http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011083428/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law
...and yes, the link above is to a liberal, progressive site, however, the charts themselves are from the Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/hist.html]
All of the Obama drops in deficits and spending are in future years. Its BS logic and won't happen. Now, trend what has happened in the last 3 years and its worse than Bush.
Nothing more than a democrat spin machine. Using goverment logic I can borrow $100k to buy a nice car today and offset it with future expenses.
Guess what, I am going to post a graph of my future income over the next ten years but I am going to include future income and expense cuts I haven't made or received. Thats basically what these graphs do. Save them, then in 2015 lets look at what actually happens.
O yea... I love those CBO scored reports... first.. congress says score this... BUT only use the parameters as we have outlined them. So CBO is worthless. Sadly, the only halfway clouded vision is hindsight... and so far.. Obama has spent in 3 years what GW spend in 8.... and neither one of them rates a merit badge. BTY... did ya note the source of the data? I checked, there is no such office...this is spin. I wish you would all just stick to liberal, or left wing... ain't nothing "progressive" now many how times you say it or write it... it's just liberalism, classic hand out politics.
—No such office? kootchman, what the devil are you talking about? It's the Government Printing Office, and it's got a Web site with a bona fide .gov Web address. I followed the link funkie gave and found the data right away.
Go ahead and question the GPO's accounting scheme if you want. But you can't just claim that whatever the government says isn't true and leave it at that, 'cuz that's a cop-out. Plus, it's not fair to funkietoo, who is trying to make a polite, well-reasoned argument here.
(Thanks, funk!!!! Keep it up.)
now, DP, don't ya know that KMan doesn't let facts get in the way of his "truth"?
Thanks DBP....and I will. ^..^
Bostonman...
those charts only go to 2013...
and the data for 2010 already happened...
nothing future about that.
Sorry its 2013, it looked like 2015 to me. To many years of looking at computers. My point still stands. If you look up to 2011 its up until after 2011. The drops come from 2011 to 2013. So, its based off nothing more than projections. Projections that I am betting take into account things like pulling out of Afganastan which I am sure won't happen.
I have seen too many future projection graphs from the government to believe any of them. Show me what you take in for taxes and show me what you spend. These graphs will not turn into reality because they don't take into account reality.
redblack
Member Profile
bostonman: so what was all of the political bickering about cutting spending about? i could have sworn those guys in DC reached some sort of conclusion that cut spending... and if obama's millionaire tax gets through, and if he keeps his word to end the wars, we could very well see those deficit reductions.
also note that bush's TARP and obama's "porkulus" are responsible for the biggest and most recent spikes in deficit numbers.
holy cow! it's going to smart for you guys if obama and his economic team pull us out of tail spin and show some real tangible progress, ain't it?
Sure he will.
You know Redblack, I am only 39 but its not the first time I have heard that one. I hope he does pull us out of the recession and reduce the debt levels. None of my comments said I hope he doesn't.
There are a lot of if's in your statement though. Historically it doesn't happen. I will acknowledge that if we aren't fighting the wars it will reduce a lot of future spending but if he replaces that money spending with something else then he hasn't really cut anything.
Bostonman..
you are right about the budget deficit not heading south till after 2011.. but that's when we pay for the current budget.. you know .. all those things congress authorizes...
it's what we are obligated to pay...
you could say the first part of Obama's deficit graph was paying off George W's obligations.
As for the other two graphs.. you really should pull out your glasses and take a closer look.
the facts challenge what is now passing for common wisdom.
redblack
Member Profile
bostonman: i'm about your age, and i've been watching supply-side economics reduce the middle class and its share of the nation's wealth since 1983 or so.
note that republicans are profligate spenders, as well, and that most of the debt we've racked up in 30 years has been by reagan and bush 2.
but you're right: nothing will happen if republicans continue to oppose any and every idea put forth by the administration - even after he's agreed to meet them on their turf regarding spending cuts. the fact is that the minority party (and a handful of nutters on wall street) is controlling policy right now through its obstructionism, deceit, and manipulation.
