Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Warren suddenly "fights back" since democrats are the minority party? Where has she been in the last six years?
You mean when the GOP blocked everything since they didn't have a super majority?
And how did you get ObozoCare again, without a super majority?
One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.
It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:
Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days Fact Left
[
We can always fire government employees and pay rock bottom wages
But you get what you pay for. If you want discount rate lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, police and teachers representing the people's interests, then you will get the workforce you deserve
How about paying government employees labor market rates for the job they do but reduce the size of the government to a minimal effective level instead of this bloated out of control bureaucracy we have now?
How does that sound?
How about more realistic pension and benefits for them too
Envy much? Too bad you're too stupid and too much of a wimp to qualify for Safety Retirement.
We earn what we have, rescuing stupid people like you, and wondering every shift if some asshole with a gun is intent on doing harm to others; or 'cause he's too much a coward to put the gun in his own mouth and wants LE to do it for him.
I'll bet there's a long line of people who would do your job with a much smaller pension and health benefits more in line with the private sector. Most private sector jobs don't even offer a pension.
What makes you think you actually deserve what you are paid?
Elizabeth Warren’s Faux Populism vs. Jeb Hensarling’s Genuine Fight against K Street Cronyism
International Liberty ^
Let’s compare two politicians, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, to see which one actually has the courage to fight against powerful interest groups. We’ll start with Senator Warren. She portrays herself as the scourge of Wall Street, but it appears that the Massachusetts lawmaker isn’t merely a fake Indian, she’s also a fake opponent of corporate welfare.
Jeb Hensarling
Top 5 Contributors, 2001 - 2014
JPMorgan Chase & Co
KPMG LLP
American Bankers Assn
Energy Future Holdings Corp
Bank of America
Top 5 Industries, 2001 - 2014
Insurance
Securities & Investment
Commercial Banks
Misc Finance
Real Estate
Source of Funds
Individual Contributions 54%
PAC 42%
Rep. Jeb Hensarling Campaign Finance Money - Summary - Representative Career OpenSecrets
Elizabeth Warren
Top 5 Contributors, 2011 - 2014
EMILY's List
Moveon.org
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Boston University
Top 5 Industries, 2011 - 2014
Retired
Lawyers/Law Firms
Women's Issues
Education
Democratic/Liberal
Source of Funds
Individual Contributions 97%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren Campaign Finance Money - Summary - Senator Career OpenSecrets
LMAOROG
[
Man you're very dumb. Government employees pay taxes on money they earn. So do private sector employees. Some private sector employees are paid by the government, and they too are taxed on their income.
Then we have the Romney's, they put the money they earn by laying off workers, selling of a business assets and putting their profit in off shore accounts.
That is the business of the Romney's, not mine. Stop being so greedy. If you are going to bother yourself with class envy then look at John Kerry. That is a rich bastard. I don't see you bitching about the filthy Kennedys or that asshole George Soros, who has more overseas accounts than Carter has Liver Pills.
Every cent paid to every government employee is either taken from a person who earned it or taken from our children if borrowed money.
The money would have been used in the productive economy or used by however the person that earned wanted it to be used.
You don't create jackshit by taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another. That simple fact of economics seems to escape the mind of all Moon Bats.
"John Kerry,Kennedys, George Soros"
Those guys supporting going back to higher tax rates? How horrible of them.
They must want 'class warfare' right? They must be envious too? lol
Warren Buffett’s:
Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically. If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won.
There rsquo s been class warfare for the last 20 years and my class has won rsquo - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
HE MUST BE ENVIOUS TOO RIGHT? lol
Warren Buffet, all his acquisitions are tax free exchanges and all his wealth is in a tax free trust
His biggest businesses are insurance companies that benefit from tax exemptions.
And his firm pays no dividends.
He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!
So YES, those RINO's allowed the Dems to vote on a bill WITHOUT the super majority they usually require. Thanks for agreeing
That's NOT what you said, there were NO REPUBLICAN'S that voted for that bill...OR NAME THE ONES THAT DID VOTE FOR Obamacare...I'll wait...
WHAT I SAID DUMMY
"You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol"
Honesty, TRY IT!
And I said He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!
Now What of that statement, don't you understand, or just trying to PARSE words again...as usual!
You realize you are dealing with a dishonest person, that even if proven wrong, they won't admit it. You are wasting your time with him.
