I gotcha. I think free markets can work in most situations...they just sometimes need some help to put the motivations in the proper place. Very similar to government in my mind. Checks/balances with motivations properly aligned.

Another problem with moving to a flat tax and arguing about how other countries how lower tax rates is also that most other countries in the world have a national VAT, where we don't (and the public would never go for a 20% VAT like the UK has for example). So they offset the lower income tax rates with that high VAT. We do the opposite.

An opinion on how it could play out.

Palestinian bid at U.N. distracts from the real crisis - CNN.com

I prefer a progressive tax system, but I might be able to live with flat total taxation(which we're pretty damn close to now). The problem with making the income tax flat is that it's the only tax that isn't regressive. Solving any "inequities" there will only mean the total tax burden is heavily waited towards the middle class.

The Palestinians need a Gandhi. Peaceful non-compliance met by Israeli violence would turn the tide far faster than any violence.

I think Abbas is that Gandhi? He has delivered peace from the West Bank and that economy is growing. Can't really blame him for Gaza.

Abbas is more of a technocrat. The Palestinians need a leader that can march at the front of a thousand peaceful demonstrators as they disobey the checkpoints. The images from those kinds of protests could change American opinion.

As long as the Palestinians react with violence, even stone throwing, the opinion in the US won't change, and until the opinion in the US changes the Palestinians won't have a real country.

I think it depends on the situation.

My father was a structural ironworker (until he fell - non-lethal). Hard, dangerous work that had to be done in 0 degree weather or 110 degree weather. He'd sometimes have to leave for work at 5am, he'd come home tired and dirty. I remember him having a book of stamps that he'd turn in for vacation time, typically one week a year. My dad was (and I assume still is) very pro-union, and I can understand why - somebody had his back for concerns with issues of safety, wages, etc.

One summer I worked construction for my aunt's husband. Most of the time I'd make $8/hr, which I thought was pretty good (it beat BK, that was for sure). One job though was at a school in Jersey, basically cleaning up the site. Lots of sweeping. From what I understood, because the contract was with the gov't (school system) it was a union job. For hours on this job I was paid something like $23/hr. Even though I wasn't in a union, and even though I was really only sweeping up dust and collecting trash.

There's a union where I work now, covering folks who work in the call center. Not a bad idea to limit/monitor volume of calls, ensure breaks, etc. However, the union also makes sure those workers get 8x8 cubes. Contractors? They may not get 8x8 cubes, they get the 6x6 cubes (building with ample space and many vacant offices, even). There is a big line painted in the parking lot. Employees can park on the side of the line closer to the building. Contractors (and some of us have been there over a decade) park BEHIND the line, even though the employee section of the parking lot is often half-empty.*


* This eventually DID get better, as contractors were given two spaces below the line. Cheaper to change the rule than paint a new line.

Something non-political.

Obama Signs Dramatic U.S. Patent Reform Into Law

I don't think we're very far apart on this at all...and I meant to add corporate welfare in my list of things to fix (though I lump it in with general loopholes as a matter of convenience).

I agree in principle that if I have $100, you have $1, and we're both taxed at 10% (for instance); that I have a much better capability to use my $90 to increase my wealth vs you with $0.90 have. But my only point is that we shouldn't (or maybe wouldn't) have this level of income disparity to begin with if we didn't have a tax code & oligarchy where I can use my $90 to bribe people with (or at least...it would take a good majority of my $90 to bribe "many" people and so would not be as worthwhile for me to engage in that). That's what I'm more focused on than anything else...changing the system so that it properly motivates its participants.

While I also agree on leaving the higher income tax rates alone until we get the deficit/debt under control (whatever that means, really), that we need to accept that some people have gotten rich based on playing a fixed game where the rules weren't clear to people on the outside. And unless we want to start witch hunts up again, and start asking people to prove their innocence in creating wealth or we start raiding their bank accounts, we just aren't going to get it back. I don't think we are terribly far from this being a populist opinion btw...but that's another complex topic itself.

But what we can do is fix the system that enables such behavior and stop improperly motivating people of ALL income brackets. This is the key to ANY system and should be fundamental in the discussion to answer regarding any regulation. So I would reword JP's earlier question of "how does this policy benefit people of a particular income class"...to something like "how does this policy ensure proper motivation of participants". Because that is why I believe our country has been so successful for the past 200+ years...enabling the "pursuit" of happiness, not the "guarantee" of it.

