World Politics

[Alpe d'Huez]

All of the taxes are the same. Wars have been expanded, civil rights of those accused have been further eroded. Zero has taken place in terms of accountability of past wrongdoing by the govt. Zero has taken place...

Well, you're certainly more direct than I am. But yes, we're doing more of the same, so we have the same essential economy that we did 2-5 years ago. Same recession, same soaring deficits, same growing chasm between the super wealthy and everyone else, same everything.

The strange thing is that if you go back just two short years, supply-side economics was viewed as being dead. And yet, it's entirely what not only the GOP is supporting, but Obama as well! Nearly every economic policy and proposal by both parties these days. So we're going backwards and doing more of what Bush was doing that got us into this mess.

What's also fascinating is that the Tea Party must have little if any understanding of market economics. It's like they have no idea what so ever how the bond market works, or what would happen if the debt were defaulted on, and exactly how that effects the country. Either they are clueless to this, or they are so politically motivated to destroy Obama that they are willing to trash the economy, and about a quarter of the Republican party with it, consequences be damned.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I have not dipped into this thread much, so sorry if this has already been discussed here. But here's a thought that I'd like to hear what people think about, either in agreement or disagreement with. I'm not a businees owner so do not know what would encourage businesses to expand and create more jobs.

What works better to create jobs; tax cuts for businesses, or no tax cuts for businesses? Bush economics gives the rich business owners tax cuts so that businesses can expand and create jobs, right? Well, that's what the Reps say.

But maybe this really works in reverse. Here's an example of how it might work in reverse. Business owners are not taxed on profits unless they withdraw money from the business (e.g. for their own salary). Placing higher taxes on business owners would encourage them to withdraw less and instead reinvest profits back into the business, thereby expanding it and creating more jobs. Agree or disagree? (If it really works this way the assumption in italics above would have to be correct.)

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Scott and I went back and forth on that for a while. Here are some things I believe:

I don't think if you give a business a tax cut they will use that money to hire people with rare exception. Scott says he would, but if he was being truthful, he'd have to fall into the 1 percentile. Most would just pocket the money, and hire people when demand for their product compelled them to.

This leads to a second question. How do you best structure taxes to facilitate this? It's my belief that the upper .1% of the country could pay more taxes. But before we just assume this means the bottom 50% pay less, we have to accept the fact that we're in a heap of debt. Also, something like the bottom 34% of the country don't pay any federal tax (net, post tax filing), but they are taxed in other ways. Such as trickle down taxes passed down by business owners who are charging them what they will pay, with the taxes rolled into that. Is that fair taxation? It wouldn't be, except is also shows you just how huge the split in the classes is, when the bottom third of the country is so poor, and getting poorer.

The other argument is that by cutting taxes, especially capital gains taxes, it will encourage people to invest in companies. But this is only partly true. The argument that putting money into the consumers hands is an equally large part of the puzzle, but it's rarely discussed today, and considered part of Keynesian economics, which is evil to most conservatives, who have effectively intimidated Democrats from advocating it. The problem with this system is that with wages badly suppressed, and high unemployment for years now, and likely years to come, we're entirely expecting businesses to use lower taxes to pass on to employees. We have been for three decades. Do you think it works? I don't.

A "liberal" side of the government economic argument is that a great way to get the economy stimulated is to create federal jobs, such as the WPA, and the government is the only employer who can really do this. The problem is that the government is also in deep debt. This could be off-set in my opinion on a higher tax rate for the super wealthy. Even letting the Bush tax cuts expire would have helped with this. I also think as a percentage of the GDP, our debt is less than half of what it is in Japan. What we have is a debt of jobs and working wages more than anything. Again, the Tea Party believes that with little or no government spending, that money would flow freely in the economy causing it to grow, and with it jobs increase.

There are other areas where I think that we could see real change, beyond the obvious of things like eliminating the tax credits for the oil industry, companies like GE, etc. which is just free money from the government.

