FLASH: Confidence Shattered

[wink]

Defunding a war vice defunding a law that passed that a minority wants changed (not stopped), are two very different things.

You could say it is apples and oranges, but it is still fruit. What congress is doing is absolutely legal and constitutional. I fail to see the difference in congress attempting to defund a law that has become unpopular with enough of their constituents that they feel like they are doing the right thing and defunding a war that has become unpopular with the American electorate. It is completely legal. So, to bitch about what the House is doing is just to debate politics. Which leads me to my next comment.

And the GOP shutting down the government (costing this country millions per day), since they don't have the votes to use the legislative process is idiotic, at best. The constant fights over the debt ceiling have emboldened those on the far right to continually hold the economy for ransom, hurting our credit rating and hurting the economy.

I do not support the effort to defund the ACA. Not because I support the ACA but only because I believe it is political suicide for the GOP. It is a loser long term. Anyone thinking with their head instead of their emotions has to know they can't get the ACA defunded with this President in office and the Senate controlled by the DEMS. Of course there are those that know this very well and are supporting the House GOP and even instigating it. Sadly, they do it for personal gain. Sen Cruz is top of the list. But come on. The only reason the House has this leverage is because Senate DEMs refuse to pass a budget. So, we have a CR fight. This could have been avoided if the Senate passed a budget. That is on the DEMs. The debit limit is something else. It is a charade. Although there isn't a budget (thank you Harry Reid) congress has passed one CR after another. In other words, congress has authorized every dollar spent. All the administration does is write the checks. As far as I am concerned any legislator that voted for a spending bill that requires deficit spending has no right to block the increase in the debit limit. It is a fvcking joke and both sides have played the game over history. That is why the President has been caught lying out right about his assertion negotiations over the debit limit never happened before. Shame on him! On this he is a complete liar. If he misspoke he has had ample time to take it back. He hasn't. If I have to chose between a congressman that is holding out for movement on spending to increase the debit limit that he nominally approved and a President that lies openly and blatantly about the very subject, I'll support the congressman. But lets not get all high and mighty about who is the most righteous. It is politics. It is all legal and permitted by senate and house rules. We elected politicians. We get politics. "...shocked, shocked that gambling is going on here" NOT!

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Except...the ACTUALLY rich both do and don't carry more of a burden. I say "actually rich", because there is a huge difference between even the top 10% and the top 1%. Warren Buffet paid 11% on his AGI. ELEVEN PERCENT. I don't know what black magic his tax accountants used to do that, since that's well below the long term capital gains rate of 15%...but that's what his tax return shows, and he stands by it as well as a well known proponent of tax reform and increasing taxes on the "super rich."

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table1

However, the top 10% pays 75% of the $865B in total income tax revenue to the Feds.
The top 1% paid $318B out of that ~$600B(~75%). So the Warren Buffets (who are really even smaller than the top 1%) are paying a lower effective rate, but actually are capable of contributing enough to national revenue to make a big difference. Why is that relevant?



OK we need to cut spending, but how do you close a $1.1T annual deficit (FY12 deficit)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
We're fucked with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Those aren't going away so we'll have to keep paying. Those aren't even on the table right now.
We have to keep paying off the interest on our debt. Moving on.
There's another slice for "mandatory spending" which seems to comprise Veteran's benefits (fan of those), and the other "welfare" stuff we all love to hate...but it only makes up ~$450B.
The entire discretionary spending + DOD budget is $1.2T.
So if I'm reading this right, we need to figure out how to cut $1.1T from a budget when we only have $1.7T (assuming you can get enough support to touch the "other" mandatory spending categories...or defense).
Well let's see what tripling the tax rate on the top 10% buys us:
If you tripled the tax rate on the top 10%, assuming proportional carryover between 2009 and 2012, you'd see their contribution go from $750B to $2.25 Trillion. So, I'm not suggesting we do that...but clearly the tax rate of the top 10% IS germane to this discussion...since that would more than close the previous year's deficit and let us start buying down our debt.
In contrast, tripling the tax rate of the entire bottom 50% would add about $100B. That's where the supposed growing income gap is taking us.

