The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

No - not saying the government got out of our way in 2009. Saying that if charitable giving is dropping in these hard times there's very little reason to presume that it would rise in other hard times.

[JPhillips]

2009 did see federal taxes as a percentage of GDP at the lowest level in decades and rising income for the top 5% of earners.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

No - not saying the government got out of our way in 2009. Saying that if charitable giving is dropping in these hard times there's very little reason to presume that it would rise in other hard times.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

2009 did see federal taxes as a percentage of GDP at the lowest level in decades and rising income for the top 5% of earners.

What would be a your fair, recession-time tax rate? Sorry if I missed it somewhere. Who do you vote for that would implement such a rate? Not the Democratic party, right?

And does ending the Bush tax cuts really create such a drastic improvement in wealth disparity? Or otherwise fix anything?

To really address your complaints (and it seems the complaints of the majority of FOFC), you would need much more drastic changes right? Such as, beyond even a new tax, but actual nationalization of private property? Is that the end game if the end game is apparently something that the Democratic party can't deliver when they're in power? I'm not talking what would be a "step in the right direction". What's the FINAL, ideal step?

Sometimes I hear the goal is "Clinton era tax cuts", but I don't think that "fixes" wealth disparity. I remember all the pie charts and graphs back then about how unfair our system was.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

No - not saying the government got out of our way in 2009. Saying that if charitable giving is dropping in these hard times there's very little reason to presume that it would rise in other hard times.

I think the arguement has always been that if people pay less in taxes they will give more to charity. I have never fully supported that idea... I think a lot of people give to charity for the tax breaks and a lot of people don't care. But to use the drop in charitable giving last year as a counterexample to the arguement in the first sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. You may be right that it isn't a true but not with the evidence you provided.


Here is what you were saying...
If I spend less time at work I will have more time to spend with my children.
Last year people spent less time with their children. So even though they spent the same amount of time at work last year it still disproves the first arguement.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think the arguement has always been that if people pay less in taxes they will give more to charity. I have never fully supported that idea... I think a lot of people give to charity for the tax breaks and a lot of people don't care. But to use the drop in charitable giving last year as a counterexample to the arguement in the first sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. You may be right that it isn't a true but not with the evidence you provided.


Here is what you were saying...
If I spend less time at work I will have more time to spend with my children.
Last year people spent less time with their children. So even though they spent the same amount of time at work last year it still disproves the first arguement.

I'm with you on this. I don't want to defend the argument that people would donate more if there were less taxes (I don't agree with that myself -- I mean, it's probably true to some extent, but the question is whether that increase would be "enough"), but it just seemed odd to interpret that statistic that way.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

What would be a your fair, recession-time tax rate? Sorry if I missed it somewhere. Who do you vote for that would implement such a rate? Not the Democratic party, right?

And does ending the Bush tax cuts really create such a drastic improvement in wealth disparity? Or otherwise fix anything?

To really address your complaints (and it seems the complaints of the majority of FOFC), you would need much more drastic changes right? Such as, beyond even a new tax, but actual nationalization of private property? Is that the end game if the end game is apparently something that the Democratic party can't deliver when they're in power? I'm not talking what would be a "step in the right direction". What's the FINAL, ideal step?

Sometimes I hear the goal is "Clinton era tax cuts", but I don't think that "fixes" wealth disparity. I remember all the pie charts and graphs back then about how unfair our system was.

Nationalization of private property? Again, as long as you're on this "all liberals hate X" bullshit there's no way to have a discussion.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nationalization of private property? Again, as long as you're on this "all liberals hate X" bullshit there's no way to have a discussion.

So Clinton era tax rates are good enough then? I'm just trying to figure out where you stand on taxes other than the generic, "they should be higher and the system is unfair". What is the goal here? You can see what you want but it's a fair question.

I didn't say you were for nationalism of private property, but if the goal is U.S. wealth disparity that looks like other countries, more aggressive wealth re-distribution would be necessary. Is THAT the goal, or do you just want taxes to be a little higher?

