Fundamental flaws in the Republican Party

[thegreekdog]

[
Well, there's conspiracy and there's fact. This is the same go round we always have. I've provided you with information, namely that the sequestration was, at least partially or mostly, the fault of the president. Further, I've provided you with how the budget gets allocated and that any cuts that you whine about above are the fault of the president. Even further, I've provided you with the specific dollar amounts associated with each cut for the first year of the cuts. I've provided all that information to you to show you that (1) the sequestration isn't bad; (2) it was not something cooked up by Cantor and Ryan to screw the country (which you still haven't explained; and (3) it was mostly the fault of your savior and our current president.
.

Oh please... its the "fault" of the president if you think that Republicans have a perfect right to sit back and say "hey.... we don't want tax increases so any deal that suggests that just won't fly".. never mind that virtually every economist out there agrees that tax increases and not just spending cuts MUST be a part of the mix.

Furthermore, despite all this whining about "taxing the rich", the fact is that our current rate is still below what it was in the longest growth period in US history.. the 80's being in the midst of that.

The biggest problem with the Republican party is their insistance that taxes and government policies are the sole reason for our failing economy, never mind a change in the tech equation, never mind environmental damage and never mind the problem if a very much way too low minimum wage.


Its funny, for all their claims of wanting idependence, they sure are quick to insist that the government is responsible for THEIR failures.

I'm not saying it's only the president's fault (although it comes off that way because I'm arguing with the president's most ardent supporter, JB). I'm saying the president is not blameless, as he makes himself out to be.

Tax increases should be part of the mix. But let me ask you something Player... how high should we raise taxes and on whom (i.e. what income brackets)? And what effect would that have on the budget? I have no problem, conceptually, with an income tax hike or a capital gains rate hike. But I don't think the general public understands yet how little effect that will have on the budget deficit. In 2013, the GAO (or CBO, can't remember) estimated that the US will bring in its highest revenue in its history. What does that do the budget deficit? Virtually nothing.

And yes, that is one of the many problems of the Republican Party and why there is division. One wing of the party not only doesn't want to cut any of their own stuff, but they won't accept blame; the other wing wants to cut more stuff and blames the first wing. I think that's what I was getting at before.

[Symmetry]

Oh dear, another TGD rant about how everyone is stupid and/or trolling him.

Hey look! It's Symmetry with a strawman! I'm shocked!

strawman?

Seriously? I gave you the fucking GAO analysis! I mean, you must be trolling, right? Just send me a pm and tell me you're trolling. I won't tell anyone.

[thegreekdog]

Oh dear, another TGD rant about how everyone is stupid and/or trolling him.

Hey look! It's Symmetry with a strawman! I'm shocked!

strawman?

Seriously? I gave you the fucking GAO analysis! I mean, you must be trolling, right? Just send me a pm and tell me you're trolling. I won't tell anyone.

I look forward to your analysis and critique of the GAO analysis. Your participation in this conversation thus far has been enlightening and I look forward to discussing this issue with you in the future.

[Symmetry]

Oh dear, another TGD rant about how everyone is stupid and/or trolling him.

Hey look! It's Symmetry with a strawman! I'm shocked!

strawman?

Seriously? I gave you the fucking GAO analysis! I mean, you must be trolling, right? Just send me a pm and tell me you're trolling. I won't tell anyone.

I look forward to your analysis and critique of the GAO analysis. Your participation in this conversation thus far has been enlightening and I look forward to discussing this issue with you in the future.

A much more pleasant tone. Glad to see that you can still take a degree of criticism on board and calm down to at least a form of declasse sarcasm.

[PLAYER57832]

[
Well, there's conspiracy and there's fact. This is the same go round we always have. I've provided you with information, namely that the sequestration was, at least partially or mostly, the fault of the president. Further, I've provided you with how the budget gets allocated and that any cuts that you whine about above are the fault of the president. Even further, I've provided you with the specific dollar amounts associated with each cut for the first year of the cuts. I've provided all that information to you to show you that (1) the sequestration isn't bad; (2) it was not something cooked up by Cantor and Ryan to screw the country (which you still haven't explained; and (3) it was mostly the fault of your savior and our current president.
.

Oh please... its the "fault" of the president if you think that Republicans have a perfect right to sit back and say "hey.... we don't want tax increases so any deal that suggests that just won't fly".. never mind that virtually every economist out there agrees that tax increases and not just spending cuts MUST be a part of the mix.

Furthermore, despite all this whining about "taxing the rich", the fact is that our current rate is still below what it was in the longest growth period in US history.. the 80's being in the midst of that.

The biggest problem with the Republican party is their insistance that taxes and government policies are the sole reason for our failing economy, never mind a change in the tech equation, never mind environmental damage and never mind the problem if a very much way too low minimum wage.


Its funny, for all their claims of wanting idependence, they sure are quick to insist that the government is responsible for THEIR failures.

I'm not saying it's only the president's fault (although it comes off that way because I'm arguing with the president's most ardent supporter, JB). I'm saying the president is not blameless, as he makes himself out to be.

Tax increases should be part of the mix. But let me ask you something Player... how high should we raise taxes and on whom (i.e. what income brackets)? And what effect would that have on the budget? I have no problem, conceptually, with an income tax hike or a capital gains rate hike. But I don't think the general public understands yet how little effect that will have on the budget deficit. In 2013, the GAO (or CBO, can't remember) estimated that the US will bring in its highest revenue in its history. What does that do the budget deficit? Virtually nothing.

