Did you buy it? [W:218]

[code1211]

If anything that benefited the economy. The wars were essentially large government spending boosting activity in manufacturing, shipping and increasing the discretionary income of hundreds of thousands of military personnel.

Now, in terms of DEFICIT, there's no question they played a role.

With one of the wars ended when we were surprised by being unwillingly kicked out and the other still limping along to defeat, why has the rate of increase in the debt doubled under the Big 0 if this is the cause of the deficits?

 

[code1211]

The economy as a whole is healthier than inherited without question. The metrics you're referencing are simply results of the aforementioned recession. Taxes, however are lower from any standpoint, not simply a reflection of declining incomes as you insinuate. Due to the extension of Bush era marginal rates and the addition of reduced FICA contributions, effective tax rates are lower than those of Bush the younger. No heavenly clue as to what "interest in gdp" means, and your use of the term depression is also patently incorrect. Our current state doesn't even qualify for a regular ole recession,

Total Employed Nov. 2008: 144,285,000
Total employed Nov. 2012: 143,262,000

Assuming that we wanted to maintain an unemployment rate of about 7%, roughly equal to the level at the time that the Big 0 took office, we would have needed to add about 150,000 per month to the employed total.

This means that the number of total employed we should be currently up to is about 7,200,000 higher than when the Big 0 took office. A different way to look at the employment numbers above is this:

Actual gain in the total employed: -1,023,000
Jobs needed/not created : -7,200,000

Actual shortfall in job creation : -8,223,000

This is the tragedy of the Obama Administration. He has dismantled the ability of the economy to function and expand and he is continuing to do the same work at an accelerated pace.

How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? | The Economic Populist

 

[a351]

Total Employed Nov. 2008: 144,285,000
Total employed Nov. 2012: 143,262,000

Assuming that we wanted to maintain an unemployment rate of about 7%, roughly equal to the level at the time that the Big 0 took office, we would have needed to add about 150,000 per month to the employed total.

This means that the number of total employed we should be currently up to is about 7,200,000 higher than when the Big 0 took office. A different way to look at the employment numbers above is this:

Actual gain in the total employed: -1,023,000
Jobs needed/not created : -7,200,000

Actual shortfall in job creation : -8,223,000

This is the tragedy of the Obama Administration. He has dismantled the ability of the economy to function and expand and he is continuing to do the same work at an accelerated pace.

How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? | The Economic Populist

Obama took office in January of 2009, in the midst of a death spiral for employment and growth. Even if you chalk up the entirety of 2009 to Obama's column, the net gain currently would be around 300k jobs. Factor in the gains seen from the end of the recession in the tail end of that very year, and the total is around 4 million.

Maintain insinuates that he had a 7 percent unemployment rate to begin with, or that he was handed an economy that wasn't already shedding 4 and 5 times that figure a month. For what it's worth, the monthly average in 2011 was 153k, and this year 146k. Smack dab in the middle.

Should? I wouldn't say so. Most didn't expect the gains following a year chalked up as a complete loss (2009) and around 20 trillion bucks worth of lost wealth to compensate for such severe losses. Sectoral devastation, personal debt and a global recession pretty much wiped out any possibility of that happening.

Now just why would you attribute the final 3 months of Bush's reign to Obama's column? Hmmmm.

According to a armchair assertion that simply plucks a figure out of thin air.

Not much to be derived from this statement. Just a political caricature.

 

[justabubba]

Everyone who paid taxes at that time got a tax break. Did you forget that part?

but the largest measure was allocated to the millionaires and billionaires. they clearly received a disproportionate share of the tax cut. probably something you would prefer to forget

BTW, Obama lives in DC, Bush lives in Dallas.

but when this mess was orchestrated it was dicknbush who were residing in dc. yet another fact you obviously prefer not to recollect

 

[Fenton]

Of course, all of these statistics are a result of Obama's policies rather than
the '08 financial crisis and ensuing recession.

Lol......your lack of knowledge over the sub prime collapse that was mandated by liberal Democrat policies doesn't excuse Obama's worsening and perpetuation of it's consequences.

Sorry, this is Obama's economy through and through.

