WASHINGTON: Senators bickered on Sunday over who's to blame for lurching the country toward a year-end ``fiscal cliff,'' bemoaning the lack of a deal days before the deadline but bridging no differences in the debate.
With the collapse Thursday of House Speaker John Boehner's plan to allow tax rates to rise on million-dollar-plus incomes, Sen. Joe Lieberman said ``it's the first time that I feel it's more likely we'll go over the cliff than not,'' meaning that higher taxes for most Americans and painful federal agency budget cuts would be in line to go ahead.
``If we allow that to happen it will be the most colossal consequential act of congressional irresponsibility in a long time, maybe ever in American history because of the impact it'll have on almost every American,'' said Lieberman, a Connecticut independent.
If President Barack Obama and Congress can't reach a deal by Dec. 31, the so-called ``fiscal cliff'' looms. Some $536 billion in tax increases, touching nearly all Americans would begin to take effect in January, because various federal tax cuts and breaks expire at year's end. Also, about $110 billion in spending cuts divided equally between the military and most other federal departments would be automatically triggered.
The fear is that the combination of tax increases and spending cuts would push the fragile US economy back into recession. Wyoming Sen. Jon Barrasso, a member of the Republican leadership, predicted that the new year would come without an agreement, and he faulted the White House. ``I believe the president is eager to go over the cliff for political purposes. He senses a victory at the bottom of the cliff,'' he said.
Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, was incredulous at Barrasso's assertion that `there is only one person that can provide the leadership'' on such a matter vital to the nation's interests.
``There are 535 of us that can provide leadership. There are 435 in the House, 100 in the Senate and there is the president, all of us have a responsibility here,'' he said. ``And, you know what is happening? What is happening is the same old tired blame game. He said/she said. I think the American people are tired of it. What they want to hear is what is the solution?''
No solution seemed any nearer, with Obama and Congress on a short holiday break. Congress is expected to be back at work Thursday and Obama in the White House after a few days in Hawaii. ``It is time to get back to the table,'' said Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of MInnesota. ``And I hope if anyone sees these representatives from the House in line shopping or getting their Christmas turkey, they wish them a merry Christmas, they're civil, and then say go back to the table, not your own table, the table in Washington.''
Predicted Lieberman: ``We're going to spend New Year's Eve here I believe.'' Obama already has scaled back his ambitions for a sweeping budget bargain. Before leaving the capital on Friday, he called for a limited measure that extends George W. Bush-era tax cuts for most people and staves off federal spending cuts. The president also urged Congress to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed that would otherwise be cut off for 2 million people at the end of the year.
``The truth of the matter is, if we do fall off the cliff after the president is inaugurated, he'll come back, propose just what he proposed ... in leaving Washington and we'll end up adopting it, but why should we put the markets in such turmoil and the people misunderstanding or lack of confidence,'' said Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican. ``Why not go ahead and act now?
Obama's announcement late Friday suggested that a smaller deal may rest in the Senate, given the failure of Boehner's option in the House of Representatives. ``The ball is now clearly with the Senate,'' said Lieberman. He said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky ``have the ability to put this together again and pass something. It won't be a big, grand bargain to take care of the total debt, but they can do some things that will avoid the worst consequences going over the fiscal cliff.''
Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said she expects ``it is going to be a patch because in four days we can't solve everything.'' It was only a week ago when news emerged that Obama and Boehner had significantly narrowed their differences. Both were offering a cut in taxes for most Americans, an increase for a relative few wealthy Americans and cuts of roughly $1 trillion in spending over a year. Also included was a scaling back of future cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, a concession on the president's part as much as agreeing to higher tax rates was for Boehner.
Lieberman was on CNN's ``State of the Union,'' while Barrasso and Conrad appeared on ``Fox News Sunday.'' Klobuchar and Isakson were on ``Fox News Sunday,'' while Hutchison was on CBS' ``Face the Nation.''
A Republican lawmaker working on budgetary issues told "Fox News Sunday" that he believes President Barack Obama wants to go over the so-called fiscal cliff at the end of the year, and may not be negotiating in good faith.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the chairman of the Republican policy committee, told Fox's Chris Wallace that he expects the U.S. will go over the cliff.
"I believe the president is eager to go over the cliff for political purposes," Barrasso said. "I think he sees a political victory at the bottom of the cliff: He gets all this additional tax revenue for new programs, he gets to cut the military, which Democrats have been calling for for years, and he gets to blame Republicans for it."
For the past week, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner worked to pass what he called Plan B, a tax deal that had no chance of receiving presidential approval, in an attempt to twist Obama's arm ahead of the end of the year, when the Bush tax cuts expire.
That plan failed when Boehner could not wrangle enough votes from the more conservative elements of his caucus, leaving Obama to plead with House Republicans late on Friday to sign off on at least a limited package of tax cuts for the middle class, before everyone sees their taxes rise.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and who appeared on the show as the Democratic counterpoint, responded that responsibility for making a deal lies with more than just the president, and that Congress needs to show more willingness to meet Obama halfway.
"We only have nine days left here," Conrad said. "When are we going to get serious about actual solutions?"
Despite the amplified rhetoric about a fiscal "cliff" that could possibly doom the American economy, few in Washington seem to be treating the imminent tax hikes as a true doomsday. Many politicians are on holiday this weekend, and the Sunday shows -- normally a major battleground for political disputes of this sort -- were populated largely with bit players in the debate.
And as The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported Saturday, there are no signs that federal agencies are preparing any major changes ahead of the deadline, suggesting they do not anticipate any direct fallout from the sequestration that goes into effect at the end of the year.
I blame Obama primarily. The idea for the cliff was his, and he allowed the Bill to be created. I agree in part that he is playing politics with it and not too concerned about whether or not we go over it though I don't think he is intentionally steering us over it.
However, I do blame everyone else for being absolutely moronic in voting for and supporting such an idea. Yeah guys, real bright, turn our economy into a ticking time bomb that will explode if you fail to do your jobs like you have for how many years now?? Riiight...
Unfortunately, things like the so-called Fiscal Cliff are a natural byproduct of one of the core hypocrises of the voting American public: We claim to like consensus and compromise; and then repeatedly call those who do so traitors, RINOS, etc etc and then demand primary challenges for them.
Ouze wrote: Unfortunately, things like the so-called Fiscal Cliff are a natural byproduct of one of the core hypocrises of the voting American public: We claim to like consensus and compromise; and then repeatedly call those who do so traitors, RINOS, etc etc and then demand primary challenges for them.
Frazzled wrote: No actually. Because of the current jerrymandering, Congress isn't worried about the elections, only getting "primaried," in their own party.
District construction is handled by state legislative bodies, the elections for which very few people vote in. If anything, gerrymandering is an example for exactly why average Americans are to blame for the present state of American politics.
Further, getting past a primary still requires getting past a popular vote, albeit a smaller one. Of course, generally speaking, the smaller the voting pool the more responsible individual voters are for the behavior of their chosen legislator.
Personally, I think if you are a serious Deficit Hawk you should be really excited to go over the Fiscal Cliff and should be thanking everyone involved. You are getting what you always wanted! Sure, you may quibble about which cuts and which tax increases, but no solution is perfect.
I blame all the politicians. It's the same thing every year. Nobody really wants to make the hard decisions, because that means you don't get reelected.
Easy E wrote: Personally, I think if you are a serious Deficit Hawk you should be really excited to go over the Fiscal Cliff and should be thanking everyone involved. You are getting what you always wanted! Sure, you may quibble about which cuts and which tax increases, but no solution is perfect.
As long as the Debt ceiling doesn't go up... I'm okay with it. (which implies that something would be forcibly cut in order to meet mandatory spending + bond payments)
Tannhauser42 wrote: I blame all the politicians. It's the same thing every year. Nobody really wants to make the hard decisions, because that means you don't get reelected.
Or you want to make the hard decisions but because they're hard they get shot down by other politicians or the general public.
Where's the option for "republicans and the idiots who voted for them"? It's very simple: one party has offered compromises and attempted to negotiate, the other has decided that solving the problem is less important than destroying their political enemies, and that blind devotion to a "no tax increases" pledge is the sacred law of god instead of a political position that happened to be the best policy at a given moment. Blame other people as well if you like, but it's really hard to get anything done when more than 50% of the necessary votes are in the hands of a party that doesn't care how much damage they do to their country as long as they're the ones ruling over the wasteland at the end of it all.
As long as the Debt ceiling doesn't go up... I'm okay with it. (which implies that something would be forcibly cut in order to meet mandatory spending + bond payments)
Just one question: did you have this strong opposition to raising the debt ceiling before the republican party decided that making a crisis out of it was a good political move against the democrats, or did you, like the vast majority of people, pay no attention while both parties quietly raised it every time it threatened to become an issue (if you even knew what a debt ceiling was)?
As long as the Debt ceiling doesn't go up... I'm okay with it. (which implies that something would be forcibly cut in order to meet mandatory spending + bond payments)
Just one question: did you have this strong opposition to raising the debt ceiling before the republican party decided that making a crisis out of it was a good political move against the democrats, or did you, like the vast majority of people, pay no attention while both parties quietly raised it every time it threatened to become an issue (if you even knew what a debt ceiling was)?
Always had a problem with raising the debt limit (akin to raising your Account limit on your credit card). I was fully cognizant of it during the Bush's years (they raised it then too).
The issue is that no one is serious about working together to actually cut spending (not just reducing the rate of growth which is often described as a "cut"). And stop blaming only the Republicans... IT'S.EVERYONE'S.FAULT.
It's not going to change until something drastic happens, like a true Market Crash.
whembly wrote: Always had a problem with raising the debt limit (akin to raising your Account limit on your credit card). I was fully cognizant of it during the Bush's years (they raised it then too).
Well, I'll give you credit for consistency. At least you're better than the people who didn't care (or even know what a debt ceiling was) until the republicans decided it was a convenient time to be outraged about it.
And stop blaming only the Republicans... IT'S.EVERYONE'S.FAULT.
Why should I stop blaming the republicans? Only one party has openly admitted that they care more about destroying the enemy than about governing the country properly, and it's not the democrats.
And stop blaming only the Republicans... IT'S.EVERYONE'S.FAULT.
Why should I stop blaming the republicans? Only one party has openly admitted that they care more about destroying the enemy than about governing the country properly, and it's not the democrats.
If you're going to blame anyone, blame Reid... he has refused to bring a budget bill to the floor. That's part of the problem.
rockerbikie wrote: I blame republicans for trying to block anything of value from being passed.
Such as?
Obamacare. I have not done much research into Obamacare but from an Australian perspective. It looks like Australian's healthcare system. Also, they tried to stop the Auto Bailouts.
rockerbikie wrote: I blame republicans for trying to block anything of value from being passed.
Such as?
Obamacare. I have not done much research into Obamacare but from an Australian perspective. It looks like Australian's healthcare system. Also, they tried to stop the Auto Bailouts.
They didn't block a thing about it. Them "attempting" to stop it didn't change anything. Now had they stopped it, things might not be as bad as they are right now, but we'll never know if that's the case or not.
Things like Senator Reid refusing to pass budgets. Or adamantly refusing to vote on anything the House has tried to send over in regards to the cliff, that is actively blocking things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Republicans offered to close tax loopholes that would generate 800 billion in new tax revenue. Boehner also agreed to raising the taxes on the 2% that the Democrats even keep demanding.
The price, cuts in spending. 1 trillion dollar deficits a year. The tax increases the Dems are demaning would amount to about 80 billion a year. Republicans were insisting on 200 billion a year in spending cuts, still leaving us with 800 billion a year in deficits. And they refused to accept it. The dems refused to accept cuts of 1/5th of our deficit.
And Republicans are blocking things.
Sure, our entire congress is screwed up, and can't get it's game together. I'm sick and tired of seeing people passing the buck on their "favorites" though. People with D's next to their names are just as responsible for this situation, if not more so.
They didn't block a thing about it. Them "attempting" to stop it didn't change anything.
That's false. Republican efforts to prevent the passage of Obama's healthcare reform very clearly lead to numerous alterations to the initial package that the Democrats proposed. The most notable change being the elimination of a public option.
Sure, our entire congress is screwed up, and can't get it's game together. I'm sick and tired of seeing people passing the buck on their "favorites" though. People with D's next to their names are just as responsible for this situation, if not more so.
Apparently not sufficiently "sick and tired" to avoid committing the same sin.
The thing about the debt ceiling is that it is a purely artificial issue. When Congress authorizes a spending bill, the necessary debt increase should be a part of it, and not turned into a separate issue to be held hostage for later. Simply put, if you commit to spending $50 when you only have $40, you don't wait until you've run through that first $40 and then quibble about getting a loan for the last $10 that YOU ALREADY PLANNED TO SPEND ANYWAY.
Imagine a beach, with two hot dog stands on far ends from the beach--away from each other;
X____________________________X
Since the far left hot dog stand doesn't concern itself with losing customers to its left (As it will always be closer to those customers than the far right)--the sensible approach would be to migrate the hot dog stand closer to the right hot dog stand and attempt to grab customers in the middle. The far right stand will come to understand the same concept and start migrating as well.
Eventually, you end up with two central hot dog stands a few feet apart;
___________________X___X_________________________
If a party becomes so moderate that its difficult to discern it from the opposing party, it will 'go back to its roots' and attempt to energize all of the customers/voters to the far left/right of their particular stand. Or those customers/voters will self mobilize and begin dictating where their particular hot dog stand should be (Or how it should operate). I'm not a poli-sci major--but this is how I broadly view American politics and I believe this waxing/waning is inherent to a two party system. I think we are still suffering the after effects of the Tea Party waxing in this particular scenario.
Imagine a beach, with two hot dog stands on far ends from the beach--away from each other;
X____________________________X
Since the far left hot dog stand doesn't concern itself with losing customers to its left (As it will always be closer to those customers than the far right)--the sensible approach would be to migrate the hot dog stand closer to the right hot dog stand and attempt to grab customers in the middle. The far right stand will come to understand the same concept and start migrating as well.
Eventually, you end up with two central hot dog stands a few feet apart;
___________________X___X_________________________
If a party becomes so moderate that its difficult to discern it from the opposing party, it will 'go back to its roots' and attempt to energize all of the customers/voters to the far left/right of their particular stand. Or those customers/voters will self mobilize and begin dictating where their particular hot dog stand should be (Or how it should operate). I'm not a poli-sci major--but this is how I broadly view American politics and I believe this waxing/waning is inherent to a two party system. I think we are still suffering the after effects of the Tea Party waxing in this particular scenario.
Of course, the modern American political scale looks something like this....
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left
Tea Party.........R____________D_______________________
The miracle is that the Republicans retain any relavance at all, considering how extremist they've become the past twenty years. Back in the Eighties, the political scale looked like this:
....................Far right....................center...................far left
....................._____________R______D_________________
Yep, the 80's Republicans have FAR more in common with modern Democrats than they do with modern Republicans.