I believe taxes should be increased on most everyone.. that anyone making a wage should be paying taxes, but that includes raising the minimum wage so they can support themselves without all kinds of artificial assistance. You cannot seperate the one.. keeping the minimum wage "as is" and increasing taxes because, for the bottom, they are tied. I also think its not so much about a flat increase in the percentage of taxes as a reform in how taxes are judged. I would remove a LOT of deductions, most particularly any deduction for moving outside the country (though that is really insignificant in monetary terms, more of a philisophical or moral issue). Some of the changes needed would require international support, so not something that can happen just in the US. I won't get into that bit in this thread because its off-topic and also we have already discussed this. You think that allowing companies to basically move money to not pay taxes is OK. I don't. Other tax changes would require getting into some pretty specific details that we either have discussed already (pollution taxes, for example) and/or that are just pretty involved. There is a reason why people spend years studying tax law.. it is pretty complicated. That is part of what I would change.

And yes, that is one of the many problems of the Republican Party and why there is division. One wing of the party not only doesn't want to cut any of their own stuff, but they won't accept blame; the other wing wants to cut more stuff and blames the first wing. I think that's what I was getting at before.

I think you can center on "blame" as the fundamental cause. We have gone from a nation of "do" to a nation of "don't do.. unless the other guy does first", and then too often its just "attack whatever they do".

One Republican senator put it well.. In many districts, if you took the Democratic policies out of the equation, the Republicans would have nothing to say, becuase they come up with nothing of their own, just "attack the Democrats".

Note.. I am not saying that Democrats are blameless or not engaging in the same game at times. The difference between the two parties on this is not great. But, this thread is about flaws in the Republican party, not the Democrats. I find it funny and pointed that a thread on what is wrong with the Republican Party winds up with "its Obama's fault" as a primary focus.

[thegreekdog]

I believe taxes should be increased on most everyone.. that anyone making a wage should be paying taxes, but that includes raising the minimum wage so they can support themselves without all kinds of artificial assistance. You cannot seperate the one.. keeping the minimum wage "as is" and increasing taxes because, for the bottom, they are tied. I also think its not so much about a flat increase in the percentage of taxes as a reform in how taxes are judged. I would remove a LOT of deductions, most particularly any deduction for moving outside the country (though that is really insignificant in monetary terms, more of a philisophical or moral issue). Some of the changes needed would require international support, so not something that can happen just in the US. I won't get into that bit in this thread because its off-topic and also we have already discussed this. You think that allowing companies to basically move money to not pay taxes is OK. I don't. Other tax changes would require getting into some pretty specific details that we either have discussed already (pollution taxes, for example) and/or that are just pretty involved. There is a reason why people spend years studying tax law.. it is pretty complicated. That is part of what I would change.

Okay, there is a lot here, so pardon me for reorganizing a bit.

(1) Minimum Wage

Until it is demonstrated to me that raising the minimum wage will have a demonstrable effect on the wages of people that don't make minimum wage AND who are on government support, I cannot agree with raising the minimum wage. I have searched for, and have not found, acceptable data regarding minimum wage increases affecting a large decrease on the government rolls. So let's table that and discuss in the minimum wage thread.

(2) Raising Tax Rates

I'm of the opinion that capital gains rates need to equal the tax rate on ordinary income. However, historic data (which is not necessarily a predictor of future results) shows that raising capital gains rates does not substantially increase tax revenue.

(3) Eliminating Deductions and Other Tax Benefits

(a) The "overseas deduction" - What the tax policy people are talking about is that the company can, in certain very specific cases, bring revenue made overseas back to the United States without incurring a 35% US tax rate on such income. I'm not an international tax expert, so bear with me. Basically, if Company X earns $1 million in Belgium and pay the Belgian tax rate on that income, Company X can bring whatever is left over back to the United States free from US tax. This doesn't happen with passive investment income and other specific types of income. If the United States taxed this income, it would be taxed twice. Once in Belgium and once in the United States (and then a third time if it was distributed to shareholders). I happen to think that being taxed twice or thrice on the same income is unfair, so I don't agree with eliminating this "tax benefit." I have no concept (nor does anyone else) how much revenue that would generate for the United States. Keep in mind that the United States has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world, so it may be a big windfall.

(b) Other stuff. There are a lot of other deductions and credits that cost the United States money, maybe. I say maybe because these things tend to be stuff like taking a deduction for depreciation in the current year of 50% or 100% of the value of the asset purchased, rather than the normal depreciation deduction. That is for U.S. property, and the point of the law, ostensibly, is to provide an incentive for companies to purchase depreciable assets, thereby helping the economy. Similarly, tax credits (for example, hiring ex-prisoners or investing in certain poor areas) are meant to achieve a result the government wants. I'm not sure that "closing" these "loopholes" would help the economy in the long-term.

Ultimately, therefore, the issue comes back to spending. If I was in charge of the Republican Party, I would strong-arm my members into putting forward a proposal to raise capital gains rates while retaining deductions and credits for U.S. businesses. I would make a condition of that proposal the cutting of domestic and military spending (not just cutting increases to spending, but actual levels of spending). I would also put a bill out there that provides major tax incentives to employers who train underqualified people for jobs with that employer (similar to the Clinton-era welfare reforms). That last would do more to raise the standard of living for poor people than a minimum wage increase.

