Next Time, Let's Elect Adults!

[....lybob]

Hmmm, if the top 20% earns 50% of all income, please tell me where that "real money in the middle" is hiding...

 

Also, a real doozy from Krauthammer this past week,

 

http://www.adn.com/2...epublicans.html

 

Charles, if you admit that the money isn't there, which means that the government views SS taxes like all of its other sources of revenue, then there goes your 47% argument. If income and payroll taxes are viewed the same, then stop the BS about the 47% who pay no taxes!

 

What's worse Charles, if you admit those taxes were used to fund government expenditures all along, then the Reagan-Greenspan increase in payroll taxes in the mid-1980s, supposedly done then to pay for deficits expected in the future, was really done to pay for Reagan's supply-side tax cuts that mainly went to benefit of the rich. Back then, a conservative was a true conservative, afraid of big deficits, so somebody had to pay for the tax cuts.

It's pretty clear that there has been a class war going on since the 1980s, and it's the top who is engaging in it.

 

 

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2...l#storylink=cpy

Exactly

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I'd like to see us hit the cliff. I'd like to see what happens. We DESERVE to fail as a nation because we've abandoned rationality for rainbows and farting unicorns. Seriously.

[3rdnlng]

Hmmm, if the top 20% earns 50% of all income, please tell me where that "real money in the middle" is hiding...

 

Also, a real doozy from Krauthammer this past week,

 

http://www.adn.com/2...epublicans.html

 

Charles, if you admit that the money isn't there, which means that the government views SS taxes like all of its other sources of revenue, then there goes your 47% argument. If income and payroll taxes are viewed the same, then stop the BS about the 47% who pay no taxes!

 

What's worse Charles, if you admit those taxes were used to fund government expenditures all along, then the Reagan-Greenspan increase in payroll taxes in the mid-1980s, supposedly done then to pay for deficits expected in the future, was really done to pay for Reagan's supply-side tax cuts that mainly went to benefit of the rich. Back then, a conservative was a true conservative, afraid of big deficits, so somebody had to pay for the tax cuts.

It's pretty clear that there has been a class war going on since the 1980s, and it's the top who is engaging in it.

 

 

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2...l#storylink=cpy

 

 

 

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0108a/copyright/sslockbox.html

 

 

 

Just when you thought the debate over national budget and economic policy couldn't get any more confusing or silly, the "lockbox" is back. Big time. The Democratic National Committee is running TV ads asserting that "the Bush budget raids the Medicare trust fund -- now he's using gimmicks to hide a raid on Social Security."

The Bush Administration insists that it is doing no such thing, and that they would never dip into the Social Security surplus to finance other spending. What's going on? Is anyone telling the truth here?

Unfortunately, no. Small wonder that few people bother to follow these debates, and even fewer understand them. But Federal spending decisions affect almost all of us, and the budget surplus is rapidly shrinking as the economy sputters. So it is worth a few minutes to sort through the trash and find out what is happening here.

Let's start with the "lockbox," a fictional concept popularized by Al Gore during his presidential bid, as well as by the Saturday Night Live comics who made fun of him. Social Security and Medicare (Hospitalization Insurance, or Part A) are financed through a payroll tax that takes in more than it is currently spending. It is these surplus funds -- about $160 billion from Social Security and $30 billion from Medicare -- that Mr. Gore wanted to put in a "lockbox," and that the Bush Administration is now being accused of "raiding."

 

 

From 2001

[Cinga]

It's painfully obvious that the democrats don't want to cut a nickel and would actually prefer to increase spending. They control 2 of 3 bodies. This alone is the problem plain and simple.

 

I wish people would stop saying this... Yes, there are Constitutionally, 3 branches of government and they are, the Executive, Judicial, and Congress which includes the House and the Senate.

 

By that, Dems control 1 1/2 of the 3 branches.

[Cinga]

I'm with the current fiscal cliff people... Let sequestration happen, since whatever Wash comes up with is looking like it will only be smoke and mirrors, putting off the inevitable.

 

Watching both Gietner, and then Boehner this am, neither would give specifics to their stances... So... heck with it, get it over with....