What is the winning, ideal, tax system right now? Who's promoting such a system out there? I don't think it's that offensive of a question

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think the arguement has always been that if people pay less in taxes they will give more to charity. I have never fully supported that idea... I think a lot of people give to charity for the tax breaks and a lot of people don't care. But to use the drop in charitable giving last year as a counterexample to the arguement in the first sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. You may be right that it isn't a true but not with the evidence you provided.


Here is what you were saying...
If I spend less time at work I will have more time to spend with my children.
Last year people spent less time with their children. So even though they spent the same amount of time at work last year it still disproves the first arguement.

I mostly agree. I question any argument that "proves" a small increase or decrease in tax rates is solely responsible for human behavior.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

So Clinton era tax rates are good enough then? I'm just trying to figure out where you stand on taxes other than the generic, "they should be higher and the system is unfair". What is the goal here? You can see what you want but it's a fair question.

Asking me what I think is fair taxation is fair, but spicing it with all the whining, liberal hating bullshit is pointless.

I don't know what is fair. I do believe quite strongly that we can go back to the Clinton rates without hurting the economy and that a return to those rates is essential to any realistic plan to balance the budget.

[JPhillips]

Rush Limbaugh's perfect summation of too much far right thinking:

What have I told you about diet and exercise? Exercise is irrelevant.... "How do you know all this?" One of the reasons I know what I know is that I know liberals, and I know liberals lie, and if Michelle Obama's gonna be out there ripping into "food desserts" and saying, "This is why people are fat," I know it's not true. "Rush, do you really believe that? It's that simple to you, liberals lie?" Yes, it is, folks. Once you learn that, once you come to grips with that, once you accept that, the rest is easy. Very, very simple. Now, my doctor has never told me to restrict any intake of salt, but if he did, I wouldn't. I'd just spend more time in the steam or the sauna sweating it out.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Asking me what I think is fair taxation is fair, but spicing it with all the whining, liberal hating bullshit is pointless.

I don't know what is fair. I do believe quite strongly that we can go back to the Clinton rates without hurting the economy and that a return to those rates is essential to any realistic plan to balance the budget.

Maybe I'm just used to talking to more far-left people. When I bring up more aggressive strategies to redisribute wealth/nationalization, I'm being serious, that's not mocking. I know plenty of people who have those views and I find them interesting.

I don't think Clinton rates would hurt the economy, but I don't think they're making a dent in the national deficit, or wealth disparity either.

Edit: So if Clinton-era tax rates are ALL someone wants - I don't think they're being particularly fair if they're always complaining about wealth disparity, or the tax burden of the rich, or things that are only modestly (if that) addressed by the Clinton tax rates. If they just want small improvement in that area, that's fine, but it's not usually presented that way. It seems much more is "promised". I might find aggressive wealth-resdistribution policies silly, but they're sincere views when combined with what the person having them actually wants this country to look like. If someone ONLY wants Clinton-era tax rates - there really isn't THAT much disagreement (the net dollar amounts are high, but it's something that's barely noticeable on a person to person basis).

[DaddyTorgo]

How about Clinton era tax rates and a balanced budget?? That seemed to work pretty damn well.

The whole fucking balanced budget thing seemed to work pretty well TBH.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe I'm just used to talking to more far-left people. When I bring up more aggressive strategies to redisribute wealth/nationalization, I'm being serious, that's not mocking. I know plenty of people who have those views and I find them interesting.

I don't think Clinton rates would hurt the economy, but I don't think they're making a dent in the national deficit, or wealth disparity either.

Edit: So if Clinton-era tax rates are ALL someone wants - I don't think they're being particularly fair if they're always complaining about wealth disparity, or the tax burden of the rich, or things that are only modestly (if that) addressed by the Clinton tax rates. If they just want small improvement in that area, that's fine, but it's not usually presented that way. It seems much more is "promised". I might find aggressive wealth-resdistribution policies silly, but they're sincere views when combined with what the person having them actually wants this country to look like. If someone ONLY wants Clinton-era tax rates - there really isn't THAT much disagreement (the net dollar amounts are high, but it's something that's barely noticeable on a person to person basis).

