The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Sen. Tillis has had it with hand washing.

I was having a discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like ‘maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,'" the senator said.

Tillis said his interlocutor was in disbelief, and asked whether he thought businesses should be allowed to "opt out" of requiring employees to wash their hands after using the restroom.

The senator said he'd be fine with it, so long as businesses made this clear in "advertising" and "employment literature."

“I said: ‘I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says “We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom,” Tillis said.

“The market will take care of that," he added, to laughter from the audience.

Aside from the obvious whathefuckery, how can he not realize that requiring companies to advertise would be a more burdensome regulation than hand washing?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sen. Tillis has had it with hand washing.



Aside from the obvious whathefuckery, how can he not realize that requiring companies to advertise would be a more burdensome regulation than hand washing?

Sarcasm... try looking it up....

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Random Obama thought, what's he going to do after 2016? He'll still a pretty young guy. It's hard to imagine him just retiring and laying low for decades, or even just having the Jimmy Carter elder statesman role. Could he go back into politics in some capacity? Will he be our first former president entertainment celebrity who guest hosts SNL and makes movie cameos?

SCOTUS!

[stevew]

Originally Posted by molson

Random Obama thought, what's he going to do after 2016? He'll still a pretty young guy. It's hard to imagine him just retiring and laying low for decades, or even just having the Jimmy Carter elder statesman role. Could he go back into politics in some capacity? Will he be our first former president entertainment celebrity who guest hosts SNL and makes movie cameos?

You don't seriously think he's going to relinquish power peacefully? Why do you think FEMA has been prepping so many body bags, yo.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Sarcasm... try looking it up....

I love how hard you are working for your side, but no.

GOP senator: Let restaurants ‘opt out’ of handwashing after toilet to ‘reduce regulatory burden’

“I was having this discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,” Tillis recalled. “Let an industry or business opt out as long as they indicate through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment, literature, whatever else. There’s this level of regulations that maybe they’re on the books, but maybe you can make a market-based decision as to whether or not they should apply to you.”

Tillis said that at about that time, a Starbucks employee came out of one of the restrooms.

“Don’t you believe that this regulation that requires this gentlemen to wash his hands before he serves your food is important?” Tillis was asked by the person at his table.

“I think it’s one I can illustrate the point,” Tillis told the women. “I said, I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.’ The market will take care of that.”

“That’s probably one where every business that did that would go out of business,” he added. “But I think it’s good to illustrate the point that that’s the sort of mentality that we need to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country.”

So, no, it was sarcasm. It was something he'd be ok with, but it was more to illustrate a bigger point.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd guess he'll do something like the Clinton Global Initiative.

Probably a bit lower-key, though. Obama's, if not an actual introvert, certainly much, much less of an extrovert than Clinton.

[larrymcg421]

So he doesn't like mandatory regulations and his solution is to make them voluntary, except for this new mandatory regulation he came up with that forces businesses to disclose.

[larrymcg421]

Nurse Chris Christie Quarantined For Ebola Goes After Governor On Vaccines

[Arles]

I have a very smart PHD friend who has spoken a lot about vaccines and autism. He said the biggest issue is that a child's brain develops to where autism becomes detectable at around 18 months - which also coincides with numerous vaccines for most kids. His stance is that is mostly hereditary and the act of getting a vaccine doesn't seem to impact whether a kid is diagnosed with Autism. But, he also says that if people are concerned, they can space out those vaccines into the 24-32 month timeframe when more brain development has occurred.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I love how hard you are working for your side, but no.

GOP senator: Let restaurants ‘opt out’ of handwashing after toilet to ‘reduce regulatory burden’



So, no, it was sarcasm. It was something he'd be ok with, but it was more to illustrate a bigger point.

"The Market Will Take Care of That"

Sarcasm....

Here's a dollar, go buy a clue.

[EagleFan]

Basically saying that a business is not going to stay in business if they don't enforce it. Try reading between the lines a bit.

[EagleFan]

IDIOTS trying to make something out of nothing.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

"The Market Will Take Care of That"

Sarcasm....

Here's a dollar, go buy a clue.

