The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Peregrine]

Regular person welfare has never been less popular, but corporate welfare lives on and is seemingly untouchable.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's the centerpiece of the Ryan budget. Without it that budget comes nowhere close to balanced over a seventy-five year projection.

My bad, I forgot about that. It's one of the dumbest ideas ever and I can't believe people didn't throw a hissy fit over it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Neither side has a real strategy, it's just trying to score political points. If the GOP cared, they'd be talking about cutting SS, Medicare, and the defense budget. If the Dems cared, they'd be talking about plans to increase taxes. Instead they'll argue about this to get their soundbytes in and that's it. Neither side cares about the deficit and taxpayers don't either as long as they can watch American Idol this week.

The best solution is probably a mix of both. Medicare tax rate should probably increase half a percent or so as medical costs have gone up over the years. Social Security should probably start being taxed again at either $250k or $500k. And getting back to Clinton era tax rates is fair considering we've put ourselves so far in debt. We can discuss lowering them when we've gotten back on track.

Spending should also be cut in areas where it can. The military could definitely deal with some cuts and streamlining other areas. Ending some of these wars probably helps too. Medicare needs massive reform and it needs to be written by politicians in favor of constituents and not by the pharmaceutical industry. There should be effort put into finding areas of government that are bloated and cutting them back when it's feasible.

Both sides are unreasonable. It's silly to ask for more in taxes without reforming areas that are wasting money. While it's also silly to pretend we can avoid problems without looking at the biggest spenders.

I mostly agree with you. I kinda think there is a third party that should get off their butts -- the populace.

I don't know how or even feasible (probably not) but if there was enough of a groundswell to tell both parties to fix it ...

[JPhillips]

These people are morons. I can't believe how many in the GOP seem thrilled to throw the nation into a depression. From Rep. David Nunes:

By defaulting on the debt, in the short and long term, it could benefit us to go through a period of crisis that forces politicians to make decisions

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Regular person welfare has never been less popular, but corporate welfare lives on and is seemingly untouchable.

Corporations have been raped by the tax rate for years in order to help fund the welfare state for individuals. Kind of nice to see the change frankly.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Corporations have been raped by the tax rate for years in order to help fund the welfare state for individuals. Kind of nice to see the change frankly.

I take it you're meaning the largest American corporations .... the ones which pay no tax and often receive subsidies from the government? (ie. Car companies, banks etc.).

If so could I please have a little of that sort of 'financial rapage' in my pay check

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

These people are morons. I can't believe how many in the GOP seem thrilled to throw the nation into a depression. From Rep. David Nunes:

This is the old "you need a revolution every so often to keep people on their toes" thinking. If we put another band-aid on, does anything actually change? I don't think David Nunes is actually in favor of a depression, but rather saying that may be what it takes to get Washington to wake up and get some fiscal sanity.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

These people are morons. I can't believe how many in the GOP seem thrilled to throw the nation into a depression. From Rep. David Nunes:

Nah, we really need to keep spending. Maybe even increase the budget another trillion. What kind of morons would think otherwise? Oh and we need to print more money. Prices of food and gas going through the roof well the government says there is no inflation! (They don't figure energy or food into their index? Of course not what Americans eat or drive cars?)

[DaddyTorgo]

Defaulting on the debt is not the answer to waking Washington up and creating fiscal sanity though. It's fiscal INsanity.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by panerd

Prices of food and gas going through the roof well the government says there is no inflation! (They don't figure energy or food into their index? Of course not what Americans eat or drive cars?)

How much are you all paying for a gallon of milk these days? This month's class III price comes out to myself (the farmer) getting about $1.41 per gallon with cost of production around $1.37 per gallon.

Cost of production has risen some on my end, but I know damn well that the people getting you your milk/dairy products in the grocery store are jerking people around. When the farmers were getting about $.86 per gallon for their milk (with costs of production still in that $1.25-$1.40 range) the price of milk in the store sure as hell didn't drop all that much.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I take it you're meaning the largest American corporations .... the ones which pay no tax and often receive subsidies from the government? (ie. Car companies, banks etc.).

If so could I please have a little of that sort of 'financial rapage' in my pay check

This is where the difference between marginal and effective rates really benefits corporations. Our marginal rate is very high, but no corporation pays that. The effective rate for corporations is one of the lowest in the developed world.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

This is the old "you need a revolution every so often to keep people on their toes" thinking. If we put another band-aid on, does anything actually change? I don't think David Nunes is actually in favor of a depression, but rather saying that may be what it takes to get Washington to wake up and get some fiscal sanity.

