Is Fed Trying To Give Us Inflation?

I keep saying that inflation is not that far away (I think it is here already) and when it hits it will be massive. Prices are going up and things are going to get worse before they get better. To top it off, the Fed’s policies will definitely give us inflation. Rick Santelli sees it this way:

My conclusion is that the goal of Chairman Bernanke and the Federal Open Market Committee was to monetize the growing U.S. debt and generate future inflation. On the last score….generating inflation….I think time will prove the Fed highly successful. CNBC

Make no mistake about it, the Fed is monetizing our debt and when it does you will need lots and lots of money to buy a loaf of bread.

Better stock up on basic necessities now.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

56 Responses to “Is Fed Trying To Give Us Inflation?”

  1. Barbara says:

    Looks like I’ll be losing weight.

  2. Adam says:

    How is inflation already here?

    The CPI all items value is only up 1.1% this year. Food is up 1.5%. Energy is up the most at 3.9%.

    As I’m sure you know, inflation has generally between between 2% and 3% for the last 20 years. We are still below 1% even with the increases this year. We’re going to see increases but they aren’t automatically a sign of bad things to come.

    • Big Dog says:

      Inflation sits at 1.14% for November but that is a an increase of 3.24% since last July when the rate was -2.10%. While inflation varies by month we have been up from last year and it will continue to rise. The inflation rate over the period of 1/2009 and 11/2010 is 3.63% which, as you know is above 2 or 3%. It is also important to remember they chjanged the way inflation is measured in the 80s and again in the 90s. If we measured inflation like we did prior to those gimmicks then we are at 8.5%

      Inflation is not bad if you manipulate the data.

      • Adam says:

        Sure, we can go by the older methodology which would have inflation at 8.54%. That doesn’t mean we compare 8.54% to the typical 3% though.

        Instead of 1.14% when it was typically between 2% and 3% we have 8.54% when it was typically been between 8% and 12% for the last 20 years.

        Given that, I don’t see the point of complaining about methodology when we have 20 years of data to compare today’s rates to. Call it 1.14% or 8.54% the rate is still not out of the norm.

    • Blake says:

      Adam- you look at certain key commodities- Gas, sugar, flour- and these are the first things to go up.
      Monetizing the debt is NEVER a good thing- I have been advising those I know with some land to stock up on seed for a garden- they will need it to get through.
      My suggestions- Yams (for their protein and natural sugars) green and wax beans, potatos, peppers for spice, and tomatos.
      If you can get seeds for the hybrid blackberries, and have access to pecan trees, all the better.
      Keep a .22 or a pellet rifle handy- squirrel tastes better than you might think.

  3. Tom Beebe says:

    Same old Keynesian economic folly. The idea is that you’ll spend that dollar in your pocket only if you know its getting smaller. This assumes we make all our economic decisions rationally. Far from it. It assumes we would defer spending if deflation threatened and that dollar in our pocket would grow. Again, how many of your expenses have to be made right now? Keynesian economics are the atithesis of the virtue os saving, as opposed to going into debt. We need stable currecy, where the dollar’s value only goes up as we make goods and services really more affordable without cutting the real value of our paychecks. This is why Ron Paul wants to stabilize the currency with a return to the gold standard. He’s not really as crazy as portrayed.

    • Blake says:

      No Tom, he is not- and a quick scan of prices should convince everyone that our currency needs to be tied to something stable-
      In 1970, a pickup truck cost $2,000- today, $20,000- a one thousand percent markup. The same is true for all products across the board, for the average inflation rate is 3.4% annually, producing in a thirty year span, the thousand percent increase.
      But has your paycheck gone up by that same rate?
      Perhaps if you work for a union, or the government- but the minimum wage would be 22.50 today, as it was $1.75 in 1970.
      If we have runaway inflation today, you had better be ready to take in all your family, for Social Security and Medicare will collapse totally, and jobs will be non-existant.

      • Tom Beebe says:

        Thanks, Blake. What would you think of this, in lieu of todat’s tax code, and welfare as well?

