Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

You are assuming perfectly elastic prices, martaug - and I doubt they are. If the price of gas increased to 4+ USD in a period of reduced income, the result may be a decrease in consumption (i.e. more people using public transport, etc) which isn't much better for the oil companies. Of course, the problem is that oil producers may decide that, if the crisis hits them hard enough, they can unilaterally raise oil prices by reducing production. That will, most likely, increase prices - but there isn't that much the US can do about it besides finding alternative fuels.

As for the family income statistics, just because 15% of the population makes $130+ USD per year doesn't mean their family income is over 250K - their spouces may make less. I'm not sure just how predominant this is in the US, but men often earn more than women.

Personally, I would appreciate if Obama's administration gave the sources which he used to make his claims. On the other hand, you have to admit he seems to have the guts for the job

 

Considering both the US being better on equal pay than many (probably not all, though) and the fact that, at that size of income, gender is even less likely to be an issue, I'd bet that any working spouses have a high probability of topping the family total over 250K. How many spouses actually work, when one is bringing in 130K alone, I don't know.

 

I agree, there are probably quite a few such families. Still, I thought that a wage of 130+ thousand dollars is above the average, so it would be statistically likely that the spouce of such a person is making less (and while I admit that afaik the gender pay gap is not very big in the US, it is still likely to be significant factor). This is why I wanted to see some statistics, especially those used by Obama and his opponents. Personally, I'd expect that not too many US families make over 20K per month (I'm used to thinking of it that way ) , but it would be interesting to see which way the data goes.

Actually, what is imo most important is to keep a cool head about it, and actually getting to work on the plan, so when it is actually decided on the US either gets the best possible deal for its money, or affirms that no better option is made. It was equal parts amusing and distressing to see the comments to some polls on the plan - people thought either that a revolution is starting or the sky is falling. Within the entire trillion-dollar thing, there is probably something that is relatively unimportant and can be cut away - though so far I've mostly heard about anecdotal evidence about relatively small-scale projects - but that is ultimately unimportant for the plan itself. The important part is to decide on the, say, 97% of the plan that should either be voted "yes" or "no" to. Personally, I think Obama's plan, while ambitious, offers higher chances of success than anything else I've heard so far, and is a better option that just sitting around doing nothing. The big problem is the initial deficit it incurs - but with the deficits Obama inherited and the economic crisis raging, there isn't much of an alternative.

 

I love how he complains about the deficit he inherited when he voted for $750 Billion of it.
That would be like you or me complaining about our lack of money after buying a ferrari.

On a different note,what do you think of his 3.6 Trillion dollar budget?
Too high, too low, way too high?


Oh, and about that transparent government bit, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html

Now we are not talking about the clissified parts here, we are talking about what should be a matter of public record. By requiring these pledges & keeping the budget process departmentalized it would be very easy to funnel money to other places(including away from the defense dept).
Not a very auspicious way to start transparency is it?

And just what the heck is with all the czars? have we travelled back in time to 19th century russia?
Health reform Czar, Urban affairs Czar, Energy and climate change Czar, AIDS Czar, Drug Czar, and Stimulus Czar.
Even the democrats are questioning the process.http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/0...uestions-obamas-use-of-policy-czars-9865.html

Wait, is that another hit against the transparency of government?

 

Well, I don't have any statistics, but I would remind you that people usually pair up with others from their own socio-economic bracket, so two people earning 125K+ pairing up isn't unbelievable, even if that is above the average.

Remember, you have not just the job income to consider, but also investments. Actually, that'll probably bring the numbers down from last year, considering the hits the investment market has taken.


Martaug, the Czar thing is a pop-culture term. My mother was appointed the 'energy Czar' ar work, meaning it's now part of her job to track energy usage and recomend energy saving procedures.

Wait, wait, we have a Drug Czar now? Tell me he's either latino or russian, please! That'd be just too good. And Obama even has a history of drug use (not that many officials in the US don't).

 

Haha Nog, we have actually had a drug czar since 1988. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), is a Cabinet level component of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. It first got nick-named the "drug czar" by now VP Biden.
Obamas nominee is Gil Kerlikowske, the chief of police in seattle,WA.

 

Well, I doubt it's that uncommon . I think Bush Jr. was alleged to have done drugs in university (some pretty hard stuff, too) and I believe Clinton admitted to smoking pot... I don't know anything about earlier presidents, but I wouldn't be surprised if they smoked some pot, went to a hooker or drunk till they puked in college.

As long as they stopped doing it in college, I think it shouldn't matter all that much.

 

Bah! Ruin all my fun, why don't you!

