The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And then when I complain Molson will bitch about me not doing enough to get a third party candidate to win.

You asked me a question, you can do what you want.

At the very least, you could direct your "1%" venom to the people in power (that you vote for), and not whoever is saying "But, we're TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!", and that the rich will flee (whoever those people are).. If people didn't at least bitch about that inconsistency, this forum would still just be a Democratic hand job. There is so little anti-Obama sentiment amongst most of his followers, you basically have challenge people to even acknowledge it. It's still just the Republicans responsible for all the world's problems.

Edit: And you're sensible about this, I'm sure you're not running around town with an Obama sticker on your hat. But come election, Obama will get millions in contributions, he'll have rallys about hope, he'll have hysterical supporters and funny signs blaming the bad guys for stuff. Shouldn't that make a person with real liberal values enraged? I'd love to just see more of that, form everywhere, and it frustrates me that he'll never be called on his deceit. That's all.

[JPhillips]

He was never a strong liberal to begin with. I said many times I saw him as a pragmatist and guess what, that's what he is.

And I could turn your whole argument back on you. Why don't you leave this forum and start directing your anger at the elected officials. Why not write all of your posts to the White House?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

If you only need to have 250k income to be in the top 1%, then color me ignorant and say I jumped to conclusions.

That may be accurate, but I would have guessed a number far higher than that.

Yes, you're correct. I think it runs right around $375K now. My wife is a doctor as someone mentioned.

My intent with my personal example was to point out how stupid the laws are. If we're going to say the top XX% is taxed at a certain percentage, make sure they're taxed at that percentage and stop pretending otherwise.

[Ksyrup]

Just got back from a Commerce Lexington luncheon with Rand Paul as speaker. I kinda like the guy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, you're correct. I think it runs right around $375K now. My wife is a doctor as someone mentioned.

My intent with my personal example was to point out how stupid the laws are. If we're going to say the top XX% is taxed at a certain percentage, make sure they're taxed at that percentage and stop pretending otherwise.

The difference between marginal rates and effective rates is one of the big scams in the system. Most people don't understand the difference so when people say they pay 50% in taxes or corporations have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world that's taken to mean effective tax rates.

I'd love to see the gap between marginal and effective reduced, but the big money guys that rigged the tax code sure aren't going to let that happen without a decrease in total taxation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But, we're TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!

So have all the rich that fled the confiscatory 26% rate moved back now that there's a 17% rate? Or is 17% still too high?

Normally I would agree, but I just don't anymore. I posted an article a couple posts up that talks about how we gave a $200 million interest-free loan to a wife of a guy who ran an investment firm so she could loan it back to us at a higher interest rate. If I felt the money was going to build a real healthcare system, better roads/schools/infrastructure, or anything else that would make the country better, I'd be more than happy to pitch in some more. But it's not going to happen.

Which is the problem I have. It's like having a family member who is addicted to drugs and needs some money to get back on their feet. I'd love to give it to them if it was going to go to rehab and to get a fresh start. But I'm not going to give it as long as I know they'll just blow it on drugs.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I pay an accountant to get all of the tax breaks I can, and it appears to be well-worth it. Oh, and I also get a deduction for his services as well.

There really aren't a lot of breaks and loopholes out there. Sure an accountant can help with certain things and position money a certain way, but there is this notion that wealthy people can somehow avoid paying taxes or have some secret laws in place. In fact, most of the credits out there don't even apply to people making over $100k (student loan interest, Roth IRA, etc).

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Which is the problem I have. It's like having a family member who is addicted to drugs and needs some money to get back on their feet. I'd love to give it to them if it was going to go to rehab and to get a fresh start. But I'm not going to give it as long as I know they'll just blow it on drugs.

I think you have successfully summarized my view of government and why I don't believe giving more to it makes anything better. It simply rewards the behavior.

This is why I am ok with the local levels of taxation, states rights, even the ability for states to combine resources and to leverage efficiencies in bargaining power when it comes to things like healthcare & products/services. There can be many minor inefficiencies along the way(like duplication of services) coupled with minor corruptions as well, to be sure. But these can be followed/monitored/corrected by the directly involved local societies much easier and the minor aforementioned issues are never majorly impacting to the greater society.