I can't find the chart I've seen, but over a decade a return to Clinton era tax rates would mean a significant reduction in the debt. It's not the only thing that would have to happen, employment has to pick up or we'll be long term several hundred billion in the hole.

I don't think wealth inequality is solved simply by tax rates, especially given that that isn't a realistic option even if it would work. Honestly I'm pessimistic on inequality because I don't think the Congress will do anything worthwhile. HCR helps, Clinton tax rates would help, taxing all income at the same rate would help, a much simplified tax code would help, etc.

In the end, though, I'm asking for things that would end some of the advantages of controlling the levers of power, and I don't see any of that happening in the next five to ten years. Instead the Dems will cave on Bush tax rates , the GOP will gut HCR with Dem help, investment and business taxes will decrease, the tax code will add dozens of pages that benefit the wealthy, etc.

And then we'll have to gut Medicare and SS because doing anything else would cripple our economy.

[JPhillips]

Whaddya know. I agree with Ross Douthat.

We hear a lot about the perils of political polarization, and for understandable reasons: America faces structural challenges that probably can’t be addressed by one party alone, and the waning of bipartisanship is one of the many forces that make a Greece or California-like endgame seem depressingly plausible. But if a polarized political system produces fewer centrists overall, it also increases the power and potential leverage of the centrists who remain. For a time, the most important figures in the debate over health care reform were Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus; later on, that role passed to Ben Nelson, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, among others. (The same was true in the stimulus debate, the financial reform debate, etc.) A swing vote in the U.S. Senate should be able to wield disproportionate influence over the design of legislation; a swing bloc, if one existed, would essentially have veto power over whatever the majority wanted to do. And so the legislator who wastes this power — by engaging in horse-trading without any larger vision, by griping constantly about their own party’s mistakes while voting the party line on every major piece of legislation, or by simply being a self-interested, unprincipled cynic — is as much to blame for the dysfunctions of the American political system as any uncompromising partisan of the left and right.

If moderate simply means "do 2/3 as much" I have no use for moderates.

What do you think is a good solution, Evan Bayh?

[molson]

Caught up with this over the weekend:

Trying Sept. 11's mastermind

It was quite a while ago where we had the big "where to try KSM" controversy. As it turns out, the answer is still "nowhere". Would those who support full domestic due process for KSM now concede that he should be released at this point for gross violation of speedy trial rights, and Congressional violations of other trial rights (for forbidding funding for detainees to be brought to the U.S. for trial), and by holding him indefinitely without formal charges?

If the answer is no to those things, and that this is all somehow kosher, then let's move on to the military trial already. He either has civilian due process rights or he doesn't. Picking and choosing due process rights by a standard of convenience is a billion times worth than either option, IMO. It's the definition of a show trial. Either set him free or execute him.

[Galaxy]

I find the the argument on Clinton rates to be a little confusing. People like to argue he increase tax rates, which is true for income taxes. However, he did cut capital gains tax (from 28% to 20%), reform welfare, and cut taxes and tape for small businesses.


Anyways, this is interesting:

Debt commission puts out preliminary proposals - Nov. 10, 2010

[Buccaneer]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In a surprise move Wednesday, the co-chairmen of President Obama's fiscal commission released their preliminary proposals to curb growth in U.S. debt.

The report from Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson recommends spending cuts beginning in 2012, as well as tax reform and other ways to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade.

Hmmm...smoke and mirrors? PR move?

Three quarters of the $4 trillion would be achieved through spending cuts -- including defense -- and the rest from more tax revenue.

Among the proposed defense cuts: Freeze noncombat military pay at 2011 levels for three years to save $9.2 billion and reduce overseas bases by one-third to save $8.5 billion. It would also direct $28 billion in cuts already proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates toward deficit reduction.

Outside of defense, the report recommends eliminating 250,000 contractors, saving $18.4 billion, and freezing federal pay for three years, saving $15.1 billion.

