How long before it's us?

[LizStreithorst]

Not the story I thought it would be but still an excellent comparison. http://www.npr.org/2016/04/22/475172438/donald-trump-and-george-wallace-riding-the-rage

[Mugwump]

    Home> Newsroom> Must Read> Must Reads

College Could Be Free In America If Corporations Paid Reagan-Era Taxes
By:  Shahien Nasiripour
The Huffington Post
Thursday, April 21, 2016

If corporations paid the same tax rate as they did under Ronald Reagan, governments in the U.S. would have enough money to fund prekindergarten for every 4-year-old in America and higher education for every American attending public colleges and universities, according to a Huffington Post review of government data.

Corporations paid an effective tax rate of 31.7 percent on average during Reagan?s eight years in the White House, according to Commerce Department figures that measure corporate profits and taxes paid to local, state, federal and foreign governments.

But in the seven full years President Barack Obama has occupied the post, corporations have enjoyed a 22.8 percent effective tax rate on their profits, Commerce Department data show.

The average annual difference, if applying Reagan-era tax rates to Obama-era profits, comes out to $166.7 billion.

That?s enough to cover the estimated $25 billion in annual costs to allow every 4-year-old in the nation to attend public pre-K programs and the close to $65 billion that students spend on tuition to attend public colleges and universities, leaving close to $78 billion ? roughly the amount that the federal government spent on food stamps during the most recent fiscal year ? left over to fund other public policy priorities in the U.S. and abroad.

-more-

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/college-could-be-free-in-america-if-corporations-paid-reagan-era-taxes

[GraphicGr8s]

The IRS is collecting record revenues these last couple of years. How much more of OUR money do they want to confiscate? We don't have an income problem. We have a spending problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/13/1-48-trillion-government-collects-record-high-taxes-in-first-half-fiscal-2016.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/15/feds-tax-take-hits-all-time-high/?page=all

[Mugwump]

In the not-too-distant past, talk in the political world of the U.S. budget deficit was all the rage. As the Tea Party ?movement? took shape, conservatives quite literally took to the streets to express their fear that President Obama and Democrats were failing to address the ?out of control? deficit.

Congressional Republicans agreed. As recently as 2013, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was asked about the radicalism of his political agenda and he responded, ?[W]hat I would say is extreme is a trillion-dollar deficit every year.? Around the same time, then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) argued that Congress should be ?focused on trying to deal with the ultimate problem, which is this growing deficit.?

The Republican rhetoric was ridiculously wrong. We don?t have a trillion-dollar deficit; the deficit isn?t the ultimate problem; and it?s not growing.

Strong growth in individual tax collection drove the U.S. budget deficit to a fresh Obama-era low in fiscal 2015, the Treasury Department said Thursday.

For the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 the shortfall was $439 billion, a decrease of 9%, or $44 billion, from last year. The deficit is the smallest of Barack Obama?s presidency and the lowest since 2007 in both dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product.

Keep in mind, in the Obama era, the deficit has shrunk by $1 trillion. That?s ?trillion,? with a ?t.? As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Revisiting our coverage from several months ago, I looked for press releases from the ?Obama is turning us into Greece!? crowd, eager to see them celebrate President Obama?s striking record on deficit reduction, but so far, nothing has turned up. Maybe they?re busy.

And in practical terms, that?s a shame. The vast majority of Americans are absolutely certain ? thanks to deceptive Republican rhetoric and unfortunate news coverage ? that the deficit has soared in the Obama era. Late last year, a Bloomberg Politics Poll found that 73% of the public believes the deficit has gotten bigger over the last six years.

The year before, the same pollster found that only 6% of Americans realized the deficit was shrinking. It helps explain why the president hasn?t gotten any credit for deficit reduction, which seems like the sort of development Tea Partiers and the Beltway?s Very Serious People should consider an extraordinary accomplishment.

As we talked about last year, it?s tempting to conclude that the public?s confusion doesn?t matter. In the Clinton era, the deficit disappeared entirely, and Americans had no idea.

But there?s another side to this. Whether or not Americans know and/or understand the basics of the fiscal argument may not have a practical impact on the debate itself, but the fact remains that voters are ultimately responsible for electing policymakers. If Americans believe, incorrectly, that the deficit is getting bigger, these same voters may be inclined to vote for candidates who?ll slash public investments and undermine social-insurance programs ? which would have real-world consequences.

Postscript: To reiterate a point that bears repeating, I don?t necessarily consider this sharp reduction in the deficit to be good news. If it were up to me, federal officials would be borrowing more, not less, taking advantage of low interest rates, investing heavily in infrastructure and economic development, creating millions of jobs, and leaving deficit reduction for another day.

