to other people's property, and I refuse to steal for my livelihood."

What if those other people stole from us to get their money?

hennasplace said...

Anon if that's your name:

We know that consumption tax is not a tax on income, but it is an indirect tax because use income to spend on goods and services. We pay direct and indirect taxes. We do not have to pay consumption tax providing if we are not spending, but there are some necessities such as food and utilities that paying the consumption is unavoidable. One could look at it as an after tax. The consumption tax is on the local and state level and there are some states such as Delaware, Montant, New Hampshire, and Oregon do not impose a sales tax (Consumption tax).

La♥audiobooks said...

Well, we all saw it coming.

• . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--

StillaPanther2 said...

Brother Field...Politicians are forever contending over things that promote contention. Maybe some novel idea may come forth that begin to solve the problem of tax or no tax. We as a nation rally when other countries/people have catastrophies. Why not have a dontion system to rescue our national debt.I am sad that we continue to send people to Washington that have little or no "feel" for the people they "so call" represent. I will donate if a fund is created for Americans, by Americans.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BVqIjKyJh0

Natassia said...

Stillapantha,

There is a donation system set up, which is why I'm waiting to see if Warren Buffet puts his money where his mouth is.

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

Mos_Native said...

Hey Field,

Your thoughts on this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8180402/Black-graduates-from-Harvard-and-Yale-thrown-out-of-nightclub.html

MN

The Purple Cow said...

A consuption taxes you on what you spend, not what you earn. the more you spend, the more you pay.

...and the quicker your economy goes down the tubes, as your manufacturing base collapses and your capital flows abroad.

Not Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"@Hathor: My water, police, and fireman are all provided from local tax revenue."

Anonymous: You're not anonymous enough. Local revenue, thanks to the housing crisis, is a mere trickle. My fire and police protection is now being heavily subsidized by the federal government, and is coming via Homeland Security.

Even so, several fire stations have been closed in various parts of the city.

"If China calls our loans in, Obama will either crank up the printing press at the mint or tell China to stuff an egg roll. Remember: If you owe the bank $10,000, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $10 million, the bank has a problem."

If it was that easy, ask yourself this: Why did we borrow from China and others to fund our two wars (with Afghanistan now being the longest war in our history), when all we had to do was print it?

"Ask Obama why he didn't use the stimulus money for "shovel ready" jobs fixing our infrastructure, and instead gave it all to public sector unions and the UAW."

What foolishness! Out my way we're putting the stimulus money to good use: there's so much road building and maintenance that it takes us miles out of our way. I suspect it's true for other municipalities.

Republicans begged for the stimulus money, got it, and passed it off as their own, that is, took credit, made other believe that it originated with them.

"I vote on principle, not greed. I have no right to other people's property, and I refuse to steal for my livelihood."

Tell that to our Supreme Court. New rulings on eminent domain give local governments carte blanche to take your property. They merely have to say that they can put it to better use than you.

Tell that to banks. They're ripping off taxpayers to the tune of trillions of dollars, getting the money dirt cheap, zero percent interest, using the money to gamble with, or to lend back to our government, and paying themselves large bonuses with the proceeds.

Not Anonymous said...

hennasplace said..."Here is a question for you, what is going to happen to those individuals who no longer getting unemployment benefits because they are unable to find jobs because hiring will take a while to occur?"

You're right, of course. Everything is interrelated. Because these unemployed people's spending will now dry up, they will seek public assistance, and part of that assistance is food stamps, a cost the government will still absorb.

Without health care, these unemployed will turn to emergency rooms, another cost to the government, in this case a big one.

Because much of what they were spending will be reduced, they will create a chain-reaction in the economy, causing others to be laid off at businesses where they once spent those dollars, but aren't now.

Once their unemployment runs out, they will join the group now unemployed.

A business owner, one who understands this, and who owns a chain of pizza parlors was hoping that the Bush tax cuts would be phased out for him, but not for the middle class, allowing him to pay the additional 4 percent by which his taxes would increase.