Imagine a beach, with two hot dog stands on far ends from the beach--away from each other;
X____________________________X
Since the far left hot dog stand doesn't concern itself with losing customers to its left (As it will always be closer to those customers than the far right)--the sensible approach would be to migrate the hot dog stand closer to the right hot dog stand and attempt to grab customers in the middle. The far right stand will come to understand the same concept and start migrating as well.
Eventually, you end up with two central hot dog stands a few feet apart;
___________________X___X_________________________
If a party becomes so moderate that its difficult to discern it from the opposing party, it will 'go back to its roots' and attempt to energize all of the customers/voters to the far left/right of their particular stand. Or those customers/voters will self mobilize and begin dictating where their particular hot dog stand should be (Or how it should operate). I'm not a poli-sci major--but this is how I broadly view American politics and I believe this waxing/waning is inherent to a two party system. I think we are still suffering the after effects of the Tea Party waxing in this particular scenario.
Of course, the modern American political scale looks something like this....
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left
Tea Party.........R____________D_______________________
The miracle is that the Republicans retain any relavance at all, considering how extremist they've become the past twenty years. Back in the Eighties, the political scale looked like this:
....................Far right....................center...................far left
....................._____________R______D_________________
Yep, the 80's Republicans have FAR more in common with modern Democrats than they do with modern Republicans.
I refuse to believe that the likes of Ried, Pelosi et. al and other (D) are "Center".
It's more like:
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left
.....................Tea Party.........R____________D___Durbin/Boxer/Reid/Pelosi____
....................................................................Obama
edited to fix Obama
KalashnikovMarine wrote: OR you should realize you don't have the tenner, and can't afford to borrow the tenner, and adjust your budget accordingly.
Problem is, Congress doesn't do that. They commit to spending the money, place the orders for the goods and services, and when the bills come due and they don't have enough cash to pay it, some politicians then hold the debt ceiling hostage for political gain.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: OR you should realize you don't have the tenner, and can't afford to borrow the tenner, and adjust your budget accordingly.
Problem is, Congress doesn't do that. They commit to spending the money, place the orders for the goods and services, and when the bills come due and they don't have enough cash to pay it, some politicians then hold the debt ceiling hostage for political gain.
Sounds like they should stop spending freaking money then eh?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: OR you should realize you don't have the tenner, and can't afford to borrow the tenner, and adjust your budget accordingly.
Problem is, Congress doesn't do that. They commit to spending the money, place the orders for the goods and services, and when the bills come due and they don't have enough cash to pay it, some politicians then hold the debt ceiling hostage for political gain.
Sounds like they should stop spending freaking money then eh?
The Republicans seem to be acting like children at the moment - they can't even get a bill through the Republican caucus, let alone the Republican controlled house, because of in-fighting. Now they're demanding that the Democrats come up with all the plans - so they can yell and scream at them to try and score political points, rather than taking flack for making their own proposals. They basically want the Democrats to negotiate themselves down, so that the Republicans don't take any blame for proposing actual cuts.
It's getting a bit crazy, and hopefully the 'fiscal cliff' (stupid name for it) doesn't have as serious an impact as predicted, because with Europe still economically fragile, it could have serious repercussions around the world.
Maddermax wrote: It's getting a bit crazy, and hopefully the 'fiscal cliff' (stupid name for it) doesn't have as serious an impact as predicted, because with Europe still economically fragile, it could have serious repercussions around the world.
"Going over" the fiscal cliff will initially mean almost nothing for government operations and spending in the short term. We already got the memo at work this past week (yes, I work for a government agency) stating that, for our agency, the cliff would mean about a 8% cut to the annual budget for the agency, but given that the agency has all the way until September 30 (end of the fiscal year) to find ways to save that money...it pretty much means business as usual for the first month or two for most agencies. Now, some agencies may be hit harder than others, though.
If anything, the real damage will be how other nations react, how credit rating agencies (and other economic institutions) will react, and how much the tax increases will (and when) hit the American people.
Maddermax wrote: It's getting a bit crazy, and hopefully the 'fiscal cliff' (stupid name for it) doesn't have as serious an impact as predicted, because with Europe still economically fragile, it could have serious repercussions around the world.
"Going over" the fiscal cliff will initially mean almost nothing for government operations and spending in the short term. We already got the memo at work this past week (yes, I word for a government agency) stating that, for our agency, the cliff would mean about a 8% cut to the annual budget for the agency, but given that the agency has all the way until September 30 (end of the fiscal year) to find ways to save that money...it pretty much means business as usual for the first month or two for most agencies. Now, some agencies may be hit harder than others, though.
If anything, the real damage will be how other nations react, how credit rating agencies (and other economic institutions) will react, and how much the tax increases will (and when) hit the American people.
The tax increases are the least of the worries - there's already a bill that's passed the Senate to extend the bush tax cuts and payroll tax cut for people earning under $250k. It'll be political suicide for the Republicans to oppose that after January. However, while It's good to hear the the cuts will be pushed back for some months, I think the markets reaction to the failure to find a deal, and business who work with the federal government cutting down staff or not expanding because of possible future cuts will have a more immediate impact. We'll have to wait and see though, and we'll find out in a few days.
Maddermax wrote: It's getting a bit crazy, and hopefully the 'fiscal cliff' (stupid name for it) doesn't have as serious an impact as predicted, because with Europe still economically fragile, it could have serious repercussions around the world.
"Going over" the fiscal cliff will initially mean almost nothing for government operations and spending in the short term. We already got the memo at work this past week (yes, I word for a government agency) stating that, for our agency, the cliff would mean about a 8% cut to the annual budget for the agency, but given that the agency has all the way until September 30 (end of the fiscal year) to find ways to save that money...it pretty much means business as usual for the first month or two for most agencies. Now, some agencies may be hit harder than others, though.
If anything, the real damage will be how other nations react, how credit rating agencies (and other economic institutions) will react, and how much the tax increases will (and when) hit the American people.
The tax increases are the least of the worries - there's already a bill that's passed the Senate to extend the bush tax cuts and payroll tax cut for people earning under $250k. It'll be political suicide for the Republicans to oppose that after January. However, while It's good to hear the the cuts will be pushed back for some months, I think the markets reaction to the failure to find a deal, and business who work with the federal government cutting down staff or not expanding because of possible future cuts will have a more immediate impact. We'll have to wait and see though, and we'll find out in a few days.
And they may very well be voting on that as soon as we go over the cliff.
Because politics is stupid like that.
If they vote on that bill today, then they will be voting to raise taxes for a tiny minority of people in the USA. So they wouldn't be the anti-tax party.
If they vote for the exact same bill next week they will be voting to cut taxes for almost all Americans! So they would be the anti-tax party!
Maddermax wrote: It's getting a bit crazy, and hopefully the 'fiscal cliff' (stupid name for it) doesn't have as serious an impact as predicted, because with Europe still economically fragile, it could have serious repercussions around the world.
"Going over" the fiscal cliff will initially mean almost nothing for government operations and spending in the short term. We already got the memo at work this past week (yes, I word for a government agency) stating that, for our agency, the cliff would mean about a 8% cut to the annual budget for the agency, but given that the agency has all the way until September 30 (end of the fiscal year) to find ways to save that money...it pretty much means business as usual for the first month or two for most agencies. Now, some agencies may be hit harder than others, though.
If anything, the real damage will be how other nations react, how credit rating agencies (and other economic institutions) will react, and how much the tax increases will (and when) hit the American people.
The tax increases are the least of the worries - there's already a bill that's passed the Senate to extend the bush tax cuts and payroll tax cut for people earning under $250k. It'll be political suicide for the Republicans to oppose that after January. However, while It's good to hear the the cuts will be pushed back for some months, I think the markets reaction to the failure to find a deal, and business who work with the federal government cutting down staff or not expanding because of possible future cuts will have a more immediate impact. We'll have to wait and see though, and we'll find out in a few days.
And they may very well be voting on that as soon as we go over the cliff.
Because politics is stupid like that.
If they vote on that bill today, then they will be voting to raise taxes for a tiny minority of people in the USA. So they wouldn't be the anti-tax party. If they vote for the exact same bill next week they will be voting to cut taxes for almost all Americans! So they would be the anti-tax party!
Go figure.
Only difference is that they're now going to be the Obama Tax Cuts, rather than the Bush Tax Cuts. In fact, the Democrats should call the bill "The Obama Tax Cuts Act" just because half the GOP would reflexively vote against it because of the name alone. It'd be hilarious trolling.
But this is american politics. The biggest concern for the house will be the 2014 primary elections. The states have already drawn up the districts to make the seats as safe as possible from the opposing party, so the biggest risk for the incumbents will be the primary elections. So it doesn't really matter that Obama signs the tax-cut and/or tax-raise, that will be pretty much completely irrelevant in 1.5 years.
If they vote for the senate bill in the next few days they will have voted for a tax increase on the rich. That means they are now RINOs and will face stiff opposition from a Tea Party challenger who will be running attack ads about how the incumbent voted to raise taxes on the job creators and that the challenger will be a "true fiscal conservative who will keep taxes in check and not raise them like Representative Tax-a-Lot".
If they vote for the senate bill next week they can run their own ads full of puppies and flowers and happy families with the soothing voice telling us that "Representative Tax-Cut voted to cut taxes on 95% of Americans".
Maddermax wrote: The Republicans seem to be acting like children at the moment - they can't even get a bill through the Republican caucus, let alone the Republican controlled house, because of in-fighting. Now they're demanding that the Democrats come up with all the plans - so they can yell and scream at them to try and score political points, rather than taking flack for making their own proposals. They basically want the Democrats to negotiate themselves down, so that the Republicans don't take any blame for proposing actual cuts.
It's getting a bit crazy, and hopefully the 'fiscal cliff' (stupid name for it) doesn't have as serious an impact as predicted, because with Europe still economically fragile, it could have serious repercussions around the world.
Wow... heaven forbid that the duly elected Democrat representives actually do the job they are supposed to and present their own bill. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with American politics, but generally both parties come forth with a bill and through the political process they hoth get butchered to pieces until enough people come together to pick one. Now I've seen the Republican party come forth with what I consider to be a pretty damn good solution (which was shot down because Obama and enough Democrats apparently believe that $250k per year household income should put you in a higher tax bracket, living in just such a household I can tell you we are anything but "upper class"), I haven't seen the Democrats come forward with a plan, so, maybe they should stop playin w ith themselvesand listen to the republicans.
Even if the House Republicans had supported it, I doubt Obama would have signed it into law, and thats part of the reason Republicans didn't back the plan, because it was too much of a compromise (personally the fact that they wouldnt vote because it was a compromise irks me) and it was doubtful to become reality. Signing your name to something that is not in keeping with what your voter base apparently believes in in order to avoid crisis is politically dangerous, signing your name to something that is not in keeping with what your voter base apparently believes in when you know full well that it isn't going to resolve the crisis anyway is political suicide. You can pursuade an electorate to look the other way in the former, but in the latter case it looks like something else entirely. I hate politics...
The only way the House will ever vote on the Democrat plan is if they, you know, actually bring it forward for a vote. Why they haven't I honestly don't know.
Grey Templar wrote: Obama isn't a Far left guy. He's more just left of center on most issues, but on others he is on the far left.
Opps... that's true, I'll edit that.
I think you should first figure out which directions left and right actualy are.
Relative to American politics...
No, relative to left and right <--- --->
whembly wrote:I refuse to believe that the likes of Ried, Pelosi et. al and other (D) are "Center".
It's more like:
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left .....................Tea Party.........R____________D___Durbin/Boxer/Reid/Pelosi____
....................................................................Obama
edited to fix Obama
chaos0xomega wrote: (which was shot down because Obama and enough Democrats apparently believe that $250k per year household income should put you in a higher tax bracket, living in just such a household I can tell you we are anything but "upper class")
Besides, if I recall correctly households over $250,000 would pay the exact same rate on the first $250,000 under the senate bill already passed. Only income over $250,000 would be taxed at the higher rate. So if you make $300,000 you would pay the higher rate on $50,000.
d-usa wrote: Besides, if I recall correctly households over $250,000 would pay the exact same rate on the first $250,000 under the senate bill already passed. Only income over $250,000 would be taxed at the higher rate. So if you make $300,000 you would pay the higher rate on $50,000.
Well yeah, thats how our tax system has worked for a while. Still, its kinda silly to classify 250K as a higher tax bracket. If you make 250k you still arn't rolling in money. its still solid Middle Class.
Grey Templar wrote: Obama isn't a Far left guy. He's more just left of center on most issues, but on others he is on the far left.
Opps... that's true, I'll edit that.
I think you should first figure out which directions left and right actualy are.
Relative to American politics...
No, relative to left and right <--- --->
whembly wrote:I refuse to believe that the likes of Ried, Pelosi et. al and other (D) are "Center".
It's more like:
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left .....................Tea Party.........R____________D___Durbin/Boxer/Reid/Pelosi____
....................................................................Obama
edited to fix Obama
I hope this doesn't come off as insulting, and I'm not trying to target anyone specifically here, but I don't think there's any other way to put it.
I realize that 250k a year is not mega-rich, like Romney or Bill Gates or even Obama. However, it is absolutely upper class. I'm saying people with 250k should or shouldn't be in a higher tax bracket, but anyone who makes that much money and tries to claim that they aren't upper class is pretty out of touch with how good they have it.
There is nothing wrong with having a high income. I do however find it extremely condescending when people who have a high income try to play it off by saying things like "Oh, we're not really that rich" or "We're not really upper class." I'm not sure what the point of that is? Is there something painful about admitting you're way better off that the vast majority of Americans?
d-usa wrote: Besides, if I recall correctly households over $250,000 would pay the exact same rate on the first $250,000 under the senate bill already passed. Only income over $250,000 would be taxed at the higher rate. So if you make $300,000 you would pay the higher rate on $50,000.
Well yeah, thats how our tax system has worked for a while. Still, its kinda silly to classify 250K as a higher tax bracket. If you make 250k you still arn't rolling in money. its still solid Middle Class.
Dude, 250k is not solid middle class. I would say it's lower upper class. At the very least, it's the top peak of high middle class. If someone makes 250k a year and can't figure out a way to make that work comfortably, that person is horrible at managing money.
I would say it means having no major money worries and job security. A person making 250k can still struggle to make ends meet and have an iffy job situation. Ergo they cannot be Upper Class, only Upper Middle Class.
Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.
I don't know what it is with you Yanks. How did you have such a great and booming economy twenty years ago and have such a crappy one now?
Answer: China. You're scrambling to get over this so-called cliff but your economy is dying. It has been dying or in decay for many years, even when the economy was growing. You're exporting all your jobs to other countries where they do it cheaper, among other things.
If it's any American's fault, it's the corporations.
