The largest construction boondoggle in recorded human history continues to unfold in the Central Valley of California. The initial segment of Obama's pet project, a high-speed rail line from Merced to Bakersfield, just had its first announced cost overrun. With costs jumping from $7.1 billion to a staggering $13.9 billion, the project now has doubled in price even before a single shovelful of earth is turned. Now that is the seat-of-the-pants, lets just make up a number, government contracting that the Democrats and the unions so dearly love.

*here's an interesting quote from the article: "Critics say the project is in danger of runaway costs at a time when tax dollars are scarce."

*And I LOVE this next paragraph: "Ya gotta love the line; "Critics say the project is in danger of runaway costs at a time when tax dollars are scarce." Really? Just critics? How about any thinking person with an IQ above room temperature could foresee that the cost of this segment of the rail line will exceed $30 billion dollars? As a reference, Boston's Big Dig will cost $22 billion by the time it is paid for in 2038."

"What did the Democrats do with respect to federal debt during the four years they controlled both Houses of Congress?" Hinderaker asks. Why they just merrily rolled along, increasing the debt without any plan, short term or long term, to repay it.



Here is a summary of the deficits the Democrats racked up during that time:

FY 2008 -- $460 billion
FY 2009 -- $1,410 billion ($1.4 trillion)
FY 2010 -- $1,300 billion ($1.3 trillion)
FY 2011 -- $1,600 (estimated) ($1.6 trillion)

Bernice: .... Yes, but that is just one area of London. I wondered if you meant colour of the hoods which all youths use regardless of their ethnic heritage... seeing as the riots are not just taking place in London.

yes colour.....isn't Brixton predominately coloured? well unless the news providers in the UK are liars, that is what we are told.

Snoopy: Really... or just presumption on your part.

(V): of course not
but from your tone it sounds has if you are

Snoopy: No... should I?

(V): you condone this then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14456065

Bernice: Colour??

Snoopy: Some here say the UK is always having problems

Maybe it's just their area.

Artful Dodger: You quoted a paper saying.. "52% .. positive income liability"

You quote another paper saying..

"Just 54 percent of all tax units will pay federal individual income tax in 2011, leaving about 46 percent paying no federal income tax or receiving a net refund."

and ... "Of the 38 million tax units made nontaxable by the addition of tax expenditures, 44 percent are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30 percent by credits for children and the working poor (see chart 2 and table 2). The other six groups of tax expenditures have much less impact, each making 6 percent or fewer units nontaxable."

Please explain.

according to at least person who posts on here the UK never has any problems

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14450248

BRIXTON.....seems to be the underpriveledged causing the trouble :( sad what unemployment will do...causing boredom, and of course colour doesn't come intp it??? much???

Vikings: I've got my plane ticket. One stop over in London to watch the riots and then I'm off to France.

Vikings: for once I have to agree with you

Holiday season, football season, soccer season, b-ball season, summer traveling season, fishing season, shopping season, snow bird season, and now are you ready...........

RIOT SEASON, and of course, LOOTING SEASON

Oh I want to live there

Bernice: People who think they are entitled to more than they are getting can be that way. The left is like that here as is the radical right. Moderate left isn't but most left leaning people are in the category of mob mentality.

And multiculturalism is a dismal failure. Sad but we've all been duped.

Artful Dodger: London...they are talking about bringing in the army, as the police can't control the rioters...looks like "London is burning" during a REAL war...unemployed with nothing better to do most of them. :(

(V): Since you got that off the net, I can only assume that it is. But it's not the point I made. I actually sent you the official government report. hmmmmmm

A positive income liability.. would you explain that to me Dan.

"A positive income tax liability is the amount of income tax that a
taxpayer owes to the federal government after subtracting all of their
deductions (e.g., standard deduction/itemized deductions and
deduction for personal exemptions) from their income and taking into
account non-refundable tax credits (other than the child tax credit).
For example, if a married couple filing jointly with two children
receives $26,000 of income and takes the standard deduction of
$10,900 as well as the deduction for personal exemptions of $13,600,
their taxable income would be $1,500. Based on this taxable income,
their positive income tax liability would be $150."

Is this right?