        1. All persons residing in the U.S. shall come together in households for the purpose of reporting all income from any source, each item to be identified by payer’s and payee’s tax number. Members of a household need not be related, need not reside together, and a household may consist of as few as one person. With equality as the primary goal, this act established households to be taxed, so that all persons, whether related or not, legally here or not, are taxed equally.
        2. Each year congress shall set by legislation a “minimum wage” and a “tax rate”.
        3. The following income shall not be subject to taxation:
        • An amount equal to a year’s earnings at the minimum wage rate, for each adult (age 20-65) member of the household, decreasing 10% per year to 50% at age 15 and increasing 10% per year to 150% at age 70. (Family of two adults and two young children would receive exemptions equaling 100% + 100% + 50% + 50% = 300% minimum wage, currently about $42,000)
        • All payments for what is classified as necessary health care for all members of the household including medical care, any pharmaceuticals prescribed by a recognized health care professional, vision and hearing aids, and membership fees for health-enhancing entities such as gyms or other exercise facilities. Health care insurance premiums may be deducted but not health care expense paid for by such insurance.
        • All educational expenses including day care for young children or legally incompetent persons, that portion of state and local taxes identified as spent on education, that portion of parochial school tuition, fees and other expenses identified as going for non-sectarian education, tuition, fees and educational materials for private school education at any level, and a per-diem allowance for students traveling more than 50 miles from primary residence for education.
        • All income saved into an identified account from which investments may be made.
        This encourages growth of the tax base, thus growth of the government’s ability to pay for its responsibilities, by fostering health care, education and investment, all of which contribute to growth of income, taxable to support legitimate government purposes.
        4. The “tax rate” shall be applied to any income over and above the deductions listed above, regardless of amount. It seeks the elusive concept of fairness by taxing at the same rate all “disposable” income.
        5. There shall be no federal tax on corporations or other business entities. August 20th was declared the point at which we, on average, end working for government and start working for ourselves. This suggests a tax rate of 63%, which would create a backlash against big government that no amount of campaigning could evoke.
        6. The Office of Management and Budget shall compute revenues to be expected using the newly set tax rate and minimum wage, applied to the previous year’s reported incomes. No expenses in excess of that amount may be authorized or made by the federal government without approval by 75% of each house of Congress. It sets the Federal budget to produce a surplus in times of economic expansion and a deficit in times of contraction to promote economic stability.
        7. At the request, by legislation duly enacted by a municipality having greater than 100,000 inhabitants or a state, a surtax may be imposed on citizens of that municipality or state which shall be applied in a manner exactly as applied for the Federal tax. It recognizes disparity in cost of living among various locations. It facilitates sufficient sources of revenue for states and municipalities.
        8. For households whose deductions exceed total income, the Federal Government shall make payment equal to the tax rate multiplied by the shortfall in income, as shall municipalities and states. This addresses aid to the truly needy.

        Your suggestions sincerely requested. E-mail them to tbeebe6535@yahoo.com.

        • Blake says:

          I think the tax code should be simplified enough to where a moron or liberal can write it down in crayon.
          5/10/15- 5% for the first bracket- 15,000 annually to 200,000 annually- 10% 200,000- 1,000,000, and 15% for all others higher than 1,000,000 dollars annually.
          In addition, no “Death Tax”- this money has already been taxed once by the government- twice is once too many times.
          NO LOOPHOLES- this is why the tax code is so convoluted and way unnecessary-
          The Corporate Tax over $1,000,000 would also be 15%, no loopholes.
          And while I believe in capitalism, some bonuses ARE obscene, especially when the company hasn’t made a profit, but instead has lost money.
          In REAL life, you do NOT get a trophy for just showing up.
          Some people need to learn this.

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        Today’s pick-up isn’t paying for JUST a pick-up. It also pays for all the social agenda that liberals have hammered into the system; union fees, days-away from work to take care of baby, retirement and pension scams, you name it, it is all in the price of that truck.

        Along with legal fees for “exploding gas tanks!” OMG! If you have a wreck, the tank may explode? I hear a law suit!” Frivolous at best!