Elizabeth Warren’s Faux Populism vs. Jeb Hensarling’s Genuine Fight against K Street Cronyism
International Liberty ^
Let’s compare two politicians, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, to see which one actually has the courage to fight against powerful interest groups. We’ll start with Senator Warren. She portrays herself as the scourge of Wall Street, but it appears that the Massachusetts lawmaker isn’t merely a fake Indian, she’s also a fake opponent of corporate welfare.
Jeb Hensarling
Top 5 Contributors, 2001 - 2014
JPMorgan Chase & Co
KPMG LLP
American Bankers Assn
Energy Future Holdings Corp
Bank of America
Top 5 Industries, 2001 - 2014
Insurance
Securities & Investment
Commercial Banks
Misc Finance
Real Estate
Source of Funds
Individual Contributions 54%
PAC 42%
Rep. Jeb Hensarling Campaign Finance Money - Summary - Representative Career OpenSecrets
Elizabeth Warren
Top 5 Contributors, 2011 - 2014
EMILY's List
Moveon.org
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Boston University
Top 5 Industries, 2011 - 2014
Retired
Lawyers/Law Firms
Women's Issues
Education
Democratic/Liberal
Source of Funds
Individual Contributions 97%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren Campaign Finance Money - Summary - Senator Career OpenSecrets
LMAOROG
Did you prove the author of the article wrong?
How about paying government employees labor market rates for the job they do but reduce the size of the government to a minimal effective level instead of this bloated out of control bureaucracy we have now?
How does that sound?
How about more realistic pension and benefits for them too
Envy much? Too bad you're too stupid and too much of a wimp to qualify for Safety Retirement.
We earn what we have, rescuing stupid people like you, and wondering every shift if some asshole with a gun is intent on doing harm to others; or 'cause he's too much a coward to put the gun in his own mouth and wants LE to do it for him.
I'll bet there's a long line of people who would do your job with a much smaller pension and health benefits more in line with the private sector. Most private sector jobs don't even offer a pension.
What makes you think you actually deserve what you are paid?
Yes, how dare the Gov't NOT race to the bottom as fast as the private sector, don't you know we need more money in the hands of the 1%ers
So government leeches are entitled to more than the people who pay their salaries? Is that what you really wanted to admit? I would rather have money go to the 1% who earned it than the 5% who make up the government workforce.
I am a government consultant and do much better than I did in the 33 years I worked as a Federal Employee. I also went through decades trying to hire qualified engineers at government pay grades[
We can always fire government employees and pay rock bottom wages
But you get what you pay for. If you want discount rate lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, police and teachers representing the people's interests, then you will get the workforce you deserve
How about paying government employees labor market rates for the job they do but reduce the size of the government to a minimal effective level instead of this bloated out of control bureaucracy we have now?
How does that sound?
We have fewer government employees today than we had 50 years ago. Wages offered by the government to recent graduates tend to be significantly lower than in the private sector
Government doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants all make less than the private sector
That's all horseshit of course. I have plenty of friends who are consultants and they make considerably more than comparable positions in the private sector.
The only government employees there are less of is service people. The military is the only area of government that's actually been cut in the last 50 years.
Many studies have recently been published showing that government employees make considerably more than people with comparable positions in the private sector.
The numbers in the federal workforce are well published. We have lower numbers than we had 50 years ago
Utter horseshit. You're obviously just a brainwashed drone.
How about more realistic pension and benefits for them too
Envy much? Too bad you're too stupid and too much of a wimp to qualify for Safety Retirement.
We earn what we have, rescuing stupid people like you, and wondering every shift if some asshole with a gun is intent on doing harm to others; or 'cause he's too much a coward to put the gun in his own mouth and wants LE to do it for him.
I'll bet there's a long line of people who would do your job with a much smaller pension and health benefits more in line with the private sector. Most private sector jobs don't even offer a pension.
What makes you think you actually deserve what you are paid?
Yes, how dare the Gov't NOT race to the bottom as fast as the private sector, don't you know we need more money in the hands of the 1%ers
So government leeches are entitled to more than the people who pay their salaries? Is that what you really wanted to admit? I would rather have money go to the 1% who earned it than the 5% who make up the government workforce.
Got it, highest inequality on record isn't enough for Klownboy!
Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?
GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit. How did that double it?
Liberal math?
"GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit"
President George H.W. Bush.