Not really, the real issue is our Government Policies that have been making it very unattractive to do business in America. Its cheaper to move to China/other countries and sell products to the US.
The businesses are just making the smart move, or do you think that a business in America should stay here just because its the right thing to do?
I would say it means having no major money worries and job security. A person making 250k can still struggle to make ends meet and have an iffy job situation. Ergo they cannot be Upper Class, only Upper Middle Class
I'm sorry, but if a person making 250k is struggling to make ends meet, they're doing something wrong. They have most likely made a poor financial decision or a series of poor financial decisions. They bought too big of a house or too expensive of a car, or something like that. Their income could be dependent on a job, but I wouldn't say that precludes them from being upper class.
I wouldn't say they are wealthy or mega rich, but I think saying they are middle class is laughable. You could make an argument that 250k is the absolute upper range of high middle class, but saying that 250k is solid middle class is incredibly condescending to people who make much less than that and actually are middle class. If 250k is solid middle class, what is lower class? Where does middle class begin?
Anyone who thinks 250k is at all upper class is completely out of touch. Realize we're talking household income, so at that point you're punishing any married couple composed of two working professionals that are doing well for themselves. Again,living in just such a household, thats bs. Between student loans, bills, utilities, home repairs, etc. while we aren't struggling to make ends meet, we aren't well to do either, and its definitely not because my family can't manage its money (we carry next to no credit card debt for example, and our house is actually smaller than most other people we know in the same income bracket). They've been talking about selling the house for a while, this will no doubt make that real.
500k per year household, ok now we're talking, but 250k should be what we strive for, thats pretty solidly middle class. Now, if we're talking 250k per year as INDIVIDUAL income then its a different story. But household? You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.
Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.
What kind of money worries would someone with a 250k income realistically have? Deciding to skip vacation this year so they can pay for all of their child's college tuition?
I seriously want to know. What kind of real money worries would someone with a 250k income have to deal with that aren't caused by bad money management?
I would say it means having no major money worries and job security. A person making 250k can still struggle to make ends meet and have an iffy job situation. Ergo they cannot be Upper Class, only Upper Middle Class
I'm sorry, but if a person making 250k is struggling to make ends meet, they're doing something wrong. They have most likely made a poor financial decision or a series of poor financial decisions. They bought too big of a house or too expensive of a car, or something like that. Their income could be dependent on a job, but I wouldn't say that precludes them from being upper class.
I wouldn't say they are wealthy or mega rich, but I think saying they are middle class is laughable. You could make an argument that 250k is the absolute upper range of high middle class, but saying that 250k is solid middle class is incredibly condescending to people who make much less than that and actually are middle class. If 250k is solid middle class, what is lower class? Where does middle class begin?
It also depends on where you live... in DC, NY and LA, 250k is definately mid-class...
In mid-west, that's definately upper mid-class.
But this bill will hurt with the small business owners.
chaos0xomega wrote: Anyone who thinks 250k is at all upper class is completely out of touch. Realize we're talking household income, so at that point you're punishing any married couple composed of two working professionals that are doing well for themselves. Again,living in just such a household, thats bs. Between student loans, bills, utilities, home repairs, etc. while we aren't struggling to make ends meet, we aren't well to do either, and its definitely not because my family can't manage its money (we carry next to no credit card debt for example, and our house is actually smaller than most other people we know in the same income bracket). They've been talking about selling the house for a while, this will no doubt make that real.
500k per year household, ok now we're talking, but 250k should be what we strive for, thats pretty solidly middle class.
I realize we're talking about household income.
So basically, you don't have to worry about money. I'm not saying it's wealthy or mega rich, but it's not middle class. I don't think you realize how much better that situation is than what the majority of Americans have to deal with.
Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.
What kind of money worries would someone with a 250k income realistically have? Deciding to skip vacation this year so they can pay for all of their child's college tuition?
I seriously want to know. What kind of real money worries would someone with a 250k income have to deal with that aren't caused by bad money management?
Are you serious? Youre embarassing yourself kid. I havent been out of the country in like 8 years, and the last vacation I took was tobSeattle out of my own savings, and i have 60k in college debt and im from a 250k per year household.
To me middle class doesnt begin until 100k. Im currently making 40k per year as a recent college grad, and im just making ends meet with all kf my pwrsonal bills despite living with my parents. Doing the math, I wouldnt be able to get my own place (w a roommate) until 65k, my own place solo until 80k. Figure an extra 20 for buffer and thats middle for a SINGLE person, and id say lower for a family of four.
d-usa wrote: Besides, if I recall correctly households over $250,000 would pay the exact same rate on the first $250,000 under the senate bill already passed. Only income over $250,000 would be taxed at the higher rate. So if you make $300,000 you would pay the higher rate on $50,000.
I think that's worth quoting and repeating. I'm absolutely shocked at how many people I talk to about taxes/politics have no idea how our tax system works. Hell, one time I was listening to a local radio station that had a special "Talk politics" week going--and I ended up calling in. During the call, the radio host actually asked "Well, if he's going to raise taxes on people that make over 250,000 why would I ever want to make more than 249,999--I'd lose money!". Yep, really.
Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.
What kind of money worries would someone with a 250k income realistically have? Deciding to skip vacation this year so they can pay for all of their child's college tuition?
I seriously want to know. What kind of real money worries would someone with a 250k income have to deal with that aren't caused by bad money management?
Are you serious? Youre embarassing yourself kid. I havent been out of the country in like 8 years, and the last vacation I took was tobSeattle out of my own savings, and i have 60k in college debt and im from a 250k per year household.
You still haven't answered my question. I seriously want to know. When you say you're from a 250k household, does that mean you and your spouse make 250k, or your parents make 250k? Because that's two different things as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The fact that you even think my college tuition could be paid in full over 4 years by my family at 250k per year is frankly insulting. Thats 50k per year, let alone the fact that they have their own college loans to pay off still, plus the house, plus food for the family, home heating oil, electricity, water, property taxes, 2 cars (both used Honda's hardly the Mercedes Benz and Cadillac you seem to be expecting), insurance bills, and so on and so forth. Yeah they can put away some money for savings but you're cracked out if you think they could afford college tuition for one kid, let alone two.
Excuse me for reading it and beginning my post before you finished editing it.
Middle class doesn't begin until 100k for a single person? I get that it varies based on location, but that seems absolutely insane to me as a starting point for middle class. Most households I know don't bring in anywhere near 100k a year and still manage to pay bills, including student loan debt.
If you live in a super expensive area, then I could see how you could have trouble with what would be middle class elsewhere. I really don't think I'm the one who's out of touch here, and I'm certainly not embarrassing myself.
$250k is quite a lot. It's a lot higher than what most UK couples earn even on good wages, and the cost of living is generally lower in the US, as are most of your taxes. I don't have much sympathy.
I wouldnt consider it super expensive, this is average for New Jersey (which is super expensive compared to most simply due to our ridiculously high property taxes), regardless though you are out of touch and embarrassing yourself, as you seem to not have any concept of money beyond your own little slice of America, either that or the entire East Coast seems to be rolling in money and fiscally irresponsible people.
Howard, my condolences, but I find that the comparison is difficult to make across national boundaries. My family in the Dominican Republic makes about as much as my parents and have a much much higher standard of living more comparable to that of a millionaire.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The fact that you even think my college tuition could be paid in full over 4 years by my family at 250k per year is frankly insulting. Thats 50k per year, let alone the fact that they have their own college loans to pay off still, plus the house, plus food for the family, home heating oil, electricity, water, property taxes, 2 cars (both used Honda's hardly the Mercedes Benz and Cadillac you seem to be expecting), insurance bills, and so on and so forth. Yeah they can put away some money for savings but you're cracked out if you think they could afford college tuition for one kid, let alone two.
Did you go to a private school? If you pay 50k a year, you still have 200k a year to live on, which is still a hell of a lot more than most families have. Like, four times as much.
Yes, private school indeed. I suppose I could gone to county college if any of them offered a degree in engineering, but id be making half as much as I am now (if I could find a job at all).
You also seem to be missing the fact that the 250k is before taxes, so really it works out more like 160k per year, and thats not all disposable, in fact very little of it is. How old are you and what is your household income if I may ask?
chaos0xomega wrote: I wouldnt consider it super expensive, this is average for New Jersey (which is super expensive compared to most simply due to our ridiculously high property taxes), regardless though you are out of touch and embarrassing yourself, as you seem to not have any concept of money beyond your own little slice of America, either that or the entire East Coast seems to be rolling in money and fiscally irresponsible people.
Howard, my condolences, but I find that the comparison is difficult to make across national boundaries. My family in the Dominican Republic makes about as much as my parents and have a much much higher standard of living more comparable to that of a millionaire.
My parents combined earn 100k a year and that was just recently, after years of promotions. They still managed to buy a house with 10 acres and a lake, and raise a family of four. They live in Illinois about 50 mins from St. Louis. But it just sounds like your family is doing it wrong.
10 acres and a lake? Well gak we have a half acre and a lake view (in winter, if you crane your neck to see over the house behind mine) XD
No, my parents are definitely two of the most fiscally responsible people I've met, annoyingly so as other people I know whose families make less "enjoy life" a lot more, the difference is that we live within our means and only buy/do things we can safely afford and others dont.
chaos0xomega wrote: I wouldnt consider it super expensive, this is average for New Jersey (which is super expensive compared to most simply due to our ridiculously high property taxes), regardless though you are out of touch and embarrassing yourself, as you seem to not have any concept of money beyond your own little slice of America, either that or the entire East Coast seems to be rolling in money and fiscally irresponsible people.
Howard, my condolences, but I find that the comparison is difficult to make across national boundaries. My family in the Dominican Republic makes about as much as my parents and have a much much higher standard of living more comparable to that of a millionaire.
My parents combined earn 100k a year and that was just recently, after years of promotions. They still managed to buy a house with 10 acres and a lake, and raise a family of four. They live in Illinois about 50 mins from St. Louis. But it just sounds like your family is doing it wrong.
Now... that sounds about right in the Mid-West. 100k in New Jersey? definately ain't mid-class.
EDIT: what IS the definition of Middle class though? It seems we're arguing over different meanings here...
Being "middle class" has absolutely nothing to do with your income. As long as you are spending more than you are making, you are not middle class and not rich.
If you are making $250,000 a year then you are well off. Just because you managed to rake up a mountain of debt doesn't change that fact.
chaos0xomega wrote: Yes, private school indeed. I suppose I could gone to county college if any of them offered a degree in engineering, but id be making half as much as I am now (if I could find a job at all).
You also seem to be missing the fact that the 250k is before taxes, so really it works out more like 160k per year, and thats not all disposable, in fact very little of it is. How old are you and what is your household income if I may ask?
I'm in my mid-twenties, I'm a graduate student. My household income is around 10k a year.
10k a year? Is that for you or your parents?? Its easy to see why you would think 250k is rolling in money when you have none, I thought 40k per year would be like a bottomless money pit when I was a student, but my disposable income is only a fraction of that really.
d-usa, so if you're spending more than you're making you're lower class? So the guy making 1 mil a year that spends 1.5 is lower class? What about the people that aren't spending more than they are making? Are they upper class? What is middle class then?
I have no doubt that 250k per year is well off, but its hard to make it to that point without accruing debt, college tuition for both my parents plus law school for my dad, and we've only reached this point sometime in the couple years when my mom was able to start working again and after my dads most recent promotion/bonus. Are you saying that people shouldnt strive for more? They deserved to be taxed higher because they went to college and accrued debt to make it to the standard of living that every american has been raised to strive for since birth ? Dangerous proposition, almost akin to saying people shouldnt go to college at all unless they can afford it.
Well, you said that $250,000 isn't well-off because of student loans, paying for food, and putting kids through college. So it seems like spending is the determining factor of being "well off".
If $250,000 puts you "in the solid middle of middle class" I guess middle class starts with everybody that makes more than 97% of the country. Making more than 98% of the country makes you "solid middle class", making more than 99% of the country makes you upper middle class and/or rich.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Dangerous proposition, almost akin to saying people shouldnt go to college at all unless they can afford it.
Well, we are a country that still believes that the only people that should get an education are those than can afford it and the only people that should be healthy are those that can afford it.
That's what happens when the country embraces capitalism at all cost, survival of the fittest, and demonizes socialism.
chaos0xomega wrote: 10k a year? Is that for you or your parents?? Its easy to see why you would think 250k is rolling in money when you have none, I thought 40k per year would be like a bottomless money pit when I was a student, but my disposable income is only a fraction of that really.
That's my household income. My parent's income does not have any direct bearing on my situation, they do not pay my bills and I have my own living space (with roommates). I pay my own rent, food, utilities, school expenses, health insurance, etc. I'm also not just a student, I work and have worked the majority of the time since I was a sophomore in high school.
I think 250k is a lot of money because 250k is a lot of money. I'm not saying it's super rich, but it is a lot of money and it is much higher than the average household.
I didnt say solid middle of middle class, only that it was solidly middle class, as in there should be no question as to what class its in. To me middle is 100k to round about 350k. Less is lower more is upper.
Nor did I say that we weren't well off only that we're not rich, etc.
Spending isnt the determinant, nor is income, its standard of living (when living within your means). We have an average house, 2 cars (plus my own junker that I'm paying for myself), a cat and a dog. Both parents work full time, if we can hack it we go on vacation once a year, usually a road trip to another east coast state, generally north carolina or florida. Thats what we manage at 250k per year, and thats the "average" standard that the media portrays middle class life to be, and what the concept of the American Dream i and has been. Ergo, middle class.
How much are your monthly household expenses (only asking since you are bringing up "we make $250,000 and it's not that well off")? How much do you guys pay in student loan payments, car payments, mortgage, credit cards, utilities, etc...
chaos0xomega wrote: 10k a year? Is that for you or your parents?? Its easy to see why you would think 250k is rolling in money when you have none, I thought 40k per year would be like a bottomless money pit when I was a student, but my disposable income is only a fraction of that really.
That's my household income. My parent's income does not have any direct bearing on my situation, they do not pay my bills and I have my own living space (with roommates). I pay my own rent, food, utilities, school expenses, health insurance, etc. I'm also not just a student, I work and have worked the majority of the time since I was a sophomore in high school.
I think 250k is a lot of money because 250k is a lot of money. I'm not saying it's super rich, but it is a lot of money and it is much higher than the average household.
It is a lot of money when you have nine and are single and have a minimum of your own expenses. I used to think 15k was a lot, it isnt. You'll find that the saying "you have to spend money to make money" is very true, and the amount you spend is generally proportional to what you make.
D, i cant give an exact number since it is my parents, but I figure we manage about 40k disposable income.
In my own case I bring 2400 in each month after taxes of which 400-600 is disposable.
chaos0xomega wrote: 10k a year? Is that for you or your parents?? Its easy to see why you would think 250k is rolling in money when you have none, I thought 40k per year would be like a bottomless money pit when I was a student, but my disposable income is only a fraction of that really.
