Zippin Pippin likely to cost half-million more than anticipated

While I suspect Obama *believes* there will be no opposition from within the party, he might be a little too sure of that "fact". The lack of any real progress from the progressive arm of the administration (see: the overly-watered-down health bill) to me is a LARGE reason that Obama didn't see the kind of support he needed to maintain any sort of momentum from '08 to '10. The people who, like me, were excited by the PROMISE of more even-tempered governance were frankly left wondering how they ended up with a majority party that couldn't wait to acquiesce on virtually every issue.

If the Conservatives aren't happy with Obama by now, perhaps Huckabee can run as a Democrat next time around... ;)

I think the subject just took a turn. Now we are mad about Bush tax cuts (more on that in a moment). I notice that there is nary a comment about what Japan did for 16 years and how wealth disappeared and jobs stayed stagnant. I'm willing to look at any of history's examples where massive government spending has lead to prosperity. I'm very well versed in the subject, and am not aware of a single example where the numbers worked out. Massive government expenditures create zero wealth or prosperity. It is in effect robbing Peter to pay Paul so we can can count on Paul's vote. But what happens when Peter gets pissed and moves somewhere else? We've seen this phenomenon at numerous local municipalities (see New York City), states (see California), and how far can the National be behind? Entire cities and States bankrupt under their own wreckless debt and spending...and we still have those that think the answer is to tax the rich more. I guess we can follow history's examples, or we could have blind faith that this time we will do it bigger and better than tried before, and expect a different result.

As for the Bush tax cuts...I have a differing view of the situation. For seven years we have been told that tax cuts were only for the wealthy. For seven years the dominant media and most democrat politicians have beat the same drum in unison...and now...when politically expedient what are they doing? We have a classic political 180...they cannot get those tax cuts for the middle and lower classes extended fast enough. Now we are finding out that there WERE tax cuts for the middle and lower classes all along. How the democrats can do this with a straight face and expect reasonable minded independents to not see through their rhetoric is laughable.

Now a little reality of the tax structure as told by the CBO (who some seem to believe) for 2005...

Who pays taxes?

Top 1% share 18.1 % of pre-tax income but pay 38.8% of the income taxes (understand that folks...one percent of the population foots 38.8% of the bill) The top 5% share only 31.1 percent of pre-tax income, but they pay 60.7% of the entire tax bill. The top 10% only have 40.9% of pre-tax income, yet they foot 72.7% of the tax bill...yes the top 10% of payers already foot 72.7% of the bill. The top 20% of taxpayers hold 55.1 % of all pre-tax income, but they foot 86.3% of the bill.

The bottom 20% hold 4.0 % of the pre-tax income...their share of the tax bill -2.9% (that is a negative). The bottom 50% of earners make 13% of the country's income, yet they pay less than 3% of the tax bill.

Anybody that looks at these numbers and then tries to make an argument that the rich are not paying their share, it is not fair, etc is either blindly partisan, filled with an unreasonable class envy, or missing a few cards from the deck.

We do not have a tax collection problem. We have a spending problem. Until we can get the vast majority of American's to understand the severity of the problem, we will get arguments like "the rich don't pay enough." Folks...we could tax them at 100% and it would not make a dent in a $50 Trillion unfunded liabilities bill. Let alone the additional 15-16 Trillion Obama's projected deficit budget forecasts over the next 10 years.

We have, and continue to spend too much. Unless and until we find means to fix this habit, we will stagnate at best...

I think that Obama hedged his bets for 2012. He was boxed in by his 2008 promise of no tax increases on those making less than $200/250k so he knew he would be making some type of compromise. His fate in 2012 will hinge on the economy (absent some significant international crisis between now and then). Healthcare, the environment and everything else won't matter. But it isn't clear that no matter what they do, the economy will improve in time for him to win in 2012 (unless the republicans run Palin but that is another story). By extending all of the tax cuts for 2 years, Obama can point to the republicans "failed economic policies" of favoring the "rich."