I'm just a dumb farmer, but what would happen to government revenues if the corporate tax was reduced to 25% but all loopholes were closed?

I've seen the effective corporate rate at @27%, but that figure is a few years old. With the recession and tax cuts I'd expect it is lower currently.

I'd love to see the gap between effective rates and statutory rates narrow, I just don't think it will happen because the money folks are quite happy with the complicated system we have. The last thing they want is a system that clearly says how much they have to pay with no room for interpretation.

Yeah, as JP said...it would simplify things greatly.

In short...I believe it would benefit small businesses greatly to reduce the rate to 25% and close the loopholes that most aren't using anyway (whether that be because they don't qualify for them or don't have an army of accountants/lawyers to help find them all). There are likely many deductions that small businesses can & do write off already which doesn't equate them to a 35% effective rate but on the whole, my understanding is they pay higher effective rates than the largest corporations.

I'd also be curious about that 27% figure. Was that calculated as an average across companies effective rates, or as a sum of all corp revenues vs. sum of all taxes paid? Those would probably lead to very different numbers.

A couple things.

The 27% effective rate is the average rate paid by corporations that qualify for corporate taxation.

Most small businesses don't pay the corporate rate. Different businesses use different tax structures, but for most small businesses the corporate rate doesn't matter.

If I'm reading this right, then that means it takes an awful lot of small companies paying greater than 27% to get that rate and compensate for the Googles & GEs.


Well, I'm talking more like small(ish) startups...LLCs, SCorps, etc. Even they can have variance but I'm thinking more along the lines of small startups that have investor funding and require a handful or more people to operate. Not a lemonade stand small business (as an example).

Actually this could piss me off quite a bit as a smaller inventor... but overall it makes sense as long as they don't have silly provisions that act as another barrier to entry to small timers. I need to go read this soon, if its laced with pro-corp poison I'll be sure to post an epic rant.

Having first to file can avoid some complexity with determining when patents are effective, and in theory only hurts lazy inventors that don't get a move on with filing. On the other hand you need to be that more paranoid about publishing anything before you have the patent as I'm sure there will inevitably be a court case where a professor tries to get back control of the invention they made an early paper about and some hack corporation plaigarizes it, translates to legal speak, and claims a patent on the basic field of the idea before the original publisher can turn it into a practical invention. Professional patent trolls could make this ugly.

The biggest losers from closing loopholes are big banks and multinationals, they have the most loopholes available to turn actual profit into low tax liability. Another set of loopholes revolve around capital gains and dividend taxes, also certain rules dealing with stocks (not only do they give away too much as compensation to incompetents, but they get tax advantages for doing so). Also certain time delays of tax burdens and cash flows can allow companies to report profit numbers in the news but post losses for tax purposes. Theoretically these are supposed to even out (you are just time shifting the money) but by moving the money around it often gets ate up by other loopholes or needs of the company so that the tax for that particular year never really does come to fruition.

To get more people closer to the flat effective rate you need to get rid of special privileges from making your money by sitting it in a hedge fund rather than 'earning it'. Simplification of the accounting codes would also make sense, they will always make a case that they need that loophole because otherwise they will get a black eye in a quarter three years from now, but I think similar benefits (as far as public policy is concerned) can be achieved by lower overall rates and straightforward mechanisms for spreading investments, losses, and gains over time.

The end result of no loopholes is some companies that are highly profitable end up paying in a lot more, and most of the companies that were doing what they were supposed to all along end up with a slight deduction (if the rate is reduced somewhat with the loophole closing).

Note companies should not have to pay any taxes if they do not make a profit, so you may see some companies rev up investment rather than pay the tax. As long as it doesn't all go into executive compensation (goes towards million dollar gold spittoons, little circulation effect) this would be a good thing for the economy, either increasing wages (and cash circulation) or aggregate demand for some sort of supplies or equipment investments (and cash circulation).

Sounds good to me.

Republicans Accuse Obama Of Waging 'Class Warfare' With Millionaire Tax Plan | Fox News

Lol. I guess they haven't yet that tax changes also bring changes in behaviors, esp. those that are smart enough to hire tax attorneys and accountants to find alternative means to reduce the tax burdens. The ignorant things that keep coming out of Washington would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.