        Then there is the mandatory contributions to gay awareness in the work-place, sensitivity training and the endless march of the lilly-limp-handed government worker in Jane Boots, who’s only justification for their job is to cause trouble for the businessman.

        And people, we can’t call that inflation. That is “cost plus.” The real value of the truck may be increased by 3% a year because of inflation.
        The part above 3%? Parasites sucking our blood. They have almost sucked that industry dry, as they did the rail industry.

        And still Odom propounds the virtues of socialism.

        • Adam says:

          Don’t worry, Trahneir. Your kind will be able to openly serve in the military soon enough. You won’t have to race around bashing homosexuality and keeping up this self-loathing front of yours for much longer. You can start to live your life loud and proud like you should.

        • Adam says:

          “Better hope the gays step up and fill those combat positions or you might be drafted to fill the needs of the service…”

          Are you suggesting that people will quit the military once gays can serve openly?

  4. Adam says:

    Sure, we can talk doom and gloom about debt inflation, needing grow a garden and all that. The truth though is, as WSJ points out, many economists are actually calling for a decreased likelihood of a double dip recession (15%) and predicting 3% growth of GDP next year. These folks are not predicting great job growth but it will be better than this year which was just OK, not that great.

  5. Mr. Ogre says:

    To answer the question posted in the post: Yes, the Fed IS honestly trying to give us inflation. They WANT inflation! They may not want hyperinflation, but they do want prices of goods and commodities to rise. They honestly don’t care about salaries, just goods.

    I also love the talk of “double-dip” recession — as if there was a recession, then everything went back to completely normal and good times of the 1980s, and now there might be a chance things will get slightly bad again. If that’s not called manipulating the figures, I don’t know what is. Yes, I’m aware that there is an official definition of recession, but that definition is not what most people think. And if you think the country is in great shape today economically, there is no hope that you will ever meet reality.

    • Tom Beebe says:

      Read Thomas Sowell’s comments in the Town Hall blog. Recently, he said as an economist he’s often asked what to do about our current economic problems. After some study on the matter, he concluded the answer was “NOTHING”. When FDR did “SOMETHING” about the depresion, he prolonged it, to be saved only by the buildup to WW-II. When Reagen did nothing, we came out of the Carter recession quickly. His point is that stability, including a stable currency, will encourage investment and job creation far more than all the government tinkering. What say we give it a try? Send congress home !

    • Adam says:

      “I also love the talk of “double-dip” recession — as if there was a recession, then everything went back to completely normal…”

      I don’t think anyone implies it was recession then normal, do they? Recovery takes usually 3 or 4 times as long as the length of a recession. We can group that together into a common and defined period but I’m not sure there’s an official definition for the end of a recovery period anyway.

      I’m also at a loss to find anyone who thinks we’re in great shape today. I certainly don’t believe so. I do however believe the forecasts that predict a better year in 2011 than 2010 instead of the other way around as those on this site like to do. We had a better year in 2010 than in 2009 and better in 2009 than 2008 and so forth. That’s not to say we had amazing perfect years.

      • Tom Beebe says:

        May I suggest the quick fixes that the politicians are giving us to get results before the next election do more damage than good? See my report of Thomas Sowell’s recommendations, and the following, from the comprehensive reform I suggested: “using the newly set tax rate and minimum wage, applied to the previous year’s reported incomes…It sets the Federal budget to produce a surplus in times of economic expansion and a deficit in times of contraction to promote economic stability.”

      • Adam says:

        “May I suggest the quick fixes that the politicians are giving us to get results before the next election do more damage than good?”

        You certainly can but I doubt you’ll be correct. You’ve been mislead by think tanks and revisionist conservatives into thinking FDR prolonged the depression and that doing nothing has somehow worked…ever.

        The most likely outcome is simply no result but not a negative one.

        Thomas Sowell is a man who trusts the opinion of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Liddy. That’s all I need to know. I prefer not to be in the same room with his type but really you can’t avoid it. There’s one or two morons at every family gathering.

        • Ogre says:

          “and that doing nothing has somehow worked…ever.”

