World Politics

[Anonymous]

When Bush was President, Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling 7 times. Three of those times were when Republicans controlled both houses of congress. Why are they being so obstinate (principled in their words) now?

It's a mystery.

 

[rhubroma]

When Bush was President, Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling 7 times. Three of those times were when Republicans controlled both houses of congress. Why are they being so obstinate (principled in their words) now?

Raising the debt ceiling has been, till now, a necessary act of Congress. It was done, as you say, 7 times without controversy and with a bipartisan vote during the the eight years of George W Bush, while the public deficit grew because of two unpaid for wars and the great tax cuts.

Yet the idea to make the government fail to constrain Bush to change policy, never even came to anyone's mind. The damage to the country - the reaction of the world's financial markets and the suffering of citizens who wouldn't receive needed payments on necessary services - would have been unimaginable and irresponsible.

Yet with a democratic president and a House that's dominated by the republicans, these last - pushed by a zealous ideology and by pressures of the Tea Party - threaten to let pass the expiration date of August 2 if Obama and the democrats don't reduce spending. For the republicans the federal government needs to cut about 4 trillion without taking recourse to new taxes and instead actually cutting the taxes of the richest. To do so social services and assistance must be eliminated, reducing therefore pensions, medical care, university research and academic scholarships.

Warren Buffer has compared this tactic to a form of terrorism, for which the nation's economy is taken "hostage, while playing a sort of Russian roulette."

The republicans have calculated, however, that in the case of national economic failure Obama would be damaged above all else.

Aware that he is up against great risks, Obama has already given numerous signs of being willing to make certain compromises with the repubs: with painful reductions in spending for his democratic constituents. In exchange, Obama would like at least to receive a small exchange on the part of the republicans, for example in eliminating the tax breaks for the super rich effected during the Bush administration and correcting a law thanks to which the hedge fund bosses pay only 15% in takes, rather than the 35% they should pay. They are minimal concessions that amount to 300-400 billion, without which the the cuts sustained by the citizens and especially the most poor seem obscene.

But the republican leaders have made it known that they won't accept even one dollar in tax hikes. According to David Brooks, a moderate conservative columnist of the NY Times, the republicans have lost their minds. "If the republican party were a normal one, it would take great advantage of this extraordinary situation. They are offering them the deal of the century: trillions in cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion in tax increases...However, I fear that the republican party is no longer a normal party, but an ideological movement."

 

[Anonymous]

Raising the debt ceiling has been, till now, a necessary act of Congress. It was done, as you say, 7 times without controversy and with a bipartisan vote during the the eight years of George W Bush, while the public deficit grew because of two unpaid for wars and the great tax cuts.

<snipped>

The highlighted is a demonstratable falsehood. I realize this is the mantra of the left but repeating it in perpetuity will not make it so. It's a spending problem, not a lack of income tax revenue.

Calling David Brooks a moderate would be akin to labeling Obama a centrist. Neither is accurate.

 

[rhubroma]

The highlighted is a demonstratable falsehood. I realize this is the mantra of the left but repeating it in perpetuity will not make it so. It's a spending problem, not a lack of income tax revenue.

Calling David Brooks a moderate would be akin to labeling Obama a centrist. Neither is accurate.

Oh, come on Scott, have you been hitting the bottle again?

There were tax cuts for the rich.

In conclusion, your points in any case do nothing to alter the rest of the analysis, which you so pathetically try to avoid coming to terms with by a couple of derisive and detracting remarks. Because there is simply no counter to the bear reality of the disgusting ideological position of your right wing party.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, come on Scott, have you been hitting the bottle again?

There were tax cuts for the rich.

What, did you give Red your his password?

There were tax cuts for everyone who actually pays income tax.

You wrote this;

while the public deficit grew because of two unpaid for wars and the great tax cuts.

Public deficit and debt grew because of the wars and other ramp ups in spending for entitlements and nearly a Trillion in 'stimulus'.