Whether or not Nunes is in favor of a depression, that's where this line of thinking will lead. It's like treating a major cut on your leg that could develop gangrene by preemptively cutting off the leg. Whatever you think might happen eventually with an out of control deficit is likely to happen if you let the government default.

[miked]

Originally Posted by lungs

How much are you all paying for a gallon of milk these days? This month's class III price comes out to myself (the farmer) getting about $1.41 per gallon with cost of production around $1.37 per gallon.

Cost of production has risen some on my end, but I know damn well that the people getting you your milk/dairy products in the grocery store are jerking people around. When the farmers were getting about $.86 per gallon for their milk (with costs of production still in that $1.25-$1.40 range) the price of milk in the store sure as hell didn't drop all that much.

A gallon of Publix milk is somewhere in the $5.75 range, half gallon about $3.50.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by miked

A gallon of Publix milk is somewhere in the $5.75 range, half gallon about $3.50.

Yikes, your milk is expensive. Maybe because we just get the store brand, but 1 gallon of stop and shop milk here was like $3.29 last week when I went to the store.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Defaulting on the debt is not the answer to waking Washington up and creating fiscal sanity though. It's fiscal INsanity.

It's not the Republicans' answer either, just a threatened means to a hopeful end. But what is the Democrats' answer? Not hypothetically, what is their actual practical strategy to attack this aggressively? I'd be willing to sign on, but it just doesn't seem like a priority.

Edit: It seems like what we'll have is no tax increases, but negotiations over spending cuts, which will result in no real spending cuts. How are we going to shake this up and do something more?

[DaddyTorgo]

Tax increases combined with meaningful spending cuts are the only realistic answer that will actually solve anything. One without the other isn't an actual grownup answer.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Tax increases combined with meaningful spending cuts are the only realistic answer that will actually solve anything. One without the other isn't an actual grownup answer.

What party supports that? And what party has made any progress towards that end, if they claim some that approach as something they support?

I think we probably just need to bail out the banks some more.

Edit: Worst case scenario for the dems might be the Republicans wrecking the economy again, allowing Dems to dominate congressional elections again for a while. They might run out of excuses before long.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Tax increases combined with meaningful spending cuts are the only realistic answer that will actually solve anything. One without the other isn't an actual grownup answer.

Thread over. Good job winning the thread, DT.

Taxes are at historic lows. Entitlement spending is higher than it has ever been and going to go up, up, up.

And, go figure, we have a long-term deficit problem.

Increase my taxes AND cut really spending (i.e. cuts to the Big Three: Social Security, Medicare, and Defense) and I will march along happily. Pretend that you can do one without the other and I have no reason to go with the program.

[molson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Increase my taxes AND cut really spending (i.e. cuts to the Big Three: Social Security, Medicare, and Defense) and I will march along happily. Pretend that you can do one without the other and I have no reason to go with the program.

That didn't answer my question, though, that's a total hypothetical and not a real, practical, option. Apparently, the problem is that no politician can have this stance and get elected or stay in office - (even though it sure seems like there's a growing sentiment in America that what you say does make sense) - and nobody has the spine to risk their jobs as idiot congressman X.

I guess there's no answer. The plan of the Dems in power is literally to do nothing except react to Republicans and paint them as the bad guys so they can win elections. It's a good election strategy, I guess. It kind of sucks for the rest of us.

[JPhillips]

Funny, I seem to remember the ACA cutting 500 billion from Medicare spending and reducing the projected deficit over twenty years by 2 trillion dollars. I also seem to remember Obama's budget froze discretionary spending and cut the projected deficit by nearly 1 trillion over the next decade.

Now that may not be enough, but don't act like there have been no efforts to reduce the deficit.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Defaulting on the debt is not the answer to waking Washington up and creating fiscal sanity though. It's fiscal INsanity.

So how DO you wake Washington up? That's the point, nothing else seems to be doing it.

I get the other point about the leg, but to continue the analogy how does the wife get the husband to go to the doctor to treat that cut? Hit him over the head and throw him in the car? Washington needs to get hit over the head, or they'll never do the unpopular cut spending / raise taxes that needs to get done.

On taxes being at "historic lows", an honest question here: how do taxes now compare to pre-Depression taxes before the introduction of social security, medicare, welfare programs, and all the other entitlements that have been added over the 20th century?

And yes, I do realise that defense spending before then was pretty miniscule as well, I'm already on record as being willing to make defense contractors tighten their belts if entitlements go down as well, and also willing to take a reasonable tax increase if the spending cuts come with it as well.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Funny, I seem to remember the ACA cutting 500 billion from Medicare spending and reducing the projected deficit over twenty years by 2 trillion dollars. I also seem to remember Obama's budget froze discretionary spending and cut the projected deficit by nearly 1 trillion over the next decade.

Now that may not be enough, but don't act like there have been no efforts to reduce the deficit.

[molson]

Also, there's a deal to extend soon-to-be expired portions of the Patriot Act, that thing that everyone hated when Bush was president, through 2015, unchanged.

"Now more than ever, we need access to the crucial authorities in the Patriot Act," Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

On taxes being at "historic lows", an honest question here: how do taxes now compare to pre-Depression taxes before the introduction of social security, medicare, welfare programs, and all the other entitlements that have been added over the 20th century?

I don't feel like chasing absolutely unimpeachable sources in the middle of a busy day but for a quick point of reference this snippet from a WSJ article back in '09 (a broader piece about New Deal era policies) said

From 1930 to 1940, the top marginal income-tax rate rose to 79% from 25% while the corporate income-tax rate doubled to 24% from 12%. In addition, Roosevelt tacked on an excess profits tax and undistributed profits tax. He imposed an excise tax on dividends. Even the new Social Security payroll tax added 2%.

Even more iffy for reliability (since I haven't doublechecked them) is a chart on Wiki that shows the tax rate for various income levels starting with 1930.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...es#1930_-_1980

But I think what you're looking for is most complete at this link. They've got the various rate tables starting with 1913 through 2011.
The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

I'll leave you to find the median household income data for those earlier years yourself

[fantom1979]

I've seen that chart before and its very interesting. Someone making $250k+ per year paid 94% tax during WW2, 70% tax in 1980, and now pays 35%. I don't think reverting it back to Clinton era 39.8% would be too much to ask.

[lungs]

What about looking at tax brackets themselves? I'm a proponent of progressive taxation but the brackets just seem out of whack. Top bracket seems too low. Why no $1 million and up bracket?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

What about looking at tax brackets themselves? I'm a proponent of progressive taxation but the brackets just seem out of whack. Top bracket seems too low. Why no $1 million and up bracket?

Because the more people that are in the top bracket the harder it is to raise the rate. It's all part of the game.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't feel like chasing absolutely unimpeachable sources in the middle of a busy day but for a quick point of reference this snippet from a WSJ article back in '09 (a broader piece about New Deal era policies) said

From 1930 to 1940, the top marginal income-tax rate rose to 79% from 25% while the corporate income-tax rate doubled to 24% from 12%. In addition, Roosevelt tacked on an excess profits tax and undistributed profits tax. He imposed an excise tax on dividends. Even the new Social Security payroll tax added 2%.

Even more iffy for reliability (since I haven't doublechecked them) is a chart on Wiki that shows the tax rate for various income levels starting with 1930.

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

But I think what you're looking for is most complete at this link. They've got the various rate tables starting with 1913 through 2011.
The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

I'll leave you to find the median household income data for those earlier years yourself

I wouldn't argue that taxation rose during the thirties and forties, but you can't look solely at income taxes. I think it was in the thirties that we went from a system funded primarily on excise taxes to a system funded primarily on income and corporate taxation.

But it really doesn't matter in a practical sense. We aren't going to get rid of SS and Medicare and the Defense budget will be close to what it is now. We simply can't afford the levels of government that the populace demands on this level of taxation. Whether or not it's higher or lower than in the past is interesting, but not that helpful moving forward.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Whether or not it's higher or lower than in the past is interesting, but not that helpful moving forward.

Just for clarification, I posted those in response to a question about the historic rates, not in order to make a point or anything.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wouldn't argue that taxation rose during the thirties and forties, but you can't look solely at income taxes. I think it was in the thirties that we went from a system funded primarily on excise taxes to a system funded primarily on income and corporate taxation.

But it really doesn't matter in a practical sense. We aren't going to get rid of SS and Medicare and the Defense budget will be close to what it is now. We simply can't afford the levels of government that the populace demands on this level of taxation. Whether or not it's higher or lower than in the past is interesting, but not that helpful moving forward.

It does matter in a practical sense, since those programs are why the deficit is so huge right now, and when people talk about taxes being at a "historical low".

However, if this statement remains true:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But it really doesn't matter in a practical sense. We aren't going to get rid of SS and Medicare and the Defense budget will be close to what it is now.

Then we're screwed. That's the whole point: if regular conversation isn't bringing fiscal responsibility, what will it take to do it? Raising taxes alone will NOT fix the issue, you ALSO need spending cuts. Real cuts, not a few million here or there.

I'm all for BOTH, but won't take one without the other. I'm not flushing more money down the toilet. I'll give on taxes and defense, if you'll give on social security and medicare. Neither side will give on either, hence the cliff we're driving off of.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'll give on taxes and defense, if you'll give on social security and medicare.