• First is that I firmly believe in SBA Prime and SBA microloans. These are government backed loans that true small businesses can get at very low rates. They range from $5k up to $75k I believe. The average loan amount is $13k. Picture a landscaper, or a hot dog stand vendor, the tiny LBS down the street, etc. But banks aren't making these loans, and there's nothing forcing them to, so both the Republicans and Democrats and Obama are heavily trimming them. Incredibly stupid.

• I also favor allowing people to use unemployment benefits for self-employment assistance. A few states have this already. Hence, many people can't find work at all in this economy. In my idea they would use their unemployment, coupled with an SBA Prime loan to start their own small business. Even if the business failed completely, they would be producing at least something for the economy, and learn in the process. Now, so many are sitting around finding no work. The "99ers" many are called.

• I also believe that the corporate tax rate everyone screams about needs to be completely overhauled. The top rate is 38%. Some companies move their operations overseas because of it. Yet some companies manage to pay zero. Scott mentioned a plan kicked around by Obama and Imelt to cut this rate down to nothing, but with contingencies on putting brick and mortar businesses in the US, with US workers. I would very likely support such a plan.

Of course there are other ways to balance the budget. Cuts to defense spending for one. Plus there's the argument of overhauling the health care in the country, which we have discussed, as it accounts for so much of government spending. The Tea Party aren't interested in overhauls, only cuts it seems. Or actually eliminating Medicare and Medicaid. This is what angers me most.

Got to run. Will comment on the Tea Party "Hobbits" later.

 

[usedtobefast]

Get a grip, guys! My generalization was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, though I probably didn't make that as clear as I should have done. I am perfectly aware that not all of Texas or SoCal is inhabited by economic reactionaries. The trouble is that these fiscal neanderthals have, via this insane Tea Party movement, led the US to the brink of an economic abyss that affects the rest of the world too. People who are unable to do (relatively) simple arithmetic are holding the rest of us to ransom purely to protect outrageous tax breaks for the super rich and major corporations. It truly beggars belief.

"Were I advising a low-income country that had no choice but to listen to my advice, I would have a simple message: "You got into this mess by passing huge tax cuts over the past 10 years and starting two wars that clearly have gone as far as they are going to go in terms of achieving your goals. So just let those tax cuts expire next year and end the two wars, and you will have done more to reassure long-term investors than anything else you could possibly do. That will give you the room you need to make investments to start growing again."

But though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan does count savings from winding down the wars, House Speaker John Boehner's doesn't, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire doesn't seem to even be part of the discussion. You have to wonder why."

(my bold)

Steven Kyle - Professor of applied economics in the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/29/kyle.default.consequences/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

you are forgiven

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

...The other argument is that by cutting taxes, especially capital gains taxes, it will encourage people to invest in companies. But this is only partly true. The argument that putting money into the consumers hands is an equally large part of the puzzle, but it's rarely discussed today, and considered part of Keynesian economics, which is evil to most conservatives, who have effectively intimidated Democrats from advocating it. The problem with this system is that with wages badly suppressed, and high unemployment for years now, and likely years to come, we're entirely expecting businesses to use lower taxes to pass on to employees. We have been for three decades. Do you think it works? I don't.

Got to run. Will comment on the Tea Party "Hobbits" later.

Great info Alpe and I'm still digesting it, but my quick answer to your question is "Pffft. NO." Looking forward to the Hobbit comments.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Great info Alpe and I'm still digesting it, but my quick answer to your question is "Pffft. NO." Looking forward to the Hobbit comments.

This is where the late lamented ScottSocal's argument fell apart. If you give really rich people more money they will just keep it, they already had 100X more than they needed, so why would they risk it on new employment?
New people with new ideas can not get a loan now to start a new venture that might creat some jobs. Nothing seems aimed at helping these people.