+1

I like that he has a plan for $4T in reduction but wasn't this the plan/compromise that failed ... that ultimately led to the current committee to find $1.5T in reductions.

Not sure I get why he is doing this other than playing politics?

Obama's debt reduction plan: A field guide - Sep. 16, 2011

So just because there are smart accountants and tax attorneys to find the loopholes, we should not try?

I don't really have any objections with the general premise of what he wants to do but I find his timing to always "appear" to be partisan. But the sad thing to me is that I don't think he actually is doing it that way...I think he's allowing himself to follow bad advice isn't seeing the partisanship of said bad advice.

Why wasn't this his agenda in 2010? Oh, that's right...can't make ambitious moves when there are elections coming up (despite the fact that they could pass an extension to the Bush tax cuts...just shouts incompetence to me). Why wasn't the jobs bill his plan in 2009? Oh that's right...we needed to pay for additional unemployment and couldn't be bothered with a thoughtful approach to getting people back to work.

I know he's had a lot of issues to step into and all. But I'm tired of hearing that as an excuse for why he hasn't been able to lead & make the system better. I really think he's a good man with good intentions but his presidency has just come off as being 2+ years of him being outgamed by his own party's corrupt sector which doesn't fully appreciate the economic turmoil average people feel. or in other words...Obama needs better judgment of people and their ulterior motives.

So is there no way to raise revenue through tax increases? I may be reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're saying there is no way to increase revenue due to lawyers and changes in incentives.

Simplifying the tax code would make it much easier to raise revenue through increasing taxes.

This, in specifically talking about "taxing the rich".

Addendum: That's why I mentioned that after the deficit deal, the next step must be rehauling/simplifying the tax code. What the WH does instead is to propose the same, tired tactics of increasing taxations on the rich, as if the Constitution allows the federal govt. to specifically target an entity.

I'd be all for narrowing the gap between marginal and effective rates, but I think that's even more difficult to get through Congress than Obama's plan. As long as the people benefiting from the loopholes are funding the politicians things won't change. The wealthy like their loopholes, thank you very much.

:lol:

By that logic, then it is impossible to actually raise taxes on the rich in anything but a "feel good" way since they (to Bucc's point) will continue to find ways to avoid said taxes (perhaps in different ways than today).

You can't on 1 hand say raise taxes on the rich, and on the other hand say they won't allow loopholes to be closed since they own the politicians already...without that same contradiction/dynamic making it equally implausible to pass the President's plan.

I think it's easier to raise rates than complete significant tax reform. Then it will take a significant period for enough loopholes to be built in to come close to neutralizing the rate increase.

But as to the general point that the rich run things, yeah. That's why there won't be significant tax reform and the rates won't go up (unless there is no deal and they return to the Clinton rates as already set by law). Because it's politically impossible to balance the budget on cuts alone, at some point the rich are going to have to decide if the debt/deficit is ever more important than their historically low tax rates.

The real gist is, there should not BE loopholes. Then there is no need for ridiculous time and money wasted on dealing with taxation in and of itself. With no loopholes the excessive moneys saved are not there to be poured into lobbyists pockets in an effort to create even more loopholes.

There should be a scale increasing bit by bit as total income/revenue increases so that those that need their incomes the most (the poor) keep more of it while those that need it less (the rich, corps and conglomerates) pay more.

Now how much more is based on percentages, not raw numbers. No loopholes. You reach a tax bracket, you pay that brackets tax level. No deductions, no cuts, no special offshore savings. Count the beans, tax the beans.

A Utopian vision of taxation?
Imagine a simplified tax code. It's easy if you try. /end John Lennon side bar

I could get behind this. Imagine the savings in cutting back on the IRS work force to deal with a minimized return. They'd probably move a bunch of folks over to the enforcement side of things, and reap pretty good dividends from that effort.

That said...Historically what has happened, and would happen again, is that someone would get a deduction. Say parents with disabled children or some other sympathetic group. Then the slippery slope engages, and dozens of other groups will get their exemptions. Then everyone. Home owners are a pretty sympathetic and deserving group...right? Yeah lots of people could support those decisions, and the folks making those well supported decisions will get reelected by those they benefit. We end up right back where we are today.

And there's the fundamental philosophical difference that prevents meaningful reform (and the support for various loopholes).

