The 1%

The Sith Lords of The Left (except when they are Democrats or Socialists like George Soros then they are ok). 🙂

Debunking the Myth of the “1%.” Who’s Really “The Rich?”

Rich bastards! It’s time to spread the wealth around! If you’re part of the 1%, you’re part of the problem!

Or… is it?

Perhaps the greatest economic misconception of the 21st Century is the idea that 1% of the world’s population are greedy jerks who keep the other 99% of the earth living in poor houses made of mud and tears.

Think the top 1% are billionaires? Nope. Millionaires? Nada. Well, they’re at least cracking $750K, right? Wrong again. In fact, YOU are probably far more affulent than you realize. And you disgust me for it. Let’s look at the numbers, American style:

If you make more than $100,000, you’re in the top 20%.

If you make more than $149,000, you’re in the top 10%.

If you make more than $522,000, BINGO, you’re a 1%’er. You’re probably a greedy jerk too, so screw you.

This is just a guess, but even if you don’t fall into one of these categories, chances are, you at least know somebody who does fall into any of the above categories. Which makes you a second-hand 1 percenter. That’s like a second-hand smoker only more vile. You probably don’t even think of those friends as being rich, but they are compared to the rest of the world. And these are the people leftists tell us are causing all the world’s problems, including the diminishing bee population (not really, but maybe one day), who need to do more for the country by paying their “fair share.” Except, that top 1% of earners already pays more in taxes than the bottom 90% (that’d be EVERYONE making less than $149K) COMBINED. Behold, graphs:

who are the wealthy

Oh, and by the way? If you’re under 31 and make over $300,000 – you’re in the top 0.1%. For realzies. Check out this chart from The Atlantic:

wealthy

But let’s take things a step further. If we expand the comparison globally, you become waaaaay wealthier than imagined. Like Scrooge McDuck from Ducktales, swimming in a vault of coin.

The average yearly income on a global scale? $1,225.

Yeah. You’re rich. Bastard. How does it feel to cause global warming? Even if “your” money is sent to you on a bi-weekly basis from the US treasury… you’re rich. And kind of a succubus, but that’s for another article.

If you make more than a whopping $34,000 a year? You are in the top 1% of the world’s wealthy.

Over half of the world’s 1%’ers (those making $34K+), live in the United States.

the wealthy

Maybe you’re not so bad off after all, Mr. college hipster making $15 serving coffee, huh? Maybe life isn’t so bad climbing the corporate ladder for “just” $75K a year, is it? Also, a nutless monkey could do your job. You mad? Please leave room for cream.

Saying the wealthy need to pay more (paging Bernie Sanders), is really saying we all need to pay more.  Because really, you’re rich. If you’re an American, you’re rich. Like, super, ridiculously rich. Period. Also, you have running water, a flushing toilet, probably a phone of some kind, a flat screen, and maybe a Netflix subscription. So please, stop the whining. It’s getting old.

SO, how rich are YOU?

Here’s a fun tool created by Giving What we Can: you punch in your income and household size, they tell you how rich you are compared to the rest of the world. You’ll probably be shocked. And that’s a good thing. Seriously. Go try it. Like, right now, money-bags.

Go ahead, I Dare you! 🙂

Lesson? If you’re living in the USA, you’re a greedy one-percenter and a bastard for it. Screw you with your flushing toilet and your five figure annual income. All this comes down to dollars, common sense, and perspective. The United States is a bastion of wealth, even for the “poor” Americans binge watching Orange is the New Black. Our top income earners aren’t paying their “fair share,” they’re paying YOUR share too. So get the numbers, memorize them, and every time you hear a gender-studies hipster talk to you about the one percent and shares and fairness and the latest iPhone, tell them about the real facts. If they’ll listen. (Steve Crowder)

But we all know that Liberals do not respond maturely to facts. 🙂

And if Democrats didn’t have the Envy Card, The Hate Card they would be just a husk of nothing floating on the winds. 🙂

But I want us to be super careful when we use the language “hard worker,” because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like. So, I feel you that he’s a hard worker. I do. But in the context of relative privilege…”- MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry.

