Make or Break Time for the Middle Class says Obama

[Red Arrow]

National defense is a whole different thing from national offense - which is what we have practiced for way too long!

Do you think we should have just taken it on the chin after 911?  Don't worry about Al Qaeda.  They are just a fly in the soup and will go away after a small drink and a few laps of backstroke around the bowl.

Iraq is a separate issue.  There were obviously mistakes made but the decision was not unilaterally made by George W Bush.  Time will be the judge of whether or not any good came out of invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam.  We all know what he did and was doing, no reason to write details here except I need to say that offering a $10,000 payment to the families of suicide bombers is not a good way to promote World Peace.

Time will also tell whether our assistance in Libya ultimately results in a better place for Libyans.  Their perception of a better place may be different than ours.

[AquaMan]

Just heard David Stockman on NPR. Reagan's former budget director. Hold tight, this might be a little difficult for some tender conservative egos. He is against the temporary payroll tax, not because it doesn't create jobs, but simply because our country needs the money. Here was the surprise though. He says the top incomes in America need to be taxed at a higher rate for the same reason. His reasoning is sound of course and his credentials are good. He laments that since the people have decided they want a certain level of government, it only follows that we should fund that level. Reagan's brains speaking out the truth because his job is no longer in danger.

Meanwhile the Republican guests on the show continued to re-iterate that it is such a small benefit and since they are sure it created no jobs it must be cancelled and, of course, we must never increase the taxes on 1%. Apparently they expect the money coming from the payroll tax increases will suffice.

[Red Arrow]

Just heard David Stockman on NPR. Reagan's former budget director. Hold tight, this might be a little difficult for some tender conservative egos. He is against the temporary payroll tax, not because it doesn't create jobs, but simply because our country needs the money. Here was the surprise though. He says the top incomes in America need to be taxed at a higher rate for the same reason. His reasoning is sound of course and his credentials are good. He laments that since the people have decided they want a certain level of government, it only follows that we should fund that level. Reagan's brains speaking out the truth because his job is no longer in danger.

Meanwhile the Republican guests on the show continued to re-iterate that it is such a small benefit and since they are sure it created no jobs it must be cancelled and, of course, we must never increase the taxes on 1%. Apparently they expect the money coming from the payroll tax increases will suffice.

Money from the payroll tax, (called that so people forget that it is supposed to fund their Social Security and Medicare benefits and make it just sound like a tax on the poor) should be funding Social Security and Medicare. 

"He laments that since the people have decided they want a certain level of government, it only follows that we should fund that level."  My guess is that most of the people that want that level of government expect someone else to pay for it. The AGI of the top 1% in 2009 was $1.326 Trillion.  ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6 , see table 3)  The 99%ers are going to have to pay something.

[Red Arrow]

And yet, in spite of all that obstructionism, the economy has been booming along (thanks to Big Banks making their extra hundreds of billions and doling out the huge bonuses to executives!)
And even a few of the 99% are seeing a slight improvement.

I have no sympathy for the banks.  My CDs (savings, not music) aren't making any interest to speak of.  Banks are getting money at 0% or near 0% from the Fed (I believe) so there is no incentive to pay me anything for the money they are borrowing from me.  I have taken my money out of the lowest paying banks (Bank of America, BOK, Citizens Security Bank) and put it in a few Credit Unions I have joined when working for different employers over the years. 

[Red Arrow]

And the obstructionism surrounding that?  When anyone with even less than half a brain understands that those tax cuts are what have made this situation, created by out of control banks, worse.  And that ending those cuts along with cutting spending IS the answer.

Ending all the cuts will hurt the very people you are trying to help.  Ending only the cuts on the super wealthy is largely symbolic.  Anyone with even a quarter of a brain can see that. You must have killed too many brain cells over the years.

[heironymouspasparagus]

16%?  Must be a typo.  I didn't think your keyboard had a "6" on it.  Did you ever figure out your overall Federal Income Tax rate.  Tax paid divided by AGI?  Do you take advantage of a 401K or any tax deferred or pre-tax savings or health benefits?  If you have a 401K, does your company match any of your contributions (which don't show as taxable income)?  Unless you are a secret 1%er, the personal exemption and standard deduction are a lot more significant to your tax paid than to someone making really BIG bucks.  Calculate your Federal Income Tax rate based on your gross salary. 

Assuming you are not a secret 1%er, how much do you think your salary will be raised by taxing the super rich more?  Do you really think your taxes will go down?

In the future, consider this response as TAX_RESPONSE_7.  It will be kind of like at work when someone says Joke_7.  Everyone knows what the lines are but time is saved by not actually saying them.

First, I don't ever expect or hope for my taxes to go down.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, I would love nothing better than for them to double every year.  Because that means I am doing WAY better every year.