The concept of brilliant, well-intentioned people operating from a centralized and streamlined (dare I say...efficient) standpoint with the level of responsibility and power that this implies is simply too much to risk in the hands of those who do not find ways to "earn it". Absolute power corrupts absolutely (and even the shades of power underneath the absolute level).

In my opinion...the federal government's focus should be on the protection of citizens from foreign threats and in recommending methods and solutions to problems that states & localities can adopt or implement. There are likely a few other things one could put in there, but generally speaking...that would cover 90% of it. The rest should be localized competition for businesses & citizens to the extent the localities wish to attract.

[JPhillips]

Whatever you want to say about the federal government, it's a helll of a lot less corrupt and more efficient than the NY state government.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Whatever you want to say about the federal government, it's a helll of a lot less corrupt and more efficient than the NY state government.

It's enough to turn a southern democrat into a northern republican. I realize its both sides but I just come back to stop "feeding the beast" and eventually it dies of hunger.

While NY is corrupt...I'd say its a very close call. Either way, the decisions of NY state wouldn't impact the rest of the country immensely so NY citizens would be free to protest such corruption by either removing such corrupt leaders or leaving the state for areas with less perceived corruption(as happens already to degrees).

To appeal to your progressive side...look at like this. The levels of inefficiency created by duplication of services & local management would actually employ more "regular" people. You can still operate the "thinktank" in Washington to set standards & recommendations but you don't need to give them actual authority to force the adoption of such standards, thus reducing (though never eliminating) the level of corruption. But at least this level of corruption can be interrogated, interpreted, and determined to be such and not adopted locally.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Until everyone is taxed 17%, yeah, it's too high.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

It's enough to turn a southern democrat into a northern republican. I realize its both sides but I just come back to stop "feeding the beast" and eventually it dies of hunger.

While NY is corrupt...I'd say its a very close call. Either way, the decisions of NY state wouldn't impact the rest of the country immensely so NY citizens would be free to protest such corruption by either removing such corrupt leaders or leaving the state for areas with less perceived corruption(as happens already to degrees).

To appeal to your progressive side...look at like this. The levels of inefficiency created by duplication of services & local management would actually employ more "regular" people. You can still operate the "thinktank" in Washington to set standards & recommendations but you don't need to give them actual authority to force the adoption of such standards, thus reducing (though never eliminating) the level of corruption. But at least this level of corruption can be interrogated, interpreted, and determined to be such and not adopted locally.

I'm all for a whole lot of government reforms(which won't happen in my lifetime), but I really don't think there's any reason to think state governments are more efficient and less corrupt that the federal government. That's not to say the Feds are clean, but the states are often worse. And don't even get me started on local governments that are often filled by the worst sort of incompetent party hacks.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm all for a whole lot of government reforms(which won't happen in my lifetime), but I really don't think there's any reason to think state governments are more efficient and less corrupt that the federal government. That's not to say the Feds are clean, but the states are often worse. And don't even get me started on local governments that are often filled by the worst sort of incompetent party hacks.

I wouldn't say more efficient in the pure human numbers sense but I would say less corrupt. Less apt to continue being corrupt due to natural forces might also be the way to say it.

State governments have a lot of dynamics at play today. But because of the influence of national parties, due in (large, imo) part to the large role at the fed level...they tend to be puppets for the rest of their party and try to pull in a few things to their locale so they can claim some accomplishments...thus requiring more feeding of the beast.

But what if their accomplishments weren't awarded based on their willingness to cooperate/vote on a national party basis? What if they only got business, bridges, and other projects sponsored because of their ability to help shape a viable business/people climate that attracted these entities to their state? Without the federal government being the authority & source of cronyism, the only thing left is meritocracy for these people. The dynamics would change for them, as would (imo) the type of people who pursue these offices (for the better). It simply would not be as beneficial to associate to 1 of 2 lines of thought any more.

I know it sounds like pie in the sky stuff...but I honestly believe we won't get rid of the 2 party system (and all of the negative consequences I believe are associated) until we stop contributing to its primary cause...the large concentration of federal authority & power. And we won't get to a point where corporations have more vested interests in states & communities until we make them bribe the citizens...and not the ringmasters.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But, we're TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!



So have all the rich that fled the confiscatory 26% rate moved back now that there's a 17% rate? Or is 17% still too high?

And yet nearly half of Americans pay ZERO (or even get more back than what they paid in) in federal income taxes.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Whatever you want to say about the federal government, it's a helll of a lot less corrupt and more efficient than the NY state government.