Tripling the tax rate for the top ten percent would mean that the federal government is taking 100% of their income. That doesn't even factor in state and local taxes. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the answer to where the money will have to come from. It is political suicide now to talk about cutting those, but that is the reality. Young people are paying into those programs and they will never receive the benefits that they are paying for and older people are currently receiving. That should piss young voters off, but it doesn't.

 

[Spekkio]

Except...the ACTUALLY rich both do and don't carry more of a burden. I say "actually rich", because there is a huge difference between even the top 10% and the top 1%. Warren Buffet paid 11% on his AGI. ELEVEN PERCENT. I don't know what black magic his tax accountants used to do that, since that's well below the long term capital gains rate of 15%...but that's what his tax return shows, and he stands by it as well as a well known proponent of tax reform and increasing taxes on the "super rich."

This is the crux of the issue.

The reason politicians are able to run on a platform of 'tax the wealthy' is stories like this. This is why John Q. Public thinks that 'rich people' don't pay taxes. Then once politicians get elected, they raise taxes on the top quintile without making a separate category and closing exemptions for the people like Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney. So the dual income family making $140,000/year household income gets hammer fucked with a 40% tax rate on 1/3 of their annual income and Warren Buffet still only pays 11% of his AGI. Most people would consider such an income 'middle class,' yet they don't realize that the government categorizes them as a top 15% er. "Middle class" is something like $40-60k/year household income. Similarly with the ACA, many people who thought they were in poverty and would get free healthcare are not.

The issue isn't that the top 20% doesn't pay enough taxes (which is what politicians mean anytime they say 'rich people'); it's that the top 5% doesn't.

We're fucked with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Those aren't going away so we'll have to keep paying. Those aren't even on the table right now.

Yea, but as you pointed out with your quick rundown, they need to be. It is impossible to balance the budget with only discretionary spending cuts.

Tripling the tax rate for the top ten percent would mean that the federal government is taking 100% of their income.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about tripling the 11% AGI Warren Buffet paid.

 

[wink]

Except...the ACTUALLY rich both do and don't carry more of a burden. I say "actually rich", because there is a huge difference between even the top 10% and the top 1%. Warren Buffet paid 11% on his AGI. ELEVEN PERCENT. I don't know what black magic his tax accountants used to do that, since that's well below the long term capital gains rate of 15%...but that's what his tax return shows, and he stands by it as well as a well known proponent of tax reform and increasing taxes on the "super rich."

It isn't black magic at all but Buffet makes it seems dirty to promote his vision of tax reform. His income is almost all capital gains. He pays the same capital gains tax as millions of Americans who are not rich but simply have money in the stock market. That is because congress wants to encourage investment in companies that innovate and create jobs. No special deals for him. Salaries, wages, tips and some other income is taxed differently, higher.

 

[Spekkio]

It isn't black magic at all but Buffet makes it seems dirty to promote his vision of tax reform. His income is almost all capital gains. He pays the same capital gains tax as millions of Americans who are not rich but simply have money in the stock market. That is because congress wants to encourage investment in companies that innovate and create jobs. No special deals for him. Salaries, wages, tips and some other income is taxed differently, higher.

It doesn't add up because even if Buffet's income was 100% from capital gains, he should have been paying 15% of his AGI toward taxes (now 20%). Remember that AGI is your income AFTER your deductions.

 

[The Chief]

Ah, cough, ... AGI, Adjusted Gross Income, (Line 37) results after (adjustments) such as subraction from income as in IRA contributions, business losses, moving expenses and etc. That is BEFORE deductions, (line 40) and exemptions (line 42) Nit pick but ...

 

[villanelle]

The Republican party has been on the ropes for a while. They cling to unpopular conservative social policies because it's how they get the Bible Belt to vote against their own economic interests, while the rest of the population views them as a bunch of bigotted old white men looking to pad the pockets of big business owners and start wars in the Middle East.

Not that it really matters in terms of political strategy -- only 30% or so of eligible voters cast a vote in national elections anyway. Most of those people who view the GOP negatively also don't think the Democrats are out for their interests either, so they just stay home on election day.

I agree with this, but I think if they don't make a change, they will relegate themselves to being a Congress-only party, at best. Due in large part to gerrymandering, it is far easier to get an extremist (relatively speaking) into the House than into the White House (or the Senate).