I enjoy a nice spirited conversation as much as the next guy. It becomes obvious though when you are talking to specific people they are only intent on blaming, not fixing and fixing only comes with the idea that every other idea is wrong. Republicans and Democrats both have their idea of what to do to fix the economy. Without the wars Good of George would have looked like he kept the debt in check and grew the economy. Without the wars Obama wouldn't need to worry so mych about the debt.
Now, I am not ignorant to sit around and say that the Democrats ideas won't work and that Republican ideas will like you are doing. I can admit that I think its a nice place in the middle. Unfortunatly I don't think anyone will be able to get us there. Honestly I am less worried about the US economy right now and more worried abou the European market. Its the bigger threat right now.
So, while I support higher individual tax rates for high earning individuals I also support lower taxes for companies. At the same time I think we need to close the tax loopholes and reduce subsidies so that commodities can get back to a true market value. Be prepared for what that means though because $8 for a gallon of gas is likely. Who do you think that will hurt more? Me or the guy down the street making $20k a year?
Bostonman...
that $8 gallon of gas will have to be combined with investment in public transportation or the retail businesses that are our only current economic fuel will be unable to employ those minimum wage college graduates who either have to live with mom or get food stamps to make it... not to mention the poor slob living down the street who is supporting a family on 20k.
you can't have it both ways...
as for solutions..
i am all for the easy stuff.
fund infrastructure which will create more taxpayers which will raise revenue.
end the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy
and make all corporate tax breaks dependent upon local job creation...
if you must lower tax rates on businesses.. lower them for small businesses since they are the majority of our nation's employers.
while i am at it...
if we must wage war.. and i sincerely wish we wouldn't...
institute a draft
and stop paying subcontractors exorbitant rates to do the work the military and the corp of engineers used to do for itself.
war profiteering was once illegal.
and that's just my short list...
i am a true economic conservative...
i believe in spending a penny now to save a pound later...
so i would invest in education
and in health care
and in housing
and in redemptive justice
we can afford all of them if we didn't have to pay profit centers on top of profit centers for our nation's health care for it's sickest residents and for prison systems and ...
I am sick of political he said she said...
as someone else posted to me today...
wouldn't it be refreshing if our elected representatives were actually judged on their results instead of their advertising?
Democrats would fail as well as republicans
though not quite as many
Well stated JoB
Well said.
I agree, the only problem is which comes first? If gas goes up to $8/gallon tomorrow it would still take 4 years to get solid reliable public transportation in Seattle. That doesn't even count how it would be addressed in rural areas. The effect on transportation would also be insane. Now. I can afford $8/gallon gas but when I got out of college I couldn't so the government should be working on building that infrastructure now, not waiting until its too late.
In principle I think we are in same infield but maybe in different positions. But close.
and guess what? Pres. Obama's jobs bill that Repubs are dismissing, did just that...it was about getting people back to work working on the infrastructure...not 5 years from now, but now. Sigh.
redblack
Member Profile
bostonman: i agree with what you wrote - up to a point. what is irking us over here on the "left" is that we've tried supply-side economics for 30 years and it has done nothing but harm to the lower classes and our government. so why attempt more of it? why attempt to cut taxes further when empirical data shows that those policies have hurt the government's ability to govern and caused chronically large deficits and debt?
again, you can't deny that the explosion in deficit spending coincides with the reagan tax cuts - and tinkering with the social security trust fund.
democrats are saying - and have been since clinton left office - that the scales need to tip back toward increased revenue in order to balance the budget.
so now republicans have the tea party effectively dictating their party's fiscal policy, and because of that and their intransigence, republicans can't or won't negotiate tax policy - or any other policy - with democrats.
i and other democrats are with you on spending cuts [edit: when it comes to waste and fraud, not necessarily "entitlements"] and corporate tax policy, though: close the loopholes, raise the effective tax rate, and then lower the statutory rate. right now, the statutory rate is 34%, the highest in the world; but the effective rate is only around 16% because of loopholes and deductions.
i am fully willing to meet in the middle on that one. say at 24%? [and provided that all of those taxes are paid.]
and can we agree that offshoring profits is a form of tax evasion? can we put a stop to it?
redblack...