And remember in  the FY 2015 the government took in more tax money than anytime in it’s history and still ran a deficit!

elect me d5c6f-democrats6

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

The Inequity of it All

Today is my Birthday.

What I want for my birthday is for Liberals to stop thinking with their emotions and be rational, logical adults who aren’t narcissistic, greedy, power mad, 2 years old at heart.

Not going to Happen.

Neither is getting Establishment Republicans and RINOs to stop being narcissists and thinking only of their own agenda and thinking about The American People for a change.

I might as well wish for World Peace at the same time, it’s just as likely.

Strike up a conversation with any taxi cab driver or any fry cook at a roadside diner and the word “inequality” is unlikely to ever come up. That’s not on the list of top concerns for middle class America. It’s also not on the list of concerns for the world’s poor. Millions of people are willing to risk life and limb just to come here and start out at the bottom of the income ladder.

(Don’t the immigrants realize how unequal things are? Yes, they want to live in a country where a poor immigrant can become a billionaire.)

So why is anyone claiming that inequality is our most important problem? Because the chattering class has decided that stoking envy is the only way to energize the Democratic Party. Think about the problems we really do have: runaway entitlement spending, poor public schools, welfare dependency, an overly burdensome tax system and anemic economic growth. In every case the solutions we are debating come from the right: Privatization, school vouchers, tough love, a flat tax and lower taxes on capital.

The left has no solutions, or at least none that anyone takes seriously. So, over the years of the Obama presidency the topic of inequality has emerged front and center. Democratic candidates could rail against the super rich and imply that their high incomes are the cause of everyone else’s stagnating income, without ever saying what exactly they would do about it.

Until Bernie Sanders came along. Sanders actually has a few concrete proposals – including the idea that we should become like Denmark, a high tax welfare state. Once the discussion turns from pure demagoguery to serious conversation, inevitably we are forced to look at what economists have to say. (Warning: it’s not good for Democrats.)

In other words, you can’t solve the problem by taxing the rich. If taxation is your only tool, you have to break again one of Barack Obama’s frequently broken promises and raise taxes on the middle class.

In a Brookings Institution study, Peter Orszag (former chief economist for President Obama) and his colleagues discovered that if you raised the top tax rate from 40 percent to 50 percent and redistributed that money to people at the bottom, the top 1 percent’s share of income would only decline from 16.4 to 15.6 percent. The Gini coefficient (the numerical measure of inequality) would change so little you would have to squint to see it.

Then there is the question of why we have increasing inequality in the first place. Another study by Orszag and current Obama chief economist Jason Furman found that a primary source of inequality among people is inequality among firms. Take a look at the chart below. If you happened to be working for one of the top 10 percent of most successful companies over the past two decades your salary, bonuses and other compensation probably soared. If you have been working for the median firm, your income has probably risen modestly. If your employer is in the bottom half of the distribution, your income has probably been stagnant.

So what can be done about that? The idea of arresting the growth of highly successful companies is silly. But that isn’t necessarily a deal breaker for the left. The problem for Democrats is that Silicon Valley is heavily Democratic. It’s one of the places Democrats go to get mega gifts. My bet is that you won’t hear a peep about inequality among firms in the coming election.

orszag chart

 

SOURCE: KOLLER ET AL. (2015); MCKINSEY & COMPANY

That leaves Denmark. People on the left are fond of citing the Nordic states — Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland — as examples of countries with higher taxes and less inequality. It’s easy to see why. As Matt Yglesias writes

Danish mothers enjoy 18 weeks of guaranteed maternity leave at 100 percent of their ordinary pay. Danish students leave college free of debt. Everyone is covered by a national health insurance system and can take advantage of subsidized child care; plus, thanks to a generous welfare system, Denmark’s child poverty rate is about a quarter of America’s.

