and I am speechless. I knew it was bad, but this is hopeless.
Why Not & Gurusmom, don't read this without a defibrillator near by.
Replies (47)
The first thing to do in controlling debt is to quit spending like a drunken sailer!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 10:06 PM
I see nothing shocking here, but I am reminded of the the way the Read my lipps, no new taxes comment has been spun by the media to totally change history.
The dems wanted to raise taxes, Bush said no, so they came up with revenue enhancements. That is when he said it. Later they [both sides] promised to cut spending $2 for every $1 in increase of existing tax. Bush fell for it and the spending was never cut. Not by dems or repubs and Bush got blamed for it.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 10:25 PM
Thanks for the caveat, adidas ... Perhaps I'd better wait until my next doctor's check-up? Oh, what the heck ...
Okay, I read something about this last night. My first reaction ...? Uh, when did they start to realize something that many of us citizens have been worrying about, discussing, for many months?
And now ... it's beginning to look suspiciously like the ones who will be paying the price for letting this all happen (and no, it didn't just start 'yesterday' or last year or ...) are the people who had little or no control over our rapidly growing debt.
Suggestion? Every single budget in our government should be cut by, say, 10=15% ... including federal salaries, retirement plans, travel expenses ... heck, even utilities on all the huge, grandiose buildings it owns (still have the photo of me standing in front of The Office of Thrift Management, where the receptionist could not tell me what the department did) ... one or two less cooks in the White House, no full-time beautician for the First Lady ... every department's employee base cut ... Run the government as a business would be run ... Sorry, I kind of got carried away here ...
That being said, I'm really, really tired of hearing about the cost of SS and Medicare ... the two programs that every working citizen pays into ... have paid into for decades ... Both of which have been mishandled in many ways by our government leaders.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 12:58 AM
The Willis Report
By Gerri Willis
Published July 08, 2010
| FOXBusiness
Are you ready...for higher taxes?
I know, it's never good news, but the Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year and when they do --- whammo!
We are all going to get hit -no matter how much money you make.
Here's why: The current six tax-rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%.
For a while, it looked like Congress might opt to stick with the current brackets -- as a way to help low income folks. But the reality now, with massive deficits, is that that fix might not happen.
That's not the only thing to worry about: Investors and savers are about to get stung, too.
The maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains is set to go to 20% from 15%.
Maximum rates on dividends skyrockets to 39.6%; so much for saving for the future.
Then the marriage- penalty tax returns -- for high earners, low earners and everybody in between.
And, of course, as we've been saying on the Willis Report, the death tax jumps to 55% unless no action is taken.
Bottom line, your bottom line is about to get hammered -- if Congress takes no action.
If you have an accountant or financial advisor, it's probably time to call them and start talking about what you need to do to get prepared... because it's going to be an expensive 2011
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 1:12 AM
This problem was a bi-partisan effort. Visit this article and see how I picture federal bureaucracy in the remarks section (2nd entry).
Larry Bill, Independent Conservative Candidate for Congress, 8th District, Missouri
-- Posted by nolimitsonthought on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 5:34 AM
Guru- that is a great start.
Next make every senator & representative ride Delta or American Airlines for their hair appoinments instead of the air force private jet.
Make ALL political advertising come out of their own pockets. We would all be relieved not to see so much of it.
But it still boils down to this....every bill that passes needs to contain only the bill details and nothing more. Every seantor & representative must read the entire bill before voting on it. In other words, if there is a bill for military expenses, then that bill can only contain reference to the military, it can not include a billion dollars for snail research. No more pork!
And most important- the government needs to work on a budget and not a penny more.
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 8:10 AM
The dems wanted to raise taxes, Bush said no, so they came up with revenue enhancements. That is when he said it. Later they [both sides] promised to cut spending $2 for every $1 in increase of existing tax. Bush fell for it and the spending was never cut. Not by dems or repubs and Bush got blamed for it.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 10:25 PM
And don't forget 'read my lips' George H.W. Bush who stepped in the same pile. Don't know which party to be more disgusted with. Obama's probably got it right, lie about reaching across, never intending to do it. Lord knows the alternative hasn't worked. Some day we'll discover a true leader - maybe she will turn things around.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 9:08 AM
Blog, H.W. is who I was referring to. I dont remember exactly how, but he was boxed into a corner to where a veto would have been against his own agenda.