That's my household income. My parent's income does not have any direct bearing on my situation, they do not pay my bills and I have my own living space (with roommates). I pay my own rent, food, utilities, school expenses, health insurance, etc. I'm also not just a student, I work and have worked the majority of the time since I was a sophomore in high school.
I think 250k is a lot of money because 250k is a lot of money. I'm not saying it's super rich, but it is a lot of money and it is much higher than the average household.
It is a lot of money when you have nine and are single and have a minimum of your own expenses. I used to think 15k was a lot, it isnt. You'll find that the saying "you have to spend money to make money" is very true, and the amount you spend is generally proportional to what you make.
D, i cant give an exact number since it is my parents, but I figure we manage about 40k disposable income.
In my own case I bring 2400 in each month after taxes of which 400-600 is disposable.
"You gotta spend money to make money" is the reason we are in a credit crisis and are in the economic trouble we are in. Are you living at home? What bills are you paying that you are making $2400 minus taxes that you have $400-600 disposable income. Are you paying for school?
chaos0xomega wrote: 10k a year? Is that for you or your parents?? Its easy to see why you would think 250k is rolling in money when you have none, I thought 40k per year would be like a bottomless money pit when I was a student, but my disposable income is only a fraction of that really.
That's my household income. My parent's income does not have any direct bearing on my situation, they do not pay my bills and I have my own living space (with roommates). I pay my own rent, food, utilities, school expenses, health insurance, etc. I'm also not just a student, I work and have worked the majority of the time since I was a sophomore in high school.
I think 250k is a lot of money because 250k is a lot of money. I'm not saying it's super rich, but it is a lot of money and it is much higher than the average household.
It is a lot of money when you have nine and are single and have a minimum of your own expenses. I used to think 15k was a lot, it isnt. You'll find that the saying "you have to spend money to make money" is very true, and the amount you spend is generally proportional to what you make.
I don't think 15k is a lot. I think 250k is a lot. My family brought in less than 30k a year when I was growing up. That wasn't a lot for a family with four kids, but somehow we didn't starve and weren't homeless. I can't even imagine what life would have been like if my family's household income was 250k a year.
I am single and have little money, that's true, but it sounds like you and I have some pretty similar sorts of expenses. Rent, utilities, food, student loans, insurance, school expenses, I have all those things. It sounds like we're both able to get by somehow, yet you make four times my yearly income. Where do you think the difference lies?
1000 dollars a month for student loans, about 600 to commute (gas, commuter bus, and subway), 150/month for car and auto insurance, 50 for my phone/data plan and and that pretty much covers my major expenditures, so I should be looking at another 600 dollars in my pocket but fate screws me at every turn (for example, 800 dollar repair bill for my car, problem was an acorn wedged near the timing belt, if it had been noticed sooner than the bill would have been a lot less or even nonexistant). My parents are kind enough to supply me with room, board, and dinner (living at home), I keep my weekly lunch bill at 30 dollars or less, no breakfast.
d-usa wrote: How in the heck do you have $1000 for student loans? What is your total balance there and what kind of degree did you get?
Total debt is 60k, studied Industrial Engineering (originally aerospace but it wasnt to my liking), owe 30k to the govt,and the other 30 to private lenders. My monthly bill is 300 to federal loan (post consolidation, cannot lower rate), 350 to Sallie Mae (wont lower rate), and another 350 split across 3 loans from chase and citi.
Plus side is that Sallie mae will be paid off in another 4.5 years.
Did spending those $60,000 (actually at the end it will most likely be $100,000) make you more than $1000 a month? Would you have been able to find a job making more than $1400 if you didn't borrow that money? Did you have to borrow that money or would you have been unable to get that degree without it (not would it have been harder, but would it have been impossible). Sounds like private school tuition levels there, bachelors I take it?
Did spending those $60,000 (actually at the end it will most likely be $100,000) make you more than $1000 a month? Would you have been able to find a job making more than $1400 if you didn't borrow that money? Did you have to borrow that money or would you have been unable to get that degree without it (not would it have been harder, but would it have been impossible). Sounds like private school tuition levels there, bachelors I take it?
I think it's a fair question. Would going to a state-funded public school for the same degree been worse in the long run? Do you really think you couldn't have gotten the same engineering job with the same degree but from a public school?
And I honestly don't mean it in a mean way. I was in a similar situation and I quit at $25,000 in student loans. I still don't have a higher degree, but I realized that when it was all done I would be spending $500 a month more in student loans for a degree that would only result in $500 more in pay a month. So I was going into huge levels of debt for no benefit at all, except I would be more screwed if I was out of a job. So I figured I would rather "pay the extra student loan payment to myself" and safe up the money to go to school. Of course I was also going to private online schools because it is easier, but thankfully I got smart.
The job I have now is a temporary solution (I hope). My alma mater says my starting should be about 60k, and thats what I could get if any of the companies that I wanted to work at were at all hiring, so im inclined to say yes,aa state school would have been cheaper and netted me the same result as my present circumstances (though I did get my present job because of my school so even that is questionable), but I picked RPI for its Air Force ROTC unit more than anything else (long story).
Also I was offered one hell of a scholarship to go there, which while it looked great on paper didnt live up to it in reality.
Imagine a beach, with two hot dog stands on far ends from the beach--away from each other;
X____________________________X
Since the far left hot dog stand doesn't concern itself with losing customers to its left (As it will always be closer to those customers than the far right)--the sensible approach would be to migrate the hot dog stand closer to the right hot dog stand and attempt to grab customers in the middle. The far right stand will come to understand the same concept and start migrating as well.
Eventually, you end up with two central hot dog stands a few feet apart;
___________________X___X_________________________
If a party becomes so moderate that its difficult to discern it from the opposing party, it will 'go back to its roots' and attempt to energize all of the customers/voters to the far left/right of their particular stand. Or those customers/voters will self mobilize and begin dictating where their particular hot dog stand should be (Or how it should operate). I'm not a poli-sci major--but this is how I broadly view American politics and I believe this waxing/waning is inherent to a two party system. I think we are still suffering the after effects of the Tea Party waxing in this particular scenario.
Of course, the modern American political scale looks something like this....
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left
Tea Party.........R____________D_______________________
The miracle is that the Republicans retain any relavance at all, considering how extremist they've become the past twenty years. Back in the Eighties, the political scale looked like this:
....................Far right....................center...................far left
....................._____________R______D_________________
Yep, the 80's Republicans have FAR more in common with modern Democrats than they do with modern Republicans.
I refuse to believe that the likes of Ried, Pelosi et. al and other (D) are "Center".
It's more like:
Political scale: Far right...................center....................far left
.....................Tea Party.........R____________D___Durbin/Boxer/Reid/Pelosi____
....................................................................Obama
edited to fix Obama
That's because you have the typical America skewed vision of the political scale.
The far left is a true communism. The strong left is full-bore socialism. Obama has never tried to nationalize ALL industry, I and find it highly unlikely he ever will.
The center is... well, your typical European model. The excesses of full-bore capitolism are moderated by law and EFFECTIVE government action. Socialist institutions are used in places where capitolist institutions deliver poor service for extravagant cost... like heath care and infrastructure. England, France, Germany, and Canada all tend along these lines.
The moderate right is like we were in the 1950s-1980s. The strong right is like we are now.
The far right is best represented by countries like Zaire, Mexico, and other undeveloped nations. The rich have unlimited (or only slightly limited) political, social, and economic power, and the masses are there strictly to be exploited.
d-usa wrote: And I honestly don't mean it in a mean way. I was in a similar situation and I quit at $25,000 in student loans. I still don't have a higher degree, but I realized that when it was all done I would be spending $500 a month more in student loans for a degree that would only result in $500 more in pay a month. So I was going into huge levels of debt for no benefit at all, except I would be more screwed if I was out of a job. So I figured I would rather "pay the extra student loan payment to myself" and safe up the money to go to school. Of course I was also going to private online schools because it is easier, but thankfully I got smart.
Spending money to make money does not work.
Hey D... I can easily see having a 600 month school loan for 4 yr degree. When I was married, my ex and I refinanced all of our loans and now the montly pmt would be roughly 1,000.
This was at a state school w/o any scholarships/grants and my parents made too much money, but not enough to significantly help me out.
I think there's some serious over-generalizations going on here.
To Thread... Obama, and the (D) were re-elected. Let 'em having the higher tax rate. In 4 yrs, if you don't like where it's going, elect the other party.
That's because you have the typical America skewed vision of the political scale.
The far left is a true communism. The strong left is full-bore socialism. Obama has never tried to nationalize ALL industry, I and find it highly unlikely he ever will.
The center is... well, your typical European model. The excesses of full-bore capitolism are moderated by law and EFFECTIVE government action. Socialist institutions are used in places where capitolist institutions deliver poor service for extravagant cost... like heath care and infrastructure. England, France, Germany, and Canada all tend along these lines.
The moderate right is like we were in the 1950s-1980s. The strong right is like we are now.
The far right is best represented by countries like Zaire, Mexico, and other undeveloped nations. The rich have unlimited (or only slightly limited) political, social, and economic power, and the masses are there strictly to be exploited.
d-usa wrote: Would any of the companies that you wanted to work for have hired you (if they were hiring) even if you have the same degree from a public school?
They might have, hard to say. Given the present economic situation/job market i'm inclined to say no, I would not be as competitive a candidate as I am had I gone to a state school ( I had a Lockheed Martin exec tell me and a friend that a 2.5 from my alma mater was as good as a 4.0 at most other schools).
And once you are past your first job, hardly anyone looks at your school and grades anymore.
So lets take a state school, if the industries were hiring, how much do you think you would be making a year. If $60,000 a year is the high end of the spectrum fresh out of school working for Lockheed Martin (as an example), how much would you be locking at coming fresh out of a public school with the same degree that you have now?
Total debt is 60k, studied Industrial Engineering (originally aerospace but it wasnt to my liking), owe 30k to the govt,and the other 30 to private lenders. My monthly bill is 300 to federal loan (post consolidation, cannot lower rate), 350 to Sallie Mae (wont lower rate), and another 350 split across 3 loans from chase and citi.
When did you start undergrad? I only ask because I finished with a total of 110k in debt, and my minimum payments totaled ~1200 USD on a 10 year repayment plan, but I graduated just before the GFC.
One thing you might consider is renegotiating your repayment schedule, you'll pay more in the long run, but your overall quality of life will likely increase due to a greater amount of disposable income. And, perhaps more importantly, it will let you save some money for relocation should a better job come up elsewhere.
They might have, hard to say. Given the present economic situation/job market i'm inclined to say no, I would not be as competitive a candidate as I am had I gone to a state school ( I had a Lockheed Martin exec tell me and a friend that a 2.5 from my alma mater was as good as a 4.0 at most other schools).
That's true, but there are ways around that, the most popular one being internships. Hell, even paying through the nose as I did, my degree would be so much paper absent the internships I took on.
It can work, but you have to be very careful in how you approach the idea. Regarding spending money on college tuition, if you're going to shell out the extra cash for a private education you absolutely have to take advantage of all the perks of doing so. This means networking, using alumni connections to land prestigious internships, and so on.
Generally speaking, if you just want to go to school and get a job without putting in the extra effort, public school is the best option. Of course, some public schools cost nearly as much as many private schools, so even that bears consideration. I actually ended up paying less by attending a private school than I would have at University of Illinois.
d-usa wrote: And once you are past your first job, hardly anyone looks at your school and grades anymore.
So lets take a state school, if the industries were hiring, how much do you think you would be making a year. If $60,000 a year is the high end of the spectrum fresh out of school working for Lockheed Martin (as an example), how much would you be locking at coming fresh out of a public school with the same degree that you have now?
Thats dependent on which division of the company, if i was working on a gov't contract as i understand it it would be thr same as they would be using general pay scale. If I was working at one of the finance firms I applied to though (they love industrial engineers) it might be about 10k less. As for second job, I have been lead to believe thatthe pay at your first job will generally determine the pay forthe rest of your career but meh.
Dogma, im locked in as it is w my federal and sallie mae loans, and the rest are already 20 year terms so not sure how wise it would be. I also nvr had the opportunity to intern as I was a cadet until my senior year (again long story).
You went to a private school, right dogma? Do you think the extra cost was worth it? Would going to a state school with similar internships have given you similar job opportunities?
d-usa wrote: And once you are past your first job, hardly anyone looks at your school and grades anymore.
So lets take a state school, if the industries were hiring, how much do you think you would be making a year. If $60,000 a year is the high end of the spectrum fresh out of school working for Lockheed Martin (as an example), how much would you be locking at coming fresh out of a public school with the same degree that you have now?
Thats dependent on which division of the company, if i was working on a gov't contract as i understand it it would be thr same as they would be using general pay scale. If I was working at one of the finance firms I applied to though (they love industrial engineers) it might be about 10k less.
And your student loan payments are $12,000 a year. So even if you would have gotten your dream job you would have had $2000 less a year in disposable income than you would have with a lower paying school after getting a degree from a public school without the mountain of student loans.
Without the student loans, and with a degree from a public school, you would have had a lower paying job and you would have had $2000 more a year to spend.
Borrowing $60,000 to make more money, only to end up paying $1000 a month (for how many years?) and to end up making $175 less a month even though you got a higher paying job is not a good idea. Our grandparents might have been right with the statement "you gotta spend money to make money", but they would have never "borrowed money to make money".
As for second job, I have been lead to believe thatthe pay at your first job will generally determine the pay forthe rest of your career but meh.
Hordini wrote: You went to a private school, right dogma? Do you think the extra cost was worth it? Would going to a state school with similar internships have given you similar job opportunities?
I think in my case, being as I studied two social sciences and philosophy, yes the extra cost was worth it. Going to a school with a large number of alumni working in government and politics meant that I not only had a really solid network to build on, but I also got to meet a number of significant political officials (Kofi Annan, Richard Holbrooke, and a couple others) in a context that actually involved conversation, rather than just shaking hands. Additionally, I was able to take on multiple majors, which is often not possible at public schools as individual departments grant degrees independently. As an example, in order the equivalent of my 4 year degree at Macalester (political science, philosophy, and economics) would have taken me 5-6 years to complete at University of Illinois, and cost 40-50% more.
So, between the connections, and the greater diversity in educational background, I think spending more money definitely opened up a larger number of quality job opportunities. That being said, my first job out of college was as a personal trainer, and it wasn't until I moved on to my doctorate that I really started to see companies look my way. Of course, I also graduated right as the GFC hit, so finding work was hard all around. However, I can confidently say that, with GPA (2.9 in undergrad) the only reason I was considered as a doctoral candidate was a combination of an excellent GRE score, and the reputation of my alma mater.
All that said, I think that if you're intention is to enter a technical field, public school is the way forward unless you can gain admission to a top-tier research university, or for whatever reason private school is more cost effective. The other thing to consider the availability of academic programs, as cheaper state schools often lack a full assortment of departments.