I'm not willing to give an inch on anything until we've reformed a tax code that penalizes success. Until that's resolved, I begrudge most every dime they take.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm all for BOTH, but won't take one without the other. I'm not flushing more money down the toilet. I'll give on taxes and defense, if you'll give on social security and medicare. Neither side will give on either, hence the cliff we're driving off of.

I imagine that when it comes to it, we would disagree on about 80% of major political issues. But I think that, given a long weekend, a calculator, a case of beer, and free pizza delivery (NY Style Pizza and Pasta on the corner of Walnut and Cary Towne Center Blvd. is AMAZING by the way), you and I could probably come up with a compromise that would do more to steer us away from the cliff than anything Congress has managed to even come close to doing.

It's sad how our leaders seem constitutionally incapable of actually leading us anywhere we need to go.

[JPhillips]

The GOP has made a calculation that they can force a crisis and get 100% of what they want. They might be right, too. The starve the beast plan has been talked about since Reagan at least and it's finally bearing fruit.

If the price is a global depression and millions out of work, well that's the price necessary for going back to the elderly poverty rates of the fifties.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not willing to give an inch on anything until we've reformed a tax code that penalizes success. Until that's resolved, I begrudge most every dime they take.

While the tax / spending revolution is going on, we can either scrap the current income tax and start over with a much more streamlined easy-to-understand one, or dump it entirely and go the Fair Tax route. Either way, however, the key factor is "simple", not hundreds and hundreds of pages of exceptions that change every single year, to the point that the IRS has to delay processing returns so even they can get the programming straight for the new rules...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The GOP has made a calculation that they can force a crisis and get 100% of what they want. They might be right, too. The starve the beast plan has been talked about since Reagan at least and it's finally bearing fruit.

When the first Democrat gets up and says "fine, we'll cut social security and medicare, but only if you'll agree to a defense cut and repealing the Bush tax cuts across the board" I'll be with you.

Instead it's just "raise taxes on the rich, that'll fix it!". Both sides are being idiotic here.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It does matter in a practical sense, since those programs are why the deficit is so huge right now, and when people talk about taxes being at a "historical low".

However, if this statement remains true:



Then we're screwed. That's the whole point: if regular conversation isn't bringing fiscal responsibility, what will it take to do it? Raising taxes alone will NOT fix the issue, you ALSO need spending cuts. Real cuts, not a few million here or there.

I'm all for BOTH, but won't take one without the other. I'm not flushing more money down the toilet. I'll give on taxes and defense, if you'll give on social security and medicare. Neither side will give on either, hence the cliff we're driving off of.

Nobody, not even the Progressive Caucus is calling for only tax increases. Most Dems aren't even calling for higher rates anymore, just some vague revenue increases through closing loopholes. I think that's not going to help much, but contrary to molson's beliefs, I don't run the Democratic Party.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I imagine that when it comes to it, we would disagree on about 80% of major political issues. But I think that, given a long weekend, a calculator, a case of beer, and free pizza delivery (NY Style Pizza and Pasta on the corner of Walnut and Cary Towne Center Blvd. is AMAZING by the way), you and I could probably come up with a compromise that would do more to steer us away from the cliff than anything Congress has managed to even come close to doing. It's sad how our leaders seem constitutionally incapable of actually leading us anywhere we need to go.

This actually isn't far from something I was thinking myself ... except that in reality I'll admit that I'm not sure it's really that simple.

On the surface it is: We want X dollars to spend, there's Y amount of money available. What % of Y does X equal? Problem solved, budget balanced, let's eat.

But the pizza gets cold while we try to determine:
What is X?
What is Y (i.e. what's taxable)?
What is Z (the 6,437,231 and 1/3rd adjustments required to determine Y)

The easiest of those to solve via compromise seems to be X, it's the least complicated figure to reach ... but if you can't get to Y & Z then you're left with something like what we've got now: solve for X, screw Y, Z, and the rest of the alphabet.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

(NY Style Pizza and Pasta on the corner of Walnut and Cary Towne Center Blvd. is AMAZING by the way)

I don't think I've tried them yet, may have to. I'm partial to zPizza, and just had lunch at Bella Mia (Harrison and Weston up near SAS) which was awesome.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

When the first Democrat gets up and says "fine, we'll cut social security and medicare, but only if you'll agree to a defense cut and repealing the Bush tax cuts across the board" I'll be with you.

Instead it's just "raise taxes on the rich, that'll fix it!". Both sides are being idiotic here.

Social Security really isn't much of a problem and the ACA cuts 500 billion from Medicare over the next decade. Reports out of the Gag of Six had Dems agreeing to another 400 billion in Medicare cuts and an increase in the retirement age.