[EagleFan]

D******** F****** M****

[EagleFan]

Darwinism for companies. Don't enforce the rule and have to tell the market that you don't. You go out of business. Pretty easy to understand... What company is actually going to think this is a good idea and decide to not enforce the policy?

[ISiddiqui]

Once again,

“But I think it’s good to illustrate the point that that’s the sort of mentality that we need to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country.”

That's not sarcasm.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's not sarcasm.

You're right. It's stupidity. Let's reduce the "burden" on the side of the equation that has all the money, power, "personhood", can set the legal barriers and conditions on every transaction, uses the patent office like fuck doll, so on and so forth.

Reducing the "burden" on big business will just fuck over the little guy even more, if that's even possible. The first moves before I'm willing to reduce any burdens for business requires (1) no more forced arbitration; (2) consumer bill of rights; (3) eliminating the concept of corporate personhood. Once the little guy is protected from big business, then I'm more than willing to try to protect big business from the Government. Until then fuck corporate stooges like Thom Tillis.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

D******** F****** M****

Wrong thread, but I'll play!

R?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

D******** F****** M****

Dooooooont fffstop mubelievin?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Wrong thread, but I'll play!

R?

Nicely played.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

_Trolls_ trying to make something out of nothing.

This I think more than idiots.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

IDIOTS trying to make something out of nothing.

Way to go Obama. That traitor that you traded terrorists for has again left to go with the Taliban. How you could have stood there and called this guy a hero shows your lack of character and your lack of common sense. You are a traitor and should be dealt as one.

I agree.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Don't enforce the rule and have to tell the market that you don't.

So you're a fan of burdensome regulation now?

Sarcasm or not, Tillis is proposing a mentality where you remove one regulation and replace it with another regulation. And, critically, this other regulation, being a one-size-fits-all solution, is to require overcommunication of every business rule said business decides to enforce or not.

Where does that mentality end, exactly? Conservatives have whined about new food labeling laws (with calorie counts and whatnot). The regulatory regime Tillis suggests would require that a company clearly delineate the entire supply chain for each component of a food they create and sell.

He's saying we have to change mentality. Instead of setting rules and having people follow them, we just require full and complete disclosure of pretty much everything and ask that people make up their own minds. Sounds great in theory, likely grinds to a halt in practice.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So he doesn't like mandatory regulations and his solution is to make them voluntary, except for this new mandatory regulation he came up with that forces businesses to disclose.

"We have opted out of the policy to disclose what policies we are opting out of."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by mckerney

"We have opted out of the policy to disclose what policies we are opting out of."

Yup, next logical step ...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If there's a war on success, it kinda looks like success is winning:

Remember, the tax brackets in the old days used to be much more granular than they are today. The top tax bracket today is $450K in 2015 money, the top bracket in 1921 (for instance) was $12.1M in today's money. They did have a bracket for people making $450K (in 2015 money!) and perhaps that will clue us in a little better on who's getting taxed more.

THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

This graph CLEARLY shows that it was in "fact" the rich people of 1921 who were getting hammered. But were they really? In 1921, reaching that 73% barrier meant you had to make $12.1M in today's money. Very, very view people ever made that much money in 1921. We're talking only the richest oil and industrial age baron's.

Here's an article that describes the type's of people that make a million dollars in today's day and age -->

We know from other research that, by rough estimates, 90 out of 100 men and women reaching this income level are self-made with little to no inheritance. Almost all have college degrees. Men dominate the field, and almost all own or started their own business or work as an executive for a large business.

How Many People Earn More than $1,000,000 Per Year In the United States?



In 1921, the top tax bracket was indeed 73%. As stated, you had to be making $12.1 million dollars a year (in today's money to reach that bracket).

How do you calculate this? Use a simple inflation calculator to help out, of course--> DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator

In 1921, the 40% bracket was intended for people who were making $800,000 per year.

In 1921, for people making $450,000 a year (in 1921 dollars), the taxes was actually around 25-26%.

The jump from 35% to 40% for people making $450K a year is actually moving away from 1921 levels, not towards them, as the chart suggests. Although this graph does a great job of guiding us to the conclusion that we have plenty of room for growth in taxes, I find it a bit misleading for the argument being made.