Standard stuff that many local and state governments have adopted (in similar cost cutting moves).

The 18-member commission, which will make formal recommendations to Obama on Dec. 1, has been closely watched by budget experts since its first meeting in April.

The panel's proposals are not likely to be adopted by Congress wholesale, but they are expected to influence the debate in coming months as Congress tackles the nation's unsustainable long-term debt.

And some thought this was not a serious issue. If it had been unsustainable, why did they allow it go up drastically?

In their report, Bowles and Simpson offer ideas for consideration by the commission:

Set targets for revenue and spending: The report recommends that taxes be capped at 21% of gross domestic product. It would also limit federal spending initially to 22% of the economy and eventually to 21%.

Heh.

Rein in spending: The report proposes close to $200 billion in domestic and defense spending cuts in 2015. (Deficit fighting: The first cut is the deepest)

You mean to tell me that it is possible to cut $200 billion in one year? With a $2 trillion budget, that's not a trivial number but such cuts need to be sustained (assuming that they don't pile on more stuff in the meantime).

Reform tax code: The report would lower income tax rates and simplify the tax code. It would abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax -- the so-called wealth tax -- and reduce tax breaks.

Imagine that.

Change Social Security: The report aims to make Social Security solvent over 75 years through a number of measures, including smaller benefits for wealthier recipients, a less generous cost-of-living adjustment for benefits, and a very slow rise in the retirement age (from 67 to 68 by 2050; rising to 69 by 2075). It also would expand over 40 years the amount of workers' income subject to the payroll tax.

Sacred cow.

Control health care costs: The report recommends capping growth in total federal health spending -- everything from Medicare to health insurance subsidies -- to the rate of economic growth plus 1%.

Too late. They should have thought of that prior to passing that Health Care legislation.

"America cannot be great if we go broke," wrote Bowles, former White House chief of staff under President Clinton, and Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming.

Oh now someone ties greatness with financial responsibilities. Pelosi did not get that memo.

The full panel will vote on the recommendations by Dec. 1, the date of the commission's last public meeting.

Most observers and commission members -- including 12 sitting lawmakers -- have been pessimistic that the panel will be able to generate the 14 of 18 votes needed to make any official recommendation to Congress, which would put it up for a vote.

The White House said Wednesday that Obama would not comment until the commission finishes its work in several weeks, calling the report "a step in the process."

See: Trial Balloon.

The commission met Wednesday morning to discuss the Bowles-Simpson report. Initial public reaction from members ranged from guardedly positive to negative.

"This is not the conclusion of the commission's work. This is the beginning," said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, who nevertheless commended Bowles and Simpson for putting together a "serious proposal."

We'll see if it's "serious". Doubt it, personally.

Fellow commission member Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee who co-authored a bipartisan tax reform proposal cited in the draft, characterized the report as an "aggressive and comprehensive plan ... I look forward to reviewing it in depth and hopefully improving on it." (Bowles: 'Headed for disaster' - Video)

Musy have gotten the talking points memo.

Other members were more blunt.

"This is not the way to do it," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat from Illinois.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, says he has "significant concerns" with the proposal and "can't support it now."

Imagine that (part 2).

Meanwhile, Maya MacGuineas, who runs the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, called the report "remarkable."

"In a period when there has been little good news on the deficit and debt front, this is truly a most encouraging sign."

Not remarkable given the election results. Too cynical to be encouraged but at least the White House (whatever that means) thinks this is something to put out, if it's only for show. Too many politicians and voters pay lip service (or no service) to financial responsibilities. And of course, some simply do not understand why we can't just pass more expensive legislation since that's the way it's been done for a long time.

[JPhillips]

I'm torn on the tax stuff. If reducing credits/deductions raises the effective rate, I'm fine with bringing down the marginal rate to compensate. However, in the current climate I think it's much more likely that the lower rates will get passed without corresponding credit/deduction reform and that will just leave us further in the hole.