(V): The only point I'm making is that it's a FACT that there are a lot of people that pay no Federal income taxes.

http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/download/?id=9fe27e9f-a5e0-4010-8461-ffc00b5c00ef

Artful Dodger: Explain it then. No sound bites.. as I looked up income tax and the amounts and benefits and saw those you say don't pay taxes were paying income tax, yet getting tax credits, etc back.

.... you'd know a tax expert how?

And we are having more problems with youth riots at the moment. Riot and looting season is in full swing.

Good News: Islamists Will "Use Force" to Institute Sharia in .... LONDON

We've been writing about the Islamists at Muslims Against the Crusades wanting to create sharia zones now for a few weeks, but this RT report is pretty good (for instance, it reports that the Sharia would require punishment for apostasy) and it notes that Abu Izzadeen and Anjem Choudary have organized gangs to not only verbally harass Muslims not living up to their version of Islamic standards, but also to use physical force to get rid of vices they deem un-Islamic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN6CHtGGo4g&feature=player_embedded

(V): No, it is true. It's being said by tax experts and can be verified via the IRS stats. And I said INCOME taxes, not taxes. There's a difference.

Not true.. It could be said that 51% get more in benefits or tax credits than they pay in taxes, but not that 51% don't pay taxes, as the latter if FALSE and a blatant cherry pick to warm the hearts of the conservative American.

(V): Of course I understand that. I'm just stating the facts as they can be found on the in IRS reporting. For example, 51% of eligible tax payers in the US pay ZERO income taxes.

When Obama asks for everyone to pay their fair share, he only mentions the rich. He leaves out this huge number. OVER HALF of income earners pay nothing. Something isn't right.

Artful Dodger: ... You don't even understand variable tax levels depending on income!! ... .... I know a CEO who would like you. You'd be made financial director and a scapegoat at the same time.

(V): I must be a moron then.

Artful Dodger: ..... You still don't get accounts.... You cannot cherry pick, it don't work unless you are a moron when it comes to accounts. You can quote 'bites' but they will be still regardless of how much you use them just distortions.

Like I could say...."from under 1%".... to your "So maybe you're saying that they should raise those rates to be more in line with the US rates?"

But to answer that you'd have to look up more on the other countries tax rates and the variations in rates as well as the US variations.



btw.. "In addition, tax rates imposed below the federal level vary widely by jurisdiction, from under 1% to over 16%."

(V): Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France (yes, France), Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom all have lower corporate tax rates than the US.


So maybe you're saying that they should raise those rates to be more in line with the US rates?

United States federal income tax incorporates an alternative minimum tax. This tax is computed at a lower tax rate (20% for corporations), and imposed based on a modified version of taxable income. Modifications include longer depreciation lives assets under MACRS, adjustments related to costs of developing natural resources, and an addback of certain tax exempt interest.[52]

Corporations may also be subject to additional taxes in certain circumstances. These include taxes on excess accumulated undistributed earnings and personal holding companies[53] and restrictions on graduated rates for personal service corporations.[54]

Some states, such as New Jersey, impose alternative taxes based on measures other than taxable income. Among such measures are gross income, pipeline revenues, gross receipts, and various asset or capital measures. In addition, some states impose a tax on capital of corporations or on shares issued and outstanding. The U. S. state of Michigan previously taxed businesses on an alternative base that did not allow compensation of employees as a tax deduction and allowed full deduction of the cost of production assets upon acquisition.

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

Taxes are never simple regarding corporations.

Cherry picked figures of tax rates that, like in the income tax are variable are not figures. The rates vary from 15% to 33% with the 100,000 to 335,000 bracket as follows.

$22,250 + 39% Of the amount over 100,000

With as usual deductions for state taxes and anything else under law (or not) that corporations can get away with... such as tax credits!!

But us who point out such things are just called point arguers for just looking up facts than cooking the figures.

I'm moving to France.

all of the countries with AAA-rated debt (as compared to the United States' AA+-rated debt) already have lower corporate tax rates than the US does. Specifically, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France (yes, France), Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom all have lower corporate tax rates than the US.

The average corporate tax rate in these countries is 27.5% versus the current US tax rate of 39.2%. The US tax rate is 42% higher in relative terms and almost 12% higher in absolute terms. The Democrats are recommending increasing that disparity. I am confused but not surprised by this.


Get it though yer heads. The liberals want MORE corporate tax rates. MORE.

Defend that one oh liberals.