"raise the effective tax rate, and then lower the statutory rate. right now, the statutory rate is 34%, the highest in the world; but the effective rate is only around 16% because of loopholes and deductions."
the real tragedy is that the effective rate on small businesses who are actually employing workers is much higher than that because they have no lobby to create special tax breaks.
when we talk about main street we need to be concentrating on the small businesses that are driving our economy.
not to sound like a broken record :)
think global. buy local.
:)
redblack
Member Profile
jo: well-said. i was talking macro-economics, but you're right. that money on wall street should be flowing to and from main street, and governments should facilitate that ebb and flow. after all, main street is where wall street derives most of its wealth.
Bostonman...
the problem is that the radical right has labelled all common sense approaches to fiscal responsibility as liberal and therefore suspect.
Yes, i am a liberal. I am probably about as far left in my political philosophical outlook as anyone i know..
but when it comes to money, i am the conservative child of a child of the depression.
I firmly believe that only fools don't spend every dollar they spend in the most effective manner possible.
I reuse, recycle and restore as a way of life...
not so much because i am an old leftist.. or hippy..
but because it makes total fiscal sense to me.
Hubby and I invested in our own educations
and are appalled that my children don't place the same importance on their children's education that we do.
We invest in our community
because no-one is successful in America without the public resources that gave us opportunity.
We invest in individuals
because helping just one person past the roadblocks that keep them from even limited success really does help others...
if only by giving them hope.
America was once a country that understood sacrificing for the greater good..
that understood that you must invest if you want returns..
i want that country back
not the one where winner takes all has become the favored motto...
Obama had the first 2 years of office where he could have easily passed legislation to close some of the loopholes. Instead he spent too much time on healthcare. Now, if he had closed the loopholes and subsidies he might have a better economic picture to pass healthcare now.
The sooner people accept that no party is going to change the loopholes and subsidies the better off we all are. No matter who makes it into office they will play the blame game as to why they couldn't get X W or Z done.
Wow - he should win in a landslide.
redblack
Member Profile
bostonman: so your advice is to just keep giving my tax dollars and my disposable income to bank of america, exxon, comcast, etc.? no hope? no change? no common ground?
you say we shouldn't play the blame game, but you just blamed obama for not getting tax reform done when democrats controlled congress and the white house. and you blamed the ACA for our current budget woes.
as for closing tax loopholes, how about S-3816? proposed and passed by a democratic house, and killed by republican failure to invoke cloture, aka procedural filibuster (which only happened about 400 other times between 2006 and 2010 when democrats tried to put the smackdown on the corporatocracy.)
a summary of the bill:
This bill would give companies a two-year payroll tax holiday, reducing the amount of Social Security taxes they would have to pay, for new employees who replace workers doing similar jobs overseas. It also revokes provisions of the tax code that Democrats say encourage companies to outsource their work force.
i hope you'll also remember that freezing the current tax structures was part of a bipartisan deal to extend unemployment insurance loans to the states.
man. every time i think i might be talking to a reasonable republican, he or she defaults to, "both parties stink. nothing's going to change."
the sooner you guys realize that big media and big money have us pitted against each other, the sooner we can take our government back from them.
I do think that people within both parties can change the system. Those people never get elected though. I am not telling you to give your disposable income to anyone.
Your bill S-3816 is a joke. The person would need to do the same job as someone over seas with the same duties. Basically they would need to either be in manufacturing or in a call center. The 24 month exclusion isn't enough for any large company to lay out the capital to move an operation that is overseas over to the US. Just because a democrat proposed it and a republican defeated it doesn't mean it was a bill that would acocmplish anything.
Bostonman...
"Obama had the first 2 years of office where he could have easily passed legislation to close some of the loopholes."
sorry.. i am rolling on the floor laughing at thtat one...
the number one agenda of the republican party as been to ensure that any legislation to benefit the economy is hampered enough to prevent his re-election.
blaming that on Obama is more than a little self serving.
Yes, he exists.
Yes, he is a democrat.
no, he is not living up to what democrats want from a president...
the only think i blame Obama for is being naive enough to think that if he gave Republicans everything they asked for that they would cooperate reasonably.