[PLAYER57832]

I believe taxes should be increased on most everyone.. that anyone making a wage should be paying taxes, but that includes raising the minimum wage so they can support themselves without all kinds of artificial assistance. You cannot seperate the one.. keeping the minimum wage "as is" and increasing taxes because, for the bottom, they are tied. I also think its not so much about a flat increase in the percentage of taxes as a reform in how taxes are judged. I would remove a LOT of deductions, most particularly any deduction for moving outside the country (though that is really insignificant in monetary terms, more of a philisophical or moral issue). Some of the changes needed would require international support, so not something that can happen just in the US. I won't get into that bit in this thread because its off-topic and also we have already discussed this. You think that allowing companies to basically move money to not pay taxes is OK. I don't. Other tax changes would require getting into some pretty specific details that we either have discussed already (pollution taxes, for example) and/or that are just pretty involved. There is a reason why people spend years studying tax law.. it is pretty complicated. That is part of what I would change.

Okay, there is a lot here, so pardon me for reorganizing a bit.

(1) Minimum Wage

Until it is demonstrated to me that raising the minimum wage will have a demonstrable effect on the wages of people that don't make minimum wage AND who are on government support, I cannot agree with raising the minimum wage. I have searched for, and have not found, acceptable data regarding minimum wage increases affecting a large decrease on the government rolls. So let's table that and discuss in the minimum wage thread.

I see, so the fact that a family of 4 making less than 39K is eligible for government assistance is not proof enough?

If they are making more, then they won't be eligible for most government aid.

(2) Raising Tax Rates

I'm of the opinion that capital gains rates need to equal the tax rate on ordinary income. However, historic data (which is not necessarily a predictor of future results) shows that raising capital gains rates does not substantially increase tax revenue.

That is ONE small aspect.

(3) Eliminating Deductions and Other Tax Benefits

(a) The "overseas deduction" - What the tax policy people are talking about is that the company can, in certain very specific cases, bring revenue made overseas back to the United States without incurring a 35% US tax rate on such income. I'm not an international tax expert, so bear with me. Basically, if Company X earns $1 million in Belgium and pay the Belgian tax rate on that income, Company X can bring whatever is left over back to the United States free from US tax. This doesn't happen with passive investment income and other specific types of income. If the United States taxed this income, it would be taxed twice. Once in Belgium and once in the United States (and then a third time if it was distributed to shareholders). I happen to think that being taxed twice or thrice on the same income is unfair, so I don't agree with eliminating this "tax benefit." I have no concept (nor does anyone else) how much revenue that would generate for the United States. Keep in mind that the United States has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world, so it may be a big windfall.

(b) Other stuff. There are a lot of other deductions and credits that cost the United States money, maybe. I say maybe because these things tend to be stuff like taking a deduction for depreciation in the current year of 50% or 100% of the value of the asset purchased, rather than the normal depreciation deduction. That is for U.S. property, and the point of the law, ostensibly, is to provide an incentive for companies to purchase depreciable assets, thereby helping the economy. Similarly, tax credits (for example, hiring ex-prisoners or investing in certain poor areas) are meant to achieve a result the government wants. I'm not sure that "closing" these "loopholes" would help the economy in the long-term.

Its not that I don't want to discuss this, but getting into a detailed discussion of tax policy and law with someone who does that as their profession will take more time than should be given in this particular thread.

Also, you tend to dismiss a lot of evidence I bring in, regardling things like environmental impact and such as irrelevant or somehow not proven.

I go back to one prime example when we did try to get into an example of this. I used paper versus plastic bags as a case point. Everyone leaped in with various arguments for why paper or plastic might be margionally better in various situations. It was a full blown anger-fest long before I could even make the REAL point, which was that neither of those is the REAL option.. the real option is "bring your own permanent container" , like they do in most of the rest of the world. Or at least, that is a better solution than either paper or plastic. The real solution might be something entirely different.

As long as you/we as a nation are focused on only very narrow possibilities, we tend to ignore the real ultimate solutions, which have nothing at all to do with most of what is currently being discussed.

Rising the minimum wage as a way to cut the deficit is an actual example.. though it is true that this won't make a significant difference, mostly because the money going to support indigents is not all that great. However, as part of a philosophical change in approach, it matters a great deal.

Ultimately, therefore, the issue comes back to spending.

You have not proven this, not really. You have only dismissed a couple of tax ideas I put forward in extreme brevity and specifcally not fully explained. Like I said, getting into a full discussion of the details of taxes with you will require another thread.... and more time than I have right now.

(I am only home becuase my son has the stomach virus.. I am typing between runs to the washing machine and bathtub).

[thegreekdog]

I see, so the fact that a family of 4 making less than 39K is eligible for government assistance is not proof enough?

It's not. If the person making $39,000 is working 40 hours a week, he or she is making $18.75 an hour, which is well over minimum wage. If two people are making $39,000 together and each working 40 hours a week, that is $9.38 an hour, also more than minimum wage.

That is ONE small aspect

What does this mean? Seriously. What does "one small aspect" even mean?

Its not that I don't want to discuss this, but getting into a detailed discussion of tax policy and law with someone who does that as their profession will take more time than should be given in this particular thread.

Honestly, all you have to bring to the table is a link to an article or some kind of data. You don't ever bring that to the table.