[RainMaker]

So Buccaneer, you want spending cuts and the debt reduced. Plan gets thrown out there that does that and you hate everything in it. How do you propose we cut into the debt. Or is it you're just looking for the idea to come from someone with an R after their name.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So Buccaneer, you want spending cuts and the debt reduced. Plan gets thrown out there that does that and you hate everything in it. How do you propose we cut into the debt. Or is it you're just looking for the idea to come from someone with an R after their name.

That's not true (even it appears to be a bi-partisan effort). I just take a very cynical view, not on the proposal itself which is a good start, but on what would result from it. Congress has shown itself to do the opposite and immediately there is some dead-on-arrival comments. I think they all know that and it'll be like most everything else, propose an eagle and end up getting a turkey.

[JPhillips]

I wonder who would have won in 2008 if Obama promised to extend the Bush tax cuts, eliminate the EITC and gut Social Security?

I didn't realize that was the change I was waiting for.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wonder who would have won in 2008 if Obama promised to extend the Bush tax cuts, eliminate the EITC and gut Social Security?

I didn't realize that was the change I was waiting for.

Obama had two years, with a Dem-controlled Congress, to do what he wanted.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Obama had two years, with a Dem-controlled Congress, to do what he wanted.

Two whole years? With no opposition (hah!)? Well, then, impeach the bastard!

[ISiddiqui]

Well most of the opposition appeared to be in Obama's own mind . I mean he should be able to get a lot done with 59 Senators, especially when the minority consists of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Scott Brown (who has become quite the Northeastern Republican to the chagrin of the Tea Party).

[JPhillips]

Here's the biggest problem with the deficit chairs report: (from Felix Salmon)

The big picture is in this chart — the proposal gets most of its juice after 2020. Which just happens to be the point at which growth in health-care costs automagically is brought down to GDP + 1% “by establishing a process to regularly evaluate cost growth, and take additional steps as needed if projected savings do not materialize”. But healthcare inflation is a gruesomely difficult nut to crack, and if the CBO simply assumed that it could be solved so easily in 2020, its projections would look much rosier too.

I had heard that they didn't really address runaway medical costs, but I didn't realize their solution was so transparently bogus.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wonder who would have won in 2008 if Obama promised to extend the Bush tax cuts, eliminate the EITC and gut Social Security?

I didn't realize that was the change I was waiting for.

Seriously. Fuck him.

He's the one responsible for the staffing of who's on this commission, so even if he comes out against the recommendations publicly, he had to know what they were going to be like. Fuck him.

[sterlingice]

It's just maddening that we have a President who, policy-wise, sits to the right of center in what he has accomplished but is being demonized and perceived as being radically left.

SI

[SirFozzie]

Ok, folks to the left of me. YOU come up with a way to avoid spending this country into a black hole?

[Greyroofoo]

Tax the rich 150% of their income.

[Greyroofoo]

dola, and by rich I mean anyone who makes more than I do.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Ok, folks to the left of me. YOU come up with a way to avoid spending this country into a black hole?

Dr. Strangelove: Sir! I have a plan!

Dr. Strangelove: Mein Führer! I can walk!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Ok, folks to the left of me. YOU come up with a way to avoid spending this country into a black hole?

I'm not sure if I'm to the left of you, but I'll give it a quick shot.

Yeah, I'm in favor of returning to the Clinton tax brackets. And, yes, I'm in favor of a $1M+ tax bracket with a 50% rate on it.

EITC- I'm mixed on it. How about I don't touch it for now since I think it's worth something like $30B per year and $300B is not small potatoes over a decade, it's not huge either.

Social security needs to move up the age. You can start at 62 and won't get full benefits until 65 now. Over the next 10-20 years, move that up to 65 and 70, respectively. Now, of course, there's a downside as many people between 65 and 70 will now be back in the work force. If they can find work, that is. So it's not some cure-all panacea and it causes additional issues. However, it does put SS back to where it should be. Bill Clinton's lock box isn't so stupid now- why don't we phase that in over the next decade as well, separating SS funds out from everything else?

Oh, and for the love of all that is holy, do not privatize. Right now- the administrative cost of SS is so small and mucking with it is folly, rife with all sorts of horrible problems going forward.