[JPhillips]

That's been part of the plan of the wealthy. The fewer tax brackets there are the more people get caught in the top bracket. There's no reason why we couldn't add a bracket at 1mil or 5mil or 100mil, other than that would make it more difficult to build a coalition against that taxation.

For example, when Reagan took office there were seventeen tax brackets and now there are seven.

edit: In the early sixties there were over twenty brackets. And in 1940 there were thirty-one brackets!

[ISiddiqui]

I will note it is somewhat telling that Dutch compares 1921 tax brackets with todays. What about the 1963 tax brackets when taxes were at 90%? Then (using Dutch's Business Insider link), $200,000 would hit 90% - that's $1,547,294.12 today. So anything made over $1.5mil today would be taxed at 90%.

What about the 40% barrier in 1963.... anything over $14,000 dollars in 1963 was charged at 43%. $14,000 in 1963 equals $108,310.59 today.

So moving the top tax bracket from 35% to 40% actually moves us closer to 1963 tax rates but not nearly close enough.

43% taxes in 1953 tax tables was anything over $12,000, which is $106,398.20 today. I dunno about you, but I think the 1950s/60s economy is a better model to model than the 1920s economy.

I'd argue that solely comparing tax rates to 1921 rates is the solely misleading argument here.

(All inflation numbers calculated through CPI Calculator: CPI Inflation Calculator )

[larrymcg421]

About that Obama vaccines comment...

News Outlets Drive Out-Of-Context Obama Comment On Vaccines Into 2016 Conversation

[Dutch]

anything over $14,000 dollars in 1963 was charged at 43%. $14,000 in 1963 equals $108,310.59 today.

Sure, and then the 70's happened...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The jump from 35% to 40% for people making $450K a year is actually moving away from 1921 levels, not towards them, as the chart suggests. Although this graph does a great job of guiding us to the conclusion that we have plenty of room for growth in taxes, I find it a bit misleading for the argument being made.

Great post, Dutch. I don't necessarily agree with the entirety of your argument (and don't have the time to refute/argue it now), but I definitely appreciate the thought that went into it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Great post, Dutch. I don't necessarily agree with the entirety of your argument (and don't have the time to refute/argue it now), but I definitely appreciate the thought that went into it.

I appreciate you saying that, flere!

[PilotMan]

I think all that goes to show is that the overall top brackets have been capped to a much lower income level than they were historically. I might say that we need to look at the percentage of actual people captured by each tax bracket in order to compare it historically and to find the effectiveness of the rates. Cross check it to the percent of overall revenue generated from each bracket and then you might get a better view of comparative rates and where they really ought to be.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Great post, Dutch. I don't necessarily agree with the entirety of your argument (and don't have the time to refute/argue it now), but I definitely appreciate the thought that went into it.

It's interesting but not that useful. In 1921 the modern income tax had only been around for 8 years (there had been income taxes prior to this, but they were ruled unconstitutional). In 1921, the US wasn't a modern nation yet. Things like the highway system hadn't been established yet. 35% of homes had electricity. The percentage of people who lived in cities had JUST exceeded the percentage of people living on farms. So comparing today's rates to an agrarian, pre-electricity, pre-highway society isn't very useful.

Let's look at the tax brackets from something post-WW2, considered the "golden age" of the USA. The brackets were quite stable from 1950 to 1960, so we can generalize over that decade and compare it to now.

The top bracket in 1950 is $400,000 and over - about $4,000,000 today - and is at 85%. That's not very useful though and I don't recommend going back to that. But the upper-middle class brackets were quite stiff back then. $28,000 in 1950 was taxed at whopping 42% and that's only the equivalent of $279,000 today (33% and with more deductions). That's a massive difference and it only goes up from there. If you earned the equivalent of $400k in 1950 your top marginal rate was 50%.

Now I would argue that's too high. The Laffer curve is a real thing at higher tax brackets. While it's laughable to hear Republicans spout off about how reducing taxes from 30% to 25% somehow equals more total tax collection - there's not an independent economist in the world who believes that shit - it does work at rates above 60% or so.