Here's why. When people are broke, those near the bottom of the heap, the dwindling middle class and the poor, they don't buy his pizzas, forcing him to cut back his workforce and the number of pizza parlors in his chain.

It's all connected folks. I guess we'll have to learn this the hard way. I agree with the person that suggested that this is the way many Americans wanted it. Why else would they mostly empty congress and replace it with Republicans who never met a liberal plan to improve the economy that they didn't obstruct?

This country has screwed the pooch. I can't wait to see the mutant beast that this unholy coupling will produce.

Rudy said...

I guess everyone has to pull his/her own weight en route to "recovery."

Some of my friends who work for the federal government are experiencing it in the form of reduction of transportation allowance (went from $230/month to $120/month, effective Jan 1, 2011) and a freeze in COLA (cost of living allowance).

It's funny how the republicans won't suggest deep cuts in the defense budget in one instance, but will preach "everyone and sector must experience the pain of the road to recovery." (I paraphrased their actions, there).

I am beneficiary of republican hypocrisy, for now, because I work for a defense contractor.

alicia banks said...

and that dem hobama could veto both as he would do for banksters...but he never will...shame!!!!!!!!




Only fools should feel sorry for Obama as he prepares for a Republican-led House and weakened Democratic control of the Senate. This is Obama’s “comfort zone,” where he can continue to woo Republicans to join his grand center-right coalition. The only people Obama has no tolerance for are liberalish Democrats, who will emerge relatively stronger in the new Congress thanks to the decimation of Obama’s Republican-Lite friends in conservative Democratic ranks. By freezing federal wages, Obama signals that he has no philosophical problems with the GOP’s general aims.


The president enjoys cuddling with the putative opposition, just as he did in his first months in office when he packed White House health care events with Republicans and corporate CEOs, while banishing leftish Democrats from the premises. This is Obama’s comfort zone, his element, the political space where he might actually be the most “progressive” person in the room, by some minute calibration. And even if he is not, many folks will assume he is, based on his skin color – the corporate president’s perfect camouflage.

In the midst of such brazen betrayals and deceits, Obama will call urgently on Blacks in and out of Congress to circle their wagons around him – to, in effect, join in his pact with the devil by becoming conservative Democrats, for the sake of the First Black Presidency.
During the presidential campaign, we at BAR warned that Obama was too heavy a burden for Black folks to carry. He has methodically fouled his own political nest, and demands that Black America – the people he told us did not exist, in 2004 – sacrifice its historical principles and proud progressive legacy, for his sake.
Let him march to hell on his own; he has plenty of friends there.


http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obama-moves-effortlessly-right

Rudy said...

hennasplace: "What is so interesting to me is that other people love wealthy people and really don't get why."

Because since we were children, we have been fed the notion that you can be anything (I guess anything encompasses rich/wealthy) if you work hard enough.

The other people love the wealthy (it's funny how that love isn't reciprocated), because they aspire to be there one day (nothing wrong with dreaming, without it there is no achievement).

Anonymous said...

protected by police and perhaps by firemen



GET REAL, you niggers always complain and whine the the po po don't protect your kind.

Hathor you are an idiot. I hope you did not breed.

Rudy said...

There is an old saying: If they resort to calling you nigger, then that means they are frustrated and you are doing something right...lol.

I love it.

field negro said...

Dear president of Anon Inc. Anon@ 7:57 AM is an embarrassment to you and your organization and should be thrown out. Their comments were ignorant and childish and your organizations name should not be associated with such trash.

On the other hand, "Non Anonymous" had some great comments and should be given membership forthwith.

StillaPanther2 and Natasha, I agree with both of you, let's see what happens with Buffett.

Mos Native, I already did a post about our friends from Haaavad getting the N*&&^r treatment. :)

Rudy, I just read a great article about the federal pay freeze that his O ness just implemented, and I have to say that I am saddened by the move on O's part.

field negro said...

La~Audio..., I like those comments. You have some skills.

Hathor said...

FN,

Tiger is baaaaaaaaaaaaack!

field negro said...

Yes Hathor, it sure looks like it. One day to go with a six stroke lead. Lets see if he holds it.

hennasplace said...