[John Adams]

 

You O'Reilly types irritate me. You seem intelligent enough to know better. I just can't figure out if you're trying so hard to get to the "center" you'll take any route you can get, or if you actually believe this bull ****.

 

Also, it pisses me off no end when people make me defend the Republicans. This idea that they're right wing extremists (fiscally speaking, anyway) is a joke. Quite the opposite.

 

So you think the Republicans didn't screw up the debt ceiling deal? That it broke down because of Obamaa and Boehner did not substantially contribute?

 

Just take sequestration.

[keepthefaith]

I wish people would stop saying this... Yes, there are Constitutionally, 3 branches of government and they are, the Executive, Judicial, and Congress which includes the House and the Senate.

 

By that, Dems control 1 1/2 of the 3 branches.

 

I didn't say "branch" I said "body" meaning the dems have the senate and white house while repubs have the house. We both know the courts won't be ruling on budgets or tax rates.

[3rdnlng]

So you think the Republicans didn't screw up the debt ceiling deal? That it broke down because of Obamaa and Boehner did not substantially contribute?

 

Just take sequestration.

 

I think you are a snake in the grass, but expect that your venom is pretty weak. Obama walked away when he refigured what it would take to become reelected. Damn, you are so transparent.

[John Adams]

 

 

I think you are a snake in the grass, but expect that your venom is pretty weak. Obama walked away when he refigured what it would take to become reelected. Damn, you are so transparent.

 

You hear what you want to hear, read what you want to read. Boehner negotiated without approval a deal his party would have probably scuttled. He walked away, yes, but he didn't need to. He did it because the heat from his side was getting hot.

 

As I've said, Obama went amateur hour and asked for more to shore up his own party support, but anyone who thinks one side is a lot more to blame than the other for the last failed deal has a wicked bias problem.

 

It's time, Obama is putting less cuts on the table and Boehner refuses to talk about raising taxes, so both sides are conceding less so far. Great for the country.

[3rdnlng]

You hear what you want to hear, read what you want to read. Boehner negotiated without approval a deal his party would have probably scuttled. He walked away, yes, but he didn't need to. He did it because the heat from his side was getting hot.

 

As I've said, Obama went amateur hour and asked for more to shore up his own party support, but anyone who thinks one side is a lot more to blame than the other for the last failed deal has a wicked bias problem.

 

It's time, Obama is putting less cuts on the table and Boehner refuses to talk about raising taxes, so both sides are conceding less so far. Great for the country.

 

Without any reasonable convincing argument or links your proclamations mean nothing. You're nothing but another Adam with a first name, Yesbut.

[John Adams]

Without any reasonable convincing argument or links your proclamations mean nothing. You're nothing but another Adam with a first name, Yesbut.

 

Do you want me to link to the entire book The Price of Politics? Or the 100000 links describing the deal?

 

Just because you're ignorant of how the deal went down doesn't mean I need to do your research NJSue.

[3rdnlng]

Do you want me to link to the entire book The Price of Politics? Or the 100000 links describing the deal?

 

Just because you're ignorant of how the deal went down doesn't mean I need to do your research NJSue.

 

No, I'm not ignorant of how the deal fell apart. You made some claims, and I told you to back them up. Now you are telling me to research your position, and also have the audacity to call me Sue? Stick to stuff you know something about, like gay marriage.

[John Adams]

No, I'm not ignorant of how the deal fell apart. You made some claims, and I told you to back them up. Now you are telling me to research your position, and also have the audacity to call me Sue? Stick to stuff you know something about, like gay marriage.

 

How that deal fell apart was covered by every media outlet. This issue is not only sourced, it's sourced ad nauseum. I gave you a book to read. Get back to it when you're done, or if that's too hard, read some interview excerpts. Or if you don't like Bob Woodward, try some other articles. The story of how that deal collapsed is everywhere NJSue.

 

It's simply fantastic that you want to review something that is so public. You can even read Obama's side of things and Boehner's side of things. They both sound like douchebags who failed to lead the country when we needed it.