So how do the Danes afford all that? With high taxes. As Yglesias makes clear, it’s not just taxes on the rich. The top tax rate in Denmark is 57 percent, about the same as it is in California. If California wanted to become like Denmark, it would basically leave the rich alone. But it would have to sock it to the middle class with effective tax rates averaging from 35 to 48 percent. Then the state would need to pile on with 25 percent value added tax — which is basically a form of sales tax and every bit as regressive. Car addicted Californians would also experience a huge spike in the price of gasoline and a 180 percent tax on the price of a new car!

So how does Denmark keep from looking like Greece? Answer: They believe in privatization, deregulation and free enterprise. Denmark is rated as one of the best places in the world to do business. It scores higher on the Heritage Economic Freedom ranking than the United States does. Unlike the US, public sector unions in Denmark don’t control public services and push up costs with job protecting regulations. For example, a private, for-profit company is currently in charge of 65 percent of municipal fire departments and 85 percent of ambulance services in the country. According to Yglesias:

In Copenhagen … the metro is driverless, the suburban rail network features one-man train crews, and many urban bus lines are run by private companies. These are all kinds of measures that US labor unions would normally oppose….

Øresund Bridge from Copenhagen to Malmö was constructed at a drastically lower price than the United States is prepared to spend to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York even though the Nordic bridge is substantially longer and includes a major train component along with the roadway.

The Danish model is awfully hard to emulate if public sector unions are the backbone of your party.

Finally, there is Yale law professor Stephen Carter’s observation that the word “inequality” was used eight times by the candidates and once by the moderator in the Democratic debate the other night. In every instance the focus was on taxing the rich, not on helping the poor. In fact, the word “poverty” was used hardly at all. Apparently, envy sells better than charity when communicating with Democratic voters.

Yet Carter, himself a bona fide liberal, notes that we don’t really have an inequality problem. We have a poverty problem.

That Democrats ignore it is hardly surprising. When is the last time you heard a Democratic candidate for president talk about the poor in any respect? The last one I can remember was John Edwards and that was eons ago. (Townhall)

And look what happened to him… 🙂

Oh, the inequity of it all.

 

ObamaCare Busted Again

Last week, the total number of failed ObamaCare-created insurance co-ops reached eight, as co-ops in Colorado and Oregon announced that they were closing doors at the end of the year.

These co-ops got a total of about $900 million in low-interest loans, most of which are unlikely to be repaid.

The administration handed out more than $2 billion in guaranteed loans to 23 co-ops, as well as additional “solvency funds” when many started suffering financial problems last year.

Now we learn that 11 of the remaining 15 co-ops could be at death’s door too, but the administration is hiding information about their health.

The Daily Caller reports that the administration has “a secret list of 11 ObamaCare health insurance co-ops they fear are on the verge of failure, but they refuse to disclose them to the public or to Congress.”

These co-ops, the Daily Caller reports, are now on “advanced oversight” by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs ObamaCare.

Earlier this year, an inspector-general audit noted that all but one of the co-ops had lost significant amounts of money in 2014, due either to lower-than-expected enrollment or because they underpriced their insurance policies.

Democrats exempted the co-ops from disclosure rules that apply to publicly traded corporations.

Oh, and the penalty for not having insurance is going to skyrocket next year too. 🙂

The math is harsh: The maximum federal penalty for having no health insurance is set to jump to $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income , and the Obama administration is being urged to highlight that cold fact to help drive its new pitch for health law sign-ups.

That means the 2016 sign-up season starting Nov. 1 could see penalties become a bigger focus to motivate millions of people who have remained eligible for coverage, but uninsured.

You Vill Comply with Herr Fuhrer!!

So what if the program you’re complying with is dying and is already a massive failure, that doesn’t even remotely matter!

Remember this is the Tax that is a Penalty that isn’t tax! 🙂  The government said so. 🙂

Just when it looked like Obamacare couldn’t get worse, new statistical evidence shows that it can, and has. Health care insurance is getting more expensive for most workers because of an increase in deductions.