 

[gregod]

This is where the late lamented ScottSocal's argument fell apart. If you give really rich people more money they will just keep it, they already had 100X more than they needed, so why would they risk it on new employment?
New people with new ideas can not get a loan now to start a new venture that might creat some jobs. Nothing seems aimed at helping these people.

they wouldn't. there isn't the demand, so they would just be wasting money.

new jobs are only created when there is demand for products and services. as we can see, businesses are sitting on cash because they do not have increased demand. simply handing them back more money will not give them a reason to hire more people. find a way to increase demand and the jobs will follow.

it is common sense, really.

if one buys the argument that giving corporations more money back would be an incentive to create jobs, what is preventing them from doing it now? large businesses can borrow at an extremely low rate (lower than inflation) and are awash in cash. what is the magic number that will get them spending on jobs? answer: there isn't one absent demand.

some have argued that small to medium businesses are the ones that need this cash back to create jobs. however, there are at least two problems with this reasoning. first, even if this business segment is given tax breaks, they will still need to borrow in order to create jobs. banks are unwilling to extend loans in this economic climate when they have safer avenues of investment. second, even if these businesses come up the the money to invest in personnel, where is their market? in a tight economy, new markets are not created in the absence of demand (except in the rare case where there is some revolutionary technology that massively increases productivity or lowers costs).

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It is common sense, really.

Well, you would think.

What's most fascinating about this is all the conservative talk about failed Keynesian economic policies, when for all intents and purposes, we've had almost none of that for several decades. You can find one conservative pundit after another talking about it. And yet, what we've seen over and over is cut after cut on a federal, and state level, and extremely low taxes all rooted in supply-side economics. This latest bill is a perfect example and will drastically cut spending, even in the programs Obama once swore he'd never compromise on. The conservatives got nearly all they wanted, and Obama not only caved into it all, he made little or no attempt to disagree with them. He offered no counter debate, never used the bully pulpit. He just caved. As Paul Krugman stated yesterday morning on This Week, Obama is about to sign a bill that is actually more conservative than what the average Republican is seeking. And with it, I agree with Krugman. I see no change in the direction of the country, certainly not for working people or in job creation, and fully expect another several years of recession.

Martin Wolf is the chief economist at the Financial Times, and he writes what I think is a very incisive article showing why supply-side economics is a failure.

And yet, with all this, there will be quite a few very vocal people who will state that this current bill didn't go far enough and that despite the $2.4 trillion in cuts, that Keyesian economics are destroying the country and we need more cuts and less taxes.

The Tea Party Hobbits reference is actually from John McCain, who was exactly right in this speech. He also received a lot of heat for his comment, though in the end the Tea Party got nearly everything they wanted, sans the tie-in to the BBA.

I have to seriously think that this may have actually killed Obama's presidency, simply because I think there are going to be a great deal of progressives who showed up to vote for him in droves, who now feel completely betrayed and are very bitter about this. This low turnout could very well toss the election to a bland Republican (Romney or Perry would be the most likely able). Time may tell.

 

[Amsterhammer]

......This latest bill is a perfect example and will drastically cut spending, even in the programs Obama once swore he'd never compromise on. The conservatives got nearly all they wanted, and Obama not only caved into it all, he made little or no attempt to disagree with them. He offered no counter debate, never used the bully pulpit. He just caved........I see no change in the direction of the country, certainly not for working people or in job creation, and fully expect another several years of recession......

I have to seriously think that this may have actually killed Obama's presidency, simply because I think there are going to be a great deal of progressives who showed up to vote for him in droves, who now feel completely betrayed and are very bitter about this. This low turnout could very well toss the election to a bland Republican (Romney or Perry would be the most likely able). Time may tell.

As one of the, no doubt, many disillusioned progessives you refer to, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments, particularly with what I have made bold. I am extremely disappointed by our president's lack of cojones in this matter. He could, for example, have taken the issue to the wire by threatening to use his powers under the 14th amendment (if I understand it correctly as I am neither a lawyer or a constitutionalist).