He should have come out with both guns blazing and told them to put up or shut up.
Bostonman...
you should perhaps take a second look at the number of people employed in call centers and tech support and software development overseas.
the facilities already exist here in the united states to do those jobs.
Many of them were being used for those purposes only a few years ago and have never been retrofitted for other tenants.
Even if the facilities exist it still isn't enough to offset the capital. You need to close the overseas centers, hire people, train people and re-equip the facilities and pay US wages. 24 months is not enough to offset even a fraction of those costs.
Bostonman...
but the increased business generated by exceptional customer support might just tip those scales ;->
redblack
Member Profile
kind of curious what kind of jobs you want americans to do, then.
your argument seems to be that we have to manufacture overseas because it costs industry less, and corporations pay no import duties to bring their stuff into the u.s.
we have to have call centers overseas for the same reason.
government jobs are too lucrative, and their pay and benefits should be slashed.
construction jobs are too lucrative, and their pay and benefits should be slashed - or construction firms should hire the cheapest labor they can find, regardless of workers' skill, criminal background, or citizenship status.
ditto longshoremen.
farming is for migrant workers.
you know, not everyone can be investment bankers, engineers, CEO's, business owners, doctors, lawyers, or architects. someone has to build the roads and bridges and schools and retail centers and high-rises and banks and houses and apartment buildings. someone has to grow our food. someone has to make all of the crap you consume. someone has to save your life when you choke on your veal. someone has to assemble your cars, trains, and airplanes. someone has to extinguish your burning office building. someone has to make sure you get clean water and reliable electricity. someone has to make sure that your turds keep flowing to the waste water treatment plants. someone has to operate those port cranes laden with cheap foreign goods.
i'm talking about skilled labor that doesn't necessarily require a four-year degree.
i just don't understand your idea - if you have one - of what america should be.
is it that if you don't have a degree and you work with your hands you must be an unambitious idiot and you don't deserve to live as well as an IT guy or a salesman?
this country was built by the middle class when people had good-paying jobs in manufacturing and construction. if you worked hard, you would be rewarded by your employer and your country with a comfortable life. hell, manufacturing alone provided the upper classes with a great deal of their wealth and the middle class with disposable income. that quality of life set the standard for what we should be, and i don't like seeing it diminished or exported. it offends me.
but now i'm starting to hear that we're living beyond our means. we shouldn't expect to live so comfortably.
austerity.
and now the majority of jobs are low-paying sales and service jobs. and it seems to me that republican policy is to build an economy solely on the consumption of cheap goods and services.
i, on the other hand, want to build an economy on the creation of quality goods and services that support good-paying american jobs.
seriously. what exactly do you expect the middle class to do for money? or are we just supposed to lower our sights, join the lower classes, and contribute to the balkanization of america? all because the people at the top shouldn't pay taxes to help their country - which is overwhelmingly comprised of those less fortunate than they are? or to pay back the debts that they alone benefited from?
and to stay on topic, republicans are right about one thing: putting people back to work will fill the government's coffers, as well. and i, for one, would rather that the middle class was making better salaries and wages.
Thank you, redblack. Your arguments are well-reasoned and polite. Very persuasive.
You know, it's interesting. I have TRIED to send my own job overseas many times.
They just keep sending it back.
redblack...
i would point out that the middle class is far more than blue collar workers...
the truth is that those who secured the kind of education that would once have moved them into the lower reaches of the upper classes are locked into their worst nightmare...
not only are their incomes inadequate to support the middle class life style their blue collar parents provided...
out of all taxpayers, they now pay the largest percentage of their incomes in taxes...
and.. they are losing jobs too.
Many of those who have now been unemployed or underemployed for several years are highly educated professionals.
this isn't a matter of blue collar vs white collar.
It isn't even a matter of those who work for employers vs those who are self employed..
We are all in the same boat here.
This is a matter of the top 1% or possibly top 2% whose only interest is in profitability vs the rest of us who actually make something with our hands.. even if it is only a balance sheet.
it's those who think money is a game that can never be won vs those who think you earn money to provide life's necessities.
it's those who think of investments in term of short term economic payoff vs those of who see the value in investing now for a secure future.