The tax cuts added revenue to the treasury just as they did under Reagan. Average income rose particularly for the top 1%. The percentage of income paid in tax also rose significantly for the "wealthy" (Bush plan compared to Clinton plan).

Revenue increased to the treasury via reduction in rate. It happened. Get over it.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, come on Scott, have you been hitting the bottle again?

There were tax cuts for the rich.

In conclusion, your points in any case do nothing to alter the rest of the analysis, which you so pathetically try to avoid coming to terms with by a couple of derisive and detracting remarks. Because there is simply no counter to the bear reality of the disgusting ideological position of your right wing party.

It's not my party.

Disgusting is taxing and spending into oblivion all the while ginning up the Alinsky class warfare model pitting citizen against citizen.

People like me think people like you are simply wrong. People like you think people like me are evil.

Yet your perception of yourself is one of a very civilized and open minded citizen of the world.

 

[rhubroma]

What, did you give Red your his password?

There were tax cuts for everyone who actually pays income tax.

You wrote this;



Public deficit and debt grew because of the wars and other ramp ups in spending for entitlements and nearly a Trillion in 'stimulus'.

The tax cuts added revenue to the treasury just as they did under Reagan. Average income rose particularly for the top 1%. The percentage of income paid in tax also rose significantly for the "wealthy" (Bush plan compared to Clinton plan).

Revenue increased to the treasury via reduction in rate. It happened. Get over it.

So you have confirmed what I initially wrote, that there were tax cuts. Wow Bush increased revenue because more rich people paid more of the little they were being asked to. Never mind that the increased revenue was a pittance and not nearly what was called for. You seem to congratulate Bush on this, while the deficit soared to the greatest increment in the history of a president. Horay! That's f-ing smart.

What in tax cuts don't you get? When, at the same time, there was a huge increase in deficit spending on ideological wars fought for oil and a mindless letting the "markets fix themselves" that led to Wall Street blowing up.

In the final analysis, you want no gov., ok, but not even to do the job it's supposed to do, namely operate in the collective interests. But this has little meaning to you I know. Rather when the debt just keeps going up in a republican administration, we don't get rational calls to quit the military madness, or to stop relieving the fiscal burden of the super rich, but just stop spending on services society actually needs.

This is what I find so repulsive and obscene about your ideology. That society is to suffer, while the big economic players don't have be too fiscally stressed. Unfortunately while America was spending the trillions on so called nation building and letting the stock market predators have their free reign at our expense, it should have been investing in the public schools, health care, pensions for the old, fixing the roads and bridges and investing on research - all of which the republicans believe can be exclusively paid for in the private sector (but to the benefit of only those who can afford it as in health care and education) and it has driven the country literally into a dreadful state.

 

[rhubroma]

It's not my party.

Disgusting is taxing and spending into oblivion all the while ginning up the Alinsky class warfare model pitting citizen against citizen.

People like me think people like you are simply wrong. People like you think people like me are evil.

Yet your perception of yourself is one of a very civilized and open minded citizen of the world.

Apart from what I stated above, which places into perspective why I think people like you are simply greedy and uncivil, how can you with a straight face talk about class warfare? When the plutocracy you support has devastated the middle and lower classes. Has no since of community and, therefore, is all about class and class struggle. It's enough to raise one's ire, because of the gall of it.

It's like plutocrats saying that because the liberals think their class should be made to take on a heavier fiscal burden, that this "injustice" can only lead to social unrest!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I haven't been following every detail of the current bickering, but it's my understanding that the Tea Party doesn't even want to close loopholes, referring to those as "tax hikes".

I too am puzzled that they think it would be better to just let the government default than do this.

So Scott, a few honest questions.

1) You run a business, right? If you got a $100k tax cut (credit) tomorrow, would you use that money to go out and hire three people, creating jobs for the economy?

2) Assuming you're making more than $250,000 a year, if you were forced to pay another $5,000 than what you are now on your personal income, would that cause you to lay off employees at your company?