Jan. 20, 1989*: $2,697,957, 000,000
Jan. 20, 1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60
Sorry, meant to say HWBush only added about 60% in his 4 years, where Reagan had tripled it and HW 's son, Dubya had doubled the debt. Mostly inheriting Ronnie's failed voodooo economics and failed S&L crisis where Ronnie ignored the regulator warnings!!!
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
National Debt by President LBJ to Obama - TheStreet
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
Historical Tables The White House
According to the White House, table 1.1, it was less than a trillion.
Maybe Obama altered the numbers? LOL!
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba? Deficits are ONLY the amounts the yearly budget needs to balance revenues in and payments out. Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
lol
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba?
If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus.
Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Of course, we're talking about gross debt. Just like your earlier chart.
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
Of course. Do you imagine you've discovered something new? Maybe new to you. LOL!
"If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus."
REALLY? REALLY? lol. A deficit is ONLY the difference between what the Gov't spends and ALL monies coming in. Since Reagan increased SS taxes 60% the payroll taxes were HUGE and wiped out much of Ronnie's, Poppy's Clinton AND Dubya's DEFICITS, BUT STILL ADDED TO THE DEBT BECAUSE THEY BECAME INTRA GOV'T LOANS, LOL
GROW A BRAIN BUBBA
Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?
GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit. How did that double it?
Liberal math?
"GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit"
President George H.W. Bush.
Jan. 20, 1989*: $2,697,957, 000,000
Jan. 20, 1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60
Sorry, meant to say HWBush only added about 60% in his 4 years, where Reagan had tripled it and HW 's son, Dubya had doubled the debt. Mostly inheriting Ronnie's failed voodooo economics and failed S&L crisis where Ronnie ignored the regulator warnings!!!
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
National Debt by President LBJ to Obama - TheStreet
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
Historical Tables The White House
According to the White House, table 1.1, it was less than a trillion.
Maybe Obama altered the numbers? LOL!
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba? Deficits are ONLY the amounts the yearly budget needs to balance revenues in and payments out. Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
lol
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba?
If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus.
Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Of course, we're talking about gross debt. Just like your earlier chart.
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
Of course. Do you imagine you've discovered something new? Maybe new to you. LOL!
YOU'RE A MORON. WORLD CLASS, BUT STILL A MORON BUBBA!
Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt, lol
Percentages can be deceiving.The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.
- Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989
Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.
The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.
This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games
Talk total dollars instead.
You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?
BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.
NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!
By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989.
Was 19.6% carved in stone? Mandated by the Constitution? Why can't the Feds survive on 18.4% of GDP?
Or 17%? Or less?
You mean do we need to FUND Gov't and Reagan not only cut revenues but blew up the debt????
I guess Clinton taking US back to near where Carter had US kinda shows we need around 20% of GDP to run Gov't AS IT'S CURRENTLY FORMED. Want to change it? Win more elections!
"GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit"
President George H.W. Bush.
Jan. 20, 1989*: $2,697,957, 000,000
Jan. 20, 1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60
Sorry, meant to say HWBush only added about 60% in his 4 years, where Reagan had tripled it and HW 's son, Dubya had doubled the debt. Mostly inheriting Ronnie's failed voodooo economics and failed S&L crisis where Ronnie ignored the regulator warnings!!!
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
National Debt by President LBJ to Obama - TheStreet
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
Historical Tables The White House
According to the White House, table 1.1, it was less than a trillion.
Maybe Obama altered the numbers? LOL!
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba? Deficits are ONLY the amounts the yearly budget needs to balance revenues in and payments out. Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
lol
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba?
If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus.
Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Of course, we're talking about gross debt. Just like your earlier chart.
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
Of course. Do you imagine you've discovered something new? Maybe new to you. LOL!
"If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus."
REALLY? REALLY? lol. A deficit is ONLY the difference between what the Gov't spends and ALL monies coming in. Since Reagan increased SS taxes 60% the payroll taxes were HUGE and wiped out much of Ronnie's, Poppy's Clinton AND Dubya's DEFICITS, BUT STILL ADDED TO THE DEBT BECAUSE THEY BECAME INTRA GOV'T LOANS, LOL
GROW A BRAIN BUBBA
Since Reagan increased SS taxes 60%
You are a lying liar, liar.
"GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit"
President George H.W. Bush.