Employer-provided health plans defy earlier predictions that the number of such plans would fall in the face of new Obamacare regulations. While the overall number of plans did not decrease appreciably, subscribers were hit this year with big jumps in deductions, the part of medical bills insurers won’t pay. Nearly 1 in 10 of such deductions range upward from a thousand dollars. The average worker will pay more for medical expenses than ever. The clear message is, “you’re insured, but don’t get sick.”

Gee, I thought it was “They just want you to die” at least that was what the Democrats said about The Republicans… 🙂

The increases continue a growing trend. The average deductible has more than tripled, from $303 in 2006 to $1,077 this year. This is part of the explanation of why wages have flattened. Workers have chosen medical insurance benefits instead of higher wages. These deductibles have increased more than seven times the increase in wages. Increases in medical insurance premiums have actually fallen by 1 percent over 2014, falling for the first time in a decade, though the cost of family plans are up 3 per cent.

The Affordable Care Act, the polite  (DEMOCRAT) name for Obamacare, was intended to supply subsidies to offset increases in premiums. But apart from difficulties in getting these subsidies in place — state-administered funds versus federal funds — the growing difficulty for the average worker is an increase in deductibles (and co-pays) rather than more expensive premiums.

A Kaiser Family Foundation study reports the average deductible for a generous plan this year is $2,500 or more. Predictions that this would undermine company plans is now being borne out. This trend is further reinforced by the so-called employer mandate in Obamacare, which requires employers of a hundred or more employees to provide health benefits; this becomes 50 or more employees in 2016. Businessmen argue that this requirement costs jobs, and accounts in part for the growing structural unemployment even as the economy slowly sputters to life. Managers are reluctant to add workers and try to stay under those ceilings.

Another piece of bad news in the Kaiser study is that the Obamacare’s 13 percent tax on so-called “Cadillac” plans has led many companies to withdraw them. Opposition to the tax is coming as much from the Obama administration’s usually loyal unions as from business companies.

It’s tempting to say to the president and his incompetent fixers that we told you so. But we won’t. The slapdash, do-it-before-anyone-looks Obama administration’s attempt to solve the infinitely complicated shortcomings of the medical care system, comprising a sixth of the economy, with one magic pill was inevitably doomed. No one should minimize the difficulty of matching technology, expensive in its initial development, to the demands of an aging population. Critics of Obamacare who are tempted to search for another magic pill should be careful. Miracle cures are always fraught with peril. (WT and IBD)

Ideologically Driven Ones, doubly so.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Problem in a Nutshell

With YET ANOTHER debt Crisis loomin in a couple of weeks, here’s the real pr5oblem in a nutshell.

Federal Taxes Set Record in FY 2015; $21,833 Per Worker; Feds Still Run $438.9B Deficit

The Federal Government fot the year has has record tax collection, the likes of which have NEVER been seen in US history BUT yet they are STILL RUNNING A DEFICIT!!

They are still spending more than they take in, though they have never taken more money EVER!

That is the problem in a nutshell.

But don’t talk to the politicians, especially not Democrats about cuts because they will go nuclear about throwing grandma off a cliff, kids starving, rich people are greedy, etc etc ad nauseum.

And the RINOs have no balls. So This will continue.

That’s the problem.

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government took in a record of approximately $3,248,723,000,000 in taxes in fiscal 2015 (which ended on Sept. 30), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

That equaled approximately $21,833 for every person in the country who had either a full-time or part-time job in September.

It is also up about $212,927,100,000 in constant 2015 dollars from the $3,035,795,900,000 in revenue (in 2015 dollars) that the Treasury raked in during fiscal 2014.

federal_tax_receipts-chart
1985-2015

 

Even as the Treasury was hauling in a record $3,248,723,000,000 in tax revenues in fiscal 2015, the federal government was spending $3,687,622,000,000. So, the federal government ran a deficit of $438,899,000,000 for the fiscal year.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total seasonally adjusted employment in the United States in September (including both full and part-time workers) was 148,800,000. That means that the federal tax haul for fiscal 2015 equaled about $21,832.82 for every person in the United States with a job.