I recommend this editorial from the Guardian, which pretty succinctly sums up my feelings at the moment.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I have to seriously think that this may have actually killed Obama's presidency, simply because I think there are going to be a great deal of progressives who showed up to vote for him in droves, who now feel completely betrayed and are very bitter about this. This low turnout could very well toss the election to a bland Republican (Romney or Perry would be the most likely able). Time may tell.

Yes, but on the bright side I fail to see how we would be much worse off with one of those guys running the show.

 

[ChrisE]

Yes, but on the bright side I fail to see how we would be much worse off with one of those guys running the show.

That is the point, isn't it? What would a wingnut president do that would be any different than this clown, other than the healthcare debacle (which I admittedly don't really give a shyt about)?

 

[Hugh Januss]

That is the point, isn't it? What would a wingnut president do that would be any different than this clown, other than the healthcare debacle (which I admittedly don't really give a shyt about)?

Although it was a wingnut president who put us in this hole. A hole that there may not be a good way out of no matter who is running the show.
I don't think Obama is a clown I think he has just gone bi-partisan at the wrong time.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

But is it really bi-partisan? I mean if you look at this bill, the Republicans, got nearly everything the Tea Party wanted, except the Balanced Budget Amendment, which would have taken months to even debate, let alone pass. Obama gave in to everything else. As did so many Democrats who voted for it. There is nothing, not one single thing that progressives wanted. Not one.

One could walk away from today and state that Obama is actually now further to the right than Bush. Though yet, as I said before, the conservative pundits will not rest on this. They will still rail against Obama. I don't see them stopping until Social Security is privatized, and Medicare and Medicaid are eliminated. Plus nearly all industries, including Wall Street, face no regulation, and corporations pay zero taxes. And with Obama in office, I think they have a chance of seeing much of this happen. If not under Obama because he is so weak and easy to push around, then from someone like Rick Perry if he is able to replace him.

Remember, never before in history did this happen before, where debt ceiling was tied in to a budget debate. And never before in my lifetime was such a lopsided conservative budget passed. Not even under Ronald Reagan, who signed his name to bills far to the left of this.

 

[fatandfast]

But is it really bi-partisan? I mean if you look at this bill, the Republicans, got nearly everything the Tea Party wanted, except the Balanced Budget Amendment, which would have taken months to even debate, let alone pass. Obama gave in to everything else. As did so many Democrats who voted for it. There is nothing, not one single thing that progressives wanted. Not one.

One could walk away from today and state that Obama is actually now further to the right than Bush. Though yet, as I said before, the conservative pundits will not rest on this. They will still rail against Obama. I don't see them stopping until Social Security is privatized, and Medicare and Medicaid are eliminated. Plus nearly all industries, including Wall Street, face no regulation, and corporations pay zero taxes. And with Obama in office, I think they have a chance of seeing much of this happen. If not under Obama because he is so weak and easy to push around, then from someone like Rick Perry if he is able to replace him.

Remember, never before in history did this happen before, where debt ceiling was tied in to a budget debate. And never before in my lifetime was such a lopsided conservative budget passed. Not even under Ronald Reagan, who signed his name to bills far to the left of this.

114 times without a teaparty.some but very little problems. Now you have neo, one term weenies in there that are willing to disrupt anything and everything to make a point. Most tea people are one and out. The GOP is going to curse the day when they allied with these nuevo nazis about any issue big and small.
Obama completely dropped the ball when he didn't have multiple press conferences about soldier pay and the risk to seniors not getting the SS cash to pay bills. He should have outed the rouges using the groundswell from people who vote and depend on Social Security

 

[ChrisE]

No, it is not bi-partisan. And I say this as not a defender of the left, because I am far from leftist when viewed in the traditional sense. There are alot of things I do not like about the left, but the debate has skewed so far to the right that Ronald Reagan looks like Dennis Kucinich.