 

[code1211]

Obama took office in January of 2009, in the midst of a death spiral for employment and growth. Even if you chalk up the entirety of 2009 to Obama's column, the net gain currently would be around 300k jobs. Factor in the gains seen from the end of the recession in the tail end of that very year, and the total is around 4 million.

Maintain insinuates that he had a 7 percent unemployment rate to begin with, or that he was handed an economy that wasn't already shedding 4 and 5 times that figure a month. For what it's worth, the monthly average in 2011 was 153k, and this year 146k. Smack dab in the middle.

Should? I wouldn't say so. Most didn't expect the gains following a year chalked up as a complete loss (2009) and around 20 trillion bucks worth of lost wealth to compensate for such severe losses. Sectoral devastation, personal debt and a global recession pretty much wiped out any possibility of that happening.

Now just why would you attribute the final 3 months of Bush's reign to Obama's column? Hmmmm.

According to a armchair assertion that simply plucks a figure out of thin air.

Not much to be derived from this statement. Just a political caricature.

The numbers are what they are.

Please recall that when Obama was running, before obama was elected the first time, he characterized the economy as the"Worst since the Great Depression". Does this indicate to you that he thought all was rosy?

Despite what he said, does this seem to indicate a trend to to you, despite what he said, he immediately went to work on everything except repairing the economy. It's not his fault, though. He has no idea what repairing an economy entails. His only understanding is at the level of giving money to those from whom he has eliminated the chance for success or self sufficiency.

That is the importance of the number of jobs that never got created. Your references to relative success against ridiculous spikes downward are irrational.

The population has gone up by about 10 million, a little more actually, and the number of jobs has dropped. These are real numbers, not a political scam. A political scam is trying to frame this degree of failure as success.

Let's take a look at what 8 million more jobs might do for the economy. Number one, these folks would be paying taxes. Let's say $5000 each across 4 years. Pretty conservative all in all. That's $4 trillion and even with Obama's outrageous spending, that balances the deficit.

That is what success looks like and the Big 0 has not the first clue how to make that happen. If he does and hasn't done it, that's treasonously negligent and if he doesn't by now, he never will.

 

[code1211]

but the largest measure was allocated to the millionaires and billionaires. they clearly received a disproportionate share of the tax cut. probably something you would prefer to forget

but when this mess was orchestrated it was dicknbush who were residing in dc. yet another fact you obviously prefer not to recollect

What do you believe was the cause of the economic crisis that blew up in 2008? Don't be afraid to describe the immediate causes, the causes that led directly to the blow up, the regulations that were passed and the agencies that both enacted and ignored them, the Senators and Congressmen who became millionaires aiding the development of this and the various laws signed into law by the various presidents in the decades leading up to this.

Feel free to name all of the politicians who profited from this and feel free to keep score on both sides of the political parties in the corrupt and slime covered capital of corruption and theft in DC.

 

[Stewart]

Show me two consecutive contractions in GDP and I'll call it a recession.

 

[Fenton]

but the largest measure was allocated to
the millionaires and billionaires. they clearly received a disproportionate share of the tax cut. probably something you would prefer to forget

but when this mess was orchestrated it was dicknbush who were residing in dc. yet another fact you obviously prefer not to recollect

The Bush tax cuts were beneficial, not detrimental and to blame those on Obama's massive deficit spending is the pinnacle of ignorance.

Truth is idiots elected a incompetent community organizer because he was cool, black or a liberal not because he was qualified.

And now we're paying for it.....thanx

 

[a351]

The numbers are what they are.

Please recall that when Obama was running, before obama was elected the first time, he characterized the economy as the"Worst since the Great Depression". Does this indicate to you that he thought all was rosy?

Despite what he said, does this seem to indicate a trend to to you, despite what he said, he immediately went to work on everything except repairing the economy.

It's not his fault, though. He has no idea what repairing an economy entails. His only understanding is at the level of giving money to those from whom he has eliminated the chance for success or self sufficiency.

That is the importance of the number of jobs that never got created. Your references to relative success against ridiculous spikes downward are irrational.

The population has gone up by about 10 million, a little more actually, and the number of jobs has dropped. These are real numbers, not a political scam. A political scam is trying to frame this degree of failure as success.