As for reducing medical spending- you've got me. I wanted a public option to help introduce a non-profit health plan which would compete and give insurers pause every time they try to raise rates. That's never going to happen now, at least not for the next few years. I'm hoping that the exchanges will cause the information asymmetry to even out some and profits shrink but that's probably naivety.

Over the next 10 years, I'd also like to phase in the cap and trade system only with a lot less exemptions for power utilities in this country.

If we could get out of Iraq and Afghanistan in any sort of reasonable timetable, say, by 2012 or 2014, that would save a metric assload of cash. Suddenly our defense spending goes from over $1T per year to half that or less. That's a pretty big chunk right there.

There's my "low hanging fruit". I haven't really gone after any of the tax code either for individuals or for businesses and there's a lot that can be done there.

Short of that... there's always the plan from The Critic (well, his mom)

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Ok, folks to the left of me. YOU come up with a way to avoid spending this country into a black hole?

There is a budget simulator in at the NYTimes today based on the Simpson/Bowles proposal. I balanced the budget with roughly 50% tax increases and 50% cuts. Major ideas include:

A return to the Clinton tax rates and Clinton estate taxes.

Cuts in defense spending in Iraq/Afghanistan and outdated weapons systems.

Raising SS age to 68.

Reducing aid to states by 5%.

Cuts in federal contractors.

Honestly nothing radical IMO.

[Greyroofoo]

What they really need is a simulator where you have to balance the budget by pushing bills through congress and still win your next election.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It's just maddening that we have a President who, policy-wise, sits to the right of center in what he has accomplished but is being demonized and perceived as being radically left.

That's okay. For a lot of us, it's about equally maddening what some folks apparently think "center" is.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's okay. For a lot of us, it's about equally maddening what some folks apparently think "center" is.

LMAO

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Two whole years? With no opposition (hah!)? Well, then, impeach the bastard!

I'm just saying that Obama had the opportunities to make the "changes" he wanted. Now he flips because the GOP took away some of the power he had.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, I'm in favor of returning to the Clinton tax brackets. And, yes, I'm in favor of a $1M+ tax bracket with a 50% rate on it.

EITC- I'm mixed on it. How about I don't touch it for now since I think it's worth something like $30B per year and $300B is not small potatoes over a decade, it's not huge either.

Social security needs to move up the age. You can start at 62 and won't get full benefits until 65 now. Over the next 10-20 years, move that up to 65 and 70, respectively. Now, of course, there's a downside as many people between 65 and 70 will now be back in the work force. If they can find work, that is. So it's not some cure-all panacea and it causes additional issues. However, it does put SS back to where it should be. Bill Clinton's lock box isn't so stupid now- why don't we phase that in over the next decade as well, separating SS funds out from everything else?

Oh, and for the love of all that is holy, do not privatize. Right now- the administrative cost of SS is so small and mucking with it is folly, rife with all sorts of horrible problems going forward.

As for reducing medical spending- you've got me. I wanted a public option to help introduce a non-profit health plan which would compete and give insurers pause every time they try to raise rates. That's never going to happen now, at least not for the next few years. I'm hoping that the exchanges will cause the information asymmetry to even out some and profits shrink but that's probably naivety.

Over the next 10 years, I'd also like to phase in the cap and trade system only with a lot less exemptions for power utilities in this country.

If we could get out of Iraq and Afghanistan in any sort of reasonable timetable, say, by 2012 or 2014, that would save a metric assload of cash. Suddenly our defense spending goes from over $1T per year to half that or less. That's a pretty big chunk right there.

There's my "low hanging fruit". I haven't really gone after any of the tax code either for individuals or for businesses and there's a lot that can be done there.

Short of that... there's always the plan from The Critic (well, his mom)

SI

A 50% tax rate? YIKES.....

I agree on SS. We need should increase 1 year for every x birth years and so on. Also need to eliminate the caps.