It is such a debacle that, as I have noted before on here, I find it hard to believe it is incompetence. If he is held hostage by the right, as he and his media aplogists claim, then that is his own doing and that is not leadership. Either his ideals align with those he claims to oppose, or he is not worthy of respect. Either way why would any self proclaimed democrat vote for him?

He will count on people like HJ and other apologists to vote for him because "he is not as bad as the other guy". Fear mongering, 101. Shallow childish politics both parties can get away with because they are "not as bad as the other guys". This will never change as long as we condone it with our votes.

 

[ChrisE]

114 times without a teaparty.some but very little problems. Now you have neo, one term weenies in there that are willing to disrupt anything and everything to make a point. Most tea people are one and out. The GOP is going to curse the day when they allied with these nuevo nazis about any issue big and small.
Obama completely dropped the ball when he didn't have multiple press conferences about soldier pay and the risk to seniors not getting the SS cash to pay bills. He should have outed the rouges using the groundswell from people who vote and depend on Social Security

The republicans will pay zero long term. Even Massachusetts elected a Republican senator, and 2010 made that party quickly forget 2008 when everybody predicted their demise. The rubes just gravitate back and forth.

 

[usedtobefast]

The republicans will pay zero long term. Even Massachusetts elected a Republican senator, and 2010 made that party quickly forget 2008 when everybody predicted their demise. The rubes just gravitate back and forth.

they are rubes aren't they? so sad really...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rube

 

[fatandfast]

2 top military officials at a morale meet and greet with troops in combat. Most soldiers stood up to ask about normal things but a measurable % asked if their paychecks would be issued, pretty sad for people with enough to worry about.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

...If he is held hostage by the right, as he and his media apologists claim, then that is his own doing and that is not leadership. Either his ideals align with those he claims to oppose, or he is not worthy of respect. Either way why would any self proclaimed democrat vote for him?

My point exactly Chris. Though I think it's going to stretch to the independents as well. People who were perhaps moderate-left but voted for him before are going to likely sit at home. Or if someone like Romney or Perry or Hutsman get the nomination and in the general debates seem only moderate-right, but a strong decision maker, a leader, they'll get a lot of independent votes.

2 top military officials at a morale meet and greet with troops in combat. Most soldiers stood up to ask about normal things but a measurable % asked if their paychecks would be issued, pretty sad for people with enough to worry about.

What isn't written in those articles is that your average Army soldier at war makes about $25k a year (up to about $50k if re-enlisted, and getting hardship pay), while independent contractors, such as those for KBR, Xe Services, etc. often make double, even over triple that amount, plus free room, board, three meals, while the US military protects them. Even someone doing laundry and dishes for the military often makes more money than the grunts out there getting shot at and dealing with IEDs. And in case you weren't sure, they don't pay any taxes on that income.

And what exactly are they doing there? Rebuilding Iraq/Afghanistan of course. Roads, power grids, schools, bridges, hospitals, etc. And of course assisting the oil industry in getting oil out of the ground and on to ships. And in case you weren't certain, most people there don't want us there. Karzai even now refers to it as a "US military occupation", echoing the sentiments of his people.

Your tax dollars at work.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Okay, I just got done sifting through a lot of news articles and such. Here is what I can tell from this budget bill what it entails.

For the most part, Congress has played kick the can once again with the bill. That is the majority of the cuts are set to take place in 2013 and beyond. There will be very few cuts in 2011, or 2012 for that matter. No changes to Social Security, small changes to Medicare (I can't figure that out just yet) and no likely changes to Medicaid other than perhaps some distribution admin changes to the states.

What does this mean?

Well, from what I can surmise, this means very little change in the country or economy until at least the end of the election next year. No change to the budget, though it locks everything pretty much in place. So if you think Congress and the President are doing a great job of running the country and things are on the way up, this is a good bill for you in this regard. I'm guessing that means people at the upper 1% (who give the largest donations to the politicians), and a few other lucky folks out there.