I thunk the subject took a turn... I notice there is nary a comment about... Japan

Perhaps that should tell you something.

GoBucks89 said:
But it isn't clear that no matter what they do, the economy will improve in time for him to win in 2012 (unless the republicans run Palin but that is another story). By extending all of the tax cuts for 2 years, Obama can point to the republicans "failed economic policies" of favoring the "rich."

That could be dangerous. Much of the stimulus was, by design, to be disseminated between now and 2012, perhaps in order to ensure the economy is humming along (ignoring sustainability) during the campaign. If the stimulus has that effect, the GOP may be able to claim that voodoo economics has saved the day "again".

An economy that is humming along during the campaign is a problem that Obama would love to have. He would win re-election easily. He has bigger problems if it is not humming along (which one do you think is more likely at this point?) or even if it hasn't improved enough. We need to create a lot of new jobs on a sustained basis to bring unemployment numbers down to anything approaching pre-recession. Thus the reason I view what he did on tax cuts as a hedge.

A discussion evolved? Perish the thought! ;)

Seriously though, after yesterday's news it wasn't exactly inconceivable that the "supply side" of tax-and-spend would come into question. And now, there's a heck of a lot less "supply" of tax dollars to be spent. Luckily (?), the Chinese thus far have decided to give us more rope with which we can hang ourselves - and our economy.

I may be a "liberal, progressive, etc." when it comes to social issues, but fiscally, I figure I'm 1,000% more conservative than those who consistently outspend our income giving money to those who have more than plenty as is...must be time for another Wall St. bailout, no? ;)

DC doesn't look at tax dollars coming in to determine how much to spend. Congress carved the Bush tax cut extension from the "pay as we go" promise they made earlier. So we will bridge the gap with more debt. No need to reduce spending (happy day--for someone anyway). At this point, China needs us as much as we need them. That won't always be the case though.

The tax deal also decreased social security taxes by 2%. So you take a program that is insolvent and give it less money. And you extend tax cuts costing us more money. And you extend unemployment benefits costing again more money. And not one single spending cut. But make no doubt about it, folks in DC understand we have a deficit/debt problem and are committed to solving it. Just not today. What passes for a fiscal conservative in DC is a total joke.

That's one of the things that makes the division across the aisle so ridiculous. Tax cuts without less spending are essentially the same as more spending without new taxes. The public, and especially the Tea Party wackos that contribute nothing to the debate, seem to be oblivious to this fact.

I think we are starting to narrow down where the problem is...SPENDING. That is the point. It does not matter if democrats win the debate and tax the crap out of everybody (at least those left that actually pay anyhow) OR if republicans cut taxes across the board. We are beyond the point in which a change in tax policy (in either extreme direction) fixes the problem. Moment to note that there is a small chance that some sort of Fair Tax type proposal could induce enough foreign investment (i.e. companies willing to return operations to the USA) to extremley grow the economy...but the political practicality of such a overhaul of the system is nil to none.

We either stagnate, inflate, or bemoan how we let it be "too late." The point of the stimulus type packages, health care, etc is we cannot afford it. You do not spend your way out of a recession. You do not spend your way to prosperity needed to abolish $50 Trillion unfunded entitlement promises. It is a laughable and proposterous position economically...one practiced by every Congress and President in my life-time. And whoever took the Nancy Pelosi position that Unemployment benifits stimulate the economy...there is no way this is serious! If this is true, every country would discourage employment so we all could collect benifits to "stimulate" government growth. Government does not and cannot create wealth. They can only redistribute it. They don't "make" anything of inate value.