The Bible belt and Tea Party contingent comes out in mass to select a presidential candidate, and then that candidate isn't especially viable in the general. And it seems (and the poll I read yesterday--which I now can't find again-- seems to support this, though I know there's a poll that says anything) that the independents are blaming the Rs for the current mess, which doesn't bode well with either Congressional or Presidential prospects. If the centrists and independents aren't interested enough to vote in the primaries (or they vote in a D primary in open primary states), then the Rs are going to be left with a candidate too extreme to win a general.

 

[Spekkio]

All you have to do is look at Presidential administrations going back to and including Reagan. The Republican administrations bankrupt the country by drastically expanding military funding and enact silly police state laws (although Obama has taken great liberty in using them via things like aggressive DEA raids of medical marinuana, the extensive NSA data collection) while the Democrats have reduced the deficit while expanding rights for women and gays.

The majority of people don't want to be told what to do in their spare time, who they can marry, or that they can't buy Hustler. They also don't want to break the country's bank for tax cuts on people who already make a lot more money than them while funneling billions of dollars to the Middle East instead of putting that money to use domestically.

Personally I don't like the blame game in the current standoff. Wink hit the nail on the head -- both sides have their hands dirty and we can go back to the bipartisan supported sequestration law that was created because the two sides couldn't agree that caused all this... three years later nothing has changed. Looking at just September and pointing the fingers at Republicans is stupid, but that's what many news outlets are doing.

 

[wink]

The Republican party has been on the ropes for a while. They cling to unpopular conservative social policies because it's how they get the Bible Belt to vote against their own economic interests, while the rest of the population views them as a bunch of bigotted old white men looking to pad the pockets of big business owners and start wars in the Middle East.

While I disagree with the entirety of this statement to one degree or another, I think it is worth pointing out that many Americans don't vote purely for their economic interest because they care about other things more than whether they can afford a new car that year. Some people happen to think preventing Iran from getting a nuke, reigning in a stifling regulatory state, and preserving social policies that have been right for the country for generations (and in some cases humankind itself for 1000s of years) is more important than a personal economic interest. If you are claiming that the democrats have their supporters voting FOR their economic interest, that is as laughable as it is sad. If that is so it is only because a democratic voter thinks they are voting for their economic interest. Free and subsidized health care, free and subsidized college, pre school programs, after school programs, free school lunch and breakfast, subsidized public arts, free birth control, social security and welfare programs growing at more than the cost of living. If you think that is the only way you get people to vote for you, as apparently the democrats do, then thank God for ignorant bumpkin republicans who would rather not vote for personal interests. You might think their voting profile is illogical. But they happen to know what many Americans don't understand, and it isn't complicated economics. YOU DON'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

 

[Spekkio]

Free and subsidized health care, free and subsidized college, pre school programs, after school programs, free school lunch and breakfast, subsidized public arts, free birth control, social security and welfare programs growing at more than the cost of living. If you think that is the only way you get people to vote for you, as apparently the democrats do, then thank God for ignorant bumpkin republicans who would rather not vote for personal interests. You might think their voting profile is illogical. But they happen to know what many Americans don't understand, and it isn't complicated economics. YOU DON'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

You don't get something for nothing, but all of those programs would siphon money from wealthier states to poorer states.

If you live in a county of 1,000 residents in Alabama with a median household income of $40,000/year, the property taxes that go toward education isn't going to cover a whole lot compared to one where 10,000 residents with median household income of $90,000/year pay into it. Republicans run on a platform saying that's a-okay (and some take it a step further and want private schools to be the wave of the future), while Democrats run on a platform of wanting to use funds from wealthier states to raise the education standards across the country.

If you are claiming that the democrats have their supporters voting FOR their economic interest, that is as laughable as it is sad.

Nope, see above. The blue states would generally be the economic losers under Democrat policies because they have large cities with associated suburbs and higher wages. Their money would be going to pay to educate someone in Alabama.

Some people happen to think preventing Iran from getting a nuke, reigning in a stifling regulatory state, and preserving social policies that have been right for the country for generations (and in some cases humankind itself for 1000s of years) is more important than a personal economic interest.

