U.S. Debt discussion

[seattleflamer]

the best reply of the night imho, was Rep. Cleaver, Democrat, from MI. "This is a sugar coated satanic sandwich..."

That about sums it up for the Democrats. they suck it up to save the world economy and in return get absolutely nothing in return policy wise. Amazing that during the Great Recession, we are talking about spending cuts in government rather than creating jobs which is kinda of the point right now.

[Weiser Wonder]

It's a game of good cop, bad cop. It has to be. This deal gives the Republicans everything they wanted, and the Democrats get nothing. Why don't the Democrats ever use their leverage? They have strong poll numbers supporting revenue increases and polling showing the blame for a debt ceiling crisis would be put on the Republicans, yet they showed almost no push. Only drawing the line at the most radical of proposals. It doesn't make sense.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

GOP controlled all four branches from 2001-2006. What happened? two recessions, two tax cuts and two wars(one of which was unnecessary) that contributed and is mostly responsible for the current deficit.

Moreover there was a philosophy of deregulation that was key in creating the Great Recession since 95 at least (albeit with Clintonian triangulation). That is the Republican legacy.

There is no doubt that campaign finance reform is necessary and that both parties benefit from this billion dollar industry but that is the rules of the game even for the community organizer.

If I understand your comments regarding charities and the federal tax, you believe that giving to charities shouldn't be encouraged tax policy wise but leaving a financial legacy to your children should be left whole for the Rockerfellers and Trump set?

You realize the current estate tax has a $5million exemption so unless you have $5 million plus in assets, your children, indeed, will get every penny.

Unless you believe Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr deserve to inherit every penny their father has earned and to propagate the Trump dynasty despite the fact Gates and Buffett have proactively decided to leave a minuscule portion of their wealth to their children in favor of fighting Aids, tuberculosis and malaris, giving vaccinations. Nice.

The Rockerfeller's and the Trump set use charitable foundations to protect their personal income from the tax man both in life and in death. They control their foundations and do give to worthy causes through them but, they also invest and grow the foundation's money through stocks and other investments. The control of these foundations get passed on to their children which gives their children both income and power because of the millions or billions of dollars controlled by these charities. This should be changed. Charitable foundations should only be allowed to hold a small percentage of invested funds.

As far as Ivanka and Donald Trump junior; I do think they should be able to recieve their fathers estate without tax penalty. It belongs to them. Their Dad should have already paid taxes on that income.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

It's a game of good cop, bad cop. It has to be. This deal gives the Republicans everything they wanted, and the Democrats get nothing. Why don't the Democrats ever use their leverage? They have strong poll numbers supporting revenue increases and polling showing the blame for a debt ceiling crisis would be put on the Republicans, yet they showed almost no push. Only drawing the line at the most radical of proposals. It doesn't make sense.

Maybe the Democrats know in their heart of hearts that the government wastes too much money.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

GOP controlled all four branches from 2001-2006. What happened? two recessions, two tax cuts and two wars(one of which was unnecessary) that contributed and is mostly responsible for the current deficit.

Moreover there was a philosophy of deregulation that was key in creating the Great Recession since 95 at least (albeit with Clintonian triangulation). That is the Republican legacy.

There is no doubt that campaign finance reform is necessary and that both parties benefit from this billion dollar industry but that is the rules of the game even for the community organizer.

If I understand your comments regarding charities and the federal tax, you believe that giving to charities shouldn't be encouraged tax policy wise but leaving a financial legacy to your children should be left whole for the Rockerfellers and Trump set?

You realize the current estate tax has a $5million exemption so unless you have $5 million plus in assets, your children, indeed, will get every penny.

Unless you believe Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr deserve to inherit every penny their father has earned and to propagate the Trump dynasty despite the fact Gates and Buffett have proactively decided to leave a minuscule portion of their wealth to their children in favor of fighting Aids, tuberculosis and malaris, giving vaccinations. Nice.

You have a weird focus on tax policy.

Gee, it'd just be more straightforward for the US to raise the capital gains tax, and put in a punitive tax rate on all income over $200K. A 90% rate should suffice.

Only problem is that it's pretty easy to bypass income.

[Yasa]

The US government should just win the lottery. A lot.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

It's a game of good cop, bad cop. It has to be. This deal gives the Republicans everything they wanted, and the Democrats get nothing. Why don't the Democrats ever use their leverage? They have strong poll numbers supporting revenue increases and polling showing the blame for a debt ceiling crisis would be put on the Republicans, yet they showed almost no push. Only drawing the line at the most radical of proposals. It doesn't make sense.

The extreme partisans on both sides hate it, each saying its a complete capitulation to their opponents.

That's a pretty good indication it probably hit the middle fairly closely.


Cowperson

[seattleflamer]

This is not the face of someone who looks like he hates the deal (from today's NYTimes):

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The extreme partisans on both sides hate it, each saying its a complete capitulation to their opponents.

That's a pretty good indication it probably hit the middle fairly closely.


Cowperson

I wonder what that says about the posters on CP complaining about the deal.

[MarchHare]

It says that anyone who thinks the "middle ground" choice is by definition the ideal outcome is subscribing to the golden mean fallacy.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

Just to show how lopsided tax policy is to the supply side, Warren buffett, the seond richest man in the US pays less in tax as a percentage of income than his secretary.

He even offered a reward to their favorite charity to any member of Forbes 400 if they could show that they paid more tax a percentage of their income than the people who worked for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

I just don't understand how the Republican party stays relevant frankly.

I wonder what kind of outrage would happen if Warrent Buffer did in fact pay the typical X percentage of tax. All that money he is putting towards those loopholes creates jobs for some people. Do you think they will be happen when he shuts down all those positions.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

I wonder what kind of outrage would happen if Warrent Buffer did in fact pay the typical X percentage of tax. All that money he is putting towards those loopholes creates jobs for some people. Do you think they will be happen when he shuts down all those positions.

IIRC, Buffett (and Gates) are in favour of modifying the tax code so the ultra-rich pay more.

Also, how are you concluding that increased taxation on the rich would result in net job losses? It's not like that money would disappear into a black hole -- instead, it would be paid to federal employees and private firms supplying services to the government (e.g. defence contractors like Lockheed Martin).

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It says that anyone who thinks the "middle ground" choice is by definition the ideal outcome is subscribing to the golden mean fallacy.

I don't think anyone has said it was the ideal outcome.

The fact that extremists on both sides think they are getting hosed likely means the centre has become a sufficient majority that the country can be governed again.

Ergo, the complaining is probably a good sign.

An ideal outcome is in the eye of the beholder and a matter of opinion

Cowperson

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I don't think anyone has said it was the ideal outcome.

The fact that extremists on both sides think they are getting hosed likely means the centre has become a sufficient majority that the country can be governed again.

Ergo, the complaining is probably a good sign.

An ideal outcome is in the eye of the beholder and a matter of opinion

Cowperson

Wow, I guess taxing the rich and big business at a fair rate is now considered extremist?
The goal posts have been moved beyond the ridiculous.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

IIRC, Buffett (and Gates) are in favour of modifying the tax code so the ultra-rich pay more.

Also, how are you concluding that increased taxation on the rich would result in net job losses? It's not like that money would disappear into a black hole -- instead, it would be paid to federal employees and private firms supplying services to the government (e.g. defence contractors like Lockheed Martin).

Yes. Exactly.

[MarchHare]

David Frum (someone well-known to be a radical socialist extremist) blasts the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party over the deal:

Only about one-third of Republicans agree that cutting government spending should be the country's top priority. Only about one-quarter of Republicans insist the budget be balanced without any tax increases.
Yet that one-third and that one-quarter have come to dominate my party. That one-third and that one-quarter forced a debt standoff that could have ended in default and a second Great Recession. That one-third and that one-quarter have effectively written the "no new taxes pledge" into national law.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/...ans/index.html

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

I wonder what kind of outrage would happen if Warrent Buffer did in fact pay the typical X percentage of tax. All that money he is putting towards those loopholes creates jobs for some people. Do you think they will be happen when he shuts down all those positions.

Well in my opinion these aren't real jobs that contribute to the economy, in fact they are a drain to the economy. A necessary drain in a lot of cases but still a drain. Real jobs are the ones who build bridges, grow food, make cars etc. and actually produce a commodity. This is part of the US's and maybe Canada's problem too, they've become a consumer society and forgotten how to produce and it's catching up to them.

[RedJester]

Nah, stay the course. The ship isn't sinking.

Everything is fine.

Do your socks feel a little wet?

(That was directed at the proposal, not anybody on this forum.)

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Wow, I guess taxing the rich and big business at a fair rate is now considered extremist?
.

To another extremist with goalposts at the other end of the playing field, I suppose that would look extremist.

Cowperson

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

To another extremist with goalposts at the other end of the playing field, I suppose that would look extremist.

Cowperson

All Democrats and most moderate Republicans are in favour of some kind of tax reform measures to increase government revenue. Poll after poll shows that a majority of the American public also supports increasing taxes. The only group strongly against any form of tax increase is the Tea Party. So yes, being absolutely opposed to even slightly increasing the tax rate for the richest Americans is, in fact, an extremist position.