It the get the money and run crowd vs the earn it and invest it crowd.
It's really too bad that so many who are scrambling to maintain their place on the economic ladder are supporting the very policies that are cutting it out from under them.
redblack
Member Profile
but it kind of is a matter of white collar versus blue collar, jo.
the american dream has been transformed into something that's unachievable: everyone strives to go to college so that they can be comfortable, but there's declining compensation for doing the things that keep the infrastructure maintained, or for making the things that people consume.
why?
i'm saying that those blue collar jobs - with their historically competitive compensation - are crucial to the american economy. we should be doing everything possible to foster and protect them; to make sure that the people who populate those industries have purchasing power, too; and to make sure that future generations appreciate their importance and aren't scared to learn a trade or craft - instead of using universities as job farms.
without labor, there is no capital. i mean, why do you think they call it the stock exchange? part and parcel with stock yards. or the dow industrial 30? no farmer, no machine shop, no stock, no market.
but i've heard republicans argue that our world is changing. that, as a nation, we no longer need to perform our own labor. i think that argument is anathema to the american dream.
In this country, there's been a general turning away from the whole concept of "the dignity of labor." It's reflected on many levels, from urbanites who think they're too precious to cook their own meals (or even shop for their own groceries) to city managers who insist that it takes a college degree to be a firefighter.
But it's not simply a problem of attitude. There are economic forces at work here as well. And these forces have nothing to do with the cost of tea in China.
Consider the competition between (illegal) immigrant and native-born workers. I often hear people making the case for liberalized immigration in these terms: "We need Mexican laborers because they'll do jobs Americans won't."
Hogwash! The only thing Mexican workers will do that Americans won't is willingly work for substandard wages in substandard conditions. And shame on us for letting them do it!
Think this is a Liberal or Conservative issue? Wrong. For every construction boss who votes Republican and hires a crew of "illegals," there's a limousine liberal who has an undocumented nanny he's getting on the cheap.
Who signed the last immigration amnesty bill?
—Ronald Reagan.
Who signed NAFTA?
—Bill Clinton.
'Course Clinton regrets that now. Or so he says.
Bet there's a lot of stuff he regrets . . . now.
redblack..
the American dream is mostly out of reach for white collar workers too
why does it have to be blue collar vs white collar
when it could be white collar with blue collar?
We are all workers.
I have always supported labor..
and still do
not just because i am aware that without the blue collar worker who actually makes things there is little work for the white collar worker
but because as a white collar worker i owe a huge debt to blue collar union activists whose sacrifices provided me with my benefits
We are so much stronger working together than we ever will be trying to carve out a larger slice of our shrinking part of the pie
redblack...
facebook poster today...
United we bargain
Divided we beg
that about sums it up for me
redblack
Member Profile
maybe a matter of semantics here, jo. when i say "white collar," i usually don't think of clerical workers, for example. i'm talking about stock brokers and lawyers - what the japanese call salaryman - and not so much the people who do their leg work.
but you're right. there are white collar laborers, just like there are blue collar businessmen.
btw, i've had that "divided we beg" sticker on my hardhat for over 10 years. (yeah, yeah. i know that hardhats have a shelf life.) it's right next to "american by birth. union by choice."
redblack
Member Profile
but to drag the topic back toward macroeconomics, deficits, and debt, we have to return people to full employment for the economy to recover. and i'm still curious what kind of jobs republicans are talking about creating in america by cutting taxes and regulations.
i also want to know how they think merely creating that job will create demand for whatever it is that that worker is doing.
that's backwards.
and, yeah, next i'm going to use george walker bush as an example of what not to do with a budget surplus: what you don't do is look the american people in the eye, say that the government has no business running a positive ledger, tell them it's actually their money, and commence to writing so many "rebate" checks that you have to run another budget deficit.
redblack..
i will admit that a certain segment of stockbrokers and lawyers have hit the jackpot...
but these days there isn't so much difference between the salaryman and what you consider workers.
think those who work as attys and will never make partner.. junior traders.. software engineers, most scientists... etc...
there was a time when the shoe may have been on a different foot.. but that time has long passed and the "salaryman" who doesn't know it is simply fooling themselves.