But Iran hasn't gotten a nuke through 13 years of Democrat administrations, Republicans have expanded the regulatory state as well in their administrations because it protects big business from competition, and I'm interested on why you think restricting rights for women and gays is 'good for the country.'

 

[HercDriver]

If you want less of a deficit you need more revenue? If you want to pay for the idiotic spending of our government you just need to take more money from a shrinking subset of the population? You could triple the tax rate on the top 1% or 10% and still not even come close to paying for what we are spending. Of course we could just spend less money and then we wouldn't have to worry about taking from some to give to others. Unfortunately the republicans have been almost crazy with spending as the democrats, which leads to my point. The new boss is the same as the old boss. The new boss still starts wars, still runs Gitmo, and still spies on our own citizens, and is still spending our country into oblivion.

You actually believe that taxes are "wealth redistribution"? Seriously?

Oh, and I'm sure you're aware that the prez wants to close Gitmo, but congress has blocked funding for it many times.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

You actually believe that taxes are "wealth redistribution"? Seriously?

Oh, and I'm sure you're aware that the prez wants to close Gitmo, but congress has blocked funding for it many times.

Taxes pay for social programs benefiting mostly those who don't pay taxes. It takes some real mental gymnastics to think that taxes aren't being used for wealth redistribution. And yes I'm aware that the President failed to live up to his campaign promise to close gitmo despite controlling both houses of congress at the time.

 

[HercDriver]

While I disagree with the entirety of this statement to one degree or another, I think it is worth pointing out that many Americans don't vote purely for their economic interest because they care about other things more than whether they can afford a new car that year. Some people happen to think preventing Iran from getting a nuke, reigning in a stifling regulatory state, and preserving social policies that have been right for the country for generations (and in some cases humankind itself for 1000s of years)
is more important than a personal economic interest.

Are we talking slavery, the rights of women and minorities to vote, or some other thing that was "right for the country for generations"?

If you are claiming that the democrats have their supporters voting FOR their economic interest, that is as laughable as it is sad. If that is so it is only because a democratic voter thinks they are voting for their economic interest. Free and subsidized health care, free and subsidized college, pre school programs, after school programs, free school lunch and breakfast, subsidized public arts, free birth control, social security and welfare programs growing at more than the cost of living. If you think that is the only way you get people to vote for you, as apparently the democrats do, then thank God for ignorant bumpkin republicans who would rather not vote for personal interests.

Plenty of "bumpkin republicans" have voted for personal interests-unless you are saying their "taxes enough already" is somehow altruistic in nature.

You might think their voting profile is illogical. But they happen to know what many Americans don't understand, and it isn't complicated economics. YOU DON'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

 

[HercDriver]

Taxes pay for social programs benefiting mostly those who don't pay taxes. It takes some real mental gymnastics to think that taxes aren't being used for wealth redistribution.

You mean like the elderly and the poor? Do you want to make them pay taxes? So you're unhappy that more people aren't paying taxes? I figured you'd be against grandma paying taxes. Or are you talking about the taxes that pay for my paycheck and flight pay? 'Cuz plenty of taxes go to defense spending.

And yes I'm aware that the President failed to live up to his campaign promise to close gitmo despite controlling both houses of congress at the time.

So the president is blocked by the GOP and you wag your finger that he failed to live up to his promise? This makes no sense.
The Dems had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for just a few months, and most political capital was being expended for working on what would become the ACA.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

You mean like the elderly and the poor? Do you want to make them pay taxes? So you're unhappy that more people aren't paying taxes? I figured you'd be against grandma paying taxes. Or are you talking about the taxes that pay for my paycheck and flight pay? 'Cuz plenty of taxes go to defense spending.

So the president is blocked by the GOP and you wag your finger that he failed to live up to his promise? This makes no sense.
The Dems had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for just a few months, and most political capital was being expended for working on what would become the ACA.

So your argument is that it isn't wealth redistribution because poor people are poor? That's almost as insightful as your idea that taxes must be raised because spending is so high. You can make whatever excuses you want for the President, but he said he would close gitmo and he didn't despite having a majority in both houses of congress.