In 2012, President Barack Obama struck a deal with Republicans in Congress to enact legislation that increased taxes. That included increasing the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, increasing the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent, and phasing out personal exemptions and deductions starting at an annual income level of $250,000.

An additional 3.8 percent tax on dividends, interest, capital gains and royalties–that was embedded in the Obamacare law–also took effect in 2013.

The largest share of fiscal 2015’s record-setting tax haul came from the individual income tax. That yielded the Treasury $1,540,802,000,000. Payroll taxes for “social insurance and retirement receipts” took in another $1,065,277,000,000. The corporate income tax brought in $343,797,000,000. (By Terence P. Jeffrey )

But yet, the drug addicts in Washington not only want more, they want to blame you for being greedy if you demand they cut back.

That’s the problem in a nutshell.

And the nuts are in charge of the squirrels…

Congress Slipped a Bo(eh)ner

The Good News: JAR JAR RESIGNS!

jar jar

THE BAD NEWS: Boehner 2.0 Coming in November.

There is no way in hell the Establishment RINOs are going to allow an actual Conservative to take over as Speaker. We are going to get Boehner 2.0 shoved down our throats, most likely his loyal Lt., Kevin McCarthy.

THEN WE WILL HAVE TO DETHRONE HIM TOO!

But Jar Jar finally said “NO” for once in the last 5 years and he just might stick to it this time. Have the cowardice of his convictions.

There’s no reason to say nice things about John Boehner that he doesn’t deserve. He didn’t die; he quit his job after enough Republicans FINALLY started moving to unseat him behind the scenes. It would be a better country if that had been done years ago. Other than an earmark ban long ago and sequester cuts, which were practically accidental, John Boehner’s tenure as a leader has been one long, unbroken streak of mediocrity, cowardice and disaster.

Conservatives consider Boehner to be an untrustworthy weakling, Democrats look at him as a joke and the American public despises him. Boehner will leave office as the least popular Speaker in 30 years.

The Man who promised to stop ObamaCare and Executive Amnesty and then actively worked for them to get them passed is gone.

He was against them before he was for them. 🙂

Under the spending deals cut by House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio), the federal government’s debt has climbed $3,968,445,855,460.28, according to debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.

That works out to an increase in the debt of $26,627.43 per each of the 149,036,000 people who, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, had a full- or part-time job in the United States as of August 2015.

When the first spending deal made by Speaker Boehner took effect on March 4, 2011, the total federal debt was $95,162.43 per the 149,036,000 workers who had jobs as of this August. It now equals $121,789.86 for each of those workers.

Not very “conservative” is he…

“Here’s the attitude. Ohhhh. Don’t make me do this. Ohhhh. This is too hard.”John Boehner mocks Republicans in Congress who oppose amnesty.

Though his re-election campaign was all about stopping it.

So he was for it before he was against it! 🙂

Short Live his RINO Successor!

As a leader, Boehner’s “strategy” is usually completely reactive. It’s like he reluctantly gets in the ring with the Democrats, leads with his face and hopes that the Democrats will defeat him quickly so he can turn around and yell at the people who insisted he fight for something in the first place.

The perfect example of Boehner’s “leadership” came when Obama shut the government down because the House refused to fund Obamacare.

First of all, you have to keep in mind that John Boehner had publicly promised that the Republican Party would use the power of the purse to stop Obamacare if the GOP took control of the House in 2010.

“We are going to fight to repeal this government takeover of health care and start over with solutions that focus first on lowering costs. Cutting off funding for ObamaCare is absolutely something I support. For example, I would support moving as soon as possible to deny any funding for the estimated 16,500 IRS employees that will be needed to implement ObamaCare. House Republicans will continue to stand with the American people against this unconstitutional government takeover of health care.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, Boehner never had any intention of living up to his pledge.

So eventually Ted Cruz started pushing the idea of using the power of the purse to stop Obamacare and it caught on in the House to such an extent that Boehner felt compelled to try it.