3) I know you're not 65, but some day you will be. Assuming you still make over six figures at that time, would you be willing to only receive 90% of your Medicare coverage if it meant making the system less solvent for those less fortunate?

 

[Anonymous]

I haven't been following every detail of the current bickering, but it's my understanding that the Tea Party doesn't even want to close loopholes, referring to those as "tax hikes".

I too am puzzled that they think it would be better to just let the government default than do this.

So Scott, a few honest questions.

1) You run a business, right? If you got a $100k tax cut (credit) tomorrow, would you use that money to go out and hire three people, creating jobs for the economy?

2) Assuming you're making more than $250,000 a year, if you were forced to pay another $5,000 than what you are now on your personal income, would that cause you to lay off employees at your company?

3) I know you're not 65, but some day you will be. Assuming you still make over six figures at that time, would you be willing to only receive 90% of your Medicare coverage if it meant making the system less solvent for those less fortunate?

Tax loopholes.... It's always a loophole when referring to individuals or corporations using allowable deductions to reduce taxable income. The home mortgage deduction is a loophole. The per child tax credit is a loophole. Earned income tax credit is a loophole. My feeling is if we are going to close loopholes then let's close them all along with a re-write of the code (as discussed before).

1) You run a business, right? If you got a $100k tax cut (credit) tomorrow, would you use that money to go out and hire three people, creating jobs for the economy?

Yes. Absolutely.

EDIT: If it were permanent, or if the credit was for a period longer than one tax year.

2) Assuming you're making more than $250,000 a year, if you were forced to pay another $5,000 than what you are now on your personal income, would that cause you to lay off employees at your company?

If my taxable income was $250,000, my federal tax bill would be about $60,000 +/-. My State income tax would be about $23,000. This is just income tax.

$5,000 more in Federal income tax is a little over 8% increase in Fed tax paid. Would it break me? No. Would I lay anyone off? No. Would I put off buying the new phone system for my office? Yep. Would it have a cumulative effect given what I'm facing with health insurance premiums (up 30% this year) and the huge increase in electricity (AB32 implementation) and what effect Obamacare is going to have?? Yes. Would it be further reason to hunker down not really sure what new increase tomorrow will bring? Probably.

3) I know you're not 65, but some day you will be. Assuming you still make over six figures at that time, would you be willing to only receive 90% of your Medicare coverage if it meant making the system less solvent for those less fortunate?

Yes. Absolutely. I'm in favor of means testing to some degree although this gets tricky. $100,000 is a lot of money to some and barley squeaking by to others.

 

[Anonymous]

Apart from what I stated above, which places into perspective why I think people like you are simply greedy and uncivil, how can you with a straight face talk about class warfare? When the plutocracy you support has devastated the middle and lower classes. Has no since of community and, therefore, is all about class and class struggle. It's enough to raise one's ire, because of the gall of it.

It's like plutocrats saying that because the liberals think their class should be made to take on a heavier fiscal burden, that this "injustice" can only lead to social unrest!

Please tell me how bill gates devastated the lower and middle class. While you are at it, how about Starbucks, IBM, Dell, Google, Facebook, Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobile, AT&T and Proctor & Gamble.

The war on poverty (big govt) has done much more harm to the lower class than any employer you could ever name.

I can talk about class warfare with a straight face because I don't engage in it, very much unlike you.

I want everyone to be successful and I don't seethe with rage at those who are (and 'successful' does not necessarily mean monetary wealth).

 

[Anonymous]

So you have confirmed what I initially wrote, that there were tax cuts. Wow Bush increased revenue because more rich people paid more of the little they were being asked to. Never mind that the increased revenue was a pittance and not nearly what was called for. You seem to congratulate Bush on this, while the deficit soared to the greatest increment in the history of a president. Horay! That's f-ing smart.

What in tax cuts don't you get? When, at the same time, there was a huge increase in deficit spending on ideological wars fought for oil and a mindless letting the "markets fix themselves" that led to Wall Street blowing up.