We need to grow the economy and create more taxable events. That money you take from Peter's hand to endlessly pay Paul's unemployment benifits is money Paul might have used to buy something, invest, or even create a project that needs workers. Maybe Peter would consider hiring Paul. Maybe Paul would earn a paycheck and buy more of his own. And now both Peter and Paul are contributing to the coffers. Or we could subscribe to some rediculous Pelosi statement that unemployment benifits stimulate the economy. They do no such thing. They ADD to our already stiffling deficit. I consider current policy of activley promoting government dependence to be a great abuse of power. The same government whose policies have created the environment in which we can't grow jobs, now has the nerve to pretend it cares by printing paper and endlessly footing the water bill.

And why would Peter ever consider investing or hiring anybody in this environment? Nobody has a darn clue what tax rates will end up. Nobody has a clue what the expenditures and/or fines will be related to Obamacare. Who in the hell knows when the NEXT stimulus plan comes and how many TRILLION will "work" this time if we just "trust them."? We know Japan had 8 of their own that did nothing but make matters worse. Why are we emulating failure? Emulating failure on a grand level like never seen before...it is suicidal economic behavior...

It reminds me of those singing on the Titanic deck as the ship sank. We can pretend that America will defy every economic lesson/reality that history has taught us and believe our politicians when they say "everything will be ok (see Barney Frank and Fannie Mae)." Jeese, the Green Bay Council that missed cost projections by $500 thousand (at this time) says not to worry...we are probably going to profit (especially if they are allowed to dip into the rainy day fund)...and some believe them as trust-worthy...? That optomistic attitude in face of economic realities at ALL levels of government is dangerous in my opinion.

Get that calculator out and figure out what those zeros mean. Folks we could confiscate ALL the money...not just the income of the top 25% and it is not enough to meet our promises. Yet we have those that sincerley and wrongly believe that the "rich" have the means to bail us out IF we make them. They can't... They do not have enough money to back the promises your politicians have made.

And those who pay relativley nothing in taxes, and those who actually get paid by government always make it sound like they are willing to contribute more. There is a spot for that on your tax return...why does statistically nobody do this IF government is such a peaceful and loving God? Folks...learn the zeros. We not talking some of your paycheck. For most of you, your individual bill to pay an equal share of our deficit promises is at least a couple years worth of salary. Those with wife and a couple kids might have to work 10 years to pay their share. The numbers have reached such rediculous proportions due to the mathmatects of exponents...that the average voter simply cannot comprehend what it means.

So until somebody in our government in large enough numbers truly finds means of CUTTING our expenditures...we are heading toward the iceburg without a rudder. You can only print paper so long before EVERY dollar that all of us has in our pocket is useless.

This country in 200 short years created more wealth and a higher standard of living than ANY before it. We did not do it through wreckless spending and government reliance. We did it on the backs of rugged individualism and a "don't tread on me" attitude. Why we would not choose to emulate the types of policies and attitudes that lead to this great economic expansion, and instead rely on a European (and worse) model which fosters dependence at freedom's loss?

How long before our jobless twenty-somethings take to the streets to protest retirement age going from 60 to 62? I cannot imagine the lack of self-respect it takes for a twenty-something to frett over what is going to happen to him at age 60. It is a mental sickness that presents itself as hopeless dependency on government. But we have kids on college campuses here that feel the same. This world is full of examples of what government interference does to the human spirit. Why be like that? Why not try and be like us...or at least what we used to be? Given the two options, one seems so much better...

OH MY GAWD JEFF MAKE IT STOP!!!!

I've gotten to the point where I just skip over them.

Why stop at skipping over "them"? Its gotten to the point where I have to skip over everyone's.

I don't actually read his stuff but he posts so much I have to scroll so far just to get to the next post.

tl/dr

I'm going to say this as constructively as I can... There comes a point where you say a lot less than you write. Being concise helps make a point.

Some folks read the comics, others prefer investigative reports...

But most of us here prefer concise comments that don't drone on about nothing. There are no 'investigative reports' to be found. Just much ado about nothing.

I'm not used to seeing goofy metaphors and cliches all over "investigative reports."

I'm not used to seein investigative reports on roller coaster websites.