Did spending those $60,000 (actually at the end it will most likely be $100,000) make you more than $1000 a month? Would you have been able to find a job making more than $1400 if you didn't borrow that money? Did you have to borrow that money or would you have been unable to get that degree without it (not would it have been harder, but would it have been impossible). Sounds like private school tuition levels there, bachelors I take it?
I think it's a fair question. Would going to a state-funded public school for the same degree been worse in the long run? Do you really think you couldn't have gotten the same engineering job with the same degree but from a public school?
You will find that the school you go to to get a degree makes a huge difference.
An Electrical Engineer who went to some no-name community college for his degree will be much less employable than an Electrical Engineer who went to a well known and expensive university that has a internationally known EE program. Same degree, different schools, the difference in their employability will reflect that.
chaos0xomega wrote: ... living in just such a household I can tell you we are anything but "upper class"....
Count your blessings. Your household earns almost six times as much as the national average (which is $42,000), and is above the 98th percentile in income. Whether you like it or not, whether you feel like it or not, you are solidly in the upper class.
Did spending those $60,000 (actually at the end it will most likely be $100,000) make you more than $1000 a month? Would you have been able to find a job making more than $1400 if you didn't borrow that money? Did you have to borrow that money or would you have been unable to get that degree without it (not would it have been harder, but would it have been impossible). Sounds like private school tuition levels there, bachelors I take it?
I think it's a fair question. Would going to a state-funded public school for the same degree been worse in the long run? Do you really think you couldn't have gotten the same engineering job with the same degree but from a public school?
You will find that the school you go to to get a degree makes a huge difference.
An Electrical Engineer who went to some no-name community college for his degree will be much less employable than an Electrical Engineer who went to a well known and expensive university that has a internationally known EE program. Same degree, different schools, the difference in their employability will reflect that.
But it also ignores multiple variables:
1) Is the added cost going to make a difference in pay? We saw that potentially making $10,000 a year more doesn't really make a difference if you are paying $12,000 a year more in student loans.
1.5) If you can go part time, or delay your degree by a few years in order to work and slave away at a lower paying job and save the money to go to school without student loan debts then you can eliminate that factor, and it should be the way to do it. I'll admit that I fell into the "let's do it fast and easy and just borrow" trap as well.
2) Are we assuming that only private big schools have the awesome programs? In Oklahoma we have lots of folks who want to go to the University of Oklahoma for a pharmacy degree, because OU is a big school and is a name brand. But actual pharmacists will tell you that if you are going to pharmacy school in Oklahoma you should go to Southwestern Oklahoma State University. SWOSU is a small regional college that costs less than half of OU but has a pharmacy program that is more known and more respected than the "big school".
I would say it means having no major money worries and job security. A person making 250k can still struggle to make ends meet and have an iffy job situation. Ergo they cannot be Upper Class, only Upper Middle Class.
Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.
Your ability to manage money doesn't change your financial bracket. No one ever argued that The Donald wasn't filthy rich, even when he had filed for bankruptcy.
I would say it means having no major money worries and job security. A person making 250k can still struggle to make ends meet and have an iffy job situation. Ergo they cannot be Upper Class, only Upper Middle Class.
Just because you think that having a 250k income means you shouldn't have any money worries unless you are a complete idiot at managing money doesn't mean its the case. its not the case.
Your ability to manage money doesn't change your financial bracket. No one ever argued that The Donald wasn't filthy rich, even when he had filed for bankruptcy.
Yeah, of course it only works up to a point.
But still the point stands. You can have an income of 250k, manage your finances well, and most certaintly not be upper class.
If I, as a single man, was making 250k I might consider myself upper class. But if I had a wife and 2 kids, house payments, paying off my college loans and saving for my Kids to go to College, I would definitly NOT be Upper Class. And then we must consider where I am living and working.
If you are making $250,000 a year, then you are making more a month than 18.63% of the population make in year. In two months you are making more than 43.08% of the population makes in a year. And in 3 months you are making more than 61.48% of the population make in a year.
You would be making over $20,000 a month. What kind of house payment, student loans, and car payments are you making that you don't consider that upper class?
Edit:
A sensible house payment is 25% of your monthly take home pay. Let's just assume you are taking home $12,500 (after taxes, health insurance insurance, cafeteria plan). So a "sensible" mortgage would be $3000 a month. So you are looking at a $550,000 thousand dollar home. There are very few places where that would not get you a home for a family of 4. That leaves you $9,500. Take two car payments off that (even though you should be able to buy used cars with cash at that point in your life) and you would have $8,700. Let's say you have twice the student loans that chaos has, so another $2000 down the drain. That leaves you with $6,700. Stick $500 a month for each kid into a college fund (that would give them $100,000 before interest to pay for college) and you have $5,700. $250 a week for groceries, that leaves you $4,700.
So you have $4,700 to pay your insurance, utilities, clothing, and then still have disposable income.
Living in a half million dollar home, with two car payments, paying off $120,000 in student loans and saving $1000 a month for your kids to go to college, and you still have more disposable income in a month than what many people bring home. But you want to insist that you wouldn't be upper class?
In my case our house is valued at 270k so, not sure where the idea of 500k came from. Youre also assuming that my parents have been making this much since day 1 ("save 500 a month per kid for 18 years") which is hardly, if ever, the case. I had no idea that im from the top 2% but, at the same time that statistic is meaningless, and assuming that the top 2% lives to the same standard as the top 1%, etc. is a fallacy. I assure you that the lifestyle of the average $250k/year household, at least in the metropolitan northeast is nit significantly different from those making half as much.
So just because someone has it fairly well off makes them Upper Class, which means they should get stuck into a higher Tax bracket because the Rich are Evil and need to Share with everyone else. There is a difference between comfortably well off, and being Mr Money Bags who doesn't have a care in the world.
Even though it will not generate more money because only 1$ of their income will get taxed at the 250k bracket. the rest is in the lower brackets.
The only real way to generate tax income is to make the lower brackets pay more. a 1% increase on everyone will bring in loads more money than a 50% increase on the Upper Class(however that is defined)
If we put all the money the Upper class has and all the money the middle and lower classes have into seperate piles, the Upper Class's pile would be pathetically tiny compared to the other pile. its only when you compare how much money everyone has per person that the Rich have more money.
chaos0xomega wrote: In my case our house is valued at 270k so, not sure where the idea of 500k came from.
It came from a "worst case scenario" that still includes a payment that is 25% of pay, which is what most people recommend.
Youre also assuming that my parents have been making this much since day 1 ("save 500 a month per kid for 18 years") which is hardly, if ever, the case.
If they started making that when kids were halfway through adult hood they would still end up with $50,000 a child in college funds. Or they could double the amount of money they put away each month ($1000 per kid) and still end up with $3,700 a month in disposable income.
I had no idea that im from the top 2% but, at the same time that statistic is meaningless, and assuming that the top 2% lives to the same standard as the top 1%, etc. is a fallacy.
And assuming that the top 2% are living a life style that is not that much more comfortable than the lower 98% is a fallacy as well.
I assure you that the lifestyle of the average $250k/year household, at least in the metropolitan northeast is nit significantly different from those making half as much.
So a person living in the metropolitan northeast making $250,000 a month has a similar lifestyle than a person making $125,000 a year who also lives in the metropolitan northeast?
The main reason people making $250,000 or more have to worry about money is that they put themselves into that position. I will guarantee that the wast majority of payments goes towards things that they borrowed their way into.
chaos0xomega wrote: You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.
You try it on $43,000 and tell me how much better it went.
Lower class is the bottom third. Upper class is the upper third. Middle class is the middle third - THAT"S WHY IT"S CALLED THE MIDDLE CLASS.
The lower class is from $0 to $32K. The middle class is from $32K to $65K. Everything more than that is upper class. Sorry to disappoint you.
Contrary to popular, no... contrary to YOUR belief, class is determined by lifestyle more than income. Generally speaking, income and lifestyle go hand in hand, a 250k household income is associated with a lifestyle, at least around here, is really really middle class.
Also, there is no magic percentage that defines the divide by class. Generally speaking, it is seen as ideal for 50% of a nations population to fall into the middle class with 25% at each end, as you want the middle class to represent the majority of the nation. As I recall the middle class population of this nation is about 45% and dropping.
And assuming that the top 2% are living a life style that is not that much more comfortable than the lower 98% is a fallacy as well.
Were not assuming that, were assuming that the lifestyle of someone making 250k is the same as the middle 50% which it is. To further illustrate my point, when my parents bought this place, our household income was 100-110k per year. The house really hasnt changed in the past 10 years or so, nor has our lifestyle. Granted money isnt as tight now, and its less of a worry, but we're not "living the life" either.
chaos0xomega wrote: To me middle class doesnt begin until 100k. Im currently making 40k per year as a recent college grad, and im just making ends meet with all kf my pwrsonal bills despite living with my parents. Doing the math, I wouldnt be able to get my own place (w a roommate) until 65k, my own place solo until 80k. Figure an extra 20 for buffer and thats middle for a SINGLE person, and id say lower for a family of four.
So... since only 16% of the population makes $100K or more, that means the other 84% of the people are lower class?
Methinks you misunderstand the term 'middle'. It's based upon averages, not needs. And your numbers are further proof of how badly the purchasing power of the middle class has been eroded the past three decades.
Grey Templar wrote: So just because someone has it fairly well off makes them Upper Class, which means they should get stuck into a higher Tax bracket because the Rich are Evil and need to Share with everyone else. There is a difference between comfortably well off, and being Mr Money Bags who doesn't have a care in the world.
Nobody said the rich are evil, and sharing is caring.
Even though it will not generate more money because only 1$ of their income will get taxed at the 250k bracket. the rest is in the lower brackets.
And you would be surprised how far up that money goes. The top 1% own almost 40% of the wealth.
The only real way to generate tax income is to make the lower brackets pay more.
Except its economic suicide. Because if you have $500 disposable income a month, and you bring home $30 more you will actually spend it. If you have $5000 disposable income and you bring home $300 more then you are most likely not going to spend that. (Using 30,000 vs 300,000 at 1% increase)
a 1% increase on everyone will bring in loads more money than a 50% increase on the Upper Class(however that is defined)
And nobody has suggested raising the tax bracket by 50%.
If we put all the money the Upper class has and all the money the middle and lower classes have into seperate piles, the Upper Class's pile would be pathetically tiny compared to the other pile. its only when you compare how much money everyone has per person that the Rich have more money.
chaos0xomega wrote: To me middle class doesnt begin until 100k. Im currently making 40k per year as a recent college grad, and im just making ends meet with all kf my pwrsonal bills despite living with my parents. Doing the math, I wouldnt be able to get my own place (w a roommate) until 65k, my own place solo until 80k. Figure an extra 20 for buffer and thats middle for a SINGLE person, and id say lower for a family of four.
So... since only 16% of the population makes $100K or more, that means the other 84% of the people are lower class?
Methinks you misunderstand the term 'middle'. It's based upon averages, not needs. And your numbers are further proof of how badly the purchasing power of the middle class has been eroded the past three decades.
I have a tough time imagining a family w 100k income living a middle class lifestyle in the northeast (although tue main difference would be apartment style living vs.detached house)
chaos0xomega wrote: You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.
You try it on $43,000 and tell me how much better it went.
Lower class is the bottom third. Upper class is the upper third. Middle class is the middle third - THAT"S WHY IT"S CALLED THE MIDDLE CLASS.
The lower class is from $0 to $32K. The middle class is from $32K to $65K. Everything more than that is upper class. Sorry to disappoint you.
Contrary to popular, no... contrary to YOUR belief, class is determined by lifestyle more than income. Generally speaking, income and lifestyle go hand in hand, a 250k household income is associated with a lifestyle, at least around here, is really really middle class.
The "lifestyle" (aka: keeping up with the Jones') results into borrowing your way into being poor. That is how we end up with what we call people being "house poor" around here. They have the fancy house and cars and they are living the lifestyle, they can easily bring home $250,000 a year. But they are living paycheck to paycheck because they don't manage their money and spend more than they make. That doesn't make them middle class. It makes them dumb.
Also, there is no magic percentage that defines the divide by class. Generally speaking, it is seen as ideal for 50% of a nations population to fall into the middle class with 25% at each end, as you want the middle class to represent the majority of the nation. As I recall the middle class population of this nation is about 45% and dropping.
So using your definition, middle class begins at $25,000 and ends at $82,499. Because that is 25% through 75%.
d-usa wrote:
And assuming that the top 2% are living a life style that is not that much more comfortable than the lower 98% is a fallacy as well.
Were not assuming that, were assuming that the lifestyle of someone making 250k is the same as the middle 50% which it is.
So you are saying that a person making $250,000 is living the same lifestyle as someone making $47,500? Because that is what people smack dab in the middle are making.
Whoever said we're keeping up with the joneses? Lol thats the kind of assumption that makes me think you have no clue what youre talking about. We drive a 2009.Honda Civic and an 07 CRV, cheap, affordable, and hardly prestige automobiles. Our furniture has (with the exception of new couches we purchased at an 80% off closeout a couple months back) been here since we've moved in 10+ years ago. Only upgrades done to the house were to replace half the windows with newer more energy efficient ones, and to replace the oil tank (which we had to or face stiff legal fines). The air conditioning unit hasnt worked in 3 years and the water heater and associated tank is good enough for a 2 minute shower in the mornings.The last family vacation was to visit family friends outside of Raleigh, we drove there.
Indeed, we are most certainly keeping up with the joneses!
Have you ever considered, that my families lifestyle is the same as someone making say 60-80k is because those people ar racking up the debtand we aren't? I know more than a few people at the lower end, my best friends family pulls in about 30k, and wouldnt you know it they just took 2 weeks in ecuador? I've never been to another continent (carribean only), let alone been away for more than 7 days. We're living within our means and always have. I dont think we should pay more taxes because were responsible with our money and others arent.
chaos0xomega wrote: I didnt say solid middle of middle class, only that it was solidly middle class, as in there should be no question as to what class its in. To me middle is 100k to round about 350k. Less is lower more is upper.
So you define middle class as being between the 86th and 97th percentile. Interesting.
Thats what we manage at 250k per year, and thats the "average" standard that the media portrays middle class life to be, and what the concept of the American Dream i and has been. Ergo, middle class.
Did it ever occur to you that the media depiction of middle class life might be... a wee bit optimistic?
chaos0xomega wrote: I didnt say solid middle of middle class, only that it was solidly middle class, as in there should be no question as to what class its in. To me middle is 100k to round about 350k. Less is lower more is upper.
So you define middle class as being between the 86th and 97th percentile. Interesting.
Thats what we manage at 250k per year, and thats the "average" standard that the media portrays middle class life to be, and what the concept of the American Dream i and has been. Ergo, middle class.