And history is rewritten as it is when a spin is repeated enough to become consensus. Kind of like it is now the republicans fault that the result of democratic banking regulations was the fault of deregulation.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 11:14 AM
If only we had a form of government where we could elect people we choose instead of having them imposed on us. Then we wouldn't have all these problems.
-- Posted by FriendO on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 11:38 AM
My bad Old John, too much skimm'n and assum'n today.
And FriendO, a part of me wants to agree with you whole heartedly. Then I start wondering how that can happen - who get's to decide. Do we get your candidate or mine or someone elses. It's a messy system, but I believe in the long run it works itself out. We can handle the problems, eventually.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 12:23 PM
Everyone gets one vote. One rep, 2 senators, and one President. Your options to change things you don't like are pretty limited.
Our government is just acting like the people electing it - living off debt and buying things we can't afford.
We'll deal with the consequences when the time comes. Same goes for a lot of problems - our waning "soft" power, failing to invest in energy, climate change...
-- Posted by FriendO on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 12:30 PM
The biggest problem in the ones who currently are elected (all parties) are NOT listening to the people who are screaming STOP SPENDING!
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 12:46 PM
... a little mystery to figure out.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 1:49 PM
Hillary Clinton.
-- Posted by FriendO on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 1:54 PM
Heil Hillary!
-- Posted by Maynard on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 2:17 PM
Great suggestions by adidas on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 8:10 AM ... I expect a little gratitude for substituting this comment instead of posting the 3 paragraphs I wrote ...
Superb link, WHY. Now that you sort of have admitted your hard-heartedness, so will I ... Instead of actually paying 'poor people' (in the form of EIC) ...
"When I tell people we need to start taxing the poor people in the United States they cringe. ... everyone should pay their fair share, and poor people generally soak up much more government services than the wealthy folks do."
Simplifying ... if a poor person can afford to buy chips & cookies ... can afford to eat at McDonald's ... can afford a cell phone & cable ... How could it be so bad to believe they should be able to afford at least a small contribution in the form of income taxes ... even if it means giving up a few non-necessities?
On the other hand ... It would have been GREAT if we'd had things like EIC back when we were dirt-poor ... But then, doggone it, we might not have worked and struggled so hard to ...
Careful, FriendO ... your humor is showing! ("If only we had a form of government where we could elect people we choose...")
"... NOT listening to the people who are screaming STOP SPENDING!" That's because, adidas, our politicians are all more intelligent than the rest of us, in all matters.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 3:15 PM
Rick,
Nothing wrong with a she for President in some folk's mind... just as long as it is a Democrat.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 3:40 PM
See what I mean Rick!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 3:54 PM
true Guru, thanks for reminding me that we are the Bible thumping gun toting rednecks that need to be told what to think! :)
Oh and guru.... excellent point about EIC.
This is what a lot of people don't realize. Say you have a couple who earned between $12,500 -$21,400 and have 3 kids (or a single mom, doesn't matter).... ok, they have had ZERO withholdings, not a dime paid into Federal income taxes. But the government says, wow you are poor so here is $5,657 that you get to have (EIC) plus let's give you $3,000 (child tax credit) and your refund is now $8,657 even though you did not pay a dime in federal income taxes, other people have paid taxes so you can now have all this money just for the hell of it.
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 4:22 PM
Theorist,
None at the present as there are no annonunced female candidates.
When the scene gets a little more defined, I will choose the candidate that I feel will be the best for my Grandchildren's future.
And that is not to sidestep the issue, I have no preference at the moment. And I may or may not support a woman candidate. Being male of female is not a good enough reason to pick a candidate for President. We saw what happens when a similar issue was used for picking the President in the last election and race was sold to us as a reason to vote for a certain candidate by some folks.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 4:39 PM
I have to say, I being a female republican, don't see any current females as the best choice. I would love for Mike Huckabee to be president. But otherwise, I don't see any strong cadidate that could win at this time. I do like Lyndsey Graham too. (?spelling)
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 4:50 PM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 5:27 PM
No wheels, that made my headache worse...where's the Excedrin?
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 5:48 PM
something like 1% of the population holds 95% of the wealth in this country.
Taxing the poor? What's that old saying about blood and turnips?