          Spoken like a true government cheerleader: only government can solve any problem and government can solve any problem given enough money and power. No one else, under any circumstances, can or will do any good.

          Hey, at least you’re being honest about your government worship and hatred towards your fellow man.

        • Adam says:

          “…and government can solve any problem given enough money and power.”

          Not government itself but it is a mechanism for change and improvement of our way of life, yes.

          “No one else, under any circumstances, can or will do any good.”

          I didn’t say that and I don’t believe that. But in terms of governments doing nothing…well, you’d have to show me an example of that ever working.

          “Hey, at least you’re being honest about your government worship and hatred towards your fellow man.”

          I don’t worship the government and I don’t hate my fellow “man” in any way. I can’t help it that you think your way is the best and any view counter to it amounts to hateful force and slavery. Your way is an absurd, unrealistic fantasy.

        • Blake says:

          You have it backwards, as usual, Adam- it is the thinking of Thomas Sowell that other conservatives trust.
          If you bothered to read his books, your mind might be changed- but that would alter your world-view, and you are not mentally equipped to handle that conversion, I am afraid, so a Doubting Thomas you will always be- you ARE familiar with THAT phrase, aren’t you?
          If not, ask Darrel- he seems to think he is a biblical scholar.

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        What have you been drinking, Odom? Sperm samples from the bank where you work?

  6. Tom Beebe says:

    Adam… do you share BHO’s interest in spreading the wealth around? That’s often cited as something accomplished by Great Society programs. Your last comment seems to open the door to the morality aspect of this issue.

    True, a great prophet said a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven unless he gives to the poor. In my opinion, the giving is and of itself the promised heaven. But too many overlook what that great One did NOT say. He never told Rome (government) to give to the poor. Indeed, I believe that to take from one, with the force of law, and give to another is not a definition of charity; I suggest another word: theft.

    • Adam says:

      “…do you share BHO’s interest in spreading the wealth around?”

      Yes, I absolutely support a progressive tax scale which takes less from those who earn the least and more from those who earn the most.

      “Indeed, I believe that to take from one, with the force of law, and give to another is not a definition of charity; I suggest another word: theft.”

      Charity is charity, taxes are taxes. There should be no confusion of the two. If you earn income in the United States you’re going to pay taxes back into the system that among other things helps support the favorable business environment under which we prosper, protects consumers from bad business practices, and provides assistance to those at the bottom when they need it.

      • Big Dog says:

        If you earn income in the US and are part of the bottom 50% you will pay 2.9% of the taxes (while consuming a great deal of services). If you earn money inthe US and are in the top 50% you will pay the other 97.1%

        Yep, sounds fair to me. Next we can make the people in college who get As give a grade to the Fs so they can all pass. It is only fair, the A earners did better than those in the F group.

        When taxes are used for charitable things then it becomes theft. Find that part of the Constitution that allows government to take from one person to give to another. Taxes are supposed to be the money to run government. Social programs are not part of government’s business…

        • Tom Beebe says:

          You will be surprised on re-reading the plan I submitted above to learn that it does provide for transfer payments to the truly needy. It does so by establishing a standard “standard of living”. This is such a debateable subject that I suggested using the minimum wags as a guide, and requiring its renewal or adjustment each year. It’s not great reasoning that if government says you should not work for less than that rate, then it certainly shouldn’t take part of it from you. Again, anybody got a better idea? After exempting education, health care and investment (savings) as things that contribute to the creation of wealth, thus growing the tax vase, I suggest we all pay the same tax rate on the balance. Its called “disposable income”. What’s fairer than all paying the same portion of income beyond these basic needs and/or beyond moneys that contribute to growth of the economy? Even Adam ought to accept that, but probably will object that wealth creators can still get rich. What say you?

        • Adam says:

          “Yep, sounds fair to me.”

          It has little to do with fairness. Let’s look at some 2006 some numbers you and I talked about recently.

          Citing those numbers out of the context of income distribution is dishonest. Yes, the top 50% paid about 90.35% of the taxes but they earned 81.8% of the income. The highest quintile payed 16% more share of taxes than their share of income. That’s not too awful unless you just really hate a progressive scale like we have.

          If you wanted a flat tax the top 50% would still have paid 81.8% of the taxes in theory.

          “Next we can make the people in college who get As give a grade to the Fs so they can all pass.”

          As you can see from the numbers the bump isn’t from F to A. It’s more like from B to A, C to B, and so forth. That thing happens all the time in college classes.

          “Find that part of the Constitution that allows government to take from one person to give to another.”

          Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. You know where it’s at, you just disagree with centuries of case law that has upheld this particular interpretation of that clause.

        • Adam says:

          “What’s fairer than all paying the same portion of income beyond these basic needs and/or beyond moneys that contribute to growth of the economy?”

          I don’t know enough about tax policy or theory to say whether I agree with that or not. I just know for instance that I’m not opposed to a progressive tax scale and think it’s more than fair that those who earn the most and can afford the most pay the largest share of the taxes.

        • Adam says:

          I cited 16% when really the correct number is +13.6%. The top 20% of income earners earn 55.7% of total income and pay 69.3% of total taxes.

          • Big Dog says:

            So the reality is they should get a tax cut. They earn 55.7% of total income and should pay 55.7% of the total taxes. You claim they don’t pay their fair share but they pay more than their total of income by nearly 14%. In contrast, the bottom 50% pay under 3% of total income taxes but earn more than 3% of the total income. Why are THEY not paying their fair share?

  7. Tom Beebe says:

    Adam:
    One request; please read the detailed plan I’ve put forth above. Its the product of several years of reading and synthesizing ideas from a broad range of political thought. Unlike most bloggers, I gave my email address (and real name) with the proposal. I believe you feel more strongly than those who just use this medium to blow off steam and throw insults at those with whom they agree. Print it out, if you can, study it and give me your comments. We both can learn, not from those who share our ideas, but those who differ.
    Thanks

    • Adam says:

      I’ll try my best when I get some time but I can’t promise anything. It’s a bit more wonkish than I care to deal with when it comes to taxes.

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        Read, “I am too busy accusing other of being gay while I wonk my boyfriend and wish we could marry. All I want to do is come here and slap other people because I have no life of my own.”

  8. Adam says:

    “Why are THEY not paying their fair share?”

    They do pay their fair share. A progressive scale IS fair. It’s not punishing wealth or rewarding poverty to have a progressive tax scale at the level we have it.

  9. Big Dog says:

    not punishing wealth or rewarding poverty to have a progressive tax scale at the level we have it.

    While we could argue whether progressive tax scales are good or not let us instead take your sentence and have a look.

    Assuming you are correct then the question is, why do you want to change it to make the rich pay more. You say it is not punishing at THE LEVEL WE HAVE IT.

    But you want to punish by raising that level.

    Of course progressive taxes are punishing and people end up paying a lot more if they do well. The other problem is the government continues to define down what well off is.

    • Adam says:

      “But you want to punish by raising that level.”

      No, I still don’t believe it is a punishment. There is definitely a level at which taxing too much hurts those taxed and the economy in return. Increasing taxes +3% on the top 2% of income earners is not punishment.

      “The other problem is the government continues to define down what well off is.”

      Generally if you earn more income than 98% of Americans you are “well off” I’d say. It’s not like the top has met the bottom either. The gap between the top and the bottom has grown significantly over the last 20 years making the impact of such a tax increase on the top 2% even smaller.

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        I am one of those top 2% and I certainly consider added taxes as punishment.

        You sure are free with others money, you gay.

  10. Big Dog says:

    OK folks, let’s be respectful of each other here.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Making more money that 98% of other earners does not mean you are well off. Only in liberal la la land does making 250k make a person rich. You cannot define rich based on the comparison of what you make to that of others. You are better off than others but you are not in ANY position to pay more for their benefit. If that is the case the 3% in the bottom 50% who pay the taxes are well off compared to that group.

    This makes no more sense than saying the kid with an A in a class full of kids with the Ds is a genius.