After hemming and hawing that made it clear he didn’t want to pursue the strategy in the first place, Boehner announced that the House was going to fund the government except for Obamacare. Then he came out like a house on fire, slammed Obama for shutting down the government and said he would stand tall!

After a few days of that, Boehner practically went mute while the Democrats continued to hammer away at Republicans. Meanwhile, Boehner ALLIES like Peter King and Devin Nunes publicly undercut the whole strategy, something they would have NEVER done without getting the thumbs up from the Speaker.

“We are the ones who did shut the government down. You don’t take the dramatic step of shutting down the government unless you have a real strategy.” — Peter King

“Unlike many Republicans, (Devin) Nunes is publicly criticizing some of his colleagues, calling them ‘lemmings with suicide vests’ earlier this week.

….’It’s crazy. I don’t understand the whole point, the whole strategy. Most Americans don’t understand it,’ said Nunes.

The California Republican said a small group of lawmakers, what he calls ‘the lemming caucus,’ have been blocking GOP House leadership for three years.

‘It’s guys who meet privately. They’re always conspiring. It’s mostly just about power. And it’s just gotten us nowhere,’ said Nunes.”

Since government shutdowns are essentially a big game of chicken where both sides can equally be said to be at fault, but they try to blame each other, having Republicans in Congress siding with Democrats was very damaging to the effort.

Boehner had options. He could have held out and tried to make a case to the American people. He could have agreed to end the shutdown if Democrats would end the Obamacare subsidy for lawmakers and their staffs. Instead, as per usual, Boehner just surrendered and the shutdown lasted only 16 days.

To top it all off, Boehner went on the Leno Show and said none of it was his fault.

“It was a very predictable disaster, and the sooner we got it over with, the better. I told my colleagues in July I didn’t think shutting down the government over Obamacare would work because the President said, ‘I’m not going to negotiate.’ And so I told them in August ‘Probably not a good idea.’ Told them in early September. But when you have my job, there’s something you have to learn … When I looked up, I saw my colleagues going this way. And you learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk … So I said, ‘You want to fight this fight? I’ll go fight the fight with you.'”

The types of questions people had after this disaster were the ones that dogged Boehner through his whole tenure as “leader.”

The shutdown was a predictable disaster? Then why did he promise to adopt that strategy before he became Speaker? Did he not realize it was a bad idea then or was he just a liar who made promises he never intended to keep? Moreover, if Boehner knew the strategy wouldn’t work, why did he go through with it? Furthermore, how do you call talking tough for a few days and then caving a “fight?” Once Boehner decided to go with the strategy, what was his plan to win – or was it his plan all along to fight a halfhearted battle, lose and then throw up his hands and say, “I tried?” Whatever happened to actually trying to WIN battles for conservatism and the American people? When did that officially become something the Republican Party doesn’t do anymore?

Republicans have a right to expect a lot more out of a leader than drinking, crying and capitulating in every fight that matters. That’s the only thing John Boehner has offered America since he became Speaker of the House and the tragedy isn’t that he’s being muscled out of office, it’s that it didn’t happen much sooner. (John Hawkins)

But just to give you a taste of the Far Left’s response, our friends at the Daily Kos:

Oh no, the Repidiots biggest boner is leaving. Whatever will they use to screw Americans now? There is talk that Rep. McCarthy from California may replace him. That is sending the T (as in terrible) Party into fits of apoplexy. From what I read about him he is a semi intelligent (for a republican) human. He can actually see and understand facts, as opposed to most of the other morons in the party.

This is Homo Superior Liberalis folks!

But let’s get back to the Party while it lasts…

Proof of Jar Jar Binks’s death may be on the way. In a Vanity Fair interview published, appropriately, on Star Wars Day (May the Fourth…), director J.J. Abrams said he just might show fans Jar Jar’s bones.

Sorry, wrong Jar Jar… 🙂

Unsustainable

Despite what the Liberals, The Liberal Media, Liberal pundits, Obama, and The Congress want you to believe…

The economy is sluggish but growing and inflation remains low, painting a decidedly mixed picture for the federal government, the Congressional Budget Office reported Tuesday, saying the fiscal situation is improving this year but will snap back by 2018 to swelling deficits and unsustainable debt.