+1

The problem I have, being an upstate resident, is we are ruled by whatever downstate/NYC wants. I wish we could get some independence to do things our own way.

[lcjjdnh]

Just thinking aloud here, but is it possible the state and federal governments are "corrupt" in two different sort of ways? State and local governments seem to manifest corruption in the more traditional way-bribes, cronyism, etc. Federal government seems to manifest "corruption" in more of an "elite bubble" sense. That's not to say there isn't traditional corruption (I'm sure we could all point to many examples), but the more troubling thing is the many bright, capable, well-educated federal employees that don't even think they're being "corrupt" by entering and exiting the revolving door. They just believe, rightly or wrongly, it's the typical way of trying to be a good citizen and spending some time in the public sector.

I also wonder if some of our efforts to root out corruption actually help lead to it. Presumably many governments have very rule-like programs for handing out grants, receiving bids, etc. Although this cuts down on the discretion which could lead to corruption, it also cuts down on discretion that could battle it. People that know how the system is setup can use that knowledge to their advantage and we can't really stop it, because we have a rule-like-rather than a standard-like-system.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

And yet nearly half of Americans pay ZERO (or even get more back than what they paid in) in federal income taxes.

But almost all of them are paying @15% in FICA taxes, so the overall federal tax burden is very close to the typical millionaire.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Thanks for pointing out again that Social Security and Medicaid are major problems for getting our budget straightened out:

Janitor = 9.5% income tax
Helmsley = 13.67% income tax

So repealing the Bush tax cuts is going to fix this discrepancy? The problem is in the taxes taken to help Medicare and Social Security, not in the income tax paid for everything else in government.

[JPhillips]

The point is you can't talk about tax burden without accounting for FICA taxes. Sure 47% don't pay income tax, but their overall federal tax burden isn't significantly lower than a millionaire's.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The point is you can't talk about tax burden without accounting for FICA taxes. Sure 47% don't pay income tax, but their overall federal tax burden isn't significantly lower than a millionaire's.

However, the part they are paying into (Social Security / Medicare) is also the part they are most likely to take advantage of.

So is the argument to increase income taxes to the rich to offset the extra FICA taxes paid by the poor? Or is it to increase FICA taxes paid by the rich?

But I do agree we should be talking about both.

[JPhillips]

As I've said before, I'd like to return to the Clinton taxation levels for everyone, which would mean both higher rates and fewer deductions/exemptions/credits. Not only can we survive higher rates, but the gap between marginal rates and effective rates is the source of most of the corruption in the tax code and that needs to be cleaned up. I'd be all for revenue neutral tax reform and then reexamining rates, but that's impossible in our current system.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Just thinking aloud here, but is it possible the state and federal governments are "corrupt" in two different sort of ways?

I think they are. While perhaps there are other ways to address them, I think the fed level is more institutional in nature and can be best addressed by simply transferring responsibilities to the state level. As this occurs, in my mind, this nows transfers the responsibility, accountability, and ultimate "blame" (or praise FTM) to the local/state level. This will partially dissolve the 2 party duopoly on thought and lead to more independent candidates (independent from party...they could be far right/far left certainly).

I believe this will lead to getting better candidates with more noble reasons for being in politics. It will never be perfect, but it can be much improved, imho.

[molson]

If anyone wants to analyze the Obama household's income tax liability, here 'ya go:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...OTUS_taxes.pdf

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As I've said before, I'd like to return to the Clinton taxation levels for everyone, which would mean both higher rates and fewer deductions/exemptions/credits. Not only can we survive higher rates, but the gap between marginal rates and effective rates is the source of most of the corruption in the tax code and that needs to be cleaned up. I'd be all for revenue neutral tax reform and then reexamining rates, but that's impossible in our current system.

If we don't go the Fair Tax route (i.e. just scrap our current tax code and start over), I'm okay with this, but either way I also want to see meaningful cuts in spending. The spending curve is getting awfully vertical.

[molson]

Federal agencies reported an estimated $125.4 billion in improper payments for fiscal year 2010. (And that's just what was reported) I didn't look into it deep in enough to see whether that's high or low from past years. And we have S&P warning about U.S. debt levels and credit ratings. What is the breaking point to where this stuff is taken seriously? I think we have to have a tangible crash that impacts everyone. We've put that off for a while, and we'll try to keep putting it off for a while longer, but we're not getting out of this with tricky accounting or even Clinton-era tax rates.

U.S. GAO - Improper Payments: Recent Efforts to Address Improper Payments and Remaining Challenges

I'd guess that states have a better record on government waste and corruption, if only becaues they're smaller entities, and most of them are more transparent.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd guess that states have a better record on government waste and corruption, if only becaues they're smaller entities, and most of them are more transparent.

At least at the state level, we actually have a shot at throwing these guys in jail.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by molson

If anyone wants to analyze the Obama household's income tax liability, here 'ya go:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...OTUS_taxes.pdf

Oh, so he'll put up his tax forms, but not his birth certificate?!?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Oh, so he'll put up his tax forms, but not his birth certificate?!?

Please tell me my sarcasm detector isn't working.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Please tell me my sarcasm detector isn't working.

Yes.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yes.

Ok, I thought he may have actually been serious, but, wasn't too sure.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Ok, I thought he may have actually been serious, but, wasn't too sure.

It's hard to convey whether you're being serious or sarcastic on message boards -- if you could see the foam all over my mouth, you'd know.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

It's hard to convey whether you're being serious or sarcastic on message boards -- if you could see the foam all over my mouth, you'd know.

Absolutely. I can't even tell you how many arguments my ex-wife and I got into because of an incorrectly interpreted text message.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But almost all of them are paying @15% in FICA taxes, so the overall federal tax burden is very close to the typical millionaire.

Employers (the rich millionaires) also pay payroll taxes on their employers as well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Employers (the rich millionaires) also pay payroll taxes on their employers as well.

Not really, it's just passed on to employee salaries.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Employers (the rich millionaires) also pay payroll taxes on their employers as well.

It's generally accepted that even though the tax is split between employee and employer that it can be considered as totally on the employee since the tax paid by the employer is considered to come out of the employee salary just as withheld income taxes.

[Buccaneer]

I give President Obama a lot of credit for upholding the National Day of Prayer and his remarks at today's Easter Prayer Breakfast. “As busy as we are, as many tasks as pile up, during this season, we are reminded that there is something about the resurrection ... of Our Savior Jesus Christ that puts everything else in perspective.” Obama then recounted Christ’s march to Calvary, the crucifixion and the resurrection. He spoke of an “unfathomable grace” on the part of Jesus, for assuming the sins of the world. It’s a grace, he said, that “calls me to reflect, and it calls me to pray.” He credited his wife and children for helping him to maintain perspective but said Scripture guides him even more.

Well said.

[sabotai]

Man, that Muslim sure does a good job pretending to be a Christian!

[molson]

Can't we get these religious nutjobs out of our government!?! He's getting guidance from SCRIPTURE people! This guy is our most religious president since Clinton.

[JediKooter]

Funny that the National Day of Prayer has been declared unconstitutional since it violates the 1st Amendment and Obama continues to violate it for the second year in a row. There you go Replublicans, here's your chance to impeach him and get him out office. I dare you.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Funny that the National Day of Prayer has been declared unconstitutional since it violates the 1st Amendment and Obama continues to violate it for the second year in a row. There you go Replublicans, here's your chance to impeach him and get him out office. I dare you.

A lower court had ruled that way, but they were reversed, and the National Day of Prayer was recently upheld by the 7th circuit. “A feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury,”

On Appeal to Higher Authority, National Day of Prayer Upheld - Law Blog - WSJ

[JediKooter]

Oh well. Sorry republicans. I tried.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Oh well. Sorry republicans. I tried.

One thing, and the biggest thing, I don't about understand about the GOP is why the keep pushing the social conservative stance when in the long-term it's going to see them sitting on the sidelines as my generation (Generation Y) starts to take the torch so to speak.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

One thing, and the biggest thing, I don't about understand about the GOP is why the keep pushing the social conservative stance when in the long-term its going to see them sitting on the sidelines as my generation (Generation Y) starts to take the torch so to speak.

There's a lot of money that gets fed into the party from church members and churches. As long as that money is there, the GOP will continue to pander to them and the longer you will see topics like abortion, gay marriage, birth control, etc...continue to be brought up when they really have little to no impact on society as a whole. And by impact, I mean, it affects so few people, that abortion being legal, gay marriage being legal and birth control being legal, doesn't affect anyone other than the people participating in those things.

EDIT: "affects so few people" means, that it very rarely affects anyone other than those actually involved.

[JPhillips]

It's even more simple than that. The base of the GOP is passionate about those issues and cutting them out of the party would make the GOP a more well known Libertarian party. Last time I checked the Libertarians weren't exactly good at winning elections.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's even more simple than that. The base of the GOP is passionate about those issues and cutting them out of the party would make the GOP a more well known Libertarian party. Last time I checked the Libertarians weren't exactly good at winning elections.

I think if the libertarian platform would ditch or modify a few things, it may be a bit more palatable to more voters. As it is now, I think it's a bit too tree huggerish/hippyish. I'm all for abolishing the IRS or at the very least, an extremely scaled down version of it, but, there still needs to be some form of taxation. And I don't really agree too much with what appears to be an isolationist policy towards foreign affairs. Just my opinion though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

One thing, and the biggest thing, I don't about understand about the GOP is why the keep pushing the social conservative stance when in the long-term it's going to see them sitting on the sidelines as my generation (Generation Y) starts to take the torch so to speak.

I think we've (the royal "we") have been over this before but I'll do the condensed version. For the sake of discussion, we'll work from your premise that Gen Y is more socially liberal.

One of two things will eventually happen: you'll come to your senses or you won't. If you do, then you've been shown the way to some extent. If you don't, then we're fucked anyway. Given that, where's the loss in trying to accomplish as much good as possible in the meantime? Compromising on the issues that matter most makes us (the current social conservatives) little to no better than what we're fighting against, not to mention a pretty decent argument that it makes us worse since we'd be selling out our principles for some theoretical hollow victory.

[Edward64]

McCain in Libya. Wonder if Obama and him coordinated this together or is this a non-sanctioned visit? I agree about regime change but not leading (we don't want to PO the French ). Nevertheless, his candor is refreshing.

McCain travels to Libya to meet with rebel forces - CNN.com

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- U.S. Sen. John McCain, a strong advocate of increasing military strikes to remove Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from power, arrived in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi on Friday morning.

McCain arrived a day after U.S. Predator drones were deployed in the North African nation as part of the NATO-led military efforts there.

Several demonstrators waved American flags as a crowd of about 100 Libyans greeted the Arizona lawmaker.

Some chanted, "Thank you John McCain! Thank you Obama! Thank you America! We need freedom! Gadhafi go away!"

McCain describes himself as a "strong supporter" of U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to take military action in Libya, but has argued for a tougher stance.

"Let's be honest: Our objective in Libya is regime change, whether the administration wants to call it that or not. ... Rather than playing a supporting role within NATO, America should be leading," McCain said at a committee hearing earlier this month. "Our military should be actively engaged in degrading Gadhafi's forces in the field, which could significantly increase the pressure on his regime and the odds that it will crack."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think we've (the royal "we") have been over this before but I'll do the condensed version. For the sake of discussion, we'll work from your premise that Gen Y is more socially liberal.

One of two things will eventually happen: you'll come to your senses or you won't. If you do, then you've been shown the way to some extent. If you don't, then we're fucked anyway. Given that, where's the loss in trying to accomplish as much good as possible in the meantime? Compromising on the issues that matter most makes us (the current social conservatives) little to no better than what we're fighting against, not to mention a pretty decent argument that it makes us worse since we'd be selling out our principles for some theoretical hollow victory.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There really aren't a lot of breaks and loopholes out there. Sure an accountant can help with certain things and position money a certain way, but there is this notion that wealthy people can somehow avoid paying taxes or have some secret laws in place. In fact, most of the credits out there don't even apply to people making over $100k (student loan interest, Roth IRA, etc).

Unless you've incorporated your wealth. Then there are a crapload of loopholes.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

we'll work from your premise that Gen Y is more socially liberal

Jon, they have said that about every generation of youth since WW2, esp. us boomers growing up in the 60s and 70s. All generations eventually grow out of it - not becoming more conservative - but becoming less idealistic, naive and inexperienced.

[JPhillips]

But generations have become more socially tolerant. Interracial marriage, women working, stay at home dads, etc. were all seen as taboo at some point in the twentieth century, but now are common. The same will eventually apply to gay marriage. The kids in my college classes generally have no problem with homosexuality and can't understand why old geezers make such a fuss.