$700 Billion in Democratic Promises, 50% Tax Rates

Actually, the biggest concern right now..should be Consumer Debt, at least the government currently has a budget in place to get out of debt...most consumers don't. This is what leads to bad decisions like ARM mortgages, bankruptcy, divorces, suicide and a host of other problems that are just getting worse as consumer debt continues to climb...but hey..we've just GOT to have that new IPHONE and WII. The average household has over $30,000 in debt. Sorry son..you can't go to college..you'll just have to be poor.

 

So you'd rather have your tax dollars going towards bombing civilians in Iraq instead? Shows where your priorities are. I'd rather somehow at least indirectly benefit from my tax dollars.

 

So they will in turn hire fewer people? That sounds just peachy. I can't wait to see what happens when unemployment goes up as a result.

 

dance monkey

 

How would you prefer the government finance itself? You could tax the poor - then they'll stop spending and crash the economy. Or you could borrow from the rich - in which case they still aren't investing in the private sector, but you're also now paying interest on that new debt, meaning you need to borrow even more money next yaer. Any other ideas?

 

the projections i remember reading (admittedly a while back) would cause SS to be solvent indefinitely if you killed the cap. so i'd imagine even increasing it a bit would be significant. SS should be solvent until 2040 anyway. so at the very least it would be a mid term solution.

 

That's very possible - but I don't think Obama or anyone else is proposing removing the cap entirely. That would be horrendous - basically, a 12% tax rate increase on everyone making more than $60,000. That's not a 12% increase - that's a 12% *rate* increase, so you're talking about net total tax rates going from maybe 25-30% to 37-42%. Small tax increases are one thing - this would be a huge economic mess.

It also doesn't at all address the fundamental problems that make SS problematic. People are living longer which means there are more retirees per worker and retirees are getting SS funds for longer. The whole original design of the program was built on premises that no longer are true (avg lifespan, workers per retiree). The benefits side has to be reworked in some way - you can't just keep raising taxes to fix it.

 

Okay, so adding up the proposed plans of all democratic candidates as if they will all serve in parallel administrations is still about half the cost of our military endeavors in Iraq ($1.3 trillion).

-----------------
(11-13) 06:17 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Congress' Joint Economic Committee.
{B-Bob notes: more credible and unbiased than an unreferenced, unlinked posting on a BBS? tough call.}

The report, obtained by The Associated Press and scheduled to be released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said.

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said. Oil prices have surged since the start of the war, from about $37 a barrel to well over $90 a barrel in recent weeks, the report said. "Consistent disruptions from the war have affected oil prices," although the Iraq war is not responsible for all of the increase in oil prices, the report said. Still, the report estimated that high oil prices have hit U.S. consumers in the pocket, transferring "approximately $124 billion from U.S. oil consumers to foreign (oil) producers" from 2003 to 2008, the report said.

High oil prices can slow overall economic growth if that chills spending and investment by consumers and businesses. At the same time, high oil prices can spread inflation throughout the economy if companies decide to boost the prices of lots of other goods and services.

The report comes as the House prepares to vote this week on another effort by Democrats to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq as a condition for providing another $50 billion for the war.

"What this report makes crystal clear is that the cost to our country in lives lost and dollars spent is tragically unacceptable," said Joint Economic Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in a statement prepared to accompany the report's release.

LINK

 

retraction- income tax = interest on the debt

the irs collects about 900 billion in income tax
just the fed debt interest is pushing 600 billion/ year

not quite equal yet

none the less the problem is still borrowing money

 

My guess is that numbers for health care look at coverage costs per person today without looking at how the candidates plan to change the health care system... that's a typical Repub response when someone wants to make our health care system run more efficiently.

And you can't look at health care as if you're just buying toilet seats. Health care money spent now can save lots of health care money spent later. Health care can influence lives other than the person being treated.

 

By the way, I quit reading the article after this sentence...

 

That just proves that we NEED Ron Paul in Office.

Anyone who hasnt heard or you dont know much about him. Google, Youtube Ron paul and watch some videos. The man needs to be president. USA cant afford to have a Hilary as president.

 

Ron Paul is the only one I would trust in the whole bunch.

 

At least Hillary is better than Obama or Edwards.

 

Just because she is "better" then 2 other people in her party doesnt mean she needs to be president.

People really need to do their research instead of just listening to the media. Its amazing how I can talk to someone about politics and I Ask who they want to be president and they say hillary and then I throw down some comparisons and they change their mind pretty fast.

Kinda amazing what the mainstream media can make people think. :/

 

SS is capped around just under a 100 not 60. that i think is pretty significant. second i dont know exactly what obama's proposal is but you could have a regressive type of rate that the next 100k are 6% etc.

well i do think you can keep raising taxes to fix it but i do think there should be a limiting of benefits. i'm ok with raising the age to 70 since when ss was started the average life span was less than the starting age of SS benefits.

 

That's funny, because I have that experience with Ron Paul people all the time.

 

seriously? are you trolls really this rampant?

 

I am hoping for Romney, but its going to take a big upset to stop Hillary.

 

Hillary will be way better than Bush, that alone is going to reduce the debt.