The inflation rate is so low that Social Security beneficiaries probably won’t get a cost-of-living raise after this year, the CBO said.

So all those people on “fixed incomes” who bet their retirement on government assistance are going to be whining even more that they can afford anything.

But tax revenue is up and spending has stayed pat, which is helping reduce the pool of red ink in the federal budget.

Combined, those numbers mean the government will run a deficit of $426 billion in fiscal year 2015, down about $60 billion from 2014 and marking the smallest deficit of President Obama’s tenure.

Which means it’s the least overspending he’s ever done. Mind you, the Feds have gotten more taxes in the last year than ever history too.

The good news will continue for a couple of years as the economy belatedly but fully rebounds from the recession of December 2007 to June 2009. By 2018, though, debt will rise as government spending grows and the economy will cool again, the CBO said.

“The growth in debt is not sustainable,” CBO Director Keith Hall said in presenting the estimates. “At some point, it’s going to get to a very high level. Obviously, you can’t predict tipping points, but at some point this becomes a problem.”

Democrats saw the short-term outlook as progress and said it’s time to close tax breaks and bring in more revenue for spending on investments such as infrastructure.

Democrat Solution: Raise Taxes! Soak the Rich!  (gee where have heard that before?)

Republicans kept their focus on the longer-term warnings in the CBO report. They noted that taxes will remain higher than their historic average over the past five decades but deficits will persist because spending will still outpace revenue.

Budget watchdogs pleaded with all sides to go beyond the numbers and talk about solutions to persistent debt.

Democrats: More Taxes!!! Soak Everyone!

Republicans: Uh…Don’t blame us….

“I don’t know how anyone can declare victory when trillion-dollar deficits are just on the horizon,” (Again!) said Judd Gregg, a former senator and a co-chairman of the advocacy group Fix the Debt. “While deficits are down this year, the real story is that they are on the rise and that our national debt is at record-high levels and growing.”

Watchdogs pleaded with presidential candidates to start talking about the national debt in their campaigns.

Political suicide, for them, so no, they’ll avoid it.

For the most part, that conversation has been muted. Democrats have called for tax hikes to pay for more spending, and Republicans generally have focused on other issues.

See above. 🙂

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, however, has sparred with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a fellow Republican presidential candidate, over the fate of Social Security. Mr. Christie argues that the program needs benefit adjustments to survive.

The CBO report said Social Security spending will be slightly lower than analysts projected five months ago because fewer people will qualify for disability payments. Still, the $66-billion-a-month payout this year makes Social Security the largest single federal program, which is projected to represent 5.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2025.

Medicare and Medicaid, the government’s health care programs for the elderly and the poor, also are growing quickly and are projected to reach a combined 6.2 percent of GDP within a decade.

Defense and other basic domestic spending, however, continue to dip as a percentage of government spending and the economy, reaching levels not seen in decades.

Democrats say cuts to domestic discretionary programs such as education and infrastructure have gone deep enough and that it’s time to reverse them, and they reject Republican calls for limits on growth in entitlement spending.

In other words WHEN IN DEBT, SPEND EVEN MORE! Especially on Agenda Items.

And the Democrats war on your energy bills will obviously help everyone. 🙂

The CBO said the economy is recovering, though more slowly than predicted. The GDP, the report said, will grow 2 percent this year and rise to 3.1 percent next year before slowing again.

Mr. Hall said recent turmoil in stock markets has not changed those estimates.

“The economic fundamentals, at least so far, haven’t been changed,” he said.

In a more pressing finding, the CBO said the government has room to stave off a debt limit breach through November or December — a longer time frame than projected a few months ago. Mr. Hall credited higher tax receipts this year as the reason.

So they can stop talking about it now and do it in November at the last minute and then cave in and raise taxes even more and approve even more spending because “cuts” are politically incorrect.