I don't think you can get rid of everything right away. A lot of these tax breaks have distorted the market in ways that would be initially very painful to correct. Imagine the effect on home sales if the mortgage deduction vanished instantly.

Lord knows I don't want it to happen mind you but if there's ever a time this might be it. After all a 50% reduction in zero isn't a big number.

Given that home sales are already in the tank, this might be the perfect time to get rid of the mortgage deduction--hardly anyone is buying anyway. If we wait until home sales pick up again, everyone will say "we can't get rid of the deduction now, sales will drop and we'll kill the recovery."

Even with bad home sales numbers there are still a ton of home purchases in the U.S. Looking at 2010 numbers, over four million existing and new homes were purchased. At an average price of 220,000 that's nearly 900 billion in sales.

Which would bury those who are underwater and can't refinance to a lower rate, resulting in a huge increase in foreclosures. Ummmmm, no.

How exactly does the home interest deduction even work? I have never actually claimed it. It could be that my house is considerably cheaper than what anyone else has bought, but I think the amount of interest was something like ~2500 and the combined marital deduction is 11000.

It's the basis for me itemizing deductions, but alone it doesn't beat the standard. After I take all the other deductions I qualify for I save a little.

It's simply one of the itemized deductions- and a pretty big one for a lot of people.

I was able to itemize last year, and the year before because of it (that and state taxes are about my only itemized deductions)- I will most likely lose it soon when I get married, and even if I didn't I'd lose it soon as the amount of my interest is dropping pretty quick while I pay a little extra.

Edit to add: I'm poor right now and don't make too much, but if I was going with the standard deduction last year instead of itemized it would have cost me about an extra $175 in taxes.

Still...you're talking about total sales, not people who finance. I realize a lot of people finance but there are a lot of cash buyers as well these days scooping up inventory & renting it out.

As much as it is REALLY not in my financial interest to do it...I could go along with it if we are in a "lets reform everything while we're at it" state of things.

But I do agree that if its literally the only thing we want to eliminate...then that will not help anybody...and just add further pressure on housing that will lead to other problems (drastic increase in defaults being one of them).

I'd like to get the marginal and effective rates much closer together. Within that goal I'm willing to be pretty flexible. However, I do think that kind of tax reform has to happen over time or at least with temporary offsetting credits because different markets have been so drastically distorted. It's still a good idea to remove a lot of those distortions, but the cure shouldn't be more painful than the disease.

Well, I think enacting a tax reform bill that eliminates every deduction doesn't haven't to be misconstrued as a bill that IMMEDIATELY eliminates every deduction. You can set dates for when certain deductions will be phased out and make it as painless as possible for people.

A good way to get around this is to allow those that are underwater at a higher rate to be bumped down to a lower rate despite the underwater situation. If that happened, the move to lower deduction levels would be more than offset by the decrease in monthly payments. You're essentially taking from the rich (big banks) to pay more taxes while allowing individuals to remain net even or perhaps even a slight decrease in overall cash outlay (home payment + taxes).

I know that I am racist and elitist for getting pissed about welfare handouts while I go to work to support my family... so what am I if I get pissed that I understood mathematics and didn't go out and buy a house that was 100K over my head? I guess somehow I am racist again right? :confused:

I don't see where it would be so bad to let people who are underwater on their mortgage refinance for the same amount under a current interest rate. If it keeps people in their homes and frees up a little cash, that seems like a good thing.

I don't think its racist/elitist to take that stance - but I do personally try and show compassion to people in a worse situation than myself, your statement tends to take the presumption that everyone on welfare is intentionally not working and everyone having problems with mortgage payments took out high mortgages.

In the current economic climate I'd argue that many people might have worked hard and been sensible - but found themselves on the wrong side of a lay-off and thus in trouble for no real fault of their own ....

I'm not talking about people who were in 'over their head'. I'm talking about people who continue to make their payments on their underwater house at 6-6.5% rates. If you drop those rates down to 4-4.5% without changing the principal that they owe, you're going to put them in position to have a lower payment while not paying a dime of the actual house principal off.

If you, as you say, bought a house within your means and still have a positive principal, then you should be able to refinance without any issues and receive that same benefit. This isn't a giveaway in any way. There's just a problem in that the old underwater/no refinance trigger doesn't work well in a recession.