Did it ever occur to you that the media depiction of middle class life might be... a wee bit optimistic?
In the northeast yes, hard to say elsewhere (keeping in mind the population in the northeast is heavily skewed towards the upper end). As for optimistic, I dont think so. A family of four with an average sized house/apartment and 1-2 cars seems like somethinf most people can achieve (aforementioned best friend family that went to ecuador certainly manages that, they have nicer/newer cars than we do at any rate). Are they living within their means though? Doubt it.
chaos0xomega wrote: Whoever said we're keeping up with the joneses? Lol thats the kind of assumption that makes me think you have no clue what youre talking about. We drive a 2009.Honda Civic and an 07 CRV, cheap, affordable, and hardly prestige automobiles. Our furniture has (with the exception of new couches we purchased at an 80% off closeout a couple months back) been here since we've moved in 10+ years ago. Only upgrades done to the house were to replace half the windows with newer more energy efficient ones, and to replace the oil tank (which we had to or face stiff legal fines). The air conditioning unit hasnt worked in 3 years and the water heater and associated tank is good enough for a 2 minute shower in the mornings.The last family vacation was to visit family friends outside of Raleigh, we drove there.
Indeed, we are most certainly keeping up with the joneses!
Have you ever considered, that my families lifestyle is the same as someone making say 60-80k is because those people ar racking up the debtand we aren't? I know more than a few people at the lower end, my best friends family pulls in about 30k, and wouldnt you know it they just took 2 weeks in ecuador? I've never been to another continent (carribean only), let alone been away for more than 7 days. We're living within our means and always have. I dont think we should pay more taxes because were responsible with our money and others arent.
I am talking about general things here. Feel free to give us a general monthly budget for you family if you want to, since you are using your situation as an example of making $250,000 a year and just living comfortable. Maybe if we see how your family spends money we can get a better idea what your definition of "middle class" and "living comfortably and not well off" is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: The middle class is a massive group and has a large difference between its top and bottom ends.
300k would be around the upper end and 40-50k would be the lower end, outside variables not withstanding.
is there a difference between upper middle and bottom middle, absolutly. They are still the same class.
So if you make more than 98.5% of the population, you are still middle class?
chaos0xomega wrote: I had no idea that im from the top 2% but, at the same time that statistic is meaningless,
Thinking statistics are meaninless may be part of your financial problem.
and assuming that the top 2% lives to the same standard as the top 1%, etc. is a fallacy. I assure you that the lifestyle of the average $250k/year household, at least in the metropolitan northeast is nit significantly different from those making half as much.
I'll give you that, the 98th percent does not live anywhere near as well as the 99th percent, and they don't even come close to the resources of the 99.5th percent. And you start getting truly astronmical
The 98th percentile makes $360,435. The 99th percentile jumps up to $506,553. A family at the 99.5th percentile makes $815,868; its neighbor at the 99.9th percentile makes more than double that, at $2,075,574 a year.
The trick is, NONE OF THESE ARE AVERAGE. The average is $43,000. These people make 8x, 12x, 20x, and 40x as much money as the average. That makes them upper class.
Upper class does not necessarily mean 'filthy rich', after all. That's why we use two different terms for them.
chaos0xomega wrote: Whoever said we're keeping up with the joneses? Lol thats the kind of assumption that makes me think you have no clue what youre talking about. We drive a 2009.Honda Civic and an 07 CRV, cheap, affordable, and hardly prestige automobiles. Our furniture has (with the exception of new couches we purchased at an 80% off closeout a couple months back) been here since we've moved in 10+ years ago. Only upgrades done to the house were to replace half the windows with newer more energy efficient ones, and to replace the oil tank (which we had to or face stiff legal fines). The air conditioning unit hasnt worked in 3 years and the water heater and associated tank is good enough for a 2 minute shower in the mornings.The last family vacation was to visit family friends outside of Raleigh, we drove there.
Indeed, we are most certainly keeping up with the joneses!
Have you ever considered, that my families lifestyle is the same as someone making say 60-80k is because those people ar racking up the debtand we aren't? I know more than a few people at the lower end, my best friends family pulls in about 30k, and wouldnt you know it they just took 2 weeks in ecuador? I've never been to another continent (carribean only), let alone been away for more than 7 days. We're living within our means and always have. I dont think we should pay more taxes because were responsible with our money and others arent.
I am talking about general things here. Feel free to give us a general monthly budget for you family if you want to, since you are using your situation as an example of making $250,000 a year and just living comfortable. Maybe if we see how your family spends money we can get a better idea what your definition of "middle class" and "living comfortably and not well off" is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: The middle class is a massive group and has a large difference between its top and bottom ends.
300k would be around the upper end and 40-50k would be the lower end, outside variables not withstanding.
is there a difference between upper middle and bottom middle, absolutly. They are still the same class.
So if you make more than 98.5% of the population, you are still middle class?
Budget i cannot give but I can give an example of the average week:
Both parents work 5 days 9-6, dad commutes mom works in town, both parents pack their own lunch. Mom cooks dinner every day, chinese takeout once a week (occassionally: pizza). Brother is a boy scout and takes karate lessons, mom does zoomba at the Y. Weekends its chores, occassionally a trip to the shootin range or a hike. Buy our groceries at costco/shopright, clothes at tj maxx/marshalls/burlington coat factory, w/ the occassional designer item as a gift or if its at a steep discount. Go out to dinner at a sitdown type place once a month average, usual cost of a meal roughly 15 per person. If were looking at anything more than that then its usually a very special occassion.
Grey Templar wrote: The only real way to generate tax income is to make the lower brackets pay more. a 1% increase on everyone will bring in loads more money than a 50% increase on the Upper Class(however that is defined)
If we put all the money the Upper class has and all the money the middle and lower classes have into seperate piles, the Upper Class's pile would be pathetically tiny compared to the other pile. its only when you compare how much money everyone has per person that the Rich have more money.
So all this hoopla will really amount to nothing.
Hunh.
According to this story - http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html - the bottom 20% has 0.1% of the wealth. The next 20% has another 0.2% of the wealth - or a combined 0.3% of the wealth. Add in the third 20%, and the running total for the bottom 60% is approximately 4%. Bring in the next 20%, and the bottom 80% has 15% of the wealth. Leaving 85% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the people.
Yeah, 85% of everything is pathetically tiny, sure.
This story - http://currydemocrats.org/american_pie.html - focuses on owned wealth rather than income, but tells a similar story. The bottom 80% has just 7% of the financial wealth - stocks, bonds, property, and savings.
Again, that 93% of financial wealth posessed by the 20% is pathetically tiny against the combined 7% of financial wealth posessed by the rest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Generally speaking, it is seen as ideal for 50% of a nations population to fall into the middle class with 25% at each end, as you want the middle class to represent the majority of the nation. As I recall the middle class population of this nation is about 45% and dropping.
Okay, let's use your number then. The lower class is the bottom 25% - that covers $0 to roughly $25K. The middle class is from 25% to 75% - that's from $25K to $80K.
Your family's $250K is STILL three times the upper limit of the middle class by your own definition.
You will notice they are using Wealth, which is deliberatly done to make the chart look like they want it to look. Anyone who has taken an Economics class knows the difference between income and Wealth.
Now wealth is what we should strive for, not income. Income =/= Wealth.
The biggest reason the lower and middle class doesn't have as much wealth is because they are forced to spend a larger portion of their income on basic non-durable goods that meet their survival needs.
If we really want to improve quality of life, we would make the basic necessities of life cheaper. If the family is spending less of their money on food, clothing, and shelter, they can put the excess money towards improving their quality of life.
Because the Rich have more disposable income, they end up with more of the Wealth.
However, Wealth =/= Money. There is a correlation but they are not the same thing.
You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.
As a half of a husband/wife that are solidly in the middle class (about 45,000 a year, and she's a high school teacher with a Masters Degree) I'm seriously not sure what lengths I would be willing to go to if it would gain me a lifestyle that "rough".
I'm pretty sure if we were making 250K a year, we could feed a family of four, and several neighbors, too. Of course, the kids would put themselves through college (like my wife did), and we would live in a house worth about 100-150 grand. Because that's called saving money.
And you would be surprised how far up that money goes. The top 1% own almost 40% of the wealth.
To be fair, wealth and income are not the same thing, particularly given that capital gains are not subject to income tax. Though I suspect the notion that a 1% increase across all income tax brackets would far outstrip a 50% increase on the top 2% of households is quite mistaken.
You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.
I'm seriously not sure what lengths I would be willing to go to if it would gain me a lifestyle that "good".
His point was that its not all roses and sunshine. Its work and really isn't as nice it looks from the outside.
He isn't loads better off then people with an income half of what they have. They may be only 10% better off.
its diminishing marginal returns in action.
A person making 100,000 a year is better off than someone making 50,000 a year.
A person making 200,000 a year is better off than someone making 100,000 a year.
however, the difference in how "well off" the people are isn't linear.
Lets say the person making 100,000 is twice as well off as the person making 50,000. However, this does not mean the person making 200,000 is twice as well off as the guy making 100,000 and he certaintly isn't 4 times as well off as the guy making only 50,000.
What the situation really is is that the guy making 200,000 is only around 50% better off then the person making 100,000. Each additional dollar benifits you less than the dollar before it.
The actual amount for being better off isn't close to what I said either. In actuality the guy that makes 100,000 is probably less than 50% better off then the guy making 50,000.
In my Economic Analysis class my teacher used a study that had been done on Happieness and they found that it, as it related to how much money you made, really peaked out at around 500,000. And most of the increase was in the first 200,000.
Were not assuming that, were assuming that the lifestyle of someone making 250k is the same as the middle 50% which it is.
If all other things are held equal, the person or household earning 250k per anum does not live a lifestyle comparable to a person or family earning a quarter, or even half that. A family of 4 earning 50l per anum does not live like a family 4 earning 250k per anum given similar levels of debt and location. Similarly, a single man earning 50k per anum does not live like a single man earning 250k per anum, again given similar levels of debt and location.
Grey Templar wrote: You will notice they are using Wealth, which is deliberatly done to make the chart look like they want it to look. Anyone who has taken an Economics class knows the difference between income and Wealth.
Now wealth is what we should strive for, not income. Income =/= Wealth.
Please, elaborate on this. References would be nice. Help me understand.
Grey Templar wrote: You will notice they are using Wealth, which is deliberatly done to make the chart look like they want it to look.
The income distribution is also heavily skewed, though not to the same degree. For example, in 2004 (I'm too lazy to look for more recent data) the top 5% earned 33% of all income for that year.
You try to feed a family of four and put two kids through college on 250k per year and see how "good" you have it.
I'm seriously not sure what lengths I would be willing to go to if it would gain me a lifestyle that "good".
His point was that its not all roses and sunshine. Its work and really isn't as nice it looks from the outside.
He isn't loads better off then people with an income half of what they have. They may be only 10% better off.
its diminishing marginal returns in action.
A person making 100,000 a year is better off than someone making 50,000 a year.
A person making 200,000 a year is better off than someone making 100,000 a year.
however, the difference in how "well off" the people are isn't linear.
Lets say the person making 100,000 is twice as well off as the person making 50,000. However, this does not mean the person making 200,000 is twice as well off as the guy making 100,000 and he certaintly isn't 4 times as well off as the guy making only 50,000.
What the situation really is is that the guy making 200,000 is only around 50% better off then the person making 100,000. Each additional dollar benifits you less than the dollar before it.
The actual amount for being better off isn't close to what I said either. In actuality the guy that makes 100,000 is probably less than 50% better off then the guy making 50,000.
In my Economic Analysis class my teacher used a study that had been done on Happieness and they found that it, as it related to how much money you made, really peaked out at around 500,000. And most of the increase was in the first 200,000.
You sir, are a poet and a scholar. Thank you for putting in clear terms what I struggled to illustrate.
Grey Templar wrote: You will notice they are using Wealth, which is deliberatly done to make the chart look like they want it to look. Anyone who has taken an Economics class knows the difference between income and Wealth.
Now wealth is what we should strive for, not income. Income =/= Wealth.
Please, elaborate on this. References would be nice. Help me understand.
Ok, Income is money you are recieving every so often. So income is money.
What use is money to you? Is the money itself worth anything? the answer is no. You can't eat it, you can't build a house out of it. If you just simply have it it does nothing for you. its only worth something because people say it is.
Wealth is defined by Webster's as the following.
"2: abundance of valuable material possessions or resources"
Money is worthless without Wealth, Wealth is always worth something.
How much it is worth depends on the person evaluating it.
A particular object may be worth more to one person than another. And to another person it may be beyond value.
Now, what is all this Wealth that the Rich have and why do they have more of it. As per the definition above, it is valuable material posessions or resources.
Many Rich people own businesses, which are very valuable. Simply by owning their own business, they have suddenly increased the amount of Wealth they have. However, is the value of the business truly giving them all that much money? They may have a salary of only around 250,000 a year. However, the business itself is worth 100 million because it has expensive facilities and runs X amount of product.
The person owning that company has Weath exceeding 100 million. But they only make 250,000 a year. Compared to what they are supposedly worth and what they actually go home with shows you they arn't actually making money hands over fist. 250,000 is paultry compared to how much the business is worth.
Thats how someone in the top brackets can have lots of Wealth, yet not be making tonnes of money(comparativly speaking)
hence why people use that Wealth chart instead of an Income chart, it makes it look like the rich have everything. Yes, but most of it is in the form of businesses. its not in luxury homes, fancy cars, and wild parties in Las Vegas.
Each additional dollar benifits you less than the dollar before it.
Only if we're limiting our determination of benefit to a fixed set of necessities. In reality every additional dollar beyond considerations of basic needs carries exactly as much utility as determined by the person earning it (this is the basis of marginal quality of life indices). Most notably, disposable income enables the acquisition of wealth, which you have already noted as a thing which we should strive for (and most people would agree with you).
In my Economic Analysis class my teacher used a study that had been done on Happieness and they found that it, as it related to how much money you made, really peaked out at around 500,000. And most of the increase was in the first 200,000.
Which is the danger of equating economic class with quality of life. They are most definitely not the same thing.
Indeed, the real issue is the quality of life for all Americans except the Upper Class is slipping. Which has nothing to do with the Upper Class.
We should focus on improving the quality of life for the Middle and Lower Class through allowing the Economy to recover, which will allow the Government taxes to alleviate the national debt. Taxing the Rich will not fix the National Debt, taxing everyone will. But you can't do that until the Economy recovers. So the only other option is to cut spending from everything, especially Entitlements.
Grey Templar wrote: The middle class is a massive group and has a large difference between its top and bottom ends.
While that's certainly true, it doesn't indicate that earning 250k per anum makes someone a member of the middle class. Then again, what constitutes "middle class" is largely predicated on emotional stigma. People consider how they feel with respect to the rough groups of lower, middle, and upper class and assign themselves membership in the one they feel the most positively towards.
