Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[AlabamAlum]

I'd order that on PPV.

[bluetick]

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take a closer look is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million -- while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes -- five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years, says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."

The GOP campaign to aid the wealthy has left America unable to raise the money needed to pay it's bills. "The Republican Party went on a tax-cutting rampage and a spending spree," says Rhode Island governor and former GOP senator Lincoln Chafee, pointing to two deficit-financed wars and an unpaid-for prescription-drug entitlement. "It tanked the economy." Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War -- nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So--where's the fucking growth?"

[bluetick]

Put the Clinton-era tax rates back in place. Repeal all of the tax loopholes instituted since dubya took over, and for God's sake eliminate the off-shore tax havens.

In almost no time we could be back to budget surpluses like we saw in '97, '98, and '99, and we could be on our way towards paying down huge chunks of our national debt.

[sardis]

Tax revenue has stayed pretty consistent no matter what the top tax rate.



Spending, on the other hand, seems to be trending up compared to recent history.

[Professor Tiger]

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take a closer look is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million -- while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes -- five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years, says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."

The GOP campaign to aid the wealthy has left America unable to raise the money needed to pay it's bills. "The Republican Party went on a tax-cutting rampage and a spending spree," says Rhode Island governor and former GOP senator Lincoln Chafee, pointing to two deficit-financed wars and an unpaid-for prescription-drug entitlement. "It tanked the economy." Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War -- nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So--where's the fucking growth?"

Based on those figures on the wealth of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, etc., it appears that income inequality is FAR better today than it was 100 years ago.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take a closer look is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million -- while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes -- five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years, says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."

The GOP campaign to aid the wealthy has left America unable to raise the money needed to pay it's bills. "The Republican Party went on a tax-cutting rampage and a spending spree," says Rhode Island governor and former GOP senator Lincoln Chafee, pointing to two deficit-financed wars and an unpaid-for prescription-drug entitlement. "It tanked the economy." Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War -- nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So--where's the fucking growth?"

Based on those figures on the wealth of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, etc., it appears that income inequality is FAR better today than it was 100 years ago.

It is. But it's also been heading back towards the 1800's model since about the late 70's.

[bluetick]

Spending, on the other hand, seems to be trending up compared to recent history.

Uh, about that 'recent history'....spending dropped during the Clinton years, turned upwards at the beginning of dubya...then spiked up the chimney in 2007, thru the charts end in 2010. What was it about 2007............maybe you need a V8 heh

From Moody's Analytical: how the Great Recession was brought to an end owed to some of the most aggressive fiscal and monetary policies in history. The response was multi-faceted and bi-partisan; involving the Federal Reserve, Congress, and two administrations. The federal government's policy response had a huge effect on real GDP, jobs. and inflation, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. We estimate without the massive government response real GDP in 2010 would have been 11.5% lower, payroll jobs would have been 8 1/2 million less, and the nation would be in the throes of deflation.

[sardis]

I notice you want to claim bi-partisanship with the bailouts, but ignore it in the late 1990's when the R congress was the driver of spending cuts.

But since you are arguing the necessity of spending during the recession then why are we still doing it and forecasted for more in the future even though we are no longer in recession. Historically, tax revenues only have been over 20% of GDP one time since WWII even when top rates were at 90%. Don't you think spending should be adjusted accordingly?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Tick, is this the Knoxville teabagger you have posted about before?

http://news.yahoo.com/health-care-law-h ... 53580.html

[Toemeesleather]

Too much money and land(not to mention guns) in the hands of unqualified, uneducated citizens is the source of tyranny the founders warned us against....Godspeed gnob-gobblers.

[bluetick]

Tick, is this the Knoxville teabagger you have posted about before?

http://news.yahoo.com/health-care-law-h ... 53580.html

Yeah, that's Stacey all right. He sees the handwriting on the wall wrt his reelection chances in August so he's ramping up his shennanigans. There'll be more to come.

[bluetick]

from CNNMoney 1/24/2014


As a share of the economy, spending on domestic and defense programs has been on the decline since 2010 and is on track to reach the lowest level in more than 50 years by 2023. At it's height in 2009, discretionary spending reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40 year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983.

Your spending chart quit after 2010 Sardis.

[sardis]

Thanks to sequestration; however, my chart includes ALL spending, yours doesn't. But you knew that. Mathematically, liberals know they can't balance the budget, nor do they care to. They just need to be honest about it.

[Toemeesleather]

Horsehockey! Everybody knows if the rich/1% would just pay their fair share the budget would be balanced.

[hedge]

Horsehockey??

[bluetick]

Discretionary spending changes year to year. Entitlement spending is in bedrock - but you knew that. Again, if your chart had run through 2014 it would have dovetailed with mine. Try to keep up with the times.

[bluetick]

Horsehockey! Everybody knows if the rich/1% would just pay their fair share the budget would be balanced.

April 15, Washington - As hardworking Americans file their taxes today, it's a good time to be reminded that ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab for special interest loopholes in our tax laws. A new U.S. PIRG report released today revealed that the average American taxpayer in 2013 would have to shoulder an extra $1,259 in state and federal taxes to make up for the revenue lost due to the use of offshore tax havens by corporations and wealthy individuals. The amount for small businessess amounts to a staggering $3,923.

Every year, corporations and wealthy individuals avoid paying an estimated $184 billion in state and federal income taxes by using complicated accounting tricks to shift their profits to offshore tax havens

[Toemeesleather]

I knew it! Too much land/money.....greed is killing us all.

[sardis]

"Entitlement spending is in bedrock."

No, it's not.

[sardis]

"Every year, corporations and wealthy individuals avoid paying an estimated $184 billion in state and federal income taxes by using complicated accounting tricks to shift their profits to offshore tax havens"

Well, if you want that changed, you probably shouldn't support this candidate...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-0 ... ldout.html