Debt held by the public will dip this year to 73.8 percent, down from 74 percent in fiscal year 2014, and will fluctuate for a few years before beginning a steady climb by 2020 and nearing 77 percent in 2025. Those are levels unseen since 1950, when the country was getting out from under the burden of World War II. (WT)

And, it’s all George Bush’s Fault! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Middle Class Economics

So where do you get the money to allegedly pour into the poor to allegedly make them richer (which hasn’t happened BTW-there are now MORE poor people), rich people.

But in the perfect scenario if the rich are getting poorer and the poor are getting richer who gets squashed in the middle?

The Middle Class. 🙂

The big challenge for President Obama — and for Republicans seeking their own agenda to woo the middle class — is that middle-income economic fortunes are driven mostly by private employers. The government can raise the minimum wage, but it can’t make employers raise wages for workers already making well above that. It can give out targeted tax cuts, but these can’t have large effects on the average family’s income without getting really expensive. It can impose labor regulations, but it cannot overcome the fact that employers are powerful when many workers chase a small number of jobs.

So you can make them pay $15/hr but they can lay off a lot of people to do it. 🙂

Contrary to the Liberal hoary and class warfare battle cry, government does not create private sector jobs.

The White House had a telling spat last month with the Tax Policy Center, a center-left joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that produces estimates of the distributional impacts of tax proposals. Len Burman, the center’s co-director, who was a Treasury official in the Clinton administration, ran the numbers and found the president’s plan produced an average tax cut of just $12 for families in the middle quintile — a surprising result for a plan aimed at the middle class, and one that produced inconvenient headlines.

Inconvenient= Means they didn’t fit the Agenda driven truth. An Inconvenient truth, how ironic. 🙂

Treasury’s own numbers show the average middle-income family would get a tax cut of about $150 under the president’s plan. Whether $12 or $150, the average effects are small — much smaller than the several hundred dollars a typical family is saving this year because of falling gas prices, and much smaller than the raises Americans would get from a tight labor market that induces employers to offer higher wages. (NYT)

So that’s why Obama wants to raise gas prices! 🙂

It’s not just that he hates rich Oil companies in this country (in the middle east he’s just fine). That’s good to know.

“Many people in the middle class will get no benefit from the president’s proposal,” said Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center. “Among the middle class, it’s targeted at people with kids and second earners. Virtually no single middle class people without kids will get anything.”

Far fewer middle class single and elderly taxpayers would benefit from Obama’s plan.

Only 12.5% of single filers would get a tax cut. Overall, this group would see a $61 increase, because nearly 7% of middle class singles would see their taxes go up and that skews the overall average.

Among the elderly, only 10% would enjoy a dip in their taxes. But because many in this group would be hit with another of the president’s provisions — that would require estates to pay capital gains on appreciated assets — they would pay an additional $152, on average. (CNN)

So you have to be the politically advantageous “middle class” to get any sucar from this government succubus that has spent $8 Trillion in less than 7 years.

But you have to play it like everyone gets it. Like the $2500 reduction in Health Care Costs from Obamacare.

Mind you, the NFL Player making multiple millions a year is not the target. The target is Corporate America. The evil rich people who make jobs for people.

After all, socialism is about the Government largesse not Private Sector largesse.

So you have to be Agenda approved.

In socialism there are only 2 classes, The Elites, and the Poor and they don’t meet. That’s is the Utopia the Democrats want to achieve.

And since Liberals have no capacity intellectually to believe they can ever be wrong about anything, ever, they if they don’t succeed they will just keep trying because it will always be someone elses fault that they didn’t succeed.

Divide and Conquer, eventually. Because they only way they succeed is to destroy all methods that do succeed and leave you with no choice but to d it their way.

And that’s Obama and The Democrats in a nutshell. My ideas can’t succeed but I will prevent any other ideas from even forming.

Orwell would be proud of you, my son.

The Ministry of Truth (even Inconvenient ones) stands ready to defend your right to fail miserably but blame someone for it and make everyone believe it.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden