Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

The budget surplus from BC was a ...

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-06
In Reply to: Once placed in context of unequal distribution of wealth, - It makes perfect sense. sm

PROJECTED surplus that would happen over 10 years IF no added spending, IF no added programs. Even if the war in Iraq had not happened, Congress could not go 10 years without adding spending and added programs. You act as if there was 559 billion dollars laying around. There wasn't.

I realize that you have bought into the whole socialist class warfare thing. Like O's hero Alinsky said...it doesn't matter if it is the truth or not...it just matters if you can make them believe it.

And they darned sure have made sure you believe it.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Like all those years of prosperity, budget surplus
scorched earth administration?
Nothing has been passed except the budget. sm

The budget funds Volunteer America, and includes a provision to set up a commission to STUDY whether or not "mandatory volunteerism" should be established.  My prediction is that it won't happen.


Budget has NOT been passed yet....sm
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-stbudg0112604697mar31,0,2797230.story
GOP Budget & Tax Plan

Among the alternatives that the GOP is proposing for the 2010 budget:


1.  Roll back a significant portion or all of the stimulus that has not yet been distributed as of 2010.


2.  Indiiduals earning less than $50,000 or couples earning less than $100,000 could either file under the current tax provisions or pay a flat 10%.  Others earning more would pay a flat 25%.  All who choose the flat tax rate could literally file their taxes on a form the size of a single index card.


You have to think about some of the implications of these tax ideas to understand the less obvious benefits, among which would be the stanching of the flow of investment outside the country and attraction of foreign investment, and an enormous savings in the waste of time and money that presently go to nothing more productive than filing taxes.  A simple scheme like this would also be much more difficult to defraud than the complex system currently in place. 


On this last point, just consider all the back taxes that Obama has collected from his tax-scofflaw political appointees - over $100,000!  Not one of the excuses that any of them offered for not paying their taxes - i.e., that the tax laws are too complicated even for that "brilliant" idiot, Geithner (who now heads up the IRS).  Not one of them could have skated by "paying their back taxes" while apologizing that they just couldn't get a handle on what they're supposed to pay.  Now, multiply just those people by all the other tax cheats in this country who couldn't use similar excuses (or schemes, whichever term you prefer). 


It's simple:  What do you make?  Withhold 10% and you owe nothing at the end of the year.  Fill out your card, send it in, and you're done.  And you tax accountants who have helped your clients avoid taxes for years...we need accountants for other purposes, so you won't starve either.


 


 


The Solution to the Budget Deficit


by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective




Peter

Peter Peterson. (Photo: Reuters)




    Peter Peterson is coming to get your Social Security and Medicare. Peterson was the commerce secretary in the Nixon administration. He then went on to make billions of dollars as one of the top executives at the Blackstone Group, a private equity fund. Mr. Peterson is known as one of the top beneficiaries of the fund managers' tax break, through which he personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars.


    Mr. Peterson has been using his Wall Street wealth to attack these social insurance programs for decades, but he recently stepped up his efforts. Last year, he spent $1 billion to endow the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to further his efforts.


    In politics, it's not easy to counter the impact of $1 billion. In addition to its money, the Peterson crew enjoys the support of many important news outlets, most importantly The Washington Post, which pushes his line on both its editorial and news pages.


    In fact, The Post even went so far as to identify Peterson's foundation by its boilerplate, an organization that "advocates for federal fiscal responsibility," instead of telling readers of its political leanings, the normal mode of identification for such organizations. (The Center for Economic and Policy Research was established "to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives.")


    While the Peterson crew may have the money and the support of the media, the rest of us can rely on logic and ridicule to counter the attack. In this spirit, we have the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. (Mr. Peterson is apparently fond of having things named after him. In addition to his new Peter G. Peterson Foundation, he also has a think tank named after him, the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.)


    The Peterson tax credit would essentially take the Peterson crew at their word. They claim that they are worried that huge tax burdens will leave future generations worse off than the generations that preceded them.


    This isn't true. There is no plausible scenario, short of war or environmental disaster, that would leave future generations worse off than their parents or grandparents. But we don't have to argue with the billionaire; let's just give future generations the option to trade places with their parents or grandparents who made out so well.


    This is where the tax credit comes in. The tax credit would allow an individual to trade her after-tax income for the after-tax income that someone born 20 or 40 years sooner would have earned at the same age. For example, if someone born in 1990 believes in 2020 that their grandparents got a better deal, they would simply check off the year 1940, and they would have their taxes adjusted so that they would have the same after-tax income of a person born in 1940, when they were also age 30.


    Of course, the young ones would end up big losers in this story. Real wages, on average, will be more than 50 percent higher in 2020 than they were in 1970. Even if tax rates were, on average, 5 percentage points higher, workers in 2020 will still have after-tax wages that are more than 40 percent higher than their counterparts in 1970.


    This means that anyone who chose to take advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit would end up as a big loser. That is why it can help solve the deficit problem. If people check off the tax credit, they will pay more in taxes and, therefore, increase government revenue.


    It might be hard to convince large numbers of people to voluntarily pay more in taxes. This is where the Peterson Foundation comes in. They are spending huge amounts of money trying to convince young people that they are being ripped off by their parents and grandparents. They are even promoting front groups of young people to advance this effort.


    With his billion dollars, Peterson could convince a huge number of gullible young people to tax advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit. Insofar as he is successful in this effort, he can help to generate billions of dollars that can be used for items like health care, preschool education, and other pressing needs.


    So, let's join efforts with Mr. Peterson and encourage his followers to take advantage of the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. There is a word for taking money from willfully ignorant young people who would deny their parents and grandparents the Social Security and Medicare benefits they need to survive: justice.


Tomorrow is when Obama's budget will come out....
nm
But pigs are balancing the budget
That's why it's not working and not balancing. They're too busy with their open checkbook spending on themselves like there's no tomorrow.

Maybe that's the plan though. Take everything we can and let the taxpapers continue to foot the bill.
and came in with a huge surplus!

I repeat....there was no surplus...
that was just clever use of word. It was a "projected" surplus, and it was contingent upon a cap on federal spending for 15 years, and no added federal programs. There was no real "surplus" sitting around.

Mea culpa on the borrowing. I have already said Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Spending needs to be curbed. Neither candidate is willing to say what I think needs to be done...no more new programs and stop the ones that are not working. When we get back in the "black" again, then we can look at increasing programs. Throwing more money at stuff is obviously not the answer.
Clinton had a surplus because he had a...sm
Republican Congress. Left to his own devices, he would have put us belly up, have no fear.

Bush, has a Democratic Congress at the end of his term, who have really jacked up the national debt, all on their own (war not included, thank you very much).
Not that old surplus crud again....lol
do the research...there was no "surplus." It was a surplus that COULD be IF spending was not increased over like 10 years. Like Congress could go 10 years without increasing spending. Clinton did NOT leave a surplus.

Surplus-Are we forgetting 9-11
Are you all forgetting that 9 months after being elected we were attacked on our own soil, with thousands of people losing their lives and NY City a disaster?  What do you think that did to the surplus and the need to protect our country.  How short your memory is until the next time it happens and they you will be begging for a stronger president than we have now.
I'm running on a tight budget, but I will get a pair...sm
so hopefully they will get them a little after Independent Day.

Here is a site that shows the federal budget

over the past 3 years, including charts. This is by the National Debt Awareness Center. There are lots of other links on there to check out too but, again, I am short on time today.


http://www.federalbudget.com/


This is an article from U.S. News about the budget outlook:


http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/02/25/hot-docs-bleak-and-uncertain-federal-budget-outlook-as-deficit-climbs.html


I saw today where they passed a budget to take us through the next couple months to the tune of $896B. Filled with pork. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to look it up tomorrow.