What we have in america today are speculators and workers...
the sooner we workers unite the sooner we will have to stop begging from the speculators ...
hubby posted a link on facebook that i think you will appreciate...
with any luck i will be right back with it
this explains why everyone got so economically stupid...
Wow this thing exploded over the weekend.
Nowhere did I say I think all americans should be doctors or lawyers. Thats just how you infer it because your opinion is biased. I only said its not enough to get the jobs to come back. We have to first find a way to keep more jobs from leaving they we can worry about getting them back.
I am not for tarrif free trade and NAFTA was a job loser for americans. I am not for avoiding taxes on profits. I also believe if you are going to offer someone $1 and they have to spend $10 they won't do it either.
redblack
Member Profile
bostonman: everyone's opinion is biased; not just mine. but don't take that to mean i don't like republicans or conservatives as a rule. it's policy and policymakers that i'm interested in talking about. but i do believe that my political bias favors people who work for a living. too long now has policy favored those who earn income through movement of capital while those with brick-and-mortar jobs see across-the-board declines.
(YADATROT: that policy has exploded deficits and debt.)
i'm encouraged that you acknowledge that "free" trade hasn't worked out as planned, though.
the $1/$10 comment is interesting.
for one thing, $1 is $1, and it doesn't have anything to do with spending $10 that you'd have to spend anyway if you want to hire someone. i.e. for 2 years, you only have to spend $9. it adds up.
based on your comment, i'd be interested to see the breakdown in expenses for an average small business - one that does $1 million in revenue (not profit), just for round numbers' sake.
what i'd want to know is what percentage of outlays go to various governments, what percentage goes to wages and benefits, and what percentage goes to other private industry - for communication, paper, fuel, vehicles, shipping/receiving, raw materials, insurance, power, water, etc. (i know that business gets favorable rates for industrial/commercial use of power and water, and i didn't include it as a tax or fee, even though they're usually publicly-owned.)
my point is that taxes and fees are just another business expense, and they rise and fall based on the same principles as the "free" market. they also happen to be the easiest target to gripe about when that cost rises - and/or try to get reduced or eliminated - with wages and benefits a close second.
because business owners can't exactly go around whining to private sector suppliers and service providers about the high cost of doing business, now, can they?
but to hear a lot of conservatives describe it, 90% of it is wages, taxes, and fees, forced on them by the rest of cruel humanity; 5% goes to bills; and they only get to keep a measly 5% for themselves or reinvestment. and the only reason they're in business in the first place is to provide some bum with a job, out of the goodness of their hearts.
and, yes, i'm using hyperbole to make a point. please don't take it personally.
I don't know if I can answer your question with a one size fits all answer. I have been in charge of the financial performance of a few companies and they were all different. As a general rule though for one dollar of revenue 30-35% goes to wages, 5 to 10% to benefits and payroll taxes, 10% goes to interest financing 10% goes to rent and lease expenses and the rest goes to variable G&A. Now, this is a traditional business model. In retail you will have higher rent expenses and lower payroll. In property management you have higher interest and payroll.
So, it really just depends. Cash flow left over after expenses will usually go to pay down balance sheet items like outstanding or pending liabilities.
redblack
Member Profile
what i'm getting at is all of these onerous fees and taxes that republicans claim is crippling business, and the recent national talking point that unnamed, unspecific regulation is doing the same. (since no one can factually claim that taxes are any higher under democrats.)
if your model is indicative of most business owners' reality, i don't see that there's a whole lot they can blame on "government," except when it comes to broader social and macroeconomic policy - which may or may not affect them directly. for example, if 10% of a business goes to payroll taxes and benefits, then the ACA - aka obamacare - won't affect them, since they provide their employees with medical insurance. there's no new tax for them, since they are complying with the new law.
keep in mind that i don't run a business and i don't want to.
You must log in to post.
All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^
westseattleblog
West Seattle Blog
West Seattle Blog