Rudy:

I know how people think that one day they can be among the wealthy, but the reality doesn't match the dream. I don't understand why they do not realize that this is not going to happen. People do understand what it would take to become among the wealthy and doubt very seriously that they are going to read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell to know what would have to happen for that to occur. Part of it is being in the right place at the right time in order to take advantage of the opportunity. Woody Allen once said that eighty percent is showing up, and people do not realize how that statement is so true. We know that among a million athletes only 1,300 will become pro and a small percentage of that 1,300 will become multi-millionaires. Those are slim odds because only 2% of the population are wealthy that means that they are only 6 million wealthy people in the country compared to 300 million of the total population. However, they hold a considerable amount of the wealth in this country and they pay the least.

hennasplace said...

I was just reading an article in the Huffington Post that the President is he'll oppose tax cut deal without unemployment benefits, other relief. He's opposing any compromise deal on the expiring Bush tax cuts if it lacked help for the unemployed and other provisions designed to aid the middle class. No one mentions the poor.

field negro said...

I was just reading an article in the Huffington Post that the President is he'll oppose tax cut deal without unemployment benefits, other relief. He's opposing any compromise deal on the expiring Bush tax cuts if it lacked help for the unemployed and other provisions designed to aid the middle class. No one mentions the poor."

hennasplace, that's good to know. But will he cave on tax cuts for those making over $250,000.00?

If we want to reduce the debt we have to cut spendng AND increase revenue, right?

Anonymous said...

The second proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) would have extended the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanently for incomes of up to $1 million, among other provisions such as a one-year extension of unemployment benefits and cuts in capital gains, estate and dividend taxes. That failed, 53-37, with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) joining the ‘no’ votes.

You can't blame this on just the Republicans.

Anonymous said...

hennasplace said...
"No one mentions the poor."

The "poor" don't pay income tax.

They pay social security taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes, but the bottom 50% of earners pay no income tax, therefore they cannot have their taxes cut (or raised by changing rates either, since their income falls below the threshhold).

Anonymous said...

And no one is talking about cutting taxes for anyone; the Republicans want to leave the current rates where they are.

The democrats want to raise rates for upper earners. Many economists beleive this is a bad idea, especially in a recession.

hennasplace said...

Yes that will be part of the compromise and the republicans knew what they were doing when the voted against the unemployment extension a couple of weeks ago. This tactic that occurs on both sides of the aisle when one wants something pass, it's only now that we are paying attention to this partly because the state of the economy and an African American President. This is how Senator Chuck Schumer stopped the bankruptcy bill the first time by including abortion rules into the bill, and prevented bank lobbies from making more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy. If you want to kill a bill, add a social value to it. This is politics.

The answer to the second question is yes, but will not happen because politicians pay lip service to the American people. They tell the people what they want to hear and not what they need to hear. You have to reduce spending and increase tax revenue. Something will have to be done to prove to our creditors to prove that we doing something to reduce our debt. The government does make the budget available to the people, but who has time to sit and read over 800 pages with the exception of professionals that have to?

Here is a breakdown the mandatory spending:

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
$677.95 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts

hennasplace said...

Here is the breakdown of discretionary spending:

Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

Anonymous said...

hennasplace said...
Rudy:

I know how people think that one day they can be among the wealthy, but the reality doesn't match the dream. I don't understand why they do not realize that this is not going to happen. People do understand what it would take to become among the wealthy and doubt very seriously that they are going to read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell to know what would have to happen for that to occur. Part of it is being in the right place at the right time in order to take advantage of the opportunity. Woody Allen once said that eighty percent is showing up, and people do not realize how that statement is so true. We know that among a million athletes only 1,300 will become pro and a small percentage of that 1,300 will become multi-millionaires. Those are slim odds because only 2% of the population are wealthy that means that they are only 6 million wealthy people in the country compared to 300 million of the total population. However, they hold a considerable amount of the wealth in this country and they pay the least.


My god. What a sad person you are. In your mind the only way to make money is to be a sportstar?