 


Deficit Soars in Obama's Budget
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29392964/
There was no surplus. That was debunked years ago.
And the Democrats are largely responsible for the shape we are in. John McCain tried to pass legislation in 2005 to regulate Fannie/Freddie. However, Chris Dodd (head of banking and commerce committee, and largest recipient of Fannie/Freddie contributions) and the Democrats blocked it. Fannie/Freddie started this freefall in the economy. Obama is #2 on the contributions list. John McCain is wayyyyy on down the list. Then the democrats (the ones sitting now) pushed by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in turn pushed fannie/freddie to give all those subprime loans to minorities and lower income folks, to people with either no credit or bad credit, knowing full well most of them didn't have a hope in heck of paying it back...it is THOSE mortgages we are going in hock to pick up.

Franklin Raines, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Timothy Howard...all Democrats, two of them Obama advisors...ALL walked away from Fannie with golden parachute of MILLIONS after cooking the books.

And WE are picking up the tab.

NOBAMA, NODEMOCRAT, NO WAY, NO HOW!!
Yep, that'll happen when pigs balance the budget......
nm
The surplus also followed him out eh? We know because it's now in the bank accounts of the rich.
A lot of people made a lot of money during the Clinton years - that's real money, honey, and they're still rich, accounting for our current revenues. Without the Clinton boom years your president's buds (and your president himself, let us remind you) wouldn't have gotten their 100,000 tax break checks. Sure, the boom couldn't hold, but the point is that the favorable conditions created by a sounder Democratic fiscal policy allowed that boom to come about.

Now all we have is empty coffers, slashed public spending, and China owns us. Big improvement huh? Oops, but people like Frist are still getting over big time on their big time stock trades - all's clear in the upper 1% But since you likely aren't in it, it's hard to see what you find so appealing about being a credit slave one paycheck away from poverty. Is that working out good for you?
Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt
Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.

After 8 years of Bush...As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion.
The myth of the Clinton surplus - been disproved -sm
A lot of democrats keep pushing this bogus claim that there was a surplus when in fact there never was. This has been discussed on this board, so by this message I'm assuming you never saw the message or went the the US Treasury website to check it out. Below is a link to it and explains what really happened.

The US National Debt proves there was never a surplus, and the article explains why people claim otherwise for political reasons. - good read. Even my most conservatives friends bought into this surplus craze, and said they were glad their eyes were opened.

I'll credit another poster for origianlly posting this (it's been so long I forget who now).

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Excuse me, but during Clinton administration, we had a balanced budget for the first time in ......s
American history, plus a surplus. I am not saying that everything that Bill Clinton did was good, and keep in mind that you were living in one of the most expensive areas of the country (I used to be a Californian, San Francisco is outrageous), for most of us, there was relative prosperity and peace, even though the Terrorists were were already threatening, but that also went back to Daddy Bush's time. How anyone can think that things are better now, I can't imagine! I am happy for you if you feel you personally are better off,that is great, but area you even seeing the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are filing for unemployment, many for the first time in their lives? Every day more lay-offs and closings? Banking deregulation under the Republican adminstration killed this country in so many ways, not to mention trillions for a war where.....we accomplished what? Why can't the Iraqi people fight for their own independence and freedom, as we did, and as the French did? We got rid of Saddam, and yes he was evil, but Osams is still on the loose. Afghanistan I could see, to get that demon, but going into Iraq? That all came down to oil interestes, IMHO, and Halliburton made a bundle. IMHO
Bush inherited a 559 billion surplus nuff said? NM
x
Bush inherited a 559 billion surplus nuff said? NM
x
Glenn Beck:Obama's budget a loaded weapon aimed at you.
By Glenn Beck
Host, “Glenn Beck“

Hello America,

If you had any doubt that we were on “The Road to Socialism,” President Obama’s just released budget should clear up that confusion. In fact, we’re so on The Road to Socialism that Barack Obama’s budget reads like he went to MapQuest and printed out turn-by-turn directions to get us to socialism as quickly as possible. So far, President Obama is really making a big scary mess of things and this budget is a giant step in the wrong direction.