Now, unfortunately the Dems are too spineless and fractured to call for a return to Clinton era taxation and military spending, but there are plenty of Dems willing to compromise on Medicare and SS.

[Dutch]

Who will you vote for? Somebody who will implement tax increases and program cuts? Or somebody who will implement tax cuts and improved program spending? (Speaking in general, of course.)

Here in Florida, our new govenor turned down $2.4billion dollars in federal tax money thathad been put aside to build what is essentially an unneeded high speed rail between Orlando and Tampa. People want his head on a platter because of the jobs that weren't created. Did he make that decision simply to commit political suicide? I'm guessing, "no", but the point is well taken, a politician that wants to keep his job will lean towards tax cuts and more program spending. It's how we are where we are afterall.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not willing to give an inch on anything until we've reformed a tax code that penalizes success. Until that's resolved, I begrudge most every dime they take.

Doesn't our system work the other way? If you get succesful enough, your business is not allowed to fail no matter how bad your decisions are.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Who will you vote for? Somebody who will implement tax increases and program cuts? Or somebody who will implement tax cuts and improved program spending? (Speaking in general, of course.)

Here in Florida, our new govenor turned down $2.4billion dollars in federal tax money thathad been put aside to build what is essentially an unneeded high speed rail between Orlando and Tampa. People want his head on a platter because of the jobs that weren't created. Did he make that decision simply to commit political suicide? I'm guessing, "no", but the point is well taken, a politician that wants to keep his job will lean towards tax cuts and more program spending. It's how we are where we are afterall.

Why are high speed rails such a big issue? It seems like we have a lot of people opposed to catching up to the rest of the industrialized world.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Here in Florida, our new govenor turned down $2.4billion dollars in federal tax money thathad been put aside to build what is essentially an unneeded high speed rail between Orlando and Tampa. People want his head on a platter because of the jobs that weren't created. Did he make that decision simply to commit political suicide? I'm guessing, "no", but the point is well taken, a politician that wants to keep his job will lean towards tax cuts and more program spending. It's how we are where we are afterall.

Which "people"? Again I'll come back to the media does not do their jobs, because it's more fun to talk about the disaster his turning down the money was and trot out all the doomsayers talking about job losses than turn out someone who talks about fiscal responsibility and how he kept your taxes low by not wasting the money.

And yes, we've created a culture of bottom-feeders who rely on the government to do everything for them, and will thus vote for whoever promises to take money from those above them and hand it down to them. And government has been good at creating more of those folks.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

we've created a culture of bottom-feeders who rely on the government to do everything for them

Stupid bottom feeding banks, car, and oil companies. Always getting those bail outs and tax incentives. I hate those guys too.

[RainMaker]

Man do I hate bottom-feeders who need jobs from the government.

On another note, are there any no-bid contracts we can hand out this week?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Doesn't our system work the other way? If you get succesful enough, your business is not allowed to fail no matter how bad your decisions are.

Once in a very blue moon that happens, and (as you know) I was highly critical of it when it did. The remaining most recent 70+ years have largely been spent penalizing success in order to prop up our dead weight.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Social Security really isn't much of a problem and the ACA cuts 500 billion from Medicare over the next decade. Reports out of the Gag of Six had Dems agreeing to another 400 billion in Medicare cuts and an increase in the retirement age.

Now, unfortunately the Dems are too spineless and fractured to call for a return to Clinton era taxation and military spending, but there are plenty of Dems willing to compromise on Medicare and SS.

This. The fantasy that Social Security is in crisis is a hallmark of the uneducated.

And Medicare/Medicaid spending can be made more efficient (and thus ultimately reduce wasteful spending).

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

Stupid bottom feeding banks, car, and oil companies. Always getting those bail outs and tax incentives. I hate those guys too.

They aren't the ones voting to keep these guys in office, and they aren't the ones screaming bloody murder when we threaten entitlement programs. They aren't the ones keeping us driving off the cliff.

But yeah, I'm all for closing loopholes that allow Exxon to pay essentially no taxes, or going to a Fair Tax where loopholes like that won't exist at all.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why are high speed rails such a big issue? It seems like we have a lot of people opposed to catching up to the rest of the industrialized world.

Because we love our cars!!!

I hear those commercials about the high-speed rails in China that go 400mph and I'm like "well...we lose again."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Once in a very blue moon that happens, and (as you know) I was highly critical of it when it did. The remaining most recent 70+ years have largely been spent penalizing success in order to prop up our dead weight.

You do realize by the definition that the "successful" would use that you're dead-weight yourself, right?