The wealthy pay the least? You do realize that they pay the most and without them the 47% of us who pay nothing at all and actually get tax money taken from someone else refunded to them?

How about talking about abuse? How many people you know get foodstamps dont work and certainly can? I know a nice big strong able brother who refuses to work at anything less then a managerial high paying position. He could work at several trade jobs he was offered. But it is beneath him. Problem is, he has an 8th grade education. Speaks only ebonics and little english. Has a thug mentality, can barely state a coherent thought. Hates anyone that has something, no way they could have earned it, just got out of prison for stealing and drugs and believes the best way to pass the day is call someone to see if they holdin or playin gran tourismo. Yeah, somebody is holdin him and you down....look in the mirror.

Bruno said...

Democrats don't seem to understand the difference between percentages and totals.

We have a progressive tax code in America, meaning the more you make, the higher your tax rate gets. The idea is that people who have been successful in this system shold pay more to keep it going.

All we heard from the democrats in 2002 were that the Bush tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich".

But the Bush Tax cuts actually made the income tax code MORE progressive, i.e. the "rich" actually paid a higher percentage of the total tax burden after the Bush cuts then before.

Democrats howled because the actual dollar amounts in people's tax bills went disproportionally to the "rich", but this could only be so, since they paid most of the taxes.

You can't give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes.

Bruno said...

To illustrate, here is a parable that circulated back in 2002:


This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; The fifth would pay $1: the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; The ninth $18. The tenth man — the richest — would pay $59. That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. “So dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?” The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth Man with a of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They’re $52 short!

hennasplace said...

So the problem is that the government is not receiving enough revenue to cover the expenditures. I have a question as to what "other mandatory programs" that cost $571 billion are, however, it does take a large chunk of the mandatory spending budget. I am actually learning about while writing about it at the same time. The total 2010 budget is $3.552 trillion (estimated), and total revenue is $2.381 trillion. This means the budget as a shortfall of $1.171 trillion. If Congress does pass a tax cut for people under $250,000, and increase taxes for people making over $250,000 would add $700 billion, then the shortfall would be $471 billion. 60% of the shortfall would be covered by increasing taxes on the wealthy and the remaining budget can be filled by reducing spending in defense, other mandatory programs and restructuring Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That's what needs to be done

Bruno said...

It's not that simple. Have you heard of the the Laffer curve?

hennasplace said...

Anon:

You are daft, I only used that as an example or an analogy to explain a larger point. And it is obvious to me that you do not nor comprehend what you read. Here you are writing comments with access to a computer and internet without bothering to do any research as to what the others are discussing. You cannot answer a question because don't have a brain that God gave a raisin. You are too lazy to think.

You are throwing out a number 47% without any breakdown analysis as to what it means. I think 47% is too high because they are probably other factors that you haven't added to the equation.

hennasplace said...

Bruno:

Here is a reality check most Americans pay more payroll taxes than they do in federal income tax. Only a very small percentage of Americans pay no federal taxes, and most of those folks are paying at least some state taxes. However, Exxon who profited $35 billion paid no taxes, and they paid most of their taxes to foreign governments. That story was picked up by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and was barely picked up by the US media. Do you know picked up this story, The Daily Show, a satirical show http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-13-2010/that-s-tariffic, and found this by reading a story in Mother Jones that is not a mainstream publication.

Bruno said...

If you want to talk about the totality of the tax code, that's something else. Personally, I think the whole thing needs to be scrapped and redone anew.

Payroll taxes are regressive since they are capped at a certain income level. The payroll tax should be abolished and social security funed from general revenues (which in fact it essentially already is).

However, what is being discussed in congress is the federal income tax. The previous anon was correct in asserting the bottom half (somewhere around 47%) of earners pay no income taxes.

Part II of the Laffer curve series offers some some historical evidence as to how tax increases don't always increase tax revenues.

field negro said...

He could work at several trade jobs he was offered. But it is beneath him. Problem is, he has an 8th grade education. Speaks only ebonics and little english. Has a thug mentality, can barely state a coherent thought. Hates anyone that has something, no way they could have earned it, just got out of prison for stealing and drugs and believes the best way to pass the day is call someone to see if they holdin or playin gran tourismo. Yeah, somebody is holdin him and you down....look in the mirror."