Believe me–I understand that I’m not the only one who feels this way. But there have been lots of times in my career when I felt like I was all alone in my thinking (and that’s exactly why I’m having my “We Surround Them” event on March 13th…so you know that you’re not alone –click here for more details). So it’s always comforting for me when I hear others saying the same thing. Just this past weekend on “FOX News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked Arizona’s Republican Senator Jon Kyl, “How big a change in direction does the Obama budget represent in the relationship between government and the American people?” Without missing a beat, Senator Kyl quoted The Wall Street Journal by saying, “The budget represents a historical shift in the ideological direction of U.S. economic policy.” No mincing words there. Then he reminded everyone that The Wall Street Journal also stated in an editorial that President Obama is attempting to expand the role of government to such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back. A respected United States Senator and The Wall Street Journal–oh, I like that company. (Too bad we’re all agreeing on how bad things are getting.)

Here are some of the budget’s broad strokes:

* Obama’s budget takes the size of our government to the largest it’s been since World War II.
* It’s got a $1.4 trillion tax increase in it (and oh yeah–we’re in the middle of a recession).
* It doubles the debt in eight years.
* It never balances the budget and proposes that, for the next 10 years, our deficits are at a record high.

Hmmm. Usually I like to frame things in a “good news / bad news” context. That just won’t work here, but I don’t want to be a big downer. So let me put on a happy face and say that all the above was merely the regular, garden-variety bad news! Now here comes the super awful really bad news:

* Like a loaded weapon, this budget is aimed directly at you.

Is there a quicker way to end a honeymoon period for a new president than to propose a bunch of new taxes? It’s going to take a lot of serenading from Beyonce to make people forget about having less money…especially in this economy. See, not only is there a proposed huge tax increase for the energy and manufacturing sectors (and those get passed on to everyone), but overall tax rates are going up. All this is a real gut shot for small business. What too many people fail to remember is that small business is big business in America–over 70% of all American business is done by a small business. That means it’s likely that you either own or work for one, so President Obama wants more of your money (and I’m guessing it’s not like you have a whole lot extra lying around these days.)

And then there’s Obama’s suggestion of a “long-term investment in the economy.” That’s a fancy way of saying “increased spending.” (You don’t exactly need a decoder ring to figure that one out.) Another $30 billion for AIG…after they paid out six and seven figure bonuses and recorded the highest quarterly loss ever–over $60 billion–in U.S. history? How deep can our pockets be expected to be? Remember–every dollar the government “invests” in failing businesses is one of your dollars. If you had a stock broker who made the kind of crappy investments Washington has been making (and wants to make more of), you’d have fired them long ago.

This really isn’t that new a story–Democrats have a reputation of taxing and spending because, well…they always tax and spend. President Obama tries to soften his budget’s blow by stating that the tax increases don’t kick in until 2011. Um, Mr. President? It’s not exactly like 2011 is off in the sci-fi future where we’ll all have flying cars and live the life of George Jetson. Just like you need to plan ahead for re-election, small business owners need to do the same thing–plan for their future. So congratulations–now they’re doing that by bracing themselves for the tax avalanche coming their way in just a little over a year and a half from now. So instead of fueling the economy now–when we need it–business will tighten its belt and lower today’s bottom line in preparation for tomorrow’s new taxes. That lowers tax receipts! Instead of getting better, things get worse. Even I get that, and I’m the alcoholic rodeo clown.

Is it Election Day, 2012 yet?
The myth of the Clinton surplus...I'm a libertarian but I am sick of hearing this..SM
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Oil/oil revenue surplus in Iraq…to reconstruct or not to reconstruct? sm

That is the question.  The Bush boo/boo just keeps getting bigger and bigger. 

http://www.slate.com/id/2081831/
Oil/oil revenue surplus in Iraq…to reconstruct or not to reconstruct? sm

This is the correct link. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/world/middleeast/06surplus.html?ref=worldspecial