Jan. 20, 1989*: $2,697,957, 000,000
Jan. 20, 1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60
Sorry, meant to say HWBush only added about 60% in his 4 years, where Reagan had tripled it and HW 's son, Dubya had doubled the debt. Mostly inheriting Ronnie's failed voodooo economics and failed S&L crisis where Ronnie ignored the regulator warnings!!!
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
National Debt by President LBJ to Obama - TheStreet
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
Historical Tables The White House
According to the White House, table 1.1, it was less than a trillion.
Maybe Obama altered the numbers? LOL!
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba? Deficits are ONLY the amounts the yearly budget needs to balance revenues in and payments out. Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
lol
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba?
If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus.
Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Of course, we're talking about gross debt. Just like your earlier chart.
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
Of course. Do you imagine you've discovered something new? Maybe new to you. LOL!
YOU'RE A MORON. WORLD CLASS, BUT STILL A MORON BUBBA!
Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt, lol
Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt
Yes it does.
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
Historical Tables The White House
According to the White House, table 1.1, it was less than a trillion.
Maybe Obama altered the numbers? LOL!
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba? Deficits are ONLY the amounts the yearly budget needs to balance revenues in and payments out. Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
lol
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba?
If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus.
Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Of course, we're talking about gross debt. Just like your earlier chart.
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
Of course. Do you imagine you've discovered something new? Maybe new to you. LOL!
"If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus."
REALLY? REALLY? lol. A deficit is ONLY the difference between what the Gov't spends and ALL monies coming in. Since Reagan increased SS taxes 60% the payroll taxes were HUGE and wiped out much of Ronnie's, Poppy's Clinton AND Dubya's DEFICITS, BUT STILL ADDED TO THE DEBT BECAUSE THEY BECAME INTRA GOV'T LOANS, LOL
GROW A BRAIN BUBBA
Since Reagan increased SS taxes 60%
You are a lying liar, liar.
The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
* In 1983, the 98th Congress and Republican President Ronald Reagan accelerated the timeframe for previously enacted payroll tax rate hikes and increased the rate for "the self-employed to equal the combined employee/employer rate (DOUBLED THEIR RATES BASICALLY) but with partially offsetting credits and deductions."
http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/crs9436.pdf
Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist
The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.
The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.
...
Supply-side economics was not working like Reagan had promised. Instead of the lower tax rates generating more revenue as the supply-siders claimed would happen, there was a dramatic drop in revenue. Something had to be done, so Ronald Reagan set for himself a new mission. He would have to figure out a way to get the additional revenue he needed from another source.
The mechanism, which allowed the government to transfer $2.7 trillion from the Social Security fund to the general fund over a 30-year period, was the brainchild of President Ronald Reagan and his advisers, especially Alan Greenspan.
Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist FedSmith.com
How about paying government employees labor market rates for the job they do but reduce the size of the government to a minimal effective level instead of this bloated out of control bureaucracy we have now?
How does that sound?
How about more realistic pension and benefits for them too
Envy much? Too bad you're too stupid and too much of a wimp to qualify for Safety Retirement.
We earn what we have, rescuing stupid people like you, and wondering every shift if some asshole with a gun is intent on doing harm to others; or 'cause he's too much a coward to put the gun in his own mouth and wants LE to do it for him.
I'll bet there's a long line of people who would do your job with a much smaller pension and health benefits more in line with the private sector. Most private sector jobs don't even offer a pension.
What makes you think you actually deserve what you are paid?
Yes, how dare the Gov't NOT race to the bottom as fast as the private sector, don't you know we need more money in the hands of the 1%ers
So government leeches are entitled to more than the people who pay their salaries? Is that what you really wanted to admit? I would rather have money go to the 1% who earned it than the 5% who make up the government workforce.
Percentages can be deceiving.The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.
- Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989
Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.
The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.
This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games
Talk total dollars instead.
You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?
BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.
NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!
By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989.
Was 19.6% carved in stone? Mandated by the Constitution? Why can't the Feds survive on 18.4% of GDP?
Or 17%? Or less?
You mean do we need to FUND Gov't and Reagan not only cut revenues but blew up the debt????
I guess Clinton taking US back to near where Carter had US kinda shows we need around 20% of GDP to run Gov't AS IT'S CURRENTLY FORMED. Want to change it? Win more elections!
I guess Clinton taking US back to near where Carter had US
That Internet Bubble was very helpful for revenues.
Want to change it? Win more elections!
Excellent idea! Pubs do have more seats than they've had since the 1920s, I think.