I'd just like a return to something approximating Reagan's 1981 taxes. Someone making $16,000 in 1981 (about $44k in today's world) would be on the hook for a maximum of 22%. Someone making $35,200 (about $95k today) is on the hook for a maximum of 39%. $60k in 1981 ($163k today) is looking at a maximum rate of 49%. When you compare those rates versus what we have today, you can see why the government runs such a large deficit. There's simply not enough money coming in.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sure, and then the 70's happened...

After quite a bit of tax cuts on the upper bracket during the 60s, driving it down to 70%... did you not even read your link?

And as Blackadar stated, even in Reagan's 1981 taxes, the rate was basically the same in middle values - and only after the recovery was in full swing did taxes drop even further (in 1986 and 1988)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's been part of the plan of the wealthy. The fewer tax brackets there are the more people get caught in the top bracket. There's no reason why we couldn't add a bracket at 1mil or 5mil or 100mil, other than that would make it more difficult to build a coalition against that taxation.

For example, when Reagan took office there were seventeen tax brackets and now there are seven.

edit: In the early sixties there were over twenty brackets. And in 1940 there were thirty-one brackets!

Well the entire Congress (OK maybe 95%) are in that bracket, have friends in that bracket, and have most of their big contributors in that bracket. Don't see them working too hard to add brackets to make any of them pay more. My disdain would be aimed at everyone involved though I will give the Democrats credit for creating the illusion that they are aghast that those additional brackets don't exist and can't be created when they have actually had the power to do so fairly recently if they really wanted.

[ISiddiqui]

I may also add that in 1987, the first year after the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the top rate was slashed to 38.5%, which is higher than today's top tax rate, and applied to all income made over $45,000 - which in today's money would be $93,777.46.

[AENeuman]

So looking at 2013 federal tax spending (Your 2013 Federal Taxpayer Receipt | The White House) 25% to defense and 25% to health. it seems that most of our tax money is being used on people who have been or are contributing to the economy.

It seems most of the people receiving government money in some way give a lot of it back in their own payroll and sales tax. I wonder what is the net gain/loss of this massive government spending?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Well the entire Congress (OK maybe 95%) are in that bracket, have friends in that bracket, and have most of their big contributors in that bracket. Don't see them working too hard to add brackets to make any of them pay more. My disdain would be aimed at everyone involved though I will give the Democrats credit for creating the illusion that they are aghast that those additional brackets don't exist and can't be created when they have actually had the power to do so fairly recently if they really wanted.

If your point is that government is captured by wealthy interests that fund campaigns, you'll get no argument from me.

[flere-imsaho]

And yet we still have a $2,400 annual limit on individual contributions to individual candidates.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If your point is that government is captured by wealthy interests that fund campaigns, you'll get no argument from me.

Yes that was my point. And in my opinion Congress has around 5 members with integrity/character and of those 3 of them feel like their should be less taxes so that leaves 2 for your coalition. Which means you would need 217 more votes in the House, 50 more in the senate, and that doesn't even count Obama's veto.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by panerd

Well the entire Congress (OK maybe 95%) are in that bracket, have friends in that bracket, and have most of their big contributors in that bracket. Don't see them working too hard to add brackets to make any of them pay more. My disdain would be aimed at everyone involved though I will give the Democrats credit for creating the illusion that they are aghast that those additional brackets don't exist and can't be created when they have actually had the power to do so fairly recently if they really wanted.

The mistake you make is that all Democrats share(d) the same policy goals. That's true of Republicans, as well. To a lesser extent, but still true.

On the other hand, tax increases are anathema to Republicans. Voting to raise taxes would get any Republican Senator primaried out by the temporarily embarrassed millionaires that make up the primary voting base.

To the extent that the Democrats had any real power to raise taxes since January, 2009, it was in allowing the Bush cuts to sunset. They briefly had 60 votes in the Senate, but the key word there is "briefly." Coleman litigated the Minnesota seat, leaving the state without a Representative until Franken prevailed in court and assumed office in July 2009; between January and July, the Democrats had only 59 Senate votes.

In August, Senator Kennedy passed away, and was replaced ultimately by Scott Brown, albeit with a Democratic appointee keeping the seat warm for Brown in the interim between August and January.

That was their window. Six weeks of a 60-seat majority before Senator Kennedy passed. The period between August 25, 2009 and February 2010, when Scott Brown took Kennedy's seat from the Democratic-appointed placeholder.