Let's take a look at what 8 million more jobs might do for the economy. Number one, these folks would be paying taxes. Let's say $5000 each across 4 years. Pretty conservative all in all. That's $4 trillion and even with Obama's outrageous spending, that balances the deficit.

That is what success looks like and the Big 0 has not the first clue how to make that happen. If he does and hasn't done it, that's treasonously negligent and if he doesn't by now, he never will.

Sure, the numbers by themselves are fine and dandy, the way they were represented was quite simply dishonest. To use the date of Obama's election as his starting point in lieu of his actual inauguration is patently absurd. 2.2 million jobs were lost in that same time period by the way, pretty important detail to skim over.

Nope! Not rosy at all, but that's not what's actually up for debate here. Your use of the word "maintain" suggested that 7 percent was the baseline figure for the beginning of his term. It wasn't.

Obama immediately formed a council consisting of respected economists, wall street gurus and private industry leaders alike in order to construct policies that would benefit the country most on a macro scale and best tailor provisions that would rejuvenate individual sectors of the economy. The ARRA was a compilation of both sets of ideals, and by all indications was effective on a broad scale.

Nonsense. Not only did the ARRA put to work directly scores of individuals who would've otherwise been relegated to federal aid or the treacherous labor market at the time, it also provided small businesses specifically with a nice set of tax incentives, credits and outright cuts. Business Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). So much for that claim.

This relative success you speak of actually came out on the top end of losses totaling roughly 4.7 million in his first year in office. Your references happen to be factually incorrect.

Patently false, as demonstrated earlier. Straight line, A to B, black and white error.

I'd say just about everyone currently residing in the states would positively love an additional 8 million jobs. The desire isn't the clog in the pipes though. Also, discretionary spending has underwent a freeze for 3 years and running.

LOL! Alert the folks in charge already! This theorem of "Jobs=Good" could net you a Nobel!

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sure, the numbers by themselves are fine and dandy, the way they were represented was quite simply dishonest. To use the date of Obama's election as his starting point in lieu of his actual inauguration is patently absurd. 2.2 million jobs were lost in that same time period by the way, pretty important detail to skim over.

Nope! Not rosy at all, but that's not what's actually up for debate here. Your use of the word "maintain" suggested that 7 percent was the baseline figure for the beginning of his term. It wasn't.

Obama immediately formed a council consisting of respected economists, wall street gurus and private industry leaders alike in order to construct policies that would benefit the country most on a macro scale and best tailor provisions that would rejuvenate individual sectors of the economy. The ARRA was a compilation of both sets of ideals, and by all indications was effective on a broad scale.

Nonsense. Not only did the ARRA put to work directly scores of individuals who would've otherwise been relegated to federal aid or the treacherous labor market at the time, it also provided small businesses specifically with a nice set of tax incentives, credits and outright cuts. Business Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). So much for that claim.

This relative success you speak of actually came out on the top end of losses totaling roughly 4.7 million in his first year in office. Your references happen to be factually incorrect.

Patently false, as demonstrated earlier. Straight line, A to B, black and white error.

I'd say just about everyone currently residing in the states would positively love an additional 8 million jobs. The desire isn't the clog in the pipes though. Also, discretionary spending has underwent a freeze for 3 years and running.

LOL! Alert the folks in charge already! This theorem of "Jobs=Good" could net you a Nobel!

Are you kidding me? Obama, and his party's congressional majority, chose to keep the elevated level of federal spending for 2008/9 (20% more than in 2007/8) by using "continuing resolutions", much of that increase was, in fact, "discretionary". To play games with time periods, as you accused the prior poster of, is exactly what you did here.

Although these entitlement programs have dominated the government’s spending growth, discretionary spending—spending authorized by annual appropriations bills—also has grown by 40 percent more than inflation, to $1.289 trillion. Spending on non-defense programs has grown 29 percent. These outlays peaked in 2010 due to the stimulus bill, but remain 7 percent higher than their pre-stimulus level of 2008

Quote taken from: Federal Spending by the Numbers - 2012

 

[a351]

Are you kidding me? Obama, and his party's congressional majority, chose to keep the elevated level of federal spending for 2008/9 (20% more than in 2007/8) by using "continuing resolutions", much of that increase was, in fact, "discretionary".

To play games with time periods, as you accused the prior poster of, is exactly what you did here.