Also, you tend to dismiss a lot of evidence I bring in, regardling things like environmental impact and such as irrelevant or somehow not proven.

Yes, I dismiss those things because we're talking about balancing of the federal government's budget. There are two elements to that: taxes and expenditures. The enivronmental impact of paper bag usage is irrelevant.

You have not proven this, not really. You have only dismissed a couple of tax ideas I put forward in extreme brevity and specifcally not fully explained. Like I said, getting into a full discussion of the details of taxes with you will require another thread.... and more time than I have right now.

I dismissed them because you don't seem to understand them. I thought I explained the "overseas" issue in a pretty straightforward way. I'll give you an example.

General Electric earns $200 in Uruguay. Uruguya subjects that $200 to a 10% tax rate. Therefore, General Electric pays $20 of Uruguayan tax and has $180 left over. Assuming all other requirements are met (e.g. this is inome from an active business activity, not a passive one), General Electric brings that money back to the United States (to its U.S. corporation) and does not pay a 35% tax rate. That income is then distributed to shareholders, who pay, let's say, 15% tax on that income (or $27). So, of the $200 earned in Uruguay, $153 is left.

Now let's say we do away with the deduction for dividends received from foreign corporations. Now the $200 is subject to 10% tax in Uruguay ($20), and 35% tax on the remainder in the US ($63) and 15% tax on the dividend to US shareholders ($18). That leaves $99 that is untaxed. Effectively, GE's shareholders have paid more than 50% tax on the dividend revenue from Uruguay.

I don't think that's fair.

In any event, I laid out my plan. No specifics with respect to spending cuts, of course, but I think we start with the military and move on from there. So, I would do capital gains tax rate increase, cuts to the military, increased spending (through tax benefits) on employment training.

In any event, here is why raising taxes on the rich won't do anything:

[BigBallinStalin]

then I'll take the time to explain why it's crap.

Now, I have to take the time to connect the dots for you, which is why I don't often take you seriously.

One day, you'll stop being a unwitting victim of political/bureaucratic rhetoric.

Awwww
125,000 people losing their rental assistance, and possibly having their families evicted is just rhetoric crap to you. I just don't know what you have against the poor or Holocaust Victims, but don't you think that it's kinda stupid of you to attack a small & trivial point that I brought up to get tgd to stop mocking these cuts as though they mean nothing to no one?
Like, this is all you've got?
Dismissing 373,000 adults and children losing their mental illness treatments? Like "f*ck them?"
You suck at debating actual rhetoric. Nobody was even taking about rhetoric.
If you want to stick to "some of these cutbacks are fine," well then fine because the details of the sequester itself doesn't have anything to do with my point. As I said. But if you're going to join the "poor people aren't worth my respect" dismissal party then just save your time because I don't care.


All y'all who care not for the suffering of the less fortunate absolutely disgust me.

Step Four: After completely ruining your silly stance, and seeing that you've failed to address the inadequacy of your position, there's no need for me to address your current lack of an argument.

Oh, you've fit into the 5-step model:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177416&start=465#p4044245

You started early with the ad hominem/whatever, but had I not mentioned this, you'd have completed step 5.

Your shit's getting stale, son. Might wanna step it up; otherwise, remain ignorant. It's your choice.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh dear, another TGD rant about how everyone is stupid and/or trolling him.

Hey look! It's Symmetry with a strawman! I'm shocked!

strawman?

Seriously? I gave you the fucking GAO analysis! I mean, you must be trolling, right? Just send me a pm and tell me you're trolling. I won't tell anyone.

I look forward to your analysis and critique of the GAO analysis. Your participation in this conversation thus far has been enlightening and I look forward to discussing this issue with you in the future.

A much more pleasant tone. Glad to see that you can still take a degree of criticism on board and calm down to at least a form of declasse sarcasm.

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: TGD attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: TGD notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse TGD of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.



Gee, the same-old, same-old is happening again.

You'd think that those two 'grown' men would be capable of forming a sensible argument by now.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, so the fact that a family of 4 making less than 39K is eligible for government assistance is not proof enough?

It's not. If the person making $39,000 is working 40 hours a week, he or she is making $18.75 an hour, which is well over minimum wage. If two people are making $39,000 together and each working 40 hours a week, that is $9.38 an hour, also more than minimum wage.

Thank you for making 3 points for me. First, I intentionally use the figure for getting any kind of government aid. Someone making $39,000 won't qualify for food stamps or Section 8, at least in PA. (and I already said that federal money should not be used to subsidize "high rent" areas). They might get medicaid if their kids are disabled, but I leave that out of this since anyone making over 250K will qualify for that, and becuase it just is an entirely different issue.

The kind of aid a family at that level will get are WIC (roughly $40 a month now), reduced cost school lunches. (note free lunches).

Anyway, a family with 2 adults making $8 or $9.00 an hour will get some basic aid, but nothing like what folks on minimum wage get now.

Also, I have never said this is "the" solution, or even that the money from such a change will hugely alter the deficit. I have said it is one small piece. Its importance is primarily one of attitude.. both the idea that more people will be paying taxes and that people who work are entitled to reasonable compensation, not just whatever the employer decides to pass out. Employment is not a gift.

That is ONE small aspect

What does this mean? Seriously. What does "one small aspect" even mean?

I wil forego the snarky "here is the definition" answer, though it is very tempting.

I meant 2 things. First and foremost, that while taxing investment income the same as earned income is part of the issue, it is just one small piece of this.