The medical issue is a tough one. I'm not sure how to handle it. Insurance companies aren't exactly making big profit margins. If anything, they're making some of the lowest profit margins in any business. I think Obama's plan is a joke because you're not actually attacking the problems.

BTW, why are we allowing so many waivers?
Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 as of November 1, 2010

What exactly is the cap and trade? How does it work?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There is a budget simulator in at the NYTimes today based on the Simpson/Bowles proposal. I balanced the budget with roughly 50% tax increases and 50% cuts. Major ideas include:

A return to the Clinton tax rates and Clinton estate taxes.

Cuts in defense spending in Iraq/Afghanistan and outdated weapons systems.

Raising SS age to 68.

Reducing aid to states by 5%.

Cuts in federal contractors.

Honestly nothing radical IMO.

Sounds a bit like the UK right now. I think what they do will be closely watched.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

A 50% tax rate? YIKES.....

I'm sorry, but if your income is at that level, I feel that you owe a lot of your success to the society that you live in.

Also, it's not as if at $999,999, all of your income is taxed at 35% for a total of $350K in taxes whereas at $1,000,000, you're taxed at 50% for $500K.

You're taxed at the same 35% (or I want it to go back to 39%) up to $1M. Well, technically you're at 10% up to $8K, 15% for the next $24K (up to $32K), 25% for the next 46K... etc.

Each dollar after $1M is taxed at 50%. It's not as if you want to stay at $999,999 to avoid that higher taxable rate. It's just that each dollar after that you get taxed higher:



Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

What they really need is a simulator where you have to balance the budget by pushing bills through congress and still win your next election.

That I'd pay to see. Then again, there's always the "rattle the deficit saber long enough to get your opponents out of power and then go back to spending like a drunken sailor" button. That one gets used a lot.

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's okay. For a lot of us, it's about equally maddening what some folks apparently think "center" is.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

LMAO

Not sure why you laugh at this statement. Do you not see that the "definition" of how this country leans is a completely partisan argument. Neither sides view is really based in reality. Want to run a simple experiment? Ask JPhillips, yourself, Steve Bollea, MBBF, JiMGa, and Molson which direction this country leans. Wonder what the first three will say? Wonder what the last three will say? Why are you so sure you are right that this gets a LMAO? More than half the country doesn't think you are right.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not sure why you laugh at this statement. Do you not see that the "definition" of how this country leans is a completely partisan argument. Neither sides view is really based in reality. Want to run a simple experiment? Ask JPhillips, yourself, Steve Bollea, MBBF, JiMGa, and Molson which direction this country leans. Wonder what the first three will say? Wonder what the last three will say? Why are you so sure you are right that this gets a LMAO? More than half the country doesn't think you are right.

Was laughing at the fact that Jon is entirely predictable. As are you.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That I'd pay to see. Then again, there's always the "rattle the deficit saber long enough to get your opponents out of power and then go back to spending like a drunken sailor" button. That one gets used a lot.

SI

Except, when a drunken sailor runs out of money, the sailor can't spend anymore. So, if the US spent money like a drunken sailor, it would be a massive improvement.

[Greyroofoo]

Well we're kind of like a drunken sailor with a credit card.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Well we're kind of like a drunken sailor with a credit card.

Wouldn't that be with multiple credit cards?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm sorry, but if your income is at that level, I feel that you owe a lot of your success to the society that you live in.

Why's that?

[ISiddiqui]

Word.

The idea that individuals believe that they have simply pulled themselves up with no help from society is one of the more laughable (and ignorant) propositions ever.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Because society has built the infrastructure that has allowed the successful to be just that. Without the commons, every Master of the Universe on Wall Street would have to deal with having an armed guard to get back and forth from work. For further examples, see every country to the south of us.

And isn't this something that every one benefits from? We all use the same infrastructure.

[ISiddiqui]

A) You don't think the rich benefit a slight bit more from instructure improvements and a legal system dedicated to protecting private property?

B) If everyone benefits from societial investments that doesn't it only follow that people's wealth is a direct result from that society and therefore if they can afford to give more back to the machine that helped them, they should?