    But then again, you like a progressive tax system where people who achieve pay to support those who do not. I personally am tied of hearing people 9including Biden) talk about getting skin in the game when he bottom 50% have no skin in the game.

    They are a drain on our government and our nation’s resources. They will continue to be until they get some skin in the game.

    • Adam says:

      “Making more money that 98% of other earners does not mean you are well off.”

      No, I agree with that. It just means you should be.

      “You cannot define rich based on the comparison of what you make to that of others.”

      I completely disagree. But in the end whether you call it “rich” or whatever else you want to call it, the first 1% of the top 2% would have seen very little tax increase under Obama’s plan because there would have been a tax cut on the first $250,000. Any income over that would have been taxed at a higher rate. Some people in that 2% might have come out ahead after the changes actually. The top 1%’s average income was 1.7 million in 2006. That’s average and not mean but I’m sure we’ll agree that the top 1% is very rich.

      It’s not going to happen though so we can just stop talking about it for now I suppose. But as you can tell I like this conversation.

      “…the bottom 50% have no skin in the game.”

      They have plenty of skin in the game…relative to the money they earn. You’re asking people averaging $17,000 a year to take on a larger share of the tax burden so that those averaging well over $250,000 a year can keep more of their money. To me that’s absurd and it’s a danger to the purchasing power of these lower income Americans. To me what we have is fair, and I don’t consider it to not be fair just because the rates differ.

      • Big Dog says:

        Fair is when everyone pays something. If you pay nothing and someone else pays 25 or 36% then it is not fair.

        Just to correct you so you won’t continue with the spin of the left, THERE WAS NO TAX CUT. So please stop saying there would have been a tax cut on the first 250k. The only thing we did was keep the rates the same as they have been for a decade. we did NOT cut taxes. We avoided increasing taxes and that is ALL. And the 17k a year guy is not shouldering any greater burden. But when that 17k a year guy hires people and creates jobs, well then we can talk.

        Though taxes will increase on the well off who have their estates taxed (again) when they die. That is not fair no matter how you look at it and it is why so many people find ways to avoid paying estate taxes.

        As for the 17k a year guy, he holds little skin in the game and is not as burdened as you think. He often gets tax credits and get a tax check back even though he paid no taxes. Some people get back a quarter or half of what they earn as a “refund” when they paid nothing in.

        And how do you decide who SHOULD BE well off. A guy in Arkansas earning 250k might well be but a guy in New York City earning 250k will have a tough time of things.

        But let me help you by saying something your parents might have said to you (and if they did not they should have) LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

        And it is not up to government to make it fair.

        • Adam says:

          “So please stop saying there would have been a tax cut on the first 250k. ”

          I agree that extending the cuts are not tax cut. I don’t recall suggesting extending the tax cuts is a new tax cut.

          What I’m talking about is the tweaking of the law that Obama planned. Every single person would get a tax cut on the first $200,000 or $250,000. Then only the income above that would be taxed at the higher rates. This is why I said certain rare individuals would have actually had a tax break under Obama’s plan if they were in a perfect scenario.

          “A guy in Arkansas earning 250k might well be but a guy in New York City earning 250k will have a tough time of things.”

          It’s all about lifestyle choices. You could raise taxes on millionaires who are as overextended as some $250,000aires are and make the same argument. It’s like the guy we discussed a few months back with the fancy houses and cars and all the fancy private lessons for the kids and the house cleaners and such. Boo hoo. If you can’t afford a couple hundred dollar increase in taxes a month when your income is $250,000 then you better have a much better excuse than what that guy had.

        • Adam says:

          “But let me help you by saying something your parents might have said to you (and if they did not they should have) LIFE IS NOT FAIR.”

          You are the one that keeps placing things in the context of unfair and fair, not me. I said early in the thread that it this has little to do with fairness. I feel it is much more about what is good for the country and the economy and a progressive scale is. Do I think it’s fair though? Yeah, seems fine to me.