I'm sure my thought isn't the only way to do it, but there's got to be a way to allow all of the mortgages to be refinanced to the current lower rates in this market as long as they aren't late on any payments.

First off, I think the mortgage deduction should be eliminated. It's one of those things in place that artificially inflates an industry. It puts an industry at an advantage over others. I'm not totally opposed to credits on certain things. I do think there are areas where it's a benefit to society as a whole.

With that said, I don't think you can eliminate it tomorrow. People have purchased under the belief that they would have it. I would recommend a gradual reduction of it over the next 10 years. Maybe 10% each year.

It wasn't necessarily about the mathematics. People in over their head often didn't pay more for their house, the value of their house just dropped signifigantly after they purchased it. While you can blame them I guess for making a bad investment and not foreseeing the huge financial collapse, it wasn't about the math. At the time, it was a good investment.

Now if you're talking about people who took out mortgages on properties they couldn't afford, that's a different story.

Just because the market collapsed doesn't make it a bad investment. It's only a bad investment if you sell the home and don't reinvest in a new home in the same market or if you were speculating on a short term basis. The people I'm talking about are just people who purchased homes to live in. They'll still be fine, but most of them would be helped quite a bit (as would be the economy) if they had the option to refinance their underwater loan at current rates.

Umm ... didn't you just devalue the assets of every lender who loaned at rate X in good faith? Sounds like a prime case about to be made (not by you) for a bailout to recoup those losses.

Understood. I'm not sure there's even a good way to do that. I'm just thinking there must be an option to do that. Of course, as you note, it may end with a large payout of government money to banks to make that happen once they lobbyists are finished with it, which would be something I would be opposed to.

I'd also add that many of these people likely relied on mortgage and bank professionals that told them they could afford it (and hid the fact their payments would balloon after three years). I have a little more compassion than to simply say "buyer beware" (which is a bit of myth anyway-it's not really the legal standard). Finance is complicated for many people-it doesn't strike me as all that unreasonable for people to be able to rely on doctors, bankers, lawyers, etc. for unbiased, objective advice in highly complex and technical matters.

Anybody who didn't notice a balloon payment/escalation clause/ whatever is too fucking stupid to own a house in the first place. I'm sorry but those aren't people I can waste any sympathy on.

I think that's a common misperception regarding off the wall mortgage options. Most of those people have already defaulted or sold their property. If you purchased a home in the 2003-2006 timeframe before the bubble burst with a fixed loan, you're likely underwater even if you paid 10-20% down. We've seen property lose nearly 1/3 of its total value over that time. It's not likely that those loans have been paid down enough over that 5-8 year time period to avoid being underwater. The lousy loans have already been flushed out. The real issue now is the deflation of value for those who bought just before the bubble burst at a price they could (and still can) afford. Their money is tied up in interest that doesn't reflect the current market with no way to refinance.

Regarding the balloon/escalation, I'm assuming it's usually sold as a case where you get your foot in the door with the first mortgage. By the time the balloon comes you refinance, this time from a better position because your house would have appreciated. They just don't always tell you that the house could depreciate, leaving you hosed.

I'll take a little bit of "unfair" if it helps fix the economy before we go through a full lost decade.

Who exactly do you waste your sympathy on?

But isn't it just part of the problem? Propping up an industry to artificial levels. Isn't that what we did by giving loans out to everyone who could sign their name?

I try not to waste any, it's a somewhat limited commodity. If I use it, I'm pretty sure you deserve it.

There's a difference between propping up an industry and using refinancing to lower household debt and hopefully spur demand. I'd also be in favor of allowing bankruptcy judges to cramdown mortgage debt and allow people to stay in their homes. The run up to the crash wasn't "fair" and now an obsession on making sure no recovery measure is the slightest bit "unfair" is cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Amen. Bought our house for 145K with 6.5% fixed. Never missed a payment. Went to refinance and was told we don't have enough value in our house as they put it at 120K. Why? Three foreclosures (along with their crap resales) on our block coupled with all the other stuff in the industry. We're screwed because of what everyone else did and we did absolutely nothing wrong.