That said, it is perhaps foolish to use income as the sole means of determining class membership when wealth is also an important consideration. Not that it really matters of course, as economic class has far more to do with political consideration than economic matters.
We should focus on improving the quality of life for the Middle and Lower Class through allowing the Economy to recover, which will allow the Government taxes to alleviate the national debt. Taxing the Rich will not fix the National Debt, taxing everyone will. But you can't do that until the Economy recovers. So the only other option is to cut spending from everything, especially Entitlements.
The national debt itself isn't a serious short-term concern. The concern is the deficit, which cannot be addressed via spending cuts alone. It isn't politically feasible, nor is it possible to cut spending quickly without also doing serious harm to the economy. The only reasonable path is one featuring spending cuts and tax increases over an extended period of time. It will, of course, be economically painful, but that is to be expected when changing course after 30 years of largely consistent economic policy.
Grey Templar wrote: You will notice they are using Wealth, which is deliberatly done to make the chart look like they want it to look. Anyone who has taken an Economics class knows the difference between income and Wealth.
Now wealth is what we should strive for, not income. Income =/= Wealth.
Please, elaborate on this. References would be nice. Help me understand.
Ok, Income is money you are recieving every so often. So income is money.
What use is money to you? Is the money itself worth anything? the answer is no. You can't eat it, you can't build a house out of it. If you just simply have it it does nothing for you. its only worth something because people say it is.
Wealth is defined by Webster's as the following.
"2: abundance of valuable material possessions or resources"
Money is worthless without Wealth, Wealth is always worth something.
How much it is worth depends on the person evaluating it.
A particular object may be worth more to one person than another. And to another person it may be beyond value.
Now, what is all this Wealth that the Rich have and why do they have more of it. As per the definition above, it is valuable material posessions or resources.
Many Rich people own businesses, which are very valuable. Simply by owning their own business, they have suddenly increased the amount of Wealth they have. However, is the value of the business truly giving them all that much money? They may have a salary of only around 250,000 a year. However, the business itself is worth 100 million because it has expensive facilities and runs X amount of product.
The person owning that company has Weath exceeding 100 million. But they only make 250,000 a year. Compared to what they are supposedly worth and what they actually go home with shows you they arn't actually making money hands over fist. 250,000 is paultry compared to how much the business is worth.
Thats how someone in the top brackets can have lots of Wealth, yet not be making tonnes of money(comparativly speaking)
hence why people use that Wealth chart instead of an Income chart, it makes it look like the rich have everything. Yes, but most of it is in the form of businesses. its not in luxury homes, fancy cars, and wild parties in Las Vegas.
The 1%? You doubled your income over the past 30 years.
So.... while it may not be all beer and skittles for the moderately wealthy in the 90-95th percentile, they are certainly better off than the rest of us. And the 95-100th percentile have exactly NOTHING to complain about.
50,000 a year could be fantastic for one living in, say, Indonesia or India. The cost of living is very low and therefore this 50,000 gets you a lot further than the UK or US.
50,000 a year would not be middle class in Luxembourg or somewhere else because the cost of living is much higher.
That's what I think of all this, but I'm a 16 year old, so who gives a damn about what I think?
Surely the old schema of working, middle and upper class doesn't really work in a modern first world economy?
I mean, I can see why people want to see themselves as being Middle Class in a lot of places- the last few hundred years has been in many ways the narrative of the increasing power of the middle class, and people want to be part of that narrative.
"Upper Class" has all sorts of negative connotations due to the media.
I dunno. I earn around 34,000 euro a year, my girlfriend earns 40,000 or so. I'd consider us to be really pretty well off. I earn more than the rest of my family (bar my brother) combined. My dad and mam are on a policeman's pension, my sister is in childcare, and my other sister has a low level office admin job. My older brother is the outlier because he does private naval security, which is a big, if inconsistent earner. None of my family would consider themselves terribly badly off, mind you.
So America must be vastly different to Europe in terms of what your money actually gets you in terms of a life. Education seems to be the biggest difference outside of Healthcare, which it seems most people try and get their employer to sort.
Regardless of that, if you have 250,000 a year income, you are earning pretty damn well, and definitely in the top bracket in the world.
Da Boss wrote: "Upper Class" has all sorts of negative connotations due to the media.
Do you really think that is the only reason? Anyone with any amount of sense knows that the upper class is pretty much the same as any other class i.e. a mix of good and bad people, but some of the negative feelings are well earned. Just as there are jerk poor and middle class, there are jerks in the upper class, the main difference being that the poor never instituted corporate serfdom, for instance, or have websites where kids post receipts to compete on who can waste the most money in one night and brag about it. "Let them eat cake", and all that, as it were. Perhaps it is similar to people freaking out about flying when a plane crashes even though more people die in car crashes: when someone with an obscene amount of wealth becomes a dick, it tends to effect more people in a spectacular fashion. Enron didn't just happen because of the the media, and the Hostess workers didn't lose their pensions to pay executives for bonuses for running the company into the ground because of the media.
Nah, I didn't really think that, but I was quite sleepy when I wrote that reply so I used "the media" as a convenient shorthand. Something that bugs me when other people do it, so fair dues for calling me on it
So America must be vastly different to Europe in terms of what your money actually gets you in terms of a life. Education seems to be the biggest difference outside of Healthcare, which it seems most people try and get their employer to sort.
Another thing to consider is that in most of the US being without a car is not an option, and in many families two cars are necessary. For example, my parents each need their own car because their places of business are roughly 1.5 hours apart, and when I was in high school we needed three so that I could get to work. Minimally that adds automotive insurance, fuel, and maintenance to the pool of expenses; and likely car payments as well.
d-usa wrote: How in the heck do you have $1000 for student loans? What is your total balance there and what kind of degree did you get?
Total debt is 60k, studied Industrial Engineering (originally aerospace but it wasnt to my liking), owe 30k to the govt,and the other 30 to private lenders. My monthly bill is 300 to federal loan (post consolidation, cannot lower rate), 350 to Sallie Mae (wont lower rate), and another 350 split across 3 loans from chase and citi.
Plus side is that Sallie mae will be paid off in another 4.5 years.
I'm hopping in here simply because this is pertinent (and well aware 2 pages have passed since the quoted post)
I find it very hard hard to believe that you owe more than I do a month, and have 2/3rds the amount of Student Loan debt that I do. I have 95 grand in student loan debt, and I don't even pay over 1000 dollars a month in Student Loan Bills I pay 429 in federal, 305 in PNC private, and 85 to Discover for a loan they bought off of CitiBank. My plans are set to be paid off in 10 to 20 years if I pay the minimum monthly payments. This doesn't include my cell phone bill of 163 (for my mother and myself), and my car payment of 300 a month and the 240 dollars I spend in gas commuting an hour to and from work a day. I make less than your family has in disposable income by several grand. If you're having issues paying off the debt you've incurred with the job you're at, something is seriously wrong, and I feel as though your parents are misrepresenting their total household income.
I only really started hating rich people after I worked security at a gated community. The difference between the people who made their money and the people who grew up in money is glaring. The former usually are quite pleasant. Everyone else is fairly horrible in a general sense.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I only really started hating rich people after I worked security at a gated community. The difference between the people who made their money and the people who grew up in money is glaring. The former usually are quite pleasant. Everyone else is fairly horrible in a general sense.
Bill Gates always springs to mind when talking about making their money. The man gives frak tons of money every year, and is, from what I hear a generally likeable guy.
The everyone (lefty and righties) hate the current deal.
It must be good then... right?
-the tax cut for those making less than $400,000 would be permanent -- no sunsetting, no expiration date.
-however, some exceptions and deductions will be lost for those making more than $300,000 (jointly) or $250,000 (single)
-estate tax rises from 35 to 40%, but the $5 million exclusion (the first five million isn't subject to tax) remains.
-permanent fix to ATM -don't see any reference to sequestration or spending cuts
I stick with my theory: the house will vote on nothing until Tuesday or Wednesday.
They will think it is better to head over the cliff and vote for tax cuts than to vote for a tax raise to prevent the cliff. It doesn't matter that it will be the same bill, it's all about the primary challengers and being able to say "I didn't vote to raise taxes, I voted to cut them".
d-usa wrote: I stick with my theory: the house will vote on nothing until Tuesday or Wednesday.
They will think it is better to head over the cliff and vote for tax cuts than to vote for a tax raise to prevent the cliff. It doesn't matter that it will be the same bill, it's all about the primary challengers and being able to say "I didn't vote to raise taxes, I voted to cut them".
Yep, just saw a headline that says the House won't vote until Tuesday, while the Senate hopes to vote tonight.
The sad part is, the majority of voters are just "sheep" enough to believe what you think will happen a year or two from now.
d-usa wrote: I stick with my theory: the house will vote on nothing until Tuesday or Wednesday.
They will think it is better to head over the cliff and vote for tax cuts than to vote for a tax raise to prevent the cliff. It doesn't matter that it will be the same bill, it's all about the primary challengers and being able to say "I didn't vote to raise taxes, I voted to cut them".
meh...
Let it burn.
I'm of the belief now that we need severe austerity for the public to truly hold the elected politician accountable. Otherwise, it'll be more of the same.
d-usa wrote: I keep on getting email updates from Rep. Lankford.
He keeps on talking about 4 years of $1 Trillion deficits.
I wonder if he has a political agenda to lie about the number of years we have had the exact same deficit...
?? we're currently at 1 trillion deficits...
So, is he saying we're doing nothing to reduce it?
Bah... just ask Bernake to print more greenbacks.
We are currently on year 5 of the same level of deficits. Droning on about 4 years of Obama and 4 years of $1 trillion deficits is just the usual posturing of "It's Obama's Deficit" and "Obama has grown the Deficit" when it case it reached the current level under the final Bush budget and has been at the same level since. The deficit has actually not grown at all under Obama. He just hasn't done anything to fix it.
I'm pretty sure it has grown on his watch... (looking for more info)
Oh... btw, saw this on my twitter feed... fricking hilarious:
On the House's floor no less, Rand Paul says:
“What does the [Senate] Majority Leader say? ‘We won’t do anything about entitlements.” Oh great, this is going to be a real great solution. But we’re going to stick it to rich people! I hope nobody works for those rich people.”
Sounds a little bit like his dad eh?
Edit: Don't get me wrong... I don't put this squarely on Obama's feet. ALL congress critters are at fault.
Which still means that Lankford is lying by ommision by pretending that we have had only 4 years of $1+ trillion deficit budgets and acting like Obama started them.
d-usa wrote: Which still means that Lankford is lying by ommision by pretending that we have had only 4 years of $1+ trillion deficit budgets and acting like Obama started them.
Oh yeah... he's a punk.
Ya know what? They're all punks. o.O
Have we gone over the cliff yet?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wish they stop the blame game... and work together to address the issues.
But... alas... it's more important to score political points.
Why is it that you love to blame Obama for stuff and point him out by name. But as soon as something comes out against anybody else it switches to "everybody is at fault (even though I always blame Obama)".
Senate reached a deal from the sound of it, of course the house went home and will vote for tax cuts tomorrow. What a surprise, and I am sure people will fall for it in 2014...
d-usa wrote: Why is it that you love to blame Obama for stuff and point him out by name. But as soon as something comes out against anybody else it switches to "everybody is at fault (even though I always blame Obama)".
Just continuing our favorite blame everything game on the President...
But... honestly. It's the "politiian's" fault. Not just the Obama years... and not just the Bush years... this goes way back.
T'aint no angels in politics...
'cept maybe her:
Spoiler:
Yuri too old for me... but, whoa...
Here's one closer to my age, an Ireland politician:
Senate reached a deal from the sound of it, of course the house went home and will vote for tax cuts tomorrow. What a surprise, and I am sure people will fall for it in 2014...
Interesting...
However, I wouldn't be surprised if the House says "no" and may changes/admendments to that bill. Thus, forcing a reconciliation between the two house.
Senate reached a deal from the sound of it, of course the house went home and will vote for tax cuts tomorrow. What a surprise, and I am sure people will fall for it in 2014...
Interesting...
However, I wouldn't be surprised if the House says "no" and may changes/admendments to that bill. Thus, forcing a reconciliation between the two house.
If they do, that means a whole new round of negotiations between the House, Senate and Obama, which means things don't get solved for weeks. The mere pretense of a bill being worked on, however, might lessen he psychological impact on the markets, stop them from panicking too much. Still, I think the house is still going to crap all over itself again instead of passing a bill, because it's run by incompetent people at the moment, but we'll see.
For the most part, I think the markets expected this situation to happen, for all the usual political reasons cited so far in this thread. S,o I doubt we'll see much impact on them tomorrow. Now, if the House and Senate can't agree on a deal within the next day or two, then we'll see some problems.
Instead of sending people to jail for some crimes, why not slap a fine on them? If they can't afford it, don't send them to prison! Raincheck the fine! Every month they can't pay for whatever reason, add interest! It not only increases government revenue, it reduces revenue on prisons!
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is a 16 year old's plan, so there's probably loads of holes in the theory.
Instead of sending people to jail for some crimes, why not slap a fine on them? If they can't afford it, don't send them to prison! Raincheck the fine! Every month they can't pay for whatever reason, add interest! It not only increases government revenue, it reduces revenue on prisons!
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is a 16 year old's plan, so there's probably loads of holes in the theory.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has passed legislation to block the impact of across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts that make up the fiscal cliff.
The vote was an overwhelming 89-8 and came well after midnight on New Year's Day.
A House vote is expected before Wednesday.
The White House-backed legislation would prevent middle-class taxes from rising, and raise rates on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples.
It also blocks spending cuts for two months, extends unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, prevents a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients and prevents a spike in milk prices.
A last-minute addition would also prevent a $900 pay raise for members of Congress from taking effect in March.
Might have to actually shore up some respect for Congress after reading that last sentence... Nah.
The working theory I read was that the GOP wants to not fix it until the second. The rationale being, taxes have technically gone up - if they then work out a deal on the second, they can then accurately claim they cut taxes as part of the deal.
Ouze wrote: The working theory I read was that the GOP wants to not fix it until the second. The rationale being, taxes have technically gone up - if they then work out a deal on the second, they can then accurately claim they cut taxes as part of the deal.
I've always figured the parties would do something like that. To me this entire ordeal is nothing but an opportunity D's and R's have taken to grand stand and poke at one another with both sides knowing they'll pass something last second.
Ouze wrote: The working theory I read was that the GOP wants to not fix it until the second. The rationale being, taxes have technically gone up - if they then work out a deal on the second, they can then accurately claim they cut taxes as part of the deal.
I've always figured the parties would do something like that. To me this entire ordeal is nothing but an opportunity D's and R's have taken to grand stand and poke at one another with both sides knowing they'll pass something last second.
Yup... that's why I blame them ALLfor getting us here in the first place.