Also, its one thing that we sort of agree upon, though I would actually tax investment income at a slightly higher rate than earned income. This idea that someone plopping money down is somehow more "deserving" of that income than someone who works hard for a paycheck is just wrong. Also, as a practical matter, giving investment a much less tax burden than other kinds of income has skewed investments, not just encouraged people to invest who otherwise might not have done so, but encouraged and even forced people to invest in things that really ought not to have been invested in to begin with.

I would also place a higher tax on short term investment gains than on longer term investment gains. I can see a few minor exceptions for investing in true start-ups, true beginning technologies, but otherwise, investment should be directed toward long term gains and return, not a quick turn over of stock sales. THAT, alone would turn the market from an instrument of almost destroying production business in some cases to one that absolutely favors it. It would also change the focus a tad toward actual damages companies cause, because the people plopping money down and making the big bucks won't be able to just ignore those issues as things that will only happen long after they have left the picture, which is what happens today too often.

Its not that I don't want to discuss this, but getting into a detailed discussion of tax policy and law with someone who does that as their profession will take more time than should be given in this particular thread.

Honestly, all you have to bring to the table is a link to an article or some kind of data. You don't ever bring that to the table.

Really? Go back and read some prior discussions. I very much do bring in that.. but like I said, if you want this to turn into a tax discussion, then make another thread.

Also, you tend to dismiss a lot of evidence I bring in, regardling things like environmental impact and such as irrelevant or somehow not proven.

Yes, I dismiss those things because we're talking about balancing of the federal government's budget. There are two elements to that: taxes and expenditures. The enivronmental impact of paper bag usage is irrelevant.

The paper bag issue was just an example of how you approach problems versus how a solutionist approach might work. You are arguing about paper versus plastic and not even considering just "bring your own". An outsider would see that as the first thing to try.

Similarly, you dismiss environmental impacts because you don't want to be bothered with it. The truth is that the costs incurred to future generations, both in medical costs and more direct costs such as the plain limit to various resources will matter far more than any tax rate. They will cost our children and grandchildren far, far more than any national debt.. except that they will add directly to that debt.

In other words, thank you kindly for confirming my point!

You have not proven this, not really. You have only dismissed a couple of tax ideas I put forward in extreme brevity and specifcally not fully explained. Like I said, getting into a full discussion of the details of taxes with you will require another thread.... and more time than I have right now.

I dismissed them because you don't seem to understand them. I thought I explained the "overseas" issue in a pretty straightforward way. I'll give you an example.

General Electric earns $200 in Uruguay. Uruguya subjects that $200 to a 10% tax rate. Therefore, General Electric pays $20 of Uruguayan tax and has $180 left over. Assuming all other requirements are met (e.g. this is inome from an active business activity, not a passive one), General Electric brings that money back to the United States (to its U.S. corporation) and does not pay a 35% tax rate. That income is then distributed to shareholders, who pay, let's say, 15% tax on that income (or $27). So, of the $200 earned in Uruguay, $153 is left.

Now let's say we do away with the deduction for dividends received from foreign corporations. Now the $200 is subject to 10% tax in Uruguay ($20), and 35% tax on the remainder in the US ($63) and 15% tax on the dividend to US shareholders ($18). That leaves $99 that is untaxed. Effectively, GE's shareholders have paid more than 50% tax on the dividend revenue from Uruguay.

I don't think that's fair.

You can pick examples that illustrate how "fair" the system is all you wish, but the plain fact is that the game of moving money around to avoid taxes is a serious threat to the economies of many countries.

In any event, I laid out my plan. No specifics with respect to spending cuts, of course, but I think we start with the military and move on from there. So, I would do capital gains tax rate increase, cuts to the military, increased spending (through tax benefits) on employment training.

yeah, well, "cut the military" is a pretty blanket and easy statement. Its not particularly specific, sorry.

In any event, here is why raising taxes on the rich won't do anything:

I see, and where did "tax the rich" come into my examples above? I do think taxes need to be raised on everyone.. including the wealthy. Not sure why you think they ought to escape?

[Night Strike]

Oh please... its the "fault" of the president if you think that Republicans have a perfect right to sit back and say "hey.... we don't want tax increases so any deal that suggests that just won't fly".. never mind that virtually every economist out there agrees that tax increases and not just spending cuts MUST be a part of the mix.

Furthermore, despite all this whining about "taxing the rich", the fact is that our current rate is still below what it was in the longest growth period in US history.. the 80's being in the midst of that.

The federal government will be taking in a record amount of taxes this year. I'm not sure about where all the states stand, but we do know that the states who have the highest tax rates are among those who are the most in trouble with deficits.

So how is there a problem of not enough taxes?


By the way, I still stand by the plan that once the federal government balances its budget, every person, regardless of their income, should be charged a 1% non-refundable tax that goes to directly paying off the debt. We can have tax increases once the government does their job of not spending more than they take in.

[thegreekdog]

Thank you for making 3 points for me. First, I intentionally use the figure for getting any kind of government aid. Someone making $39,000 won't qualify for food stamps or Section 8, at least in PA. (and I already said that federal money should not be used to subsidize "high rent" areas). They might get medicaid if their kids are disabled, but I leave that out of this since anyone making over 250K will qualify for that, and becuase it just is an entirely different issue.