We spend more on defense than all the other nations of the world COMBINED. Start there and work your way down.
-- Posted by FriendO on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 9:41 PM
I ain't poor buddy. Don't you dare suggest I've ever done anything BUT contribute taxes. You just won't hear me whining like a little girl about it every freakin' day like you.
I'm what you call "realistic" instead of "completely freaking out of touch with reality"
-- Posted by FriendO on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 10:50 PM
Female president, is there a Margarett or a Golda running?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 11:09 PM
This is for Friendo,
I remember you saying some little while back that this past year you have made more and paid less taxes than you ever have before.
Obama isn't going to like that!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 11:53 PM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 12:14 AM
Wheels,
Deductions. The big one here is deductions.
I've ONLY ever paid into the system. I have worked without interruption since age 14. WHY NOT seems to think he is the only person on the planet who works hard and pays taxes. No, wait, that's you too. Anyone who thinks people making $14,000 a year paying income tax are going to significantly reduce the federal deficit is just bad at math.
I can brag every now and then that I have been successful in spite of the recession, working for a Fortune 500 company. Taxes just happen to be pretty low for this middle-class? upper-middle-class? American.
Life is a tightrope act and you are darn lucky to make it all the way through without falling off once or twice. I just cannot share the contempt you and WHY NOT seem to have for fellow human beings, because you can end up on the other side in a heartbeat.
But yeah took some deductions and voila. I must be one of WHY NOT's parasites for maximizing my refund.
-- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 12:14 AM
Friendo,
Deductions are evil... I have heard some liberals say so.
Oh and winding up on the other side. Certainly, that can happen to anybody, but working does help to prevent it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 12:24 AM
There is just to much money given to be controlled.
The sad thing is the government hires A LOT of VERY VERY bright and experienced people. However, as soon as you say "hey you have $4 billion to spend" they are going to think of a way to spend it all and inefficiences are going to start happening.
In the 2011 department of agriculture budget there is $35,000,000 for HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE which is to plan and promote and finance grocery stores in low income urban and rural areas. Sure it isn't a TON of money in our budget but it is definately something we could do without. The stores can do a fine job themselves figuring out where to open. If nothing else it should be 1/5th its size and focused on a specific region (maybe the southeast since it is the most unhealthy) to see its effectiviness before going nationwide...
-- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 8:48 AM
btw, anyony ever met a socially disadvantaged farmer? and can tell me what one is.
ah nvm just found it
"Socially Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher - a farmer or rancher who has been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudices because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities. This term means a farmer or rancher who is a member of a socially disadvantaged group. Specifically, a group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities. Those groups include African Americans, American Indians or Alaskan natives, Hispanics, and Asians or Pacific Islanders. "
the OFFICE OF ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH was created to help this "disadvantaged" group... budget in 2010 was $1.7m... 2011... $7m.
Wow.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 9:17 AM
I did a little research on that group and the way I understand, many were denied loans that whites would have gotten (In that way were held back). Farmers need loans from season to season to carry them over - at least that's been the history of most successful farmers/ranchers.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 9:47 AM
Farmers need loans from season to season to carry them over - at least that's been the history of most successful farmers/ranchers.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 9:47 AM
This won't be hughly popular.
Farmers need to do as other business people do when they need money for day to day or season to season operations, they go see their local banker, not Uncle Sugar.
I grew up on a farm and I still see it that way.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 10:25 AM
...many were denied loans that whites would have gotten ...
-- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 9:47 AM
So you researched this and found that lending institutions denied loans solely because of race? Were they procecuted? Did they identify the culprits. I'd much rather they pay for their indescretions than punish the rest of us for the rest of time.
Lordy, I just had a Spaniard moment. Must.push.away.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 10:31 AM
Wheels they did see their local bankers, but they weren't white. I also grew up on a farm and remember many lean years and I also remember my parents talking about loans from the bank until the cattle or corn was sold.
blog - I did my research, do yours...there's a great big world out there and you may learn something.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 10:54 AM
So help me here concerned, how does one get this kind of grant? Do they have to prove they were discriminated against, or is it just assumed that they were because, well, you know. How about sharing a link or two so I can learn a thing or two.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 11:10 AM
Suelynn,
I own rural real estate. While mine is all wooded, I get on a regular basis information from the County Agricultural board (don't remember the correct name at the moment) and I am constantly reminded of deadlines that I might apply for this and that and whatever. I think most of those loans you speak of are government backed loans.