In other words: "Senate passes massive tax cut which raised taxes over $600 billion in middle of night without reading the bill."
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has passed legislation to block the impact of across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts that make up the fiscal cliff.
The vote was an overwhelming 89-8 and came well after midnight on New Year's Day.
A House vote is expected before Wednesday.
The White House-backed legislation would prevent middle-class taxes from rising, and raise rates on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples.
It also blocks spending cuts for two months, extends unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, prevents a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients and prevents a spike in milk prices.
A last-minute addition would also prevent a $900 pay raise for members of Congress from taking effect in March.
Might have to actually shore up some respect for Congress after reading that last sentence... Nah.
Am I the only person seeing the loophole in the tax raise?
Couples with a combined income of 450,000 will simply file taxes seperatly
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has passed legislation to block the impact of across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts that make up the fiscal cliff.
The vote was an overwhelming 89-8 and came well after midnight on New Year's Day.
A House vote is expected before Wednesday.
The White House-backed legislation would prevent middle-class taxes from rising, and raise rates on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples.
It also blocks spending cuts for two months, extends unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, prevents a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients and prevents a spike in milk prices.
A last-minute addition would also prevent a $900 pay raise for members of Congress from taking effect in March.
Might have to actually shore up some respect for Congress after reading that last sentence... Nah.
Am I the only person seeing the loophole in the tax raise?
Couples with a combined income of 450,000 will simply file taxes seperatly
Nope... saw that too...
"I notice that it’s $400K for individuals, but only $450K for married couples. That’s a $350K difference in threshold if you’re living together but not married. Is Congress anti-marriage?"
Of course not... just stirring the pot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's more details...
The Senate early this morning passed H.R. 8 by a vote of 89-8 to avert the fiscal cliff. Highlights of the bill include:
-Raise the marginal tax rate to 39.6% on income over $450,000 (joint) and $400,000 (single).
-Raise the tax rate on dividends and long term capital gains to 20% on taxpayers with income over $450,000 (joint) and $400,000 (single). The top rate would remain 15% for taxpayers with lower incomes.
-Estate and gift tax: $5 million exemption (inflation-adjusted) and 40% rate.
-Permanent and retroactive patch for the AMT.
-Return of the exemption and itemized deduction phase-outs on taxpayers with income over $300,000 (joint) and $250,000 (single).
-One-year extension of 50% bonus depreciation.
-Extension of various tax extenders.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has passed legislation to block the impact of across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts that make up the fiscal cliff.
The vote was an overwhelming 89-8 and came well after midnight on New Year's Day.
A House vote is expected before Wednesday.
The White House-backed legislation would prevent middle-class taxes from rising, and raise rates on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples.
It also blocks spending cuts for two months, extends unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, prevents a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients and prevents a spike in milk prices.
A last-minute addition would also prevent a $900 pay raise for members of Congress from taking effect in March.
Might have to actually shore up some respect for Congress after reading that last sentence... Nah.
Am I the only person seeing the loophole in the tax raise?
Couples with a combined income of 450,000 will simply file taxes seperatly
Nope... saw that too...
"I notice that it’s $400K for individuals, but only $450K for married couples. That’s a $350K difference in threshold if you’re living together but not married. Is Congress anti-marriage?"
Of course not... just stirring the pot.
You can still be married and file taxes seperatly. Its actually only really an advantage to file together if only one of you is working, that way the other is a dependent.
But with this loophole, if you both work and make a combined salary of over 450k it is best to file seperatly.
Rep Spencer Bacchus, R-AL, says consensus is building in GOP House meeting to amend cliff bill and send it back to Sen w/some spending cuts.
Budget reconciliation... HERE.WE.COME!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Woah... via twit again:
Per republicans, cantor is opposing the fiscal cliff bill during GOP conference. Boehner laying out "options." Not good signs at all
Me thinks that Cantor is staking his oppositions in order to run against Boehner for Speaker now... o.O
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: Once again we have the problem that tax plans and budgets are required to start in the house, not the senate.
So this senate written bill, which basically says "close your eyes and pretend it is all going away and won't happen" probably won't go anywhere.
Unless the House also wants to play pretend.
Forgot to add... while that's what it appears, technically, this Fiscal Bill that the Senate passed was an old House Republican Bill (HR 8) that the Senate "gutted" and added their plan.
So, according to the Constitution, it's legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
House progressives held emergency meeting last night about the deal, which many of them hate.
So... if the Tea Party hates it, and the Progressive Caucus hate... it's gotta be good?
Yeah, it's looking like, once again, the house GOP will crap all over itself rather than get anything done, just as predicted. Considering the bill passed with an overwhelming majority of both parties (88 yeas) in the senate, they can't even pass this off as a partisan bill.
Maddermax wrote: Yeah, it's looking like, once again, the house GOP will crap all over itself rather than get anything done, just as predicted. Considering the bill passed with an overwhelming majority of both parties (88 yeas) in the senate, they can't even pass this off as a partisan bill.
The house GOP just plain sucks.
<<<---- looks are your map...
Just curious, why you interested in our politics? Are we just that disfunctional compared to your politics?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just saw something downright devious...
Say the House amend the current Senate bill with the following:
(a) repeal of the deductibility of state income tax, and
(b) repeal the deduction for mortgage interest.
That'll hurt a widespread group of taxpayers but, 85% of the financial benefit of those two measures accrues to high income taxpayers in coastal states which happen to be solidly Democratic.
Devious... but, ain't gonna happen.
The House members are on the floor now doing something... brb.
Maddermax wrote: Yeah, it's looking like, once again, the house GOP will crap all over itself rather than get anything done, just as predicted. Considering the bill passed with an overwhelming majority of both parties (88 yeas) in the senate, they can't even pass this off as a partisan bill.
The house GOP just plain sucks.
<<<---- looks are your map...
Just curious, why you interested in our politics? Are we just that disfunctional compared to your politics?
I'm somewhat interested in US politics in general, in the same way that passers by are interested in traffic accidents. A sort of morbid curiosity at how dysfunctional it can be, and it's far more interesting than our own politics currently.
However, with the 'fiscal cliff', it has the possibility to affect the rest of the world - the US going into recession right while Europe is still weak and shaky could have profound and reverberating effects globally. In other words, this does involve the rest of the world, even though it's still internal US politics. While I don't think it will be nearly as bad as the worst case predictions, and probably outright recession will be avoided, but it's still not going to be fun, I'm sure.
Maddermax wrote: Yeah, it's looking like, once again, the house GOP will crap all over itself rather than get anything done, just as predicted. Considering the bill passed with an overwhelming majority of both parties (88 yeas) in the senate, they can't even pass this off as a partisan bill.
The house GOP just plain sucks.
<<<---- looks are your map...
Just curious, why you interested in our politics? Are we just that disfunctional compared to your politics?
I'm somewhat interested in US politics in general, in the same way that passers by are interested in traffic accidents. A sort of morbid curiosity at how dysfunctional it can be, and it's far more interesting than our own politics currently.
Cool... just interesting to get an outsider's perspective.
However, with the 'fiscal cliff', it has the possibility to affect the rest of the world - the US going into recession right while Europe is still weak and shaky could have profound and reverberating effects globally. In other words, this does involve the rest of the world, even though it's still internal US politics. While I don't think it will be nearly as bad as the worst case predictions, and probably outright recession will be avoided, but it's still not going to be fun, I'm sure.
Newsflash... even with this deal, we're probably heading towards a recession anyways...
However, with the 'fiscal cliff', it has the possibility to affect the rest of the world - the US going into recession right while Europe is still weak and shaky could have profound and reverberating effects globally. In other words, this does involve the rest of the world, even though it's still internal US politics. While I don't think it will be nearly as bad as the worst case predictions, and probably outright recession will be avoided, but it's still not going to be fun, I'm sure.
Newsflash... even with this deal, we're probably heading towards a recession anyways...
I have a different view, that even without a broad fiscal deal an outright recession will probably be avoided, but the economy will be far more stagnant than it otherwise would have been (a massive, sudden and indiscriminate cut in government spending will do that, and structured cuts over a few years would be far more pragmatic).
This country has met the definition of insanity by electing the same officials and expecting different results from them. Truly we only have ourselves to blame for continuously putting the same nonsensical people in power and never demanding true change in our political process. We need to demand that the elected officials we put in office do the work of the people and if caught being corrupt there needs to be sever public punishment for public servants that serve only self.
Maddermax wrote: Yeah, it's looking like, once again, the house GOP will crap all over itself rather than get anything done, just as predicted. Considering the bill passed with an overwhelming majority of both parties (88 yeas) in the senate, they can't even pass this off as a partisan bill.
The house GOP just plain sucks.
That's one way of interpreting it, sure.
House Republicans are, to my understanding, holding out for more actual spending cuts. If the entire point of this exercise is to bring the budget in line, it makes little sense to raise taxes - and then promptly commit to spending the money on new or increased initiatives.
10:38 p.m. ET – Republican Rep. Dave Camp says the permanent extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for households making less than $450,000 is “the largest tax cut in the history of the country.”
10:38 p.m. ET – Republican Rep. Dave Camp says the permanent extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for households making less than $450,000 is “the largest tax cut in the history of the country.”
Well... I don't know if it was the LARGEST...
But, it's technically another cut since the original rate went up today prior to the Bush's tax cuts. But yes, it's all spin.
Grover Norquist
✔
@GroverNorquist
The Bush tax cuts lapsed at midnight last night. Every R voting for Senate bill is cutting taxes and keeping his/her pledge.
10:38 p.m. ET – Republican Rep. Dave Camp says the permanent extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for households making less than $450,000 is “the largest tax cut in the history of the country.”
Somehow, I have a feeling that in this game of grandstanding the Republicans just keep making themselves look dumber and dumber. Same old same old I guess.
Boehner didn’t come close to satisfying the “majority of the majority” rule, which leaves him on thin ice for Thursday’s Speaker vote. Need new leadership...
Seems assed backwards, but coining these trillion dollar coins may be used to wipe out the deficit.
My mum mentioned this... and she works for Ernst & Young!
My gut reaction... NO WAY! Like Rick said:
Spoiler:
This is a comic proposal and someone is yanking my chain...
Then, my mum challenged me by saying "why not'? (and she never does that to me). I suspect she doesn't like the plan, but wants me to figure it out.
o.O
Dammit mom... then, I start researching...
Here's the legal aspect of this concept:
The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.
Wait... wut? The treasury secretary can legally authorize the mint to strike platinum coins for any denomination??? o.O
My biggest concern would obviously be the inflationary pressure having trillion dollar coins in the currency... so, I read more...
They WOULDN'T be in the currency at all. (really, can you ask anyone to break a trillion dollar coin? ).
So, here's how it'll work as far as I can see:
-A platinum coin or coins (!! egads!) would be minted and deposited in the US Mint’s Public Enterprise Fund (PEF) at the Fed, where it would be credited for their full legal tender face value, as determined by the Sec of Treasury's discretion.
-The Treasury would then “sweep” the profits (technical term I think), which is the difference between the cost to the Mint of producing the coin and face value of the coin into the Treasury general Account (TGA) at the Federal Reserve. This is how it normally works for any denominations.
-Again, the face value of the coin can be whatever the Treasury Sec/Mint chooses... there is no requirement that the coin weight be related to the face value. So, it could be $1 trillion or more, or less if preferred. This is all perfectly legal. o.O
- According to folks way smarter than me, they insists that these coins could retire the Treasury securities/bonds held by the Federal Reserve and the private sector, which mechanically is the same as QE. That's not necessarily bad since this happens all the time.
tl;dr: My mum got me thinking that the Treasury Secretary can issue Monopoly Money in form of trillion dollar coins to pay off the national debt... and I can't see how it wouldn't work, even though my gut is screaming at me that it's all wrong! Please help!
@Frazzeled: You a banker? Please tell me that these economic professors are smoking some rainbow'ed miracle.
As far as I can tell, the platinum coin idea is merely quantitative easing by a different method. In other words, printing new money.
It doesn't make any difference if the money is paper or specie, what matters is that the face value is more than the material value, which makes it fiat money.
Quantitative easing can be a good thing if done in moderation. If done badly, it leads to runaway inflation.
Presumably the clever trick here is that in the USA there may a law that prevents the Federal Reserve from just printing paper money, and the platinum coin evades that restriction.
People hear "Quantitative easing" they fall asleep, or on the more extream end start screaming about "European Ideas".
They hear "We made a trillion dollar platinum coin" they think "Thats cool" and "It's not making money because its real because its made of platinum, like gold but better".
Quantitative easing has worked, to some extent, in the UK. Not as well as people hoped though.
The big problem countrys run in to is when govenrments use it as a way to pay for things, and just start printing more and more, you get runaway inflation. IMO you need the kind of disconect the UK has between monetary policy and fiscal policy for it to work. I don't know if the US dose or not as I'm not sure how independant the federal reserve is.
As far as I can tell, the platinum coin idea is merely quantitative easing by a different method. In other words, printing new money.
It doesn't make any difference if the money is paper or specie, what matters is that the face value is more than the material value, which makes it fiat money.
Quantitative easing can be a good thing if done in moderation. If done badly, it leads to runaway inflation.
Presumably the clever trick here is that in the USA there may a law that prevents the Federal Reserve from just printing paper money, and the platinum coin evades that restriction.
Yes, there is a law that mandates only "x" paper currency in circulation (300 million?). There's also laws dictating denominations, circulation, material components for the other metals... platinum as none of that.
From an accounting perspective, it'll work...
Inflation may not be a concern cause all it does is add spendable credits into the Treasury funds... which they can use to retire existing debts (when bonds become due). Remember, Treasury cannot spend more than what was apportioned by Congress...
The two dangers I see is that it may encourage Congress to Spend waaaay more and the world wide market my take a hit due to "confidence".
The degree to confidence is what drives the value of a fiat currency system.
The big problem countrys run in to is when govenrments use it as a way to pay for things, and just start printing more and more, you get runaway inflation. IMO you need the kind of disconect the UK has between monetary policy and fiscal policy for it to work. I don't know if the US dose or not as I'm not sure how independant the federal reserve is.
The federal reserve is independent insofar as they're largely private banks. It's just that they must abide by the rules and regulation of being a "Federal Reserve Bank".
This is a MAJOR disconnect between the Fed's monetary policy and fiscal policy... that's why there's deficit spending.
I'm paraphrasing here:
Congress says: Spend 2 trillion
OMB says: Tax revenue is only 1 trillion...
Treasury says: Okay, we'll issue additional 1 trillion in bonds to fund congressional spending
Treasury comes back and says: gak... we're hitting the Debt Limit ceiling and can only legally issue 500 billion in funds.
Congress says: gak... we passed some spending plans with no way to pay for it.
President says: Guys... I can't NOT pay the interest, bonds and mandatory spending... I'd be break the 14th admendment among other bad things.