The kind of aid a family at that level will get are WIC (roughly $40 a month now), reduced cost school lunches. (note free lunches).

Anyway, a family with 2 adults making $8 or $9.00 an hour will get some basic aid, but nothing like what folks on minimum wage get now.

Also, I have never said this is "the" solution, or even that the money from such a change will hugely alter the deficit. I have said it is one small piece. Its importance is primarily one of attitude.. both the idea that more people will be paying taxes and that people who work are entitled to reasonable compensation, not just whatever the employer decides to pass out. Employment is not a gift.

It doesn't appear that you understood my point. An increase in the minimum wage WILL NOT DO ANYTHING FOR A FAMILY WITH $39,000 OF INCOME! The data you provided is not data that proves the point you're trying to prove! Your point is that raising the minimum wage will take people off of government assistance and then you provided an example of a family that earns more than minimum wage!

First and foremost, that while taxing investment income the same as earned income is part of the issue, it is just one small piece of this.

Also, its one thing that we sort of agree upon, though I would actually tax investment income at a slightly higher rate than earned income. This idea that someone plopping money down is somehow more "deserving" of that income than someone who works hard for a paycheck is just wrong. Also, as a practical matter, giving investment a much less tax burden than other kinds of income has skewed investments, not just encouraged people to invest who otherwise might not have done so, but encouraged and even forced people to invest in things that really ought not to have been invested in to begin with.

I would also place a higher tax on short term investment gains than on longer term investment gains. I can see a few minor exceptions for investing in true start-ups, true beginning technologies, but otherwise, investment should be directed toward long term gains and return, not a quick turn over of stock sales. THAT, alone would turn the market from an instrument of almost destroying production business in some cases to one that absolutely favors it. It would also change the focus a tad toward actual damages companies cause, because the people plopping money down and making the big bucks won't be able to just ignore those issues as things that will only happen long after they have left the picture, which is what happens today too often.

I don't really disagree with any of this, except, again, there is historic proof that raising the tax rate on investment income does not increase tax revenues. Therefore, this plan may not work. Your plan's case further complicates this because people will not sell short term investments so they can take advantage of the lower long-term investment tax rate.

They will cost our children and grandchildren far, far more than any national debt.. except that they will add directly to that debt.

Irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about the federal government's budget for 2013. In 2013 it will bring in far less than it will spend. Paper bags will not solve this problem. It may be relevant to environmental costs and our children and whatever, but not relevant to this discussion. Bring some data that is relevant to THIS discussion.

[Juan_Bottom]

No way, you're a huge conspiracy theorist.

Yeah? How's that?

I mean-ah, you try to sound impartial, but you're pretty clearly Conservative Libertarian, and as such, you've fallen head-over-heels for the current fox-news type of Conservative news.

I don't watch Fox News. I've given you my sources and never a once has it been Fox News. But yeah, I'm a conservative libertarian; I don't think those people watch Fox News.

You talk a lot about conspiracy's in government, just like they do. You're even taking Obama's "suggestion" of a sequestor as some kind of proof... of what exactly? Complacency or something?

Well, there's conspiracy and there's fact. This is the same go round we always have. I've provided you with information, namely that the sequestration was, at least partially or mostly, the fault of the president. Further, I've provided you with how the budget gets allocated and that any cuts that you whine about above are the fault of the president. Even further, I've provided you with the specific dollar amounts associated with each cut for the first year of the cuts. I've provided all that information to you to show you that (1) the sequestration isn't bad; (2) it was not something cooked up by Cantor and Ryan to screw the country (which you still haven't explained; and (3) it was mostly the fault of your savior and our current president.

Examples that deal directly with things that you've said would be that both partys are entirely sold-out to corporations with rampant corruption, that Dennis Kucinich was kicked out of his party for being just too good, and that both partys are identical because they are both so corrupt. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184125&p=4030043 The deal isn't that they are so obnoxiously corrupt, it's that you have no appreciation for the immeasurable size of our government or the speed at which such a massive machine moves. I seriously suspect that because you feel like you sold out to corporations as a tax-evasion lawyer, so too you feel like everyone is easily corrupted by corporations or something. I just can't make sense of your opinions without some kind of fix. Part of it I know is that you don't follow politics as closely as I have to, but you follow them closer than the average person and you like to debate them. That's fine, but your information is always behind and you're still condescending about it. I can remember you repeating yourself about how fascinating it is that voters in California keep voting themselves more benefits and deeper in debt. But that was about 30 days after the pledge to balance the budget - which was pretty well covered by Californian press, and like 2 days before they finally balanced it. I didn't call it because I didn't care to, but I did make a thread about it. And there have been other examples.

How is any of that a conspiracy theory? It's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of my ass. It's not like I'm going to Alex Jones or Glenn Beck and getting this information. I'm going to trusted news sources from both sides of the political spectrum. Your insider political information comes from Democratic Underground and the SEIU website. I'm merely here to show you how, whether the politician is Democrat or Republican, I can point to things that such politicians do to benefit the people that give them money, whether directly or indirectly. I've been successful doing that. You tend to not respond to those posts, for whatever reason. Like the time I posted about the recent tax increase bill that the president signed and showed the various corporate tax benefits in the bill. All of my information is current; it's not past. I tend to believe you when you say you follow politics closely. I'm just not sure you know how to do independent research, instead preferring to rely on websites that provide information to supplement your existing views on politics and the economy.