Further, there is a statement on this notice that you may not be denied your rights because of race, sex etc. etc.
I apply for nothing and I draw nothing, but I am sure that if I got a little creative, I could receive a few stipends from Uncle Sugar for something.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 11:12 AM
But James it is past practice and we all know it. And SEMO is not the whole U.S.
Japanese internment camps are part of our past too, but doesn't mean they didn't happen and we know they caused tremendous losses to our Japanese/American citizens.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 11:15 AM
Wheels - sorry to say, you don't know what you are talking about concerning this issue. They were not government backed loans and are past practice issues.
Blog - not a new issue and I'm not doing your research.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 11:21 AM
Further, there is a statement on this notice that you may not be denied your rights because of race, sex etc. etc.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 11:12 AM
Sure they say that NOW, but not in the past.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 11:29 AM
'nuff said.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 11:37 AM
Well they don't mention 'whites' but I'm sure it's someone's fault. Anyhoo, they snuck this $3,000,000 gem into the Farm Bill.
"(1) An increase of $3,000,000 and 15 staff years for the Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
Ensuring that the government and its programs are open and transparent is a priority for USDA. The Department is committed to ensuring that all USDA constituents, including historically underserved groups, have the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs offered by the Department.
To achieve these ambitious goals, the Department will dedicate necessary resources to increase its service offerings to and create additional opportunities for participation by those historically underserved groups, such as small farms and ranches, and beginning and socially disadvantaged producers."
Your welcome.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 11:54 AM
Wheels - sorry to say, you don't know what you are talking about concerning this issue. They were not government backed loans and are past practice issues.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 11:21 AM
Farmers need loans from season to season to carry them over - at least that's been the history of most successful farmers/ranchers.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 9:47 AM
I was commenting to your season to season issue. They are secured by crops, grain and the like.
I have never borrowed a nickel on anything like this but was under the impression they were government backed.
That race, creed, sex etc statement has been on the notice for quite some time. Not sure how long.
Anyway it has been against the law to discriminate now for how long?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 11:58 AM
Rick I would have voted for Hillary in the last election if she would have beaten Obama. Just because I am a republican doesn't mean I am a straight party ticket. I was never a fan of McCain and felt the Republicans made a huge mistake on that one. Hopefully they won't repeat the error this time because I honestly think we would have a chance of regaining control of the WH. But I do not think Palin can do it (even though I do like her) and I don't think Romney can do it. Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, are possibilities. It will take a very strong cadidate because people are going to be a lot more careful when choosing who to vote for this time. Real people that is, not all the Donald Duck & Mickey Mouse voters.
Do you think Hillary will try to run against Obama again?
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 1:28 PM
your point?
-- Posted by concerned4all on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 3:01 PM
blog, That group was created late 2009. Its initial budget was $1.7m for 2010 and they approved an additional $3m for it in that bill.
For fiscal year 2011 their budget has ballooned to over $7m
------------------------
For the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities Endowment
Fund under section 1456 (7 U.S.C. 3243) of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, $10,000,000
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized by
Public Law 103--382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), $11,880,000
Another waste in the Agriculture budget are things like "AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT" and several other similiar funds that provide government loans and insurance for farmers who are higher risk. BILLIONS are in the budget for these loans.
There are 2 problems I have with these
1) Why is the the governments role to risk my money on these "high risk" loans/insurance. The loss rates for these loans are on par or lower than a lot of banks for similiar loans so sure this division IS effective, however let the banks risk their money.
2) The loans given out by this actually have a fairly low deliquency rate, so it would seem that there would be less need for the government to facilitate these loans as banks would be more willing to take them up. However with the government holding billions for it who is going to run to a bank? Potentially a billion out of the budget if they started weening these away as it was found the primary driver of this part of the budget is demand.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Jul 13, 2010, at 6:59 PM
Menu
I read this
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOVERNORS_DEBT_COMMISSION?SITE=MOCAP&S...
and I am speechless. I knew it was bad, but this is hopeless.
Why Not & Gurusmom, don't read this without a defibrillator near by.
Replies (47)