(V): The US, like other countries, doens't have a revenu problem. they have a spending problem. They need to get that through their thick heads. Both parties.

"It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options... Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues."

I guess Conservative memories in the US (and elsewhere) are very short.

Artful Dodger: thanks....I was coming in to say the near same thing...I hope
Übergeek 바둑이 is listening this time :)

S&P is threatening to lower the United States credit rating again within the next two years if our debt isn't decreased. They said it, not us:




"The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case."

It said it would give more details on Monday of changes to ratings in funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance and public finance.


Libs need to get with the program. But people said from the beginning that Obama was going to deliberately ruin America. He's well on his way.

"My Presidency Will Be ‘A One-Term Proposition‘ if Economy Doesn’t Turn Around in ‘3 Years’"

(V): hehehe, I see that now.

Artful Dodger: I was talking about an article I read on the Fox News website about the downgrading, and how certain details of why the USA was downgraded were left out.. Nothing to do with anything you've posted.

(V): I was watching CNN this moring and they were saying the same thing. And I didn't cherry pick anything, I offered a sound bite. And it wasn't from Fox. It was from the American Thinker Blog.

rod03801: True. And it's been a long time coming. Many administrations and Representatives share the blame for the fix we're in. They need to start pressing for a balanced budget amendment.

Btw.. good on Fox for cherry picking bits out of Standard & Poor's report

Artful Dodger:

The decision by Standard & Poor's to push America into the second division, when it comes to trustworthiness about paying its bills, puts the USA below the UK, Germany, France, Singapore, Finland and 14 other countries.

The reason it gives is what all America has been saying: Washington doesn't work. The S&P report says: "The political brinkmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed."

They say they think dealing with the debt remains a "contentious and fitful process". They say no-one is serious about dealing with the programmes that eat up money, like Medicare, health care for the elderly.

They single out Republicans for ruling out tax rises. "It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options... Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues."

My colleague Robert Peston has an excellent blog on the economics of this, but what about the politics?

President Obama will doubtless use the occasion to scold Congress again and urge politicians to come together not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans. Some may be chastened enough to do that for a while.

But is fair to put all the burden on the legislators, as though failure to agree a consensus is a moral lapse? The president is fond of saying that Americans vote for divided government not dysfunctional government.

Yet the system, a much-loved relic of a different age, constructed for reasons little to do with the 21st Century, is almost designed to bring about dysfunctional government. The combination of a strict separation of legislature and executive, plus two-yearly congressional elections, all but encourages having different parties in control of different bits of government.

......... well lets blame everyone in Washington (or is linked to) then. Obama, Congress, the Senate, Lobbyists, Democrats and Republicans.

... The Tea Party, Murdoch via Fox and any other group that is only thinking about a few extra dollars in their wallet and not their country. Or puts politics or ideologies above that of the needs of the USA.

.. 31 years ago a process started that reduced the taxes from the rich by 35% to 35% from 70%, effectively reducing tax income from 70% of Americans by 50%. It seems America worked before hand.....

Artful Dodger: The people who passed this horrible compromise need to be blamed as well. It was said ahead of time, that if a balanced budget amendment were to be passed, our credit rating would most likely not be downgraded.

This compromise was a JOKE. Typical Washington DC JUNK.

The people who got elected this past time better learn to stick to their guns, or they will be voted out as well.

The Col: That's a left wing talking point.

There has to be a time in the history of the US where the out of control spending and the never ending raising of the debt ceiling stops. The PEOPLE have said now is the time. It has to stop now. It's gone way way too far And Obama has a significant role in the financial demise of the US. He has put us into more debt than any other president!

So I don't buy your agrument of "hostage" taking etc.

Obama is an incompetent. He owns this. He had TWO YEARS of House and Senate control. So don't blame the Republicans. This is all on him.

Artful Dodger: I think you have to blame congress,especially the Republican hostage taking of the debt ceiling.Never before has the debt ceiling been leveraged, it would make any investor worry about carrying of debt.Frankly it has come to the point where Republicans seem so bent on the taking down of Obama, they would risk the whole economy laying in ruins to achieve their goal.I think Obama has been a gutless negotiator, but his errors are based on terrible judgement.The Republicans on the other hand seem determined to undermine every initiative, thinking that the worse things get in the USA the better chance for taking office.Kinda like winning the battle, but losing the war.