In the final analysis, you want no gov., ok, but not even to do the job it's supposed to do, namely operate in the collective interests. But this has little meaning to you I know. Rather when the debt just keeps going up in a republican administration, we don't get rational calls to quit the military madness, or to stop relieving the fiscal burden of the super rich, but just stop spending on services society actually needs.

This is what I find so repulsive and obscene about your ideology. That society is to suffer, while the big economic players don't have be too fiscally stressed. Unfortunately while America was spending the trillions on so called nation building and letting the stock market predators have their free reign at our expense, it should have been investing in the public schools, health care, pensions for the old, fixing the roads and bridges and investing on research - all of which the republicans believe can be exclusively paid for in the private sector (but to the benefit of only those who can afford it as in health care and education) and it has driven the country literally into a dreadful state.

So you have confirmed what I initially wrote, that there were tax cuts. Wow Bush increased revenue because more rich people paid more of the little they were being asked to. Never mind that the increased revenue was a pittance and not nearly what was called for.

Rhub, ever wonder why, if the feds raise the income tax rate by, let's say, 10% across the board the Treasury does not see anything like a 10% increase in income tax revenue? Do you ever stop to try and figure out why this is?

Conversely, by lowering the rates the Bush plan captured a higher overall percentage of an overall higher income. MORE TOTAL DOLLARS AND A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF INCOME (ALONG WITH A HIGHER AVERAGE AGI) WAS CAPTURED FROM THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS UNDER THE BUSH PLAN COMPARED TO A HIGHER TAX RATE UNDER THE CLINTON PLAN. Now, one would think that someone like you would applaud this, but results are not particularly important to you. You don't give a crap about more money in tax revenue because you are obsessed with get-even-with-them-ism.... punish achievement. Personally, I don't get it.

In the final analysis, you want no gov., ok, but not even to do the job it's supposed to do, namely operate in the collective interests. But this has little meaning to you I know.

This should be exceptionally easy for you to point out, if true. Please show me where I written anything remotely close to this.

This is what I find so repulsive and obscene about your ideology.

You don't reveal much of my ideology as you simply and intentionally mis-represent it.

I believe that most able people, when allowed a choice, would rather not depend on a central government for most things. That people may someday not depend on you is what you find repulsive and obscene. That, in and of itself, is repulsive and obscene. My opinion.

 

[redtreviso]

Rhub, ever wonder why, if the feds raise the income tax rate by, let's say, 10% across the board the Treasury does not see anything like a 10% increase in income tax revenue? Do you ever stop to try and figure out why this is?

Conversely, by lowering the rates the Bush plan captured a higher overall percentage of an overall higher income. MORE TOTAL DOLLARS AND A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF INCOME (ALONG WITH A HIGHER AVERAGE AGI) WAS CAPTURED FROM THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS UNDER THE BUSH PLAN COMPARED TO A HIGHER TAX RATE UNDER THE CLINTON PLAN. Now, one would think that someone like you would applaud this, but results are not particularly important to you. You don't give a crap about more money in tax revenue because you are obsessed with get-even-with-them-ism.... punish achievement. Personally, I don't get it.




This should be exceptionally easy for you to point out, if true. Please show me where I written anything remotely close to this.



You don't reveal much of my ideology as you simply and intentionally mis-represent it.

I believe that most able people, when allowed a choice, would rather not depend on a central government for most things. That people may someday not depend on you is what you find repulsive and obscene. That, in and of itself, is repulsive and obscene. My opinion.

Muderers will murder more if their death sentence is less painful..
bananas

 

[rhubroma]

Rhub, ever wonder why, if the feds raise the income tax rate by, let's say, 10% across the board the Treasury does not see anything like a 10% increase in income tax revenue? Do you ever stop to try and figure out why this is?