Anon. I think you made that guy up.

Bruno and hennasplace, I am enjoying the discussion on the tax code.

Question for Bruno: why is the ss tax capped at a certain percentage? If I make a millon dollars a year and some other person earns $100,000.00 per year, why should we both pay the same 6.20% ? $150,000 per year. That doesn't seem fair to me. Just asking.

Anonymous said...

Field, "Dear president of Anon Inc. Anon@ 7:57 AM is an embarrassment to you and your organization and should be thrown out. Their comments were ignorant and childish and your organizations name should not be associated with such trash."

Dear Mr. Field, Let me make it clear that Anon, Inc. does not hire agents like anon7:57am.

Our policy is to only hire Anons with a 'sense of decency' who consider themselves part of the entire human race. Clearly anon7:57am is nothing of the sort. Let me say that there is a hate society that runs counter to our organization, which calls itself 'the anon inhumane society'. (It doesn't capitalize its name for strange incestuous reasons).

Let me say that Anon, Inc is a highly respected company with quality Anons. We have no affiliation with such a sick society.

However, if you would like to write them concerning anon7:57am, their weird address is as follows:

anon inhumane society
dirt Muddi Rd
trailer Park #9
Deep'n Woods, MS 8mysis

I know the zip code is a little weird but life can be that way, sometimes. Let me warn you that anon7:57am is considered a treasured member-the 'best' of the 'best' of his kind. Hence, you might not get a sane human response....I hope you can read between my lines.:D

As always, Anon, Inc has enjoyed being part of FN blog and look forward to adding a 'dash' of colorful comments in 2011.

Best Wishes for the Holidays,
President
Anon, Inc

Anonymous said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B26HU20101203

field negro said...

Thank you Mr. President!I knew that the [ignorant] Anon. representing themself as being a part of your organization was a fraud.

And good luck with rooting out the "the anon inhumane society" from your ranks. :)

hennasplace said...

Field:

It also doesn't answer the question why Exxon who profited $35 billion in 2009 paid no US income taxes, but paid $15 billion in taxes to foreign entities. That's quite a bit of change. Exxon isn't paying taxes and its not creating jobs in the US either, there goes the theory of tax cuts to create jobs. So much for that Laffer Curve, it works like a charm.

I am not economist, only my limited knowledge from taking ECO101 in college. I am having this discussion because I am curious and want a better understanding, but this laffer Curve still smells of supply-side economics from the 80s and from what I've seen didn't turn out so well as the Reagan Administration had to raise taxes from overspending. I cannot stress that point enough. This is a fairytale and it's biting us in the ass at this moment. Bruno you have not shown any data for the 47%. Back up it with facts and not some video on You Tube. I don't think I have look up so much data since college.

hennasplace said...

Nevermind, I know Bruno and the anon person would get the correct number. I just found from an article from Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0116815520101201
The article discusses the impact of Bush era tax rate expiration, however, the article does give a breakdown of taxpayers and who pays what:

There are approximately 170 million taxpayers with just under a million people that made enough taxable income above $373,650 and here are the other groups break down for 2010:

Approx:

1.6 million have taxable income above $171,850- pay a 33% marginal rate
4.7 million have taxable income above $82,400 - pay a 28% rate
24.8 million have income above $34,000 and pay the 25% rate
50 million have income above $8,375 and pay a 15% marginal rate
27.1 million earn up to $8,375 and pay a 10% rate
62.7 million pay no taxes, either because they don't earn income or get tax credits such as the earned income tax credit for working families. So the percentage is not 47, but 36.9%.

What is jarring is that we have that many people living in poverty in this country, and how they are surviving on less than $8,300 a year anywhere in the country? Are you saying that they should pay taxes and agree with Glen Beck that if they don't pay taxes, they serve in the military? Does that mean Biff will have to serve in the military as well?

Bruno said...