But 145K is more house than anyone could dares to afford! ;)

(I love how there's this narrative that poor people were getting into 300K or 500K homes and that's why we're in this mess. It's so ignorant and yet people keep believing it. If you're "poor" and got into a 100K-150K home, you're still likely paying less than you would if you were renting- my wife and I made the decision to continue renting because we have moved a couple of times but we're annoyed because we could buy for less on a fixed 30 year loan so we've just been throwing away money. But suddenly your house is now worth 20% less than you paid for it, too, and your problems are the same as the people who went for a 500K home when you should have stopped at 300K only smaller in actual numbers.)

SI

People who bought homes back in, say, the 70s (like my parents) are cringing at you being "screwed" with a 6.5% mortgage. If you had ever paid a double-digit mortgage, you would not feel "screwed" just because you can't refinance down a percent or two.

My wife and I bought a house 4 years ago and we were offered all kinds of bubble payment options for houses that were simply outside of my budget range (She was not able to work at the time due to medical reasons). So we decided to go for a house roughly $85k less than the one that we really wanted because mathematically the money just wouldn't be there for the more expensive house without some kind of voodoo magic.

Fast forward back to the present, and thanks to what all of the bozos did to the house market, I am pretty confident that I owe a good $50k-$60k more on the house than it is now worth. However with my wife working now that she is better health-wise, the end result is that while we are paying more than the house is worth, we have a comfortable mortgage payment and are not in any danger of running into problems with it. The only other big negative for us is that we likely won't be able to move for quite a long time without taking a huge loss.

Yeah, the refinance bankers will remind you of this information when you get turned down for a refinance. It doesn't take the sting out of the situation. :)

Discussion on actual tax percentages paid by income level.........

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - Yahoo! News

Except it completely fails to address any sales taxes and fees, which are regressive. (EDIT: It only speaks to federal income taxes and federal payroll taxes, which are not inclusive of taxes paid.)

SI

Most of which go to local / state governments, not federal.

Nowhere in this statement did I see the words federal or Washington or US government:

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

So, I'm saying that it's not checking the right facts in said fact check.

SI

As a general rule the AP piece is correct. I think, but I haven't read it closely, that Obama's proposal is basically a new version of the AMT that would impose a limit to the amount of deductions/credits those making above one million could claim. The point isn't that all millionaires pay less than all secretaries, but that some millionaires do and this proposal would attempt to change that.

Agreed.

No solution is fair in all of this. Even inaction is unfair as it will lead to more & more defaults from people who simply have no other options, and further devaluation of their neighbors home (which will continue to add more people to the "underwater" list).

They lose their job, they look for a new one, they don't find a new one in their current area, they use up their savings paying the mortgage & other bills while they look for a job, they try to sell their home so they can pursue a job elsewhere, they then realize they can't sell it for what they owe & don't have enough in savings left to cover the difference, they try to short sell the property & the bank refuses to allow them because they never missed a payment. So they do what they feel they have to do...they default on the loan, mail the keys to the lender, and move on with their life so they can work & feed their family. This scenario then reduces the value of their neighbors' properties who were already underwater (or close to it) and further depresses their values.

This isn't "fair" to their neighbors who continue losing more of their property value but it keeps happening due to the inaction we are taking. And if you think about it...the real "crime" in my mind is that we are getting to the point where if you had defaulted on your loan in 2006/2007 because you did buy too much home for your income...if you have been spotless with your credit since then, and still have a job, you could be financed for one of your neighbor's homes at a 20-50% off discount from where you had defaulted. Pretty darn "fair" I suppose for that neighbor who stayed & paid, just so they could get their number called for the guillotine once their number was called for the "you gotta find a new job and it aint located here" problem our country has. And lets be honest...if you were an accountant before your job went away, while going to work part time at McDonalds is better income than nothing, it is not enough to support a family of 4 on.

This is why I think we can do a few things...and as others have suggested, there can be timelines of being phased into action.

1) Reduce the mortgage interest deduction over time to zero. (This will help offset part 2 & 3's impact)
2) Allow people who have maintained solid payment history to refinance their mortgage to current market rates (this will help spur "other" local economic activities rather than continuing to enrich banks)
3) Create a housing "exchange" registry program which allows people with solid payment history to exchange their home for another home on the exchange registry at current market value. This would be intended to help those who have maintained their expenses properly over time and allow them to get out of their home if relocation is necessary for employment purposes.