Let's take your cool chart for example. Where did you get the chart? What does the chart mean? Do you understand that these aren't actually cuts but reductions to increases in spending?

completely comfortable with saying that I cannot prove that Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are trying to destroy public trust, but I can point to a string of evidence which is currently being dissected and accepted by free thinkers of both parties. My last write-up about it has over 20,000 shares on Facebook.

Good. Stop fucking talking about your cool shit and give it to me. Stop whining. I asked for this string of evidence two pages ago. Where is it? Democratic Underground hasn't written it yet? Until then, you won't get a cookie for having 20,000 shares on Facebook.

There is a tradeoff here. When I post links and actual facts, you either don't respond or you scare up a strawman. So what is the incentive for me? The GAO and the CBO are easy to find.

http://www.federal.iastate.edu/sites/de ... ration.pdf
This is all irrelevant to any point that I have ever made about Cantor and Ryan trying to destroy the public trust in government. There's no tradeoff, you're just trying to make points about stuff that don't impact anything I said, so I ignore it. In fact I already told you that the Sequester itself had nothing to do with the point I made so the CBO would be pretty unimportant as a rebuttal.

Seriously? I gave you the fucking GAO analysis! I mean, you must be trolling, right? Just send me a pm and tell me you're trolling. I won't tell anyone.

I admit I laughed cause you're so angry.
But for a fourth time: THE CBO ANALYSIS AND WHATNOT DON'T MATTER ONE LICK BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE SEQUESTER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT AT ALL. You quoted me saying that, but why don't you understand it?

Saying that Obama is the one who is the most responsible for the Sequester because he brought it up in 2011 is like saying Nietzsche is responsible for Hitler because he wrote about a race of Super Men who would rule the earth. Hitler read the book, but does that make Nietzsche responsible for WWII?

[AndyDufresne]

Saying that Obama is the one who is the most responsible for the Sequester because he brought it up in 2011 is like saying Nietzsche is responsible for Hitler because he wrote about a race of Super Men who would rule the earth. Hitler read the book, but does that make Nietzsche responsible for WWII?

I believe that nietzsche may indeed be responsible for WWII.


--Andy

[Juan_Bottom]

Someone deploy Seal Team 6!

[notyou2]

He lives in Mexico now.

Are these harbour seals or ocean going seals?

[notyou2]

Pun means fart in Mexican.

[tzor]

It's not at all that I've failed to remember. I'm an American historian. The run though, is that I find much of what happened when the US was founded to be irrelevant in contemporary America & today. As Dylan sang, the times they are a changin'. For example, a bunch of rich white slavers just couldn't form a government today like they could then. And while we did have a weak centralized government, George Washington himself headed an army to enforce the government's laws during the Whiskey Tax Rebellion... The founders were willing to enforce the policy of the central government by force if necessary.

As the now somewhat old line from the Star Trek Wrath of Khan movie somewhat went, it is not important to know how things work, you have to know why things work. And the principles that they wrestled with are the exact principles we need to wrestle with today. The fundamental elements don't change because in general man doesn't change. And frankly the arguments between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans are too gloss over (however much he tried to be above politics, Washington leaned Federalist). Washington may, for example, personally led the forces against the Whiskey Rebellion, but it took the humiliation of the War of 1812 for the government to realize that the state militia system wasn't going to protect our nation against professional armies and so the standing army was formed.

And for the record, those "rich white slavers" were mostly (Washington being the notable exception) Anti-Federalist Democratic-Republicans. The Constitution was a very hard sell in the southern states and a number of famous fathers of the revolution (Patrick Henry being a good example) strongly fought against the ratification of the constitution.

By the way, did you know that the threat of secession actually helped to approve the Constitution? In New York (where nothing gets done ... see the old musical 1776) the state only approved the constitution because New York City had threatened to secede from the state, form their own state, and approve the Constitution. That's how we got the constitution, half improvise and half compromise.

But that's more "how" and very little "why." You have to know why things worked, why exceptions to the rule became the rule, why the rules were broken and what the implication of breaking those rules were.

[thegreekdog]

I admit I laughed cause you're so angry.
But for a fourth time: THE CBO ANALYSIS AND WHATNOT DON'T MATTER ONE LICK BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE SEQUESTER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT AT ALL. You quoted me saying that, but why don't you understand it?

completely comfortable with saying that I cannot prove that Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are trying to destroy public trust, but I can point to a string of evidence which is currently being dissected and accepted by free thinkers of both parties. My last write-up about it has over 20,000 shares on Facebook.

Good. Stop fucking talking about your cool shit and give it to me. Stop whining. I asked for this string of evidence two pages ago. Where is it? Democratic Underground hasn't written it yet? Until then, you won't get a cookie for having 20,000 shares on Facebook.

Oh dear, another TGD rant about how everyone is stupid and/or trolling him.

Thoughts guys?

[thegreekdog]

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: TGD attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute TGD's refutation.
Step Four: TGD notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse TGD of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

Gee, the same-old, same-old is happening again.

You'd think that those two 'grown' men would be capable of forming a sensible argument by now.

Willfully ignorant?

Here's another good, and pretty frustrating, example of willful ignorance:

You can pick examples that illustrate how "fair" the system is all you wish, but the plain fact is that the game of moving money around to avoid taxes is a serious threat to the economies of many countries.