"Question for Bruno: why is the ss tax capped at a certain percentage? If I make a millon dollars a year and some other person earns $100,000.00 per year, why should we both pay the same 6.20% ? $150,000 per year. That doesn't seem fair to me. Just asking."

Because social security was not set up originally as an entitlement, it was a program that you contributed to so that you could draw from it when you retired.

Since benefits were capped at a certain amount, so were contributions.

It wasn't designed to be "fair", i.e. everyone doesn't pay their share of everyone's retirement, they pay only for their own retirement.

And the rate is the same for everyone, which makes it a "flat tax" (which is good), but since the amount earnings taxed is capped at about $98,000, it is a regressive tax (which is bad). Therefore someone who makes 98,000 pays the maximum payroll tax amount, the same as Bill Gates.

Over time, as more people were added as beneficiaries, and as people lived longer, there has been less and less correllation between what you put in, and what you eventually get out.

Since it is no longer so much a retirement plan as an entitlement, it should be funded from general revenues and the separate (regressive) payroll tax abolished.

field negro said...

"It also doesn't answer the question why Exxon who profited $35 billion in 2009 paid no US income taxes, but paid $15 billion in taxes to foreign entities. That's quite a bit of change. Exxon isn't paying taxes and its not creating jobs in the US either, there goes the theory of tax cuts to create jobs. So much for that Laffer Curve, it works like a charm."

I co-sign with you on that one. And we justlearned that corporations are sitting on billions (with a b) of dollars worth of profits.There is something wrong with that.

Bruno, I understand benefits and consntributions being capped, since, for the most part, you should get out what you put in.
So why should someone who clearly doesn't need to tap into the social security system be allowed to draw the same as some poor schmuck who earned $50,000.00 per year for most of their lives?

Why should John McCain, for instance, get $23,000.00 per year in social security benefits?

Hathor said...

FN,
Bruno is wrong. SS was never a retirement program and most people would get what they put in by 2 1/2 years. SS was to provide the minimal support. The government based the program to be solvent based on the lifespan of the population at that time. SS didn't expand to cover those that didn't contribute. It only expanded the jobs that would be covered. SSI is a separate entitlement as is Medicare and Medicaid.

Since payout is based on contribution from wages, to be fair, shouldn't you get the same benefit as if you never made a significant amount of money during your year close to retirement. The only reason that SS has problems is that it has been used to supplement the Vietnam war and other government shortfalls.

Bruno said...

"So why should someone who clearly doesn't need to tap into the social security system be allowed to draw the same as some poor schmuck who earned $50,000.00 per year for most of their lives?"

Because they paid in. It is not technically an entitlement program, it is a retirement plan to which you contribute.

Bruno said...

Hathor said...
"Bruno is wrong. SS was never a retirement program and most people would get what they put in by 2 1/2 years."

No Hathor, social security was set up like an insurance annuity that you paid "premiums" on. The level of benefits was not designed to cover everything, but to keep old folks out of poverty.

You are right that people generally get more out than they put in today, but that is because we live much longer than we did in 1935, and the retirement age hasn't changed all that much.

During the 50's and 60's, there was always a surplus, so benefits were politcally easy to raise. But as our population stopped increasing, the number of people drawing benefits has increased greatly as compared to the number of people working and paying taxes.

chicago dyke said...

well... duh.



anyone who doesn't understand this is 1) a paid plant sent here by Rove et al to disrupt an effective af-am blog 2) really woefully uninformed and probably stupid and/or a pathetic addict of (foreign owned, btw) FOX news 3) racist and also #2.

Sandra said...

Anon said

"Republicans refuse to increase the deficit and raise taxes!

1) When looking at the last 5 Presidents, Republican Presidents and Repubs have raised the deficit more than Democrats.

2) If Republicans are so concerned about the deficit, then they should let the Bush tax cut for the rich expire. We can't afford the Bush tax cuts.

3) The middle class is what sustains our economy.

4)If you let the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich their Financial Advisors will find ways to offset it. I sure poor people and most middle class don't have FA.

Warren Buffet doesn't need a tax cut.