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba? Deficits are ONLY the amounts the yearly budget needs to balance revenues in and payments out. Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
lol
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba?
If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus.
Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Of course, we're talking about gross debt. Just like your earlier chart.
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
Of course. Do you imagine you've discovered something new? Maybe new to you. LOL!
"If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus."
REALLY? REALLY? lol. A deficit is ONLY the difference between what the Gov't spends and ALL monies coming in. Since Reagan increased SS taxes 60% the payroll taxes were HUGE and wiped out much of Ronnie's, Poppy's Clinton AND Dubya's DEFICITS, BUT STILL ADDED TO THE DEBT BECAUSE THEY BECAME INTRA GOV'T LOANS, LOL
GROW A BRAIN BUBBA
Since Reagan increased SS taxes 60%
You are a lying liar, liar.
The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
* In 1983, the 98th Congress and Republican President Ronald Reagan accelerated the timeframe for previously enacted payroll tax rate hikes and increased the rate for "the self-employed to equal the combined employee/employer rate (DOUBLED THEIR RATES BASICALLY) but with partially offsetting credits and deductions."
http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/crs9436.pdf
Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist
The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.
The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.
...
Supply-side economics was not working like Reagan had promised. Instead of the lower tax rates generating more revenue as the supply-siders claimed would happen, there was a dramatic drop in revenue. Something had to be done, so Ronald Reagan set for himself a new mission. He would have to figure out a way to get the additional revenue he needed from another source.
The mechanism, which allowed the government to transfer $2.7 trillion from the Social Security fund to the general fund over a 30-year period, was the brainchild of President Ronald Reagan and his advisers, especially Alan Greenspan.
Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist FedSmith.com
Thanks for the links. I didn't need them to know your 60% claim was a lie.
Envy much? Too bad you're too stupid and too much of a wimp to qualify for Safety Retirement.
We earn what we have, rescuing stupid people like you, and wondering every shift if some asshole with a gun is intent on doing harm to others; or 'cause he's too much a coward to put the gun in his own mouth and wants LE to do it for him.
I'll bet there's a long line of people who would do your job with a much smaller pension and health benefits more in line with the private sector. Most private sector jobs don't even offer a pension.
What makes you think you actually deserve what you are paid?
Yes, how dare the Gov't NOT race to the bottom as fast as the private sector, don't you know we need more money in the hands of the 1%ers
So government leeches are entitled to more than the people who pay their salaries? Is that what you really wanted to admit? I would rather have money go to the 1% who earned it than the 5% who make up the government workforce.
Got it, highest inequality on record isn't enough for Klownboy!
This is about leeches vs people who produce something. It's not about "inequality."
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
Historical Tables The White House
According to the White House, table 1.1, it was less than a trillion.
Maybe Obama altered the numbers? LOL!
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba? Deficits are ONLY the amounts the yearly budget needs to balance revenues in and payments out. Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
lol
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba?
If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus.
Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Of course, we're talking about gross debt. Just like your earlier chart.
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
Of course. Do you imagine you've discovered something new? Maybe new to you. LOL!
YOU'RE A MORON. WORLD CLASS, BUT STILL A MORON BUBBA!
Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt, lol
Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt
Yes it does.
Gawd you're a moron.
"Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted."
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
BUDGET
$100 A YEAR COMING IN
$101 GOING OUT
Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba
Percentages can be deceiving.
Talk total dollars instead.
You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?
BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.
NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!
By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989.
Was 19.6% carved in stone? Mandated by the Constitution? Why can't the Feds survive on 18.4% of GDP?
Or 17%? Or less?
You mean do we need to FUND Gov't and Reagan not only cut revenues but blew up the debt????
I guess Clinton taking US back to near where Carter had US kinda shows we need around 20% of GDP to run Gov't AS IT'S CURRENTLY FORMED. Want to change it? Win more elections!
I guess Clinton taking US back to near where Carter had US
That Internet Bubble was very helpful for revenues.
Want to change it? Win more elections!
Excellent idea! Pubs do have more seats than they've had since the 1920s, I think.
Agreed, Good policy from Dems created that too
To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:
Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.
"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994 (PRE GOPers)
"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997
Sure Pub's have more seats as record low voter apathy had turnouts at WW2 levels. Wait till the GOP needs to defend 26 (?) seats in the Senate in 2016 and we have ANOTHER Dem Prez elected which will bring out the voters!