 

Yeah, GWB did party hardy in the old days. In fact, he had to leave the line blank on his application to run for governor of Texas about prior "arrests," since he was picked up on a DWI. Those two - Bill and George - probably would have been a blast to party with 30 years ago - hell, they might still be for all we know.

 

I cannot tell you where Obama or martaug get their statistics, but I get my statistics from the IRS website. You can go to their website and in the search menu type "median household income 2007" (the 2008 numbers are obviously not yet available, as many people have yet to file their 2008 taxes). They have all sorts of cool stuff about people's income on their site (imagine that). In fact, according to the 2007 statistics, fewer than 10% of all households made over $130K - no where near the 15% of all people that martaug asserts. (Although to be fair, if you are single and live alone, you are a household of 1 person - so some of those are people who individually make over $130K annually.)

The PB is a matter of public record martaug. I'm a contractor for the DoD [and incidentally I don't make anywhere near $130K a year], and every year we get a copy of the final PB. Obama released what amounted to a one-line top level budget in February to meet a Congressionally-mandated-deadline, and then immediately thereafter pulled it back. Obama knows the first draft he released is full of holes, and doesn't want people discussing the numbers in that version (besides - Congress gets to look at his budget, and that's a matter of public record too!). The final budget will be released sometime in the second half of April (that's much later than is normal, but typical when there is an administration change), and it will be a matter of public record. If you'd like I can e-mail it to you.

A large part of the work I do revolves around the annual budget (first the PB, and then the Congressionally approved one - which is also a matter of public record). The Congressionally approved budget comes out in the summer. In DoD parlance the Congressionally approved budget is typically referred to as the BES - which stands for Budget Estimate Submission. While I have a security clearance because I need to see all the numbers to do my job, I can tell you that over 90% of both the President's budget and the Congressionally approved budget are released to the public, and I sincerely hope that doesn't change because I may be out of a job if it does (since the documents I produce are also part of the public record).

 

Haha aldeth, do you really report all of your income to the IRS? You must be the only person in america.
I don't remember what the site was but it listed 10% as over $150k & 15% as over $130K

 

The only income I earn is from my job with the federal government, and every dime I earn shows up on my W-2. So yeah, I do report it all. Of course I pay for health care and have a 401k plan, so not all of my income is taxable, but I report the whole sum. (In fact, anyone who has a job that gives you W-2s would have to report all of their income. If you own your own business or have work that pays on commission, I can see how you can fudge your annual income, but a W-2 says you made this much...)

 

[Waiting for Tal's info on martaug to be hacked by an unknown agency of the US Federal Government.]

 

Here are some numbers on household income, not individual income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

 

Perhaps you risk prison to save a few dollars on your taxes. That doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

Ok chandos, we will use your numbers. The new tax plan calls for an additional $636 Billion over the next 10 years from those earning over $250k as a family.
That works out to:
$16,223.42 due to bush tax cut repeals
$8,591.69 due to loss of itemized deductions
$5,663.79 capital gains tax increases

Thats an additional $30,478.90 per family per year for 10 years.
Since a large number of these are small business owners they are just gonna pass along the loss to their customers by higher prices.

 

Martaug, you ignore several things. First of all, the government taxes profit. Higher taxes don't decrease profit. The actual number of small business owners that will be affected by Obama's tax increase will be less than 1 million....and most of them aren't even employers, but Authors, Actors, Artists, etc. For that tiny amount of small businesses that actually employ people, make their living by re-selling goods, and earn enough income to be affected by the increase, incorporation is also an option -- and anyone making more than 200K per year can definitely afford to incorporate his business.

 

I doubt that. A large number of these guys are corporate 500 execs and mid-sized businesses. I'm sure that some of them are "small" business owners, but the guy who owns the convenient store on my corner would probably be surprised to be placed at that level of income. If an owner is making 250K a year in personal income, his/her business is not THAT small.

 

Um, you do realize that by repealing the Bush Tax cuts for people making over $250K, that the only portions of their salary that will be affected by the tax hike will be the amount over $250K. Raising the tax rate for those making over $250K from 36% to 39.6% does not raise the amount of taxes on their entire income by 3.6% - just the amount over $250K. That's the theory behind a progressive income tax...

 

Not my numbers aldeth, the administrations
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html

Notice i didn't even include the business taxes, they are counting on getting 338 Billion dollars more in taxes from those making over $250k a year.
Chandos & Drew, you & i obviously have different opinions of what a small business is. The legal definition(which the government uses) includes all of these as small businesses.

Here is the full list: http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf
So please stop throwing in the ridiculous "mom & pop" making $25k a year as representarive of small business when it isn't.