Conversely, by lowering the rates the Bush plan captured a higher overall percentage of an overall higher income. MORE TOTAL DOLLARS AND A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF INCOME (ALONG WITH A HIGHER AVERAGE AGI) WAS CAPTURED FROM THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS UNDER THE BUSH PLAN COMPARED TO A HIGHER TAX RATE UNDER THE CLINTON PLAN. Now, one would think that someone like you would applaud this, but results are not particularly important to you. You don't give a crap about more money in tax revenue because you are obsessed with get-even-with-them-ism.... punish achievement. Personally, I don't get it.




This should be exceptionally easy for you to point out, if true. Please show me where I written anything remotely close to this.



You don't reveal much of my ideology as you simply and intentionally mis-represent it.

I believe that most able people, when allowed a choice, would rather not depend on a central government for most things. That people may someday not depend on you is what you find repulsive and obscene. That, in and of itself, is repulsive and obscene. My opinion.

The reason is simple, those that can afford to hire the best accountant to help them evade their civic duty. For this reason the agenda you propose is merely false and delusional: gain more on disproportionate collected percentages, while the deficit continues to go through the roof.

I'm not obsessed with anything, that would be you, given your irrational fanaticism which comes through in all your posts. My concern has to do with a more principled order.

Depend on me? Please. How many employees do you have?

 

[rhubroma]

Please tell me how bill gates devastated the lower and middle class. While you are at it, how about Starbucks, IBM, Dell, Google, Facebook, Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobile, AT&T and Proctor & Gamble.

The war on poverty (big govt) has done much more harm to the lower class than any employer you could ever name.

I can talk about class warfare with a straight face because I don't engage in it, very much unlike you.

I want everyone to be successful and I don't seethe with rage at those who are (and 'successful' does not necessarily mean monetary wealth).

What you conveniently forget to mention, however, is that we live in an world that has become an unscrupulous business concern, in which everthing is bargained for and everyone gets defrauded.

It's hard, therefore, to find great merit, such comendable philanthropic spirit, in the corporate enterprizes you mention. While Wall-Mart, to cite one example, is merely disgusting.

PS: How do I engage in class warfare? I'm just dying to know from you.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Scott - Thanks for answering the questions. So, even if there were no new demand for your product, with a $100k tax cut you would instantly hire three employees. Good for you. And if your personal taxes increased, it would stop your plans of taking your current money and putting it into a phone system for your business. Do you feel most businesses operate this way? None I've ever worked for did this. At least from what I could tell. And I'm almost 50 years old and have worked at numerous companies of numerous sizes, including sitting in on budget meetings at smaller ones. I've also been self employed at one point.

Clinton was discussed some time ago. Anyone remember 1993? Clinton supported what was considered the largest tax increase in history. At the time every Republican voted against it. All of them. They stood on the footsteps of Capitol Hill and stated that the tax increase would destroy the economy. We all know what happened.

 

[Anonymous]

Scott - Thanks for answering the questions. So, even if there were no new demand for your product, with a $100k tax cut you would instantly hire three employees. Good for you. And if your personal taxes increased, it would stop your plans of taking your current money and putting it into a phone system for your business. Do you feel most businesses operate this way? None I've ever worked for did this. At least from what I could tell. And I'm almost 50 years old and have worked at numerous companies of numerous sizes, including sitting in on budget meetings at smaller ones. I've also been self employed at one point.

Clinton was discussed some time ago. Anyone remember 1993? Clinton supported what was considered the largest tax increase in history. At the time every Republican voted against it. All of them. They stood on the footsteps of Capitol Hill and stated that the tax increase would destroy the economy. We all know what happened.

Is it your contention then the Clinton tax increases drove the economic activity in the 1990's? If so, show me.

I'd hire more people for production if I had an extra $100,000 laying around.

And if your personal taxes increased, it would stop your plans of taking your current money and putting it into a phone system for your business. Do you feel most businesses operate this way? None I've ever worked for did this.

Perhaps you have never worked for a very small business. If you were to increase a federal tax obligation by 8% per year most companies would makes adjustments. Perhaps in dollars allotted to R&D or whole goods... something would change, so yes, I think most companies operate this way.