That said, if we?re going to have a fiscal debate, it should at least be rooted in reality, not silly misconceptions. And the reality is, we?re witnessing deficit reduction at a truly remarkable clip. Every conservative complaint about fiscal recklessness and irresponsibility in the Obama era is quantifiably ridiculous.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era

[GraphicGr8s]

So Jon then you're beloved Clinton was in reality a jackass for having a surplus instead of running up the spending.
GWB was then a genius because he did spend.

Postscript: To reiterate a point that bears repeating, I don?t necessarily consider this sharp reduction in the deficit to be good news. If it were up to me, federal officials would be borrowing more, not less, taking advantage of low interest rates, investing heavily in infrastructure and economic development, creating millions of jobs, and leaving deficit reduction for another day.

[GraphicGr8s]

The long-term outlook for the federal budget has worsened dramatically over the past several years, in the wake of the 2007?2009 recession and slow recovery. Between 2008 and 2012, financial turmoil and a severe drop in economic activity, combined with various policies implemented in response to those conditions, sharply reduced federal revenues and increased spending. As a result, budget deficits rose: They totaled $5.6 trillion in those five years, and in four of the five years, they were larger relative to the size of the economy than they had been in any year since 1946. Because of the large deficits, federal debt held by the public soared, nearly doubling during the period. It is now equivalent to about 74 percent of the economy?s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP)?a higher percentage than at any point in U.S. history except a seven-year period around World War II.

If current law remained generally unchanged in the future, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next few years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing budget deficits?caused mainly by the aging of the population and rising health care costs?would push debt back to, and then above, its current high level. The deficit would grow from less than 3 percent of GDP this year to more than 6 percent in 2040. At that point, 25 years from now, federal debt held by the public would exceed 100 percent of GDP.

Moreover, debt would still be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy. Consequently, the policy changes needed to reduce debt to any given amount would become larger and larger over time. The rising debt could not be sustained indefinitely; the government?s creditors would eventually begin to doubt its ability to cut spending or raise revenues by enough to pay its debt obligations, forcing the government to pay much higher interest rates to borrow money.

What Is the Outlook for the Budget in the Next 10 Years?

The economy?s gradual recovery from the recession, the waning budgetary effects of policies enacted in response to the weak economy, and other changes to tax and spending laws will cause the deficit to shrink in 2015 to its smallest percentage of GDP since 2007, CBO projects?2.7 percent, a much smaller percentage than the recent peak of nearly 10 percent in 2009. Throughout the next decade, however, an aging population, rising health care costs per person, and an increasing number of recipients of exchange subsidies and Medicaid benefits attributable to the Affordable Care Act would push up spending for some of the largest federal programs if current laws governing those programs remained unchanged. Moreover, CBO expects interest rates to rebound in coming years from their current unusually low levels, raising the government?s interest payments on debt.

Budget deficits would not substantially increase at first, but eventually they would begin to rise. They would approach 4 percent of GDP toward the end of the 10-year period spanned by CBO?s baseline budget projections, the agency anticipates. Deficits over the entire period would total about $7.4 trillion.

With deficits projected to remain close to their current percentage of GDP for the next few years, federal debt held by the public would remain at a very high level, between 73 percent and 74 percent of GDP, from 2016 through 2021. Thereafter, the larger deficits would boost debt?to 78 percent of GDP by the end of 2025.

What Is the Outlook for the Budget Through 2040?

To analyze the state of the budget in the long term, CBO has extrapolated its 10-year baseline projections through 2040, yielding a set of extended baseline projections that span a total of 25 years. (Both sets of projections generally incorporate the assumption that current law will not change.) Mainly because of the aging of the population and rising health care costs, the extended baseline projections show revenues that fall well short of spending over the long term, producing a substantial imbalance in the federal budget. As a result, budget deficits are projected to rise steadily and, by 2040, to raise federal debt held by the public to a percentage of GDP seen at only one previous time in U.S. history?the final year of World War II and the following year.\
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50250

[GraphicGr8s]

Under the President?s proposals, the federal budget deficit would decline in 2017 and 2018. After that, however, outlays would rise more quickly than revenues, so deficits would grow. As a result, federal debt held by the public would grow as well. By 2026?the end of the period covered by the President?s budget?such debt would be higher than it is now, measured as a percentage of the nation?s economic output, and it would be rising.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51383

[GraphicGr8s]

When was the last time we actually had a budget anyway? Seems Harry tabled about every one of them and we've been on CR forever.

I wonder if people actually understand how our process works and what a "cut" truly is.

[Mugwump]

So Jon then you're beloved Clinton was in reality a jackass for having a surplus instead of running up the spending.
GWB was then a genius because he did spend.

Postscript: To reiterate a point that bears repeating, I don?t necessarily consider this sharp reduction in the deficit to be good news. If it were up to me, federal officials would be borrowing more, not less, taking advantage of low interest rates, investing heavily in infrastructure and economic development, creating millions of jobs, and leaving deficit reduction for another day.