Edited December 3, 2012 by John Adams

[Nanker]

Hmmm, if the top 20% earns 50% of all income, please tell me where that "real money in the middle" is hiding...

 

Also, a real doozy from Krauthammer this past week,

 

http://www.adn.com/2...epublicans.html

 

Charles, if you admit that the money isn't there, which means that the government views SS taxes like all of its other sources of revenue, then there goes your 47% argument. If income and payroll taxes are viewed the same, then stop the BS about the 47% who pay no taxes!

 

What's worse Charles, if you admit those taxes were used to fund government expenditures all along, then the Reagan-Greenspan increase in payroll taxes in the mid-1980s, supposedly done then to pay for deficits expected in the future, was really done to pay for Reagan's supply-side tax cuts that mainly went to benefit of the rich. Back then, a conservative was a true conservative, afraid of big deficits, so somebody had to pay for the tax cuts.

It's pretty clear that there has been a class war going on since the 1980s, and it's the top who is engaging in it.

 

 

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2...l#storylink=cpy

 

Nice to see that you're coming around to a Republican viewpoint.

The payroll tax is supposed to fund people's public pension plan aka Social Security.

Republicans have been saying stop that tax on everyone and give them the chance to plan for their own retirement without the government's interference.

We should abolish that tax for everyone, and abolish Social Security too.

 

Don't tell me you want people to stop paying into Social Security and then get a government pension too?

[keepthefaith]

All the talk about raising taxes and not a word about increasing GDP. Even the combatants in the negotiations can't see the real prize, an economy that grows.

[GG]

Hmmm, if the top 20% earns 50% of all income, please tell me where that "real money in the middle" is hiding...

 

Also, a real doozy from Krauthammer this past week,

 

http://www.adn.com/2...epublicans.html

 

Charles, if you admit that the money isn't there, which means that the government views SS taxes like all of its other sources of revenue, then there goes your 47% argument. If income and payroll taxes are viewed the same, then stop the BS about the 47% who pay no taxes!

 

What's worse Charles, if you admit those taxes were used to fund government expenditures all along, then the Reagan-Greenspan increase in payroll taxes in the mid-1980s, supposedly done then to pay for deficits expected in the future, was really done to pay for Reagan's supply-side tax cuts that mainly went to benefit of the rich. Back then, a conservative was a true conservative, afraid of big deficits, so somebody had to pay for the tax cuts.

It's pretty clear that there has been a class war going on since the 1980s, and it's the top who is engaging in it.

 

 

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2...l#storylink=cpy

 

Been away for a while ..

 

While the top earners share has been growing, it's largely due to tax code's benefits to take that income in, whether it's in low cap gains taxes or low dividends. Because a large portion of the rich guys' income is discretionary, if you raise the taxes, they'll simply sit on the income/gains until the next administration. And you would have won a moral victory that narrowed the income gap, while the deficit grew further because you just took the legs out from the guys who earn that 50% of all income.

 

The worst part about the Bush tax cuts is that it took a lot of people off the income tax rolls, and good luck getting them back on with Populist in Chief firmly in place. While the economists argue about backward looking data to justify future behavior, it's fairly conclusive that the rich guys are taking as much money off the table now and are settling in for the wait. They can hold out. Can the rest of America?

 

Establishing a highly progressive tax code is the most idiotic fiscal policy that anyone can implement, because it puts revenues in volatile boom bust cycles that governments aren't made to operate under. Take that moronic tax policy, add a monumental temporary stimulus plan, and sprinkle anti-capitalist rhetoric and you have the perfect ingredients for a lost decade.

 

And please stop comparing the Clinton years to the current pretender on the throne. Clinton was smart enough to realize that people were not going to get in line behind his initial policies, he changed direction and stayed out of the way and then reaped the benefits. Yet, the main reason that there was a surplus in his last years was the booming receipts from capital gains taxes (on which he lowered the top rate).

 

Now, Obama can get lucky too with his own Y2K scare and reap the benefits of something that happened on his watch. Yet, there's dot com boom on the horizon, and if you were to ask me what's the closest thing out there to making the economy hum again, I'd say it's that nasty black & clear stuff that's buried under ground which he has no appetite for.