This "exchange" would need quite a lot of rules & stipulations and require some level of out of pocket contribution when/if a home has an underwater mortgage compared to market value. But the key is that the home be exchanged for market value rather than the 10-40% under market value that it drops to once foreclosure or short sale is the option (and the home sits & rots while waiting for a buyer, which only makes it worth less than before...thus perpetuating the deflation cycle).

Sure I would. I can't do something not because of something I've done but something other people have done.

Tomorrow at the same time I get off from work, Georgia will be killing an innocent man.

Fixed that bullshit you just posted.

Sure, I can understand wanting to see a worthless cop killer put down. I just disagree that man is Troy Davis. At the very least, there is no where near enough certainty in the current evidence to execute him.

Let's see here, tried & convicted. Appeals to the ends of the earth all rejected. How much more is needed to put an end to this piece of shit?

So if I'm understanding your philosophy correctly, government is completely useless and incompetent. Except of course for criminal justice, in which it is 100% infallible?

Watched MSNBC Morning Joe today (btw - I think this is the best morning show during the week) and they had the Palestinian ambassador on regarding the pending UN proposal/vote.

The guy was a little bit on edge but communicated well.

I was thinking how far the Palestinians had come. I remember in the mid 90's Arafat's mouthpieces were so unprofessional (especially that one woman, have to look up her name) and so irrational that I had a negative reaction.

Today, although I did not agree with everything he said, the ambassador was plain spoken, had good counter points etc. and I listened to what he had to say.

I saw the same segment and had a similarly positive impression of the guy as well.

I was thinking "Gee, they finally understand how to interact with civilized society". Whether they actually understand how to do that, or if this guy is just the outlier of the administration there, could be a completely different thing.

Love these types of comments. The problem many of us have with the government is that it gets involved in things way beyond its mandate. Public safety is one of the key areas that is well WITHIN its mandate.

Thanks for covering this, I've been busy trying to unfuck FB this morning.

Maybe for 7 of the 9 people who testified against him to not recant their testimony? Or maybe a ballistics expert who didn't say there was no evidence to suggest the bullets came from the same gun.

I agree that he's most likely a POS and certainly assaulted people, but I would hope we could at least make sure people are the killers before we kill them. He could have done it, but if he's convicted based on testimony that is later proved coerced and incorrect, should the same punishment stand? I mean, is the world a different place with him in jail for life instead of underground? I would reckon if he was commuted to life in prison and you never heard from him again, everything in your world would still go on.

But you have to admit there's a general argument among small government folks that the government is also corrupt and incompetent. There is a contradiction there.

Not particularly. By limiting the scope of government services, you limit the amount of bloat, mission creep, and general waste that can be accrued.

Construct the endless Three Letter Agencies, Committees, Czars of Sparkly Things That Begin With The Letter I, and all of a sudden you've got an entity so bloated that waste and corruption is inevitable.

Public safety being within its mandate doesn't mean it does it well. One of the main arguments for limited government is that in trying to do too much, government fails to do an adequate job in the areas it's supposed to. The justice system, I think, is a prime example of that. It's underfunded and overburdened with crap that has nothing to do with public safety.

It's also subject to the same problem that occurs in other areas of government: officials are more concerned with being re-elected than with obtaining the correct result. The Duke lacrosse and Martha Stewart prosecutions are examples of prosecutors grandstanding rather than seeking justice. Legislators fall all over each other to pass new laws without stopping to consider the consequences (CPSIA) or if a new law is even necessary (numerous gun control laws).

I guess I'm overly cynical, but I've found that when a politician's mouth is open, they're lying almost 100% of the time. Judges and prosecutors are politicians too.

With further diminished faith in the system (or society) to do what needs to be done. I'd rather that not reach zero, I'd just as soon not find out what that does to my mindset.

This. When you have this much turmoil in the case, when the case is based on eyewitness testimony and 7 of the 9 people who were used to convict the guy come back and recant, it is unconscionable to go ahead with the execution.

Now, I'm an anti-death penalty guy (& I have been since I accepted Jesus a couple years back), but even if you are for the death penalty, don't you want to make sure that you are 100% certain before you kill someone? I mean didn't Illinois halt their DP because something like 50% of the people on Death Row in the state were actually innocent due to DNA testing?

I'm only for the death penalty where there is irrefutable DNA evidence of the persons guilt and or irrefutable eyewitness evidence (photographic or video evidence of the crime). With the technology we have these days, there's absolutely no excuse to execute an innocent person or a person convicted without the two things I mentioned above.

According to the prosecutor's rebuttal on CNN, these 7 weren't used to convict him as there were concerns about their testimony back on the original case.

No, I haven't followed this case to have an opinion, just mentioning one tidbit.

At least two jurors have come out and said they would not have convicted Troy Davis with the recantations.

Based on what I'm hearing on the radio here in Atlanta, there were actually 34 witnesses against him, including 3 Air Force members that saw him shoot the cop from a van and were all able to identify him.

Again, I wasn't there, just passing on what I have heard.

I wonder if we'd have all these recantations if the death penalty wasn't coming. Who knows, and I don't know all the details of the case, but I've heard a lot of examples of aggressive investigators pressuring witnesses into recanting years after the fact. Are they all valid, are some of them valid? Courts definitely look at them with suspicion. And it's tough to get a new trial under the law.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the prosecution, unlike the defense, isn't allowed to try the case in the media during the appellate process. It's pretty easy to get the public on your side when no official dissenting voice is really possible.

I do think the cons of the death penalty outweigh the pros. I've been on the fence for a lot of years on that, but I think it's time to let it go. It will mean less guilty pleas in murder cases (because prosecutors have nothing to offer them anymore except for the recommendation of a light sentence), and probably, less aggressive innocence project-type movements (I wonder how many people would be yelling about this guy's innocence if he was just locked up forever - that execution date gives that innocence movement a ton of momentum and pr.). But at the end of the day, the risk of executing an innocent person is really unacceptable, the costs and manpower dedicated to these decades of appeals is better allocated elsewhere, and really - I don't think a nice peaceful quiet death is all that much of a punishment anyway. I'd rather see tougher prisons, with smaller populations.

Again, I have no clue what really happened, but I will say that at least the recent coverage of this issue has been awful. What I haven't seen anywhere is:

1) What evidence was presented in the original trial.
2) What information was recanted.
3) If Davis claims he wasn't even there or if he was there but someone else did it.

I've also only seen a very minor mention of the earlier shooting in the day that he was also convicted in.

Seems like for a case getting such national and even international attention, someone might have tried to put out some decent level of coverage.

You asked, here's an answer ... but it isn't wasted.

"A mother's vigil *| ajc.com

So would you feel just as sympathetic for the family of a person that was put to death over a crime they didn't commit? If he was truly guilty he could have had another trial and another jury would have sentenced him to death as well. There is plenty of proof that there have been innocent people on death row so what about their families and the innocent people that have died, do they deserve no sympathy?

Every court that ever saw the case reaffirmed his conviction by a properly seated jury. How much more time would you propose to waste? You can whine until hell freezes over but this SOB got a small taste of what he deserved & should have gotten years ago.

The only pity here is that he wasn't executed years ago.

My views on the death penalty are not as strong as Jon's, but the anti-death penalty people are really stretching the truth. There were a lot more witnesses than the supposed nine. There were some witnesses that had incredible views of the crime and detailed the exact shirt he was wearing. Some of these witnesses were people who knew him personally. And the recants weren't all recants either. Many of these things were known at the trial and some weren't recants but instead "not totally sure" type deals.

It's worth noting that two of the recantations were also witnesses that Davis refused to put on the stand to recant. They had an affadavit but refused to put the person on the stand because they knew it wouldn't hold up under cross-examination.

Then there is the part where he fled from the scene. Avoided apprehension for days and eventually had to negotiate his surrender to police. Not exactly the things an innocent man does.

And the race issue being pushed? Well the majority of the jurors and witnesses were black.

There is a ton more in the rulings here if you care to read through them.

http://www.gasd.uscourts.gov/pdf/409cv00130_92part1.pdf
http://www.gasd.uscourts.gov/pdf/409cv00130_92part2.pdf

I'm not going to jump out and say he definitely did it because I didn't sit through a trial and don't have every bit of evidence at my fingertips. But this has been through countless judges at almost every level of the judicial system. Not one of them felt he had a case.

The thing that bothers me is where were all these people for 22 years? Where were they when he sat on death row all these years? All of a sudden he's up for execution and everyone with an internet connection immediately "nows" he is innocent. I have no doubt that our judicial system has many flaws and has likely convicted innocent people. But this one doesn't seem to be an example to support that theory.