LOL.....look at what you wrote.....LOL...the Repub's are holding up those very spending objectives in Congress....and have been.....and no, really...supply side economics doesn't work......but then you know that right?....and I think you have it wrong about borrowing more too....geez Louise....then you'd blame the high deficit on President Obama........typical rightie wants his cake and eat it too......LOLOLOLOL.....

I see that you're 'cherry pick'n articles again.....how convenient..

[LizStreithorst]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy8tIA50YM4

[Mugwump]

It begins.............


>>>>>>>>>>>
ColoradoCare is a resident-owned, non-governmental health care financing system designed to ensure comprehensive, quality, accessible, lifetime health care for every Colorado resident. The benefit package would enhance the comprehensive health care services required by Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. Premiums would be collected from Coloradans based on income, securing health care regardless of financial circumstance. This efficient, universal system would operate in the interests of Coloradans. By eliminating layers of bureaucracy and reducing administrative and other nonmedical costs, ColoradoCare would cover all residents and cost less than the current system.

Comprehensive benefits must include primary and specialty care; hospitalization; prescription drugs and medical equipment; mental health and substance use services, including behavioral health treatment; emergency and urgent care; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; pediatric care including oral, vision and hearing services; laboratory services; maternity and newborn care; and palliative and end-of-life care. Additional benefits can be provided.

ColoradoCare replaces the medical portion of Workers? Compensation. There will be no deductibles. Designated primary and preventive care services have no co-payments. Any other co-payments or cost-sharing must have ColoradoCare?s prior approval and can be waived to insure access to proper care. ColoradoCare will assure statewide access to emergency and trauma services. Beneficiaries will choose their primary care professionals. Beneficiaries temporarily living or traveling in another state will receive coverage.

[Mugwump]

[GraphicGr8s]

So Jon then you're beloved Clinton was in reality a jackass for having a surplus instead of running up the spending.
GWB was then a genius because he did spend.

Postscript: To reiterate a point that bears repeating, I don?t necessarily consider this sharp reduction in the deficit to be good news. If it were up to me, federal officials would be borrowing more, not less, taking advantage of low interest rates, investing heavily in infrastructure and economic development, creating millions of jobs, and leaving deficit reduction for another day.

LOL.....look at what you wrote.....LOL...the Repub's are holding up those very spending objectives in Congress....and have been.....and no, really...supply side economics doesn't work......but then you know that right?....and I think you have it wrong about borrowing more too....geez Louise....then you'd blame the high deficit on President Obama........typical rightie wants his cake and eat it too......LOLOLOLOL.....

I see that you're 'cherry pick'n articles again.....how convenient..

Getting in touch with the liberal side. Unlike them however I do show the facts.

What value is having cake and not being able to eat it? That's just stupid.

That postscript is from the Rachel Maddow you posted. Your point?

True Conservatives want to reign in spending not add to it.

We also know Keynesian economics doesn't work. That was proven during FDR and now during Hussein. We've thrown trillions into the economy and it is no better.

I'll take a bit of that supply side stuff. Worked for Reagan.

[GraphicGr8s]

http://www.cato.org/blog/four-reasons-why-keynesian-stimulus-does-not-work

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/10/19/history-shows-keynesian-economics-doesnt-work.html

[Mugwump]

So Jon then you're beloved Clinton was in reality a jackass for having a surplus instead of running up the spending.
GWB was then a genius because he did spend.

Postscript: To reiterate a point that bears repeating, I don?t necessarily consider this sharp reduction in the deficit to be good news. If it were up to me, federal officials would be borrowing more, not less, taking advantage of low interest rates, investing heavily in infrastructure and economic development, creating millions of jobs, and leaving deficit reduction for another day.

LOL.....look at what you wrote.....LOL...the Repub's are holding up those very spending objectives in Congress....and have been.....and no, really...supply side economics doesn't work......but then you know that right?....and I think you have it wrong about borrowing more too....geez Louise....then you'd blame the high deficit on President Obama........typical rightie wants his cake and eat it too......LOLOLOLOL.....

I see that you're 'cherry pick'n articles again.....how convenient..

Getting in touch with the liberal side. Unlike them however I do show the facts.

What value is having cake and not being able to eat it? That's just stupid.

That postscript is from the Rachel Maddow you posted. Your point?

True Conservatives want to reign in spending not add to it.

We also know Keynesian economics doesn't work. That was proven during FDR and now during Hussein. We've thrown trillions into the economy and it is no better.

I'll take a bit of that supply side stuff. Worked for Reagan.

...no, supply side economics didn't work for Reagan.....LOL...it was a disaster...and Clinton rescued us....