Quote taken from: Federal Spending by the Numbers - 2012

Yep, hence the term "freeze" in lieu of "increase" or "reduce". Also, your 20% figure doesn't add up in any conceivable scenario. I did make a mistake in claiming 3 years instead of 2, however, my apologies.

It's actually an affirmative fact. For the record, the poster above wasn't simply deceptive in his presentation, he also mucked up a handful of black and white facts and presented them as truth. Much different story.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yep, hence the term "freeze" in lieu of "increase" or "reduce". Also, your 20% figure doesn't add up in any conceivable scenario. I did make a mistake in claiming 3 years instead of 2, however, my apologies.

It's actually an affirmative fact. For the record, the poster above wasn't simply deceptive in his presentation, he also mucked up a handful of black and white facts and presented them as truth. Much different story.

Total federal spending in 2007 was $2,692 billion, in 2009 it was over 20% more at $3,696 billion (same source, using 2012 inflation adjusted dollars). I never asserted that only discretionary spending went up by 20%, that went up only about 7%. In fact, federal spending under Bush averaged 20% of GDP while it averaged 24% of GDP under Obama, also clearly showing a 20% increase.

 

[a351]

Total federal spending in 2007 was $2,692 billion, in 2009 it was over 20% more at $3,696 billion (same source, using 2012 inflation adjusted dollars). I never asserted that only discretionary spending went up by 20%, that went up only about 7%. In fact, federal spending under Bush averaged 20% of GDP while it averaged 24% of GDP under Obama, also clearly showing a 20% increase.

My mistake, I was referring strictly to discretionary spending and assumed you were replying similarly.

 

[joko104]

The idea of obama making the economy better? Some stats for you:

*12/2008 31.6 million on food stamps, this year 47.6 million or more - an increase of 50%

*1,000,000 children in public schools are homeless, up 55% from 2006.

* Lower taxes thanks to obama; or thanks to $4,000 less income per household over the past 4 years

* For decades food stamps were given to 1 in 50 people, now 1 in 6 or so.

* America's interest in GDP was 31% in 2000 and is now 21%

Looks like a "recovery" only an iphone and xBox could cover. I know the left won't
like this but I think if a Republican were in office this would be called a "depression."

But this is good news. According to Nancy Pelosi, every dollar in food stamps generates $1.86 dollars. So the more people on food stamps the better. Everyone should receive $2000 a month in food stamps. Then, according to her, the economy would essentially be solved.

As for $4,000 drop income, that is fine. As Pelosi and Reid both said, "the private sector is doing fine." It is the government that is financially hurting. So all left to do is to get at least twice as many people on food stamps and double the amount of taxes the government takes in. Remember, the more money the government takes in and spends the better the economy will be.

That's the Democrats reasoning of it anyway.

 

[justabubba]

Lol......your lack of knowledge over the sub prime collapse that was mandated by liberal Democrat policies doesn't excuse Obama's worsening and perpetuation of it's consequences.

Sorry, this is Obama's economy through and through.

please shed some light on the sub prime collapse and how that was the result of demo policies
i so look forward to that explanation

 

[obvious Child]

Why not, the democrats forgot it when Bush was in office. Speaking of hacks.

Did Bush ever threaten a veto on a spending bill?

Oops.

Let's not forget that it was the Bush Administration that blackmailed Foster into lying about the true cost of Medicare D to the American people.

Oops.

Did Bush ever curtail spending for Afghanistan and Iraq?

Oops.

Don't play this game with me. You will lose. And you will lose badly.

And it doesn't matter if the Democrats did the same thing. The fundamental fact still remains that a President still has little influence and control over the domestic economy compared to Congress.

Yes it was. Obama will add about 1 trillion to the debt per year over the period of his second administration. But hey, who's counting.

Better than engaging in spending cuts to cause a depression.

 

[Born Free]

I would agree that the president should have ended the war in Afghanistan faster, but he is ending it faster that the other viable candidates proposed both in 2008 and this election, and he did not start the war in Afghanistan, he is the one ending it. He has been drawing down troops for withdrawal of all military troops by 2014. Its noteworthy that you completely ignored the GOP war in Iraq that the president also ended, despite objections from the GOP.