  12. Blake says:

    What pisses me off is that the government actually believes that the money WE EARN is their money- the government has never earned a cent in its life, and while I can understand some taxation for infrastructure maintenence, there should NEVER be a surplus- any money not spent, should go back to the people- it really IS that simple, Adam.

    • Adam says:

      “…it really IS that simple, Adam.”

      I agree for the most part but we have so rarely had surpluses (or not at all depending on how much you want to hate Clinton) so I don’t see your point.

      • Big Dog says:

        Paper surpluses do not count. However, If you like them I can go back and manipulate data for any period and show a surplus.

        If the money is NOT in the bank, there is no surplus. If we owe money there is no surplus. If you or anyone else can show me figures from the Treasury where we had a surplus rather than a deficit then I will concede. Here is a clue, that does not exist. We still had a deficit so there was no surplus.

        You can act like a guy in New York in the 250k range should be as well off but New York will eat him alive in taxes and the cost of living is very high whereas in Arkansas the COL is lower and the taxes are nothing like New York.

        • Adam says:

          The average income of New York is about $77,000. You can’t tell me that folks making $250,000 there can’t live within their means as well as somebody in AR.

          For any single place in the United States if you make $250,000 a year and you don’t live comfortably then you’re spending too much money and no one should feel sorry and use you as an excuse for why we can’t raises taxes a few hundred dollars more a month. Again, even a millionaire would be hurt by raised taxes if they are not living wisely with their money. I’m not going to feel sorry for these folks.

  13. Big Dog says:

    No one is asking you to feel sorry for anyone. Obviously, you think you get to decide what is decent living for someone. If they do not live in the comfort YOU decide then screw them.

    The point, and it is obvious and valid, is that money, regardless of the amount, goes farther in places with lower COL.

    Regardless, people who pay 36% of their income in taxes are paying enough.

    And let me say it again Adam, it is not for you to decide what living within one’s means is but since you set it as a standard then let me assert, people who make 20k a year should live within their means. They do not deserve to have as much as the person who makes 250k. Regardless of what you think, they do not deserve the same lifestyle.

    Those people need to learn to live within their means and quit spending other people’s money for what they want.

    I lived on less than 9k a year with a wife and around 11k with a wife and 2 children. I lived within my means and never got a handout or government welfare. So folks need to live within their means regardless of annual income and we should not hammer those making more just because we don’t get to live like them.

    • Blake says:

      And I and my wife lived on NEVER MORE than $32,000, andusually much less- and we managed to pay off our mortgage, and raise our children, all without a single bit of government assistence- and that is to be commended, I believe- we never thought “oh no, we have it so bad- we do not have a jaccuzi or Hi-Def TV- woe is me!
      No, we just lived WITHIN our means.
      Try it sometime- heck, suggest it to the rest of your family, too- we might just reduce the deficit.

  14. Big Dog says:

    The funny thing is that liberals have no problem raising the taxes of the people they define as wealthy because those folks can afford it and they should learn to live within their ample means–but–

    Those very same liberals do not believe the government should be held to that same standard. Rich guy, live within your means and pay more. Government, you keep spending more than you have and don’t worry about it because you can soak the rich for more.

    How about we make the government live within its means. The government certainly gets plenty of money from us.

    Make them use it wisely, make them cut spending and ,make them do without if they run out of money.

    • Adam says:

      “Rich guy, live within your means and pay more. Government, you keep spending more than you have and don’t worry about it because you can soak the rich for more.”

      Except that once again a personal budget is not the same as a budget for a country. Our government has obligations to it’s own people and to our allies around the world that make it much more complicated than you seem to want to pretend. It’s not as easy as saying cut spending, spend wisely, spend less, etc.

      • Big Dog says:

        It is pretty easy. We close our military bases in ally countries and let them pay for their own protection. We stop giving money to other countries except in exchange for goods and we stop sending money to Hamas and the other America haters.

        In addition, we stop funding all colleges that refuse to allow ROTC or recruiters on campus. We shut down the Fed.

        Yes, it is the same kind of budget. The difference is in our own lives we cannot extort money from our bosses when we need more of it.

        The government can.