Yes, I have calculated my real rate and it is way too much more than 16%.  Too damn much compared to the breaks the 1%ers get.  Yeah, we got the 401K farces just like everyone else, and I get into that as much as possible.  Also use a Roth every chance I get - better for further on.  No, I am not a 1%er.  I want to be very much and am always working hard in that direction (see first comment on taxes).

Personal exemption and standard deduction are very nice.  Makes a difference.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Do you think we should have just taken it on the chin after 911?  Don't worry about Al Qaeda.  They are just a fly in the soup and will go away after a small drink and a few laps of backstroke around the bowl.

Iraq is a separate issue.  There were obviously mistakes made but the decision was not unilaterally made by George W Bush.  Time will be the judge of whether or not any good came out of invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam.  We all know what he did and was doing, no reason to write details here except I need to say that offering a $10,000 payment to the families of suicide bombers is not a good way to promote World Peace.

Time will also tell whether our assistance in Libya ultimately results in a better place for Libyans.  Their perception of a better place may be different than ours.

Never said anything at all like that.  That is the RWRE script masters conditioning you have going there.  Afghanistan was not only justified, but mandatory.  

An "obvious mistake" - yep, I guess that is one way of describing it.  Too bad we got distracted by a bunch of BS related ONLY to relieving some ill-conceived and improperly perceived idea that Daddy had been slighted so we needed to use the full force and might of our military to relieve that slight.  We knew before invading Iraq - at least Daddy Bush understood it, as well as a lot of other people - that the power vacuum left if Saddam was removed would allow the Iranians a way in that they never had before.  And so it came to pass.  As for the argument that the blame can be spread - sure, except for the fact that it was Bush and his cronies who lied to those others to get that consensus.  That's why Colin Powell says that his time there is the biggest embarrassment of his career.

Libya is a different discussion and probably rates it's own thread.  In general, I think it may turn out better.

[Red Arrow]

Yes, I have calculated my real rate and it is way too much more than 16%. 

Then you must be doing a lot better than I am.  I file single, no dependents, standard deduction and am very close to 16%.  I no longer have any sympathy for you.  (Not that I ever did.  )  You need to pay your fair share.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ending all the cuts will hurt the very people you are trying to help.  Ending only the cuts on the super wealthy is largely symbolic.  Anyone with even a quarter of a brain can see that. You must have killed too many brain cells over the years.

Everybody IS hurting right now.  Except the 1%ers.  Taking away their preferential treatment will make them howl like babies.

[Red Arrow]

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I would love nothing better than for them to double every year.  Because that means I am doing WAY better every year.

Don't count too heavily on doing WAY better as a precondition on your taxes going up.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Don't count too heavily on doing WAY better as a precondition on your taxes going up.

Just look at the tables.  I would love to be paying $15 million a year in taxes.  That means I would be grossing about $100 million under the current system.  Two years of that and I am outta here - sitting on a beach on each island of the world for about a month each, then moving to the next one.

[Red Arrow]

Just look at the tables.  I would love to be paying $15 million a year in taxes.  That means I would be grossing about $100 million under the current system.  Two years of that and I am outta here - sitting on a beach on each island of the world for about a month each, then moving to the next one.

Are you being obstinate or ignorant?  Choose one.

Edit: forgot the "?".

[AquaMan]

Money from the payroll tax, (called that so people forget that it is supposed to fund their Social Security and Medicare benefits and make it just sound like a tax on the poor) should be funding Social Security and Medicare. 

"He laments that since the people have decided they want a certain level of government, it only follows that we should fund that level."  My guess is that most of the people that want that level of government expect someone else to pay for it. The AGI of the top 1% in 2009 was $1.326 Trillion.  ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6 , see table 3)  The 99%ers are going to have to pay something.

Stockman agrees. He also thinks the pain of higher taxes needs to be spread across all levels. So do I. The country needs the money. BTW, AGI is adjusted gross income. Adjusted.

[Red Arrow]

BTW, AGI is adjusted gross income. Adjusted.

I know the "A" is for adjusted.  Even my 5 figure salary gets adjusted by approximately 15% for 401K contributions.  The portion of my health care that I pay is paid with pretax dollars.  Although that doesn't adjust my income, I am paying them with full dollars, not 84 cent dollars.  AGI is further adjusted by $5700 for the standard deduction and $3650 for the personal exemption as a single person to get to taxable income.   Married, filing jointly is about twice that deduction. Of course the progressive rates that everyone loves so much put a two earner family in a higher marginal bracket.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Then you must be doing a lot better than I am.  I file single, no dependents, standard deduction and am very close to 16%.  I no longer have any sympathy for you.  (Not that I ever did.  )  You need to pay your fair share.

I am paying my fair share.  And it sounds like yours, too.


You could get a wife and bunch of kids to help with that....