In the middle of the Great Recession.

That would have required either the political will by all 60 Democrats to raise taxes in the midst of high unemployment - recall the drumbeat by the opposition that raising taxes, ever, will cost millions of jobs and leave us all homeless and starving - or else serious horse trading to ensure no Democrats defected, or threatened to.

Ben Nelson used that to his advantage, if you'll recall. Being the 60th Democrat enabled him to extract concesions (later rolled back) that enabled Nebraska and Nebraska alone to accept the Medicaid expansion without it costing them a dime, ever (as opposed to the 10% contributions which would have been required of the other 49 states after three years).

They lost the House in 2010, and taxation bills must originate from the House. That means no matter what their majority in the Senate going forward, increased taxes were a non-starter.

So that's your argument - that if the Democrats wanted to raise taxes, they should have done so when the economy was fragile, and that it's just too damn bad if now that the economy is recovering, they don't actually control the purse strings anymore.

Whatever you think of the efficacy of tax increases, the notion that they could have done anything, given the political realities that existed during the brief time they had that power, is a spurious one.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

On the other hand, tax increases are anathema to Republicans. Voting to raise taxes would get any Republican Senator primaried out by the temporarily embarrassed millionaires that make up the primary voting base.

If the GOP base was just millionaires, then half of the votes from the last election-and on average-are millionaires?

I'm not in favor of more taxes. I'm in favor of less spending (quite a bit at the federal level), going back to giving states more control instead of the federal government, and implementing a flat or fair/VAT/consumption-based tax system federally.


I'm confused--didn't the previous congress raised taxes already (capital gains tax increasing from 15% to 20%; ACA tax on unearned income on incomes over $250,000 (?)? I'm waiting for the day for a constitutional challenge to the US tax/fee system in regards to citizens and corporations that live abroad or give up their citizenship. The discussion of tax brackets are better when looking at effective tax rates.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I like the Budget, with both the one time 14% tax on overseas held money by corporations, and then a 19% ongoing overseas held money.. too much money is being moved out of the country.

US earned income is taxed...it's money earned outside of the country that isn't being brought in.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

US earned income is taxed...it's money earned outside of the country that isn't being brought in.

The process is being abused by moving IP to low tax jurisdictions before the IP generates revenues (and thus the tax associated with the move is minimal). The US parent then pays the foreign subsidiary a royalty for use of the IP. The royalty is an expense for the US parent which lowers there taxable income. The end result is a portion of the income that is earned from U.S. revenues is moved to the foreign entity where it is not taxed by the U.S. (until the income is repatriated).

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Masked

The process is being abused by moving IP to low tax jurisdictions before the IP generates revenues (and thus the tax associated with the move is minimal). The US parent then pays the foreign subsidiary a royalty for use of the IP. The royalty is an expense for the US parent which lowers there taxable income. The end result is a portion of the income that is earned from U.S. revenues is moved to the foreign entity where it is not taxed by the U.S. (until the income is repatriated).

I don't blame companies for doing it since as long as it's legal, but I have no problem with closing this tactic. It's a complex problem.

[Edward64]

I agree with Obama but he probably could have worded the high horse statement better.

Obama at Prayer Event: Christians did terrible things, too | Fox News

President Obama called on people of faith to reject those who use religion to justify evil – and in doing so – reminded people about the terrible things done in the name of Jesus Christ.

Obama told a gathering Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast that we have seen “professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good but twisted in the name of evil.”

“From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith – their faith – profess to stand up for Islam but in fact are betraying it,” he said.

He did not mention radical Islam or jihadists or Islamic extremists. He did, however, call ISIS a “brutal, vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism.”

The president also issued a word of warning to Christians.

“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place – remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” the president said.

[Blackadar]

Steve Benen on Twitter: "Face it: if Romney produced numbers like these, RNC would be organizing parades in his honor http://t.co/dQ0t4FJrOx http://t.co/ohhkjuSWAZ"

[ISiddiqui]

Yep.

[Dutch]

I think this chart provides even more data, although it's a bit dated now. (EDIT: Can you find the cherry-picked data that the liberals are presenting to their web-sites and journalists and has subsequently now been posted here as unbiased information?)