Assumptions, not fact. Further Obama lies, and now he says we will be out in 2014 but I suspect that will be a lie too.

They make more income so they pay more income taxes.

Yes, I think we all know that.

FICA taxes provide as much federal revenue as does income taxes for which the wealthy are not taxed on 100% of their income as the working class are taxed.

FICA takes money that the employer and employee put into SS and Medicare so that the employee receive it back in their latter years. This is capped at a certain about but so in the payout amount capped. If your suggesting no cap then there should be an open ended payout amount based on what you put in. So you have a false argument.

"It's true that President Bush lowered tax rates for everyone in 2001, but the rich benefited more than other Americans.
The Bush tax cuts were a primary driver of the growth in income inequality over the past decade, the Congressional Research Service found.


The tax cuts reduced the middle three income tax rates of 28%, 31% and 36% by 3 percentage points, while shaving 4.6 percentage points off the top rate of 39.6%. It also created a new 10% bracket.

This knocked roughly $11,000 off the tax bill of those in the top quintile of taxpayers, on average, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. They got to keep an extra 5.4% of their after-tax income.

But the middle quintile only received a 2.6% boost in their after-tax income, or about an $1,100 tax break. The bottom quintile had just a $74 reduction in taxes, about a 0.7% change in after-tax income."
Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Bush tax cuts (2) - CNNMoney

False, I repeat.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

In addition the rich got:

Lower rates on capital gains and dividends
Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Lower rates on capital gains and dividends (3) - CNNMoney

How rich do you have to be to get lower rates on capital gains and dividends?

Big benefits for those who die
Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Big benefits for those who die (4) - CNNMoney

How rich do you have to be to get a benefit when you die?

Itemized deduction advantage
Itemized deduction advantage

How rich do you have to be before you can Itemize deductions

Tax-free interest on municipal bonds
Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Tax-free interest on municipal bonds (6) - CNNMoney

How rich do you have to be to buy a municipal bond?

You still haven't gotten the message from the presidential election, have you? Its about the economy:

And the 2010 election was where Obama got his ass handed to him because of his overspending. Apparently you did not get the message.

"Today, the Congressional Budget Office gave the GOP one more piece of evidence to ignore. CBO updated its analysis of the scenarios that make up the so-called “fiscal cliff” and found that extending all of the tax cuts would boost the nation’s economy by “a little less” than 1.5 percent of gross domestic product. Extending all of the tax cuts other than the high-income Bush tax cuts, meanwhile, would boost the economy by 1.25 percent, CBO found:

Extending all expiring tax provisions other than the cut in the payroll tax and indexing the AMT for inflation—except for allowing the expiration of lower tax rates on income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single taxpayers—would boost real GDP by about 1¼ percent by the end of 2013. That effect is nearly as large as the effect of making all of those changes in law and extending the lower tax rates on higher incomes as well (which CBO estimates to be a little less than 1½ percent, as noted above), primarily because the budgetary impact would be nearly as large (and secondarily because the extension of lower tax rates on higher incomes would have a relatively small effect on output per dollar of budgetary cost).

Congressional Budget Office: Expiration Of High-Income Bush Tax Cuts Would Have Little Effect On Economy | ThinkProgress

I repeat, the 2010 election was where Obama got his ass handed to him because of his overspending. You know we have three branches of government, Obama is not the dictator, although he wants to be. The one thing you continue to ignore is the national debt. Obama is borrowing 1.2 trillion a yr. Even if he get his tax increases which is 800 billion over 10 years he will only have to borrow 1.1 trillion a yr. He has raised the national debt by 6 trillion in just 4 yrs. and will raise it 4 trillion in the next 4 yrs for a grand total of 10 trillion in just 8 yrs. That more than all the presidents before him combined. Now you would think for all that borrowed money we would get a little more for our buck.

You see you never want to talk about how this huge debt is going to destroy this country. And who is going to have to pay it back and how that is going to effect them. We will have been living on 20 trillion of borrowed at the end of Obama. That is money that has gone into this economy, we have been living high on the hog, with no end in sight. But like Greece, Spain, and now Italy, where people are screaming in the streets "I demand my entitlements", that is our future.

 

[obvious Child]

This Executive Branch does.