Now as you can guess, when a new Congress starts in Jan 2013, there is likely to be another huge budget fight, with the President (Obama or someone else) fighting over that. And at that time it appears quite possible that virtually everything in this bill will be up for grabs. Yes, right before most of this bill is supposed to take effect.

I think what this really means is that both the Republicans and the Democrats - mostly the President are saying that they are happy with their current position, and they think they are going to prevail in the 2012 elections, and be able to press their mandate that following January. It's sort of a game of brinksmanship, and in the end the American people, especially the average every day worker, will lose, because there is no hope for change over the next 18 months.

What a mess.

 

[ChrisE]

I think what this really means is that both the Republicans and the Democrats - mostly the President are saying that they are happy with their current position, and they think they are going to prevail in the 2012 elections, and be able to press their mandate that following January. It's sort of a game of brinksmanship, and in the end the American people, especially the average every day worker, will lose, because there is no hope for change over the next 18 months.

What a mess.

And whose fault is that? I think I have quoted this before, but the good thing about democracy is you get what you deserve. That is also the bad thing about democracy. I lay the blame for the political climate in this country at the feet of the voters who keep voting for the same shyt over and over again, expecting different results. We know what that is a definition of.

 

[rhubroma]

Which goes to show us that the current form of global capitalism leaves us little hope that there will be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the Midwestern American worker (the great dream), let alone for the peasants of the Third World.

Therefore Western democracy as the bearer of social equality is not very convincing.

 

[ChrisE]

Which goes to show us that the current form of global capitalism leaves us little hope that there will be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the Midwestern American worker (the great dream), let alone for the peasants of the Third World.

Therefore Western democracy as the bearer of social equality is not very convincing.

The difference is that I believe we have free will as both individuals and as a population. Large quantities of people making minimum wage will vote for Michelle Bachman because they don't want anybody "taking their guns away". Large quantities of people will vote against govt. spending while being clueless about what govt. provides, that they take advantage of every day. Yes innocents get caught up in this mess, but at least people like this suffer as well and it is self inflicted. Unfortunately they would just use this further suffering as some kind of backwards validation of their beliefs, ie the victim of something other than their stupidity, making them more susceptible to demagoguery. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Pretty insightful comments there Chris.

I lay the blame for the political climate in this country at the feet of the voters who keep voting for the same shyt over and over again, expecting different results.

Two comments on that. First, I think a lot of people thought when they elected Obama they would be getting something different. Just as some people felt when they were electing Tea Party people they thought they'd get something different. But I think the real problem lies in that until there is massive campaign finance and lobby reform, there's not going to be much change. Ross Perot once said that every election we send good people to Washington, and every time the system corrupts them. It was a scant 19 years back he said that, but it seems like a lifetime ago.

Adding to that, Andrew Bacevich in interviewsand his superb book, noted that this cycle you mention happens almost every presidential election. We send someone there with great fanfare and hope. And they have this very small window to get a few bills through, if they are savvy, and fortunate. Then, everything gets turned back the direction the money wind is blowing, and we're right back where we were for a few months until the next campaign season begins. It's a sick system.

 

[Hugh Januss]

The difference is that I believe we have free will as both individuals and as a population. Large quantities of people making minimum wage will vote for Michelle Bachman because they don't want anybody "taking their guns away". Large quantities of people will vote against govt. spending while being clueless about what govt. provides, that they take advantage of every day. Yes innocents get caught up in this mess, but at least people like this suffer as well and it is self inflicted. Unfortunately they would just use this further suffering as some kind of backwards validation of their beliefs, ie the victim of something other than their stupidity, making them more susceptible to demagoguery. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Except that we really don't have. Not with our current structure of campaign financing and lobbyists. Nobody can really even be heard unless the powers that be approve (or at least don't disapprove) of what they are saying. Is it worse to try to vote for what you see as the best alternative (as poor as it may be) or to sit home and grumble about the whole process?