Taxes and the GOP walkout of debt ceiling negotiations.

[Diogenes]

Could be, but from my understanding Obama appointed him to the Jobs committee not to the tax committee. It seems more likely that GE is exploiting existing tax loopholes versus getting "this guys is with me" from Obama.

Anybody underhanded enough to support Obama is likely capable of breaking or bending any rule of law to promote their own interests. The Shutting down of Automobile dealerships all across the country has been pretty well demonstrated to be a Fascist like attempt to wipe out opposition businessmen in the industry and supplant them with loyal minions.

I don't follow with automobile dealerships. A downturn in the economy I would think would lead to a downturn in purchasing of high priced items (cars) and as such would put small to mid level dealerships out of business. I don't really see a fadcist attempt to put them out of business, but maybe I'm missing something here.

You don't recall that when the Obama administration got involved with General Motors and Chrysler that the first thing they did was shut down a huge chunk of both Car companies dealerships? The Notion that the companies were in trouble, so they needed to get rid of the people who sell their cars always struck me as extraordinarily peculiar, even by Obama Standards, but when it was discovered that the vast majority of the dealerships they shut down were owned by Republicans, and that the Democrat dealerships were invariably spared, that's when an Idea that was merely stupid began to reek of corruption.

Whats more, they would take the dealership away from one owner, and GIVE it to someone else! That exact thing has happened here in the city where I live. The Chevrolet Dealership here was closed, and then immediately reopened in a different location by a well connected Democrat family.

A Few links.

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-bel ... ted-2009-5

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... ships.html


http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... tions.html

[Diogenes]

McCain unloads on the Tea Partiers.

And why should anyone give a crap? McCain is the reason we are having to deal with the Man-child in charge right now.

[Diogenes]

My prediction: The Grand Bargain will win out after all.

It's looking increasingly like Boehner's in a no-win situation with his bill. Reid's is in serious doubt as well. Boehner has got to be frustrated that the Tea Party is scuttling his fall back option here so, that, combined with the fact that the Grand Bargain may in fact be the only bill that could pass both houses could be enough to push Boehner back to the table with Obama.

At this point, I have to think that Obama would be willing to sweeten his last offer to Boehner in order to gain the political points of claiming a major role in averting this crisis. (ie, pull back the extra $400B in tax that was apparently a counter to something else Boehner wanted). If Boehner is willing to go along (and by all accounts, they had been close), he wouldn't need many GOP to go along with him, as I think most Dems would be on board.

This will piss the Tea Partiers off, but honestly I think this may actually be the outcome they are hoping for. The get the political points they were seeking for not backing down, but they get them in a risk-free way. I'm sure the Tea Partiers are smart enough to realize that if they actually got their way, sharp and immediate cuts would, in the short term, kill jobs, jeopardize the recovery, and cut programs could rankle feathers with some moderate voters they need to get re-elected.

Boehner's a Liar. Ditch the Plan. [Truman North]
—Open Blogger

The great thing about the debt ceiling is that everybody's got an opinion. My thanks to the head Ewok for granting me the floor to express mine.

The current Boehner deal is less than meaningless. It's an insult to you. Boehner is grabbing your daughter, spitting in her mouth, and then burning your house down. All the while talking about how he's all about doing the right thing.

Let me reiterate, as I have been for the last day or so on each of these threads:

The CBO does some stupid things. Like assuming an approximate 7% increase in federal spending year over year as normal, even without any new programs or departments. Like making 10-year budgets, when only one year really matters, because it's impossible for one Congress to bind another.

Let me give you some small idea of how screwed up Washington math is, and how much it favors those who are in power over those of us who foot the bill with our blood and treasure:

If we JUST CAPPED SPENDING-- spent the same amount next FY as we did this FY,

the CBO would score that as a $9.5 trillion dollar cut.

So before anyone can claim we're "cutting" anything, the number they are talking about has to exceed $9.5 trillion.

The Boehner plan, with all its actuarial tomfoolery, claims to cut something in the neighborhood of $850 billion.

And only $20 billion of that is this year.

So John Boehner is saying to you that spending $20 billion less than Obama's opening offer is worth giving him a blank check for a trillion and more.

As long as we're going to go on playing for the "long game" it's meaningless to even try to put together a plan. Just let the Democrats do what they want to, since the difference between what they're going to do and Republicans' counteroffer is less than a rounding error.

My point is, either we fight for this, or we die like dogs. What the House is doing is not fighting.

The elite Washington Republican insiders have a very tough tightrope to walk: They have to make you believe that they're fighting for your interests, while making darn sure that they're not fighting for your interests. Because your interests are directly opposed to their interests. Money is power. The power to tax is the power to rule. Not represent, but rule.

And now we're seeing just how representative our government is. The conservative movement achieved a nationwide landslide for the GOP. And what did we get for it? $352M in allocated spending de-allocated during the asinine CR (and don't get me started on those filthy bipartisan statist backslappers passing a continuing resolution rather than stating their priorities in a budget document), and $20 billion unspent in exchange for an extra trillion borrowed. Unless, you know, Harry Reid says we get less and we like it.

Pretty awesome work for eight months in office, TEA movement Representatives! You just saved us... about 54 hours of government borrowing. Not spending, just the borrowing we do in 54 hours.

How much time and money did you spend getting these schmucks elected? Hours? Thousands? However much it was, that's time and money you could have spent with your family that you will never get back. And our kids and grandkids are not only still slaves, but the Congress is forging new links on their chains as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, the only rational position for a reasonable man acting prudently to take is to honor those who made his rule possible and not raise the debt ceiling. It is politically rational because the House has already given the Senate and the President a choice: Do it like Americans want you to do it, or leave the debt limit where it is. Not only is it politically rational, it is the only choice that obeys the laws of economics: There. Is. No. More. Money. Somebody already spent it.