Step One: Player makes a point
Step Two: TGD refutes the point using data with links to other, reputable, websites and provides an analysis.
Step Three: "You can do what you want, but the plain fact is [unsupported by any data or analysis whatsoever]." Which is really code for Player sticking her fingers in her ears (or closing her eyes, as the case may be) and screaming, "LA LA LA LA LA, you can't convince me! I'm going with the viewpoint that best represents my worldview and facts won't change my mind. LA LA LA LA LA!"

[PLAYER57832]

So how is there a problem of not enough taxes?

Because people need services that are provided by taxes and the current taxes are not enough to both provide those AND pay down the deficit.

You are like Antoinette... telling the guy who shouted "we have no bread" to just "eat cake".
In case you don't get the comparison, Marie had no idea that people could truly not afford cake. You want to pretend that all you have to do is wave some magical free market wand and magically everything will be fixed.

The free market is not a panacea. It is not a solution to everything. It does 2 things well.. it moves people to push for solutions when there are ready solutions out there, and it generates money for those at the top.

It does NOT give everyone a decent wage, doesn't improve the state of the world or the economy once those "low hanging fruit" are achieved. Governments, not the market are needed to move past the easy to obtain solutions. The market won't wait. The market is only for short term immediate solutions, it hurts longer term solutions at the expense of the short term.

The market places more value on folks like Lindsy Lohan (sp?) than it does on folks developing cures for cancer. If you think that is a wonderful vision for creating a future.. then you need to take your head out of the TV.

By the way, I still stand by the plan that once the federal government balances its budget, every person, regardless of their income, should be charged a 1% non-refundable tax that goes to directly paying off the debt. We can have tax increases once the government does their job of not spending more than they take in.

There you go again, talking about "the government" as if it were some remote entity.

Try again... try talking about the Senators, Representatives and yes, the President not working together... and folks electing their cronies, demanding that they NOT work together with the other part.. you being primary among that type.

There is no fix that comes from acting like a toddler holding his hands over his ears and saying "my way or goodbye". THAT is not a solution, it is exactly what has gotten us into this mess.

And.. the facts show that we have to have not just a reduction in spending, but more money put into the system to fix it.

By-the-way, your bit about "collecting more money" -- try inflation. The amount collected virtually ALWAYS goes up, not just because Obama came into office

[PLAYER57832]

It's not at all that I've failed to remember. I'm an American historian. The run though, is that I find much of what happened when the US was founded to be irrelevant in contemporary America & today. As Dylan sang, the times they are a changin'. For example, a bunch of rich white slavers just couldn't form a government today like they could then. And while we did have a weak centralized government, George Washington himself headed an army to enforce the government's laws during the Whiskey Tax Rebellion... The founders were willing to enforce the policy of the central government by force if necessary.

As the now somewhat old line from the Star Trek Wrath of Khan movie somewhat went, it is not important to know how things work, you have to know why things work. And the principles that they wrestled with are the exact principles we need to wrestle with today. The fundamental elements don't change because in general man doesn't change. And frankly the arguments between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans are too gloss over (however much he tried to be above politics, Washington leaned Federalist). Washington may, for example, personally led the forces against the Whiskey Rebellion, but it took the humiliation of the War of 1812 for the government to realize that the state militia system wasn't going to protect our nation against professional armies and so the standing army was formed.

And for the record, those "rich white slavers" were mostly (Washington being the notable exception) Anti-Federalist Democratic-Republicans. The Constitution was a very hard sell in the southern states and a number of famous fathers of the revolution (Patrick Henry being a good example) strongly fought against the ratification of the constitution.

By the way, did you know that the threat of secession actually helped to approve the Constitution? In New York (where nothing gets done ... see the old musical 1776) the state only approved the constitution because New York City had threatened to secede from the state, form their own state, and approve the Constitution. That's how we got the constitution, half improvise and half compromise.

But that's more "how" and very little "why." You have to know why things worked, why exceptions to the rule became the rule, why the rules were broken and what the implication of breaking those rules were.

And the REAL key to all of that is that no matter how strongly they believed their positions, they saw the creation of our nation, as more important than any of their individual ideas and dreams. They were therefore willing to listen and compromise... not necessarily easily, but in the end, they did.

Today, too many in the Republican Party seem to think they have the right to dictate to everyone else in the Nation how things ought to work, that compromise and listening are dirty words.

[BigBallinStalin]

And the REAL key to all of that is that no matter how strongly they believed their positions, they saw the creation of our nation, as more important than any of their individual ideas and dreams. They were therefore willing to listen and compromise... not necessarily easily, but in the end, they did.

Today, too many in the Republican Party seem to think they have the right to dictate to everyone else in the Nation how things ought to work, that compromise and listening are dirty words.

The same criticism applies to the Democratic Party, which simply has a better marketing strategy.

[Night Strike]

Step One: Player makes a point
Step Two: TGD refutes the point using data with links to other, reputable, websites and provides an analysis.
Step Three: "You can do what you want, but the plain fact is [unsupported by any data or analysis whatsoever]." Which is really code for Player sticking her fingers in her ears (or closing her eyes, as the case may be) and screaming, "LA LA LA LA LA, you can't convince me! I'm going with the viewpoint that best represents my worldview and facts won't change my mind. LA LA LA LA LA!"

There is no fix that comes from acting like a toddler holding his hands over his ears and saying "my way or goodbye". THAT is not a solution, it is exactly what has gotten us into this mess.