 

So let's see if he's grown up in office yet.

[Keukasmallies]

"All the talk about raising taxes and not a word about increasing GDP. Even the combatants in the negotiations can't see the real prize, an economy that grows." keepthefaith

 

Actually, the real prize seems to be determining once and for all who can piss farther--dem's or rep's (Lower case until they each grow up!).

[TPS]

Been away for a while ..

 

 

While the top earners share has been growing, it's largely due to tax code's benefits to take that income in, whether it's in low cap gains taxes or low dividends. Because a large portion of the rich guys' income is discretionary, if you raise the taxes, they'll simply sit on the income/gains until the next administration. And you would have won a moral victory that narrowed the income gap, while the deficit grew further because you just took the legs out from the guys who earn that 50% of all income.

The Census data that measures inequality excludes cap gains, so it's even worse than 50%.

 

 

The worst part about the Bush tax cuts is that it took a lot of people off the income tax rolls, and good luck getting them back on with Populist in Chief firmly in place. While the economists argue about backward looking data to justify future behavior, it's fairly conclusive that the rich guys are taking as much money off the table now and are settling in for the wait. They can hold out. Can the rest of America?

Re-read my Krauthammer rag. The Reagan-Greenspan increase in SS taxes was supposedly to solve a future deficit. The surplus revenues were used as general revenue. The implication is that SS and Medicare taxes are viewed as income taxes that support ALL government spending.

 

 

And please stop comparing the Clinton years to the current pretender on the throne. Clinton was smart enough to realize that people were not going to get in line behind his initial policies, he changed direction and stayed out of the way and then reaped the benefits. Yet, the main reason that there was a surplus in his last years was the booming receipts from capital gains taxes (on which he lowered the top rate).

We've been over this. The surplus was a combination of higher cap gains from the internet bubble along Greenspan's belief that NAIRU had fallen below 6%, so he allowed the expansion to continue, and unemployment hit 4%--a greater % of the labor force working means more revenues. I'll bet you a beer that was the bigger impact.

 

 

So let's see if he's grown up in office yet.

[TPS]

Nice to see that you're coming around to a Republican viewpoint.

The payroll tax is supposed to fund people's public pension plan aka Social Security.

Republicans have been saying stop that tax on everyone and give them the chance to plan for their own retirement without the government's interference.

We should abolish that tax for everyone, and abolish Social Security too.

 

Don't tell me you want people to stop paying into Social Security and then get a government pension too?

Funny Wanker.

Never said that. What I'm saying is that if the trust fund isn't there, then we were hoodwinked into believing that the increase in SS taxes in the 1980s was needed to "fund" SS payouts now. If you accept the Kraut's words, then the excess taxes paid on SS for the past 30 years has gone to support general government expneditures as well as SS. The Reagan tax cuts for the top were financed by higher taxes on workers. I'm sure you were all for that...

[GG]

 

Re-read my Krauthammer ragi. The Reagan-Greenspan increase in SS taxes was supposedly to solve a future deficit. The surplus revenues were used as general revenue. The implication is that SS and Medicare taxes are viewed as income taxes that support ALL government spending.

 

 

 

We've been over this. The surplus was a combination of higher cap gains from the internet bubble along Greenspan's belief that NAIRU had fallen below 6%, so he allowed the expansion to continue, and unemployment hit 4%--a greater % of the labor force working means more revenues. I'll bet you a beer that was the bigger impact.

 

 

 

This is when I start pulling my hair out at you guys attributing more power to the Fed over the private sector than warranted. The interest policies had a marginal effect during dot coms, because equities were generating far greater returns, and the belief that that bubble would have burst sooner if Greenspan raised rates was laughable because you didn't have a run up in debt up to 2000 to fund the equity purchases.

 

Again, if interest policy was the super tonic, we'd be doing the fourth victory lap of the Summers of Recovery.

 

And I don't disagree that SS is part of the general fund, and you won't find me misusing the 47% figure. But the bottom line is that the tax base needs to broaden to eliminate the revenue swings.