Drop the act, Boehner. Send the House home.

Close it up
Posted by Open Blogger at 07:38 PM New Comments Thingy


http://minx.cc/?post=319381

[Jccarlton]

My prediction: The Grand Bargain will win out after all.

It's looking increasingly like Boehner's in a no-win situation with his bill. Reid's is in serious doubt as well. Boehner has got to be frustrated that the Tea Party is scuttling his fall back option here so, that, combined with the fact that the Grand Bargain may in fact be the only bill that could pass both houses could be enough to push Boehner back to the table with Obama.

At this point, I have to think that Obama would be willing to sweeten his last offer to Boehner in order to gain the political points of claiming a major role in averting this crisis. (ie, pull back the extra $400B in tax that was apparently a counter to something else Boehner wanted). If Boehner is willing to go along (and by all accounts, they had been close), he wouldn't need many GOP to go along with him, as I think most Dems would be on board.

This will piss the Tea Partiers off, but honestly I think this may actually be the outcome they are hoping for. The get the political points they were seeking for not backing down, but they get them in a risk-free way. I'm sure the Tea Partiers are smart enough to realize that if they actually got their way, sharp and immediate cuts would, in the short term, kill jobs, jeopardize the recovery, and cut programs could rankle feathers with some moderate voters they need to get re-elected.

Boehner's a Liar. Ditch the Plan. [Truman North]
—Open Blogger

The great thing about the debt ceiling is that everybody's got an opinion. My thanks to the head Ewok for granting me the floor to express mine.

The current Boehner deal is less than meaningless. It's an insult to you. Boehner is grabbing your daughter, spitting in her mouth, and then burning your house down. All the while talking about how he's all about doing the right thing.

Let me reiterate, as I have been for the last day or so on each of these threads:

The CBO does some stupid things. Like assuming an approximate 7% increase in federal spending year over year as normal, even without any new programs or departments. Like making 10-year budgets, when only one year really matters, because it's impossible for one Congress to bind another.

Let me give you some small idea of how screwed up Washington math is, and how much it favors those who are in power over those of us who foot the bill with our blood and treasure:

If we JUST CAPPED SPENDING-- spent the same amount next FY as we did this FY,

the CBO would score that as a $9.5 trillion dollar cut.

So before anyone can claim we're "cutting" anything, the number they are talking about has to exceed $9.5 trillion.

The Boehner plan, with all its actuarial tomfoolery, claims to cut something in the neighborhood of $850 billion.

And only $20 billion of that is this year.

So John Boehner is saying to you that spending $20 billion less than Obama's opening offer is worth giving him a blank check for a trillion and more.

As long as we're going to go on playing for the "long game" it's meaningless to even try to put together a plan. Just let the Democrats do what they want to, since the difference between what they're going to do and Republicans' counteroffer is less than a rounding error.

My point is, either we fight for this, or we die like dogs. What the House is doing is not fighting.

The elite Washington Republican insiders have a very tough tightrope to walk: They have to make you believe that they're fighting for your interests, while making darn sure that they're not fighting for your interests. Because your interests are directly opposed to their interests. Money is power. The power to tax is the power to rule. Not represent, but rule.

And now we're seeing just how representative our government is. The conservative movement achieved a nationwide landslide for the GOP. And what did we get for it? $352M in allocated spending de-allocated during the asinine CR (and don't get me started on those filthy bipartisan statist backslappers passing a continuing resolution rather than stating their priorities in a budget document), and $20 billion unspent in exchange for an extra trillion borrowed. Unless, you know, Harry Reid says we get less and we like it.

Pretty awesome work for eight months in office, TEA movement Representatives! You just saved us... about 54 hours of government borrowing. Not spending, just the borrowing we do in 54 hours.

How much time and money did you spend getting these schmucks elected? Hours? Thousands? However much it was, that's time and money you could have spent with your family that you will never get back. And our kids and grandkids are not only still slaves, but the Congress is forging new links on their chains as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, the only rational position for a reasonable man acting prudently to take is to honor those who made his rule possible and not raise the debt ceiling. It is politically rational because the House has already given the Senate and the President a choice: Do it like Americans want you to do it, or leave the debt limit where it is. Not only is it politically rational, it is the only choice that obeys the laws of economics: There. Is. No. More. Money. Somebody already spent it.

Drop the act, Boehner. Send the House home.

Close it up
Posted by Open Blogger at 07:38 PM New Comments Thingy


http://minx.cc/?post=319381

I wish I could understand the minds that can see the oncoming train yet still insist on mucking about with the track.

[Axil]

I have heard senators and house members say that the president can move incoming revenue around to pay the interest on the national debt in preference to payments to the retired, unemployed, military, poor, and sick.

This ability is not possible because the supreme court ruled in a precedent setting case that POTUS: F.D. Roosevelt could not selectively spend money in circumvention of the will of Congress.

Most of these legislators are lawyers and should know that “default” is legally certain and unavoidable at midnight on Tuesday of this week and cannot be avoided in any way by the President.

The ignorance of these legislators will cost you a boat load of money.

[choff]

Just remember that a 3% rise in interest rates will neutralize a trillion dollars in spenting cuts. Fix it quick!

[DeltaV]

Will the interest rate on my bank account go up too, or will they find a way to just raise loan rates?

[choff]

Interest rates on bank accounts never goes up as high as loan rates or the bank doesn't make money. Sounds like they've struck a deal. The world is sort of like the US, China, and EU are playing Russian Roulette. The US just took its turn and squeezed the trigger on an empty chamber. Now you get to pass the revolver to the EU and China for them to take a turn. