Debt Debate in Congress

[Gaspar]

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a leader speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face of your T.V. ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
I exploit you; still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality

[Breadburner]

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a leader speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face of your T.V. ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
I exploit you; still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi ohh...
I'm the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality

hehe....Prophetic.....!!

[Gaspar]

hehe....Prophetic.....!!

Actually kinda scary.

[guido911]

I know a large part of our discussion is whether the Bush tax cuts should expire. I found this article and wonder if it's accurate. Because if it is, it seems to indicate that the middle class will get punked.

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

Here is an interesting article explaining the Bush tax cuts and how they impacted AMT.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/26310.html

[Gaspar]

I know a large part of our discussion is whether the Bush tax cuts should expire. I found this article and wonder if it's accurate. Because if it is, it seems to indicate that the middle class will get punked.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

Here is an interesting article explaining the Bush tax cuts and how they impacted AMT.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/26310.html

Even if the increase in taxes was just for the folks in the top two brackets it still translates into middle and lower class increases.  Most of those in the upper bracket operate businesses and not to beat a dead horse, but businesses don't pay taxes.  They build that price into their margin.

Raise taxes on my boss, and my customers get to pay more. No matter where you focus tax increases it affects everyone negatively and thus the economy.  When the Bush tax structure expires in 2013 we will see all brackets increase, but the evil rich will get the brunt of it.  In corporate terms that's not that far off, so they will start recouping that money from you as soon as they are assured their taxes will increase.

If the administration decides to levy more taxes on them and makes it sooner than later, we will see an increase in the cost of goods almost immediately.

As a professor of mine used to say, "there are no real tax brackets."  When the government taxes, no matter who it taxes, we all pay equally.  Tax brackets are simply a way to get the poor and the stupid to pay more taxes.

Currently the top 20% in this country pay 80% of the taxes, they do this by taking it from the rest of us in the form of profit.  It's convenient because it makes the poor lobby for their own tax increases. 

[guido911]

I think the irrelevancy of the tax brackets can be found in the fact that almost half of us pay NO federal income tax, Gasman. That's what pi$$es me off. Poor people paying nothing demanding others pay more.

[Gaspar]

I think the irrelevancy of the tax brackets can be found in the fact that almost half of us pay NO federal income tax, Gasman. That's what pi$$es me off. Poor people paying nothing demanding others pay more.

There are two kinds of poor.  Those who have fallen, and those who have fallen and can't get up.  The latter becomes the unfortunate slaves of the state. 

I think everyone should pay an equal tax rate.  Say 23%. 
The man who makes $200,000 a year will pay $43,000 a year and enjoy a lower tax burden.

The man who makes $50,000 a year will pay $11,000 a year and be angry about paying more taxes but the cost of nearly everything he purchases will be 13% less.

The man who makes 10,000 a year will pay $2,300, but he too will pay 13% less for goods and services, and will continue to receive government assistance.

The government will take in more revenue, at a much higher rate than 18% of GDP.

This will never happen because the vast majority (the half that pays no taxes) does not possess the education to understand such a plan.  The man who makes $10,000 a year will scream "why do I pay the same amount of taxes as the rich people?" and hungry politicians will say "YEAH!"

[Gaspar]

My favorite so far from of all places MSNBC

[nathanm]

That might fly except he had a Democrat House and Senate up until this last January.  Try again.

Doesn't help when you need 60 votes to pass and a caucus that isn't in near-lockstep like the Republicans generally are when it comes down to a vote. And you don't even have 60 votes, aside from a six month period at the end of 2009.

And Gaspar, Obama inherited a declining GDP and rapidly increasing unemployment. Neither of those things are true now. I don't know how you can say he's made things worse unless you think he was elected in 2006. Now, his half measures have failed to bring about significant improvement, but they have been enough to keep the situation in a state of quasi-stability. (great if you're college educated and white, not so much if you're not)

P.S. The 111th Congress wasn't over when that chart was made..I'll see if I can find something more current. Until then, the 111th Congress had three less cloture petitions filed than the 110th.

[Conan71]

Doesn't help when you need 60 votes to pass and a caucus that isn't in near-lockstep like the Republicans generally are when it comes down to a vote. And you don't even have 60 votes, aside from a six month period at the end of 2009.

And Gaspar, Obama inherited a declining GDP and rapidly increasing unemployment. Neither of those things are true now. I don't know how you can say he's made things worse unless you think he was elected in 2006. Now, his half measures have failed to bring about significant improvement, but they have been enough to keep the situation in a state of quasi-stability. (great if you're college educated and white, not so much if you're not)

P.S. The 111th Congress wasn't over when that chart was made..I'll see if I can find something more current. Until then, the 111th Congress had three less cloture petitions filed than the 110th.

Funny, those lockstep GOP's didn't keep Obamacare from passing, now did they?  You also conveniently leave out the fact there are TWO houses of legislature.

Keep diggin' Watson.

[nathanm]

Funny, those lockstep GOP's didn't keep Obamacare from passing, now did they?  You also conveniently leave out the fact there are TWO houses of legislature.

You conveniently forget that legislation must pass both Houses to become law. And the only reason HCR was done is that they tacked it on to a spending bill so they didn't have to get 60 votes, which they never could have. It was pretty much the same way the Bush tax cuts worked, which is why they had to be reauthorized after 10 years and why HCR will have to be reauthorized. Bills passed using the budget reconciliation rules are time limited.

[Conan71]

You conveniently forget that legislation must pass both Houses to become law. And the only reason HCR was done is that they tacked it on to a spending bill so they didn't have to get 60 votes, which they never could have. It was pretty much the same way the Bush tax cuts worked, which is why they had to be reauthorized after 10 years and why HCR will have to be reauthorized. Bills passed using the budget reconciliation rules are time limited.

Thanks for the civics lesson.  Mr. Thomas at Jenks actually had a better grasp on it, but I do appreciate the effort at a refresher course.

And again, you prove the point POTUS Obama had the deck stacked in his favor for two years as well stacked as it could get and what did he do?  He got his legacy issues and quid pro quos, which got him elected, passed while ignoring issues which were far more important to individual Americans and corporate (and small business) America like jobs and the economy.  He was diddling with issues which would not even take full-effect for several more years.  Instead, he sold his HCR as being some sort of panacea for the economy and runaway deficit spending all while increasing deficit spending and (to stay on topic) kept adding to our debt on his "income security" programs.

Keep on apologizing and making excuses.  It looks good on you.

[nathanm]

Uh, his income security programs? What exactly would those be? I seem to remember a whole lot of noise (and a lot of bills passed by Congress) on jobs and the economy throughout 2009 and well into 2010. I believe there's a partial list on whitehouse.gov. It has gotten pretty quiet on that front this year, though.

More on topic, if we look to Japan's similar problems after their real estate bubble popped, we'll find that cutting government will paradoxically increase deficits.

[Gaspar]

[Conan71]

Uh, his income security programs? What exactly would those be? I seem to remember a whole lot of noise (and a lot of bills passed by Congress) on jobs and the economy throughout 2009 and well into 2010. I believe there's a partial list on whitehouse.gov. It has gotten pretty quiet on that front this year, though.

More on topic, if we look to Japan's similar problems after their real estate bubble popped, we'll find that cutting government will paradoxically increase deficits.

Perhaps this graphic will dispel Gaspar's notion about the "gigantic" spending increases we've supposedly seen from Obama.



Yeah, income security is up, which is exactly what should happen when unemployment is high.

Ringing a bell yet?  I believe that was your way of proving that Obama has been so much more fiscally responsible since his spending is lower than his predecessor except on entitlement spending which has exploded because President Obama in his utopian world has no clue how jobs are created.

Explain how deficits would paradoxically increase if government is cut.  That's some serious economic gymnastics there.   If the government spends less money as the economy ramps back up and revenues increase due to increased productivity and GDP I fail to see how this is possible.  You and others like you keep trying to compare what is happening here with economies like Greece, Germany, Ireland, or Japan without considering many variables which do not apply to the U.S. economy or monetary system.  You need to spend less time with your head in Google and reading Krugman and get out into the real world from time-to-time.

No one denies austerity is painful.  About the only lesson we can and should take from other countries is dependence on government simply becomes unsustainable at some point.  You simply cannot borrow and borrow and borrow beyond the productivity means of an economy forever without eventually having to pay the piper.  That time appears to be now. Unfortunately no one wants to live with the political consequences.  Conservatives will be excoriated if taxes are raised, liberals face the same issue if spending is cut on anything but the military.  It's unpopular.  We need 535 individuals with zero concern about their own job security to step up, compromise, and do the right thing for America.