So the Executive Branch is a dictatorship?

Obama is overseeing the execution of his policies by the Congress that does not do its job. He is encouraging them to not do their job and the evidence is that he does not demand a budget to be passed.

None of this proves your point. The President cannot enact new laws nor spend money that is not allocated for and passed by Congress. Nothing you said changes this. Please reread the powers, rights and obligations each branch has before making up your own version of the Constitution.

 

[obvious Child]

October 31, 2011.

Obama: If Congress won't act I will

Would help if you knew what an executive order actually does. An EO only allows the President to act within the existing authority of an existing law. An EO does not give the President the capacity to write new laws or spend new money. The President can only work within the existing framework.

With one of the wars ended when we were surprised by being unwillingly kicked out and the other still limping along to defeat, why has the rate of increase in the debt doubled under the Big 0 if this is the cause of the deficits?

Would help if you bothered to understand the context of what you are replying to. I was discussing the deficits under Bush. Not Obama. Your ignorance and laziness is getting annoying.

 

[Moot]

Is there any correlation to Obama's programs and the robust recovery?

No, but there's plenty of correlation to Republican policies tanking the economy. You'd have to be brain dead not to notice.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, but there's plenty of correlation to Republican policies tanking the economy. You'd have to be brain dead not to notice.

Correlation seldom implies causation. However, both parties are only doing what it takes to buy our votes. All these problems will continue to happen until the public in general stops the "me" attitude and starts pressuring congress into responsible actions.

 

[What if...?]

I had a flat tire this morning....................Bush's fault.

Or maybe we can just blame it on greed and irresponsibility by wall st types and move on.

 

[azgreg]

Or maybe we can just blame it on greed and irresponsibility by wall st types and move on.

We could do that, but the left won't let it go.

 

[Catawba]

Assumptions, not fact.

If you call actual statements by the candidates, assumptions.

FICA takes money that the employer and employee put into SS and Medicare so that the employee receive it back in their latter years. This is capped at a certain about but so in the payout amount capped. If your suggesting no cap then there should be an open ended payout amount based on what you put in. So you have a false argument.

Show me when in our history benefits were ever increased when the cap was increased.

How rich do you have to be to get lower rates on capital gains and dividends?

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers will receive 71 percent of all capital gains.) Meanwhile, the bottom 80 percent of filers will receive only 10 percent of all capital gains."

http://tcf.org/blogs/botc/2012/07/Capitalgainsconcentratedamongtheverywealthy.png
Chart Book: 10 Things You Need to Know About the Capital Gains Tax — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

How rich do you have to be to get a benefit when you die?

The answer was in the article you responded to, but failed to read evidently:

"When President Bush took office, the wealthy could leave only $675,000 to heirs free of federal tax, while the rest was taxed at 55%.
His tax cuts gradually increased the amount exempt from estate taxes, while lowering the rate until 2011.

After a bitter battle, President Obama and the Republican-led House struck a deal in the waning days of 2010 to exempt $5 million from estate taxes and set the rate at 35% for two years.

The result? An estate worth $25 million would have been subject to about $13.2 million in federal taxes had Bush not changed the law. Now, it will fork over less than $7 million, according to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center."

Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Big benefits for those who die (4) - CNNMoney





How rich do you have to be before you can Itemize deductions

"Some 96% of those making between $200,000 and $1 million itemized their deductions on their 2009 return, rather than taking the standard deduction of $5,700 for single taxpayers or $11,400 for married couples. Meanwhile, only 37% of those making between $40,000 and $50,000 itemized their deductions."

Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Itemized deduction advantage (5) - CNNMoney

How rich do you have to be to buy a municipal bond?

You don't like to read, do you?

"It doesn't make sense to buy muni bonds unless you are in a high tax bracket"
Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Tax-free interest on municipal bonds (6) - CNNMoney

And the 2010 election was where Obama got his ass handed to him because of his overspending.

Last I heard, Obama was reelected to a second term!

.

You see you never want to talk about how this huge debt is going to destroy this country.

The hell I don't! I've been complaining since Reagan about excessive spending. Which party had members that opposed spending almost as much the rest of the world combined on military. And which party did a majority vote against the needless $2 trillion dollar war in Iraq? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the GOP!