 

[Anonymous]

Muderers will murder more if their death sentence is less painful..
bananas

So you are unwilling or unable to argue the facts. Which is it?

 

[redtreviso]

So you are unwilling or unable to argue the facts. Which is it?

neither.. You are irrational ...Might as well argue about where you remember you were last time you blacked out.

 

[Anonymous]

The reason is simple, those that can afford to hire the best accountant to help them evade their civic duty. For this reason the agenda you propose is merely false and delusional: gain more on disproportionate collected percentages, while the deficit continues to go through the roof.

I'm not obsessed with anything, that would be you, given your irrational fanaticism which comes through in all your posts. My concern has to do with a more principled order.

Depend on me? Please. How many employees do you have?

The reason is simple, those that can afford to hire the best accountant to help them evade their civic duty. For this reason the agenda you propose is merely false and delusional: gain more on disproportionate collected percentages, while the deficit continues to go through the roof.

You are half-correct here. There is a change in behavior when tax rates get too high. It is a fact.

What is also a fact is we are spending way too much money.

Just curious Rhub... what would the income tax rate need to be to close our budget deficit this year? I mean, you realize it is not possible, even at 100% tax rate, to collect anywhere near what we are spending, right?

So, knowing this, what exactly becomes a civic duty? Throw every penny possible to the utter corruption that runs our govt?

Or would I be better off running a business that provides a product and service that people want and purchase, growing my business by re-investing and providing jobs for several people who help support their families (and pay taxes) by working for my company?

I could reduce payroll and send that money to the treasury. Would that be conducting my civic duty in your estimation??

 

[Anonymous]

neither.. You are irrational ...Might as well argue about where you remember you were last time you blacked out.

I thought so. Backs against the wall and you come out swinging with your Alinskyisms. It's pathetic, but I realize it's all you have.

BTW, are facts only irrational when you disagree with them?

 

[Anonymous]

In Obama's own words;

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006

Exactly. Magnifico. Well done Senator, well done.

I highlighted the parts I really thought were poignant.

 

[ChrisE]

I'd hire more people for production if I had an extra $100,000 laying around.

That's BS, and hits the supply side clowns right in the chops. Thanks Alpe for framing this.

If the demand was there for your services you wouldn't need a tax break to hire people to supply for a demand.....basic capitalism would take care of that.

If there is no demand, you will not have the incentive or the increasing cash flow as you add employees. Capitalism will not support this activity. Getting a tax break and saying you will add employees when there must be no demand (else you would grow without the tax break) is pure BS. You add employees with these tax breaks, yet there is no demand lol.

I call you a liar. You would just pocket that tax break, just like 99% of your like minded cohorts because it makes no economic sense to add employees in a stagnant market.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Well, Chris, you said I guess what I couldn't. LOL!.

Is it your contention then the Clinton tax increases drove the economic activity in the 1990's? If so, show me.

No, my contention was what I posted. That the GOP at the time said the Clinton tax hike would destroy the economy. It did not. They are claiming a very similar thing now that closing any tax loopholes (such as the annual $4.4b oil industry tax break) is bad for the economy. Explain why you think such a tax break is fair, and should exist. Because I think it's unfair, and it's held up by lobbying.

 

[redtreviso]

That's BS, and hits the supply side clowns right in the chops. Thanks Alpe for framing this.

If the demand was there for your services you wouldn't need a tax break to hire people to supply for a demand.....basic capitalism would take care of that.

If there is no demand, you will not have the incentive or the increasing cash flow as you add employees. Capitalism will not support this activity. Getting a tax break and saying you will add employees when there must be no demand (else you would grow without the tax break) is pure BS. You add employees with these tax breaks, yet there is no demand lol.

I call you a liar. You would just pocket that tax break, just like 99% of your like minded cohorts because it makes no economic sense to add employees in a stagnant market.

the like minded would take their 100k savings and buy a new AMG every year if the tax cuts were permanent.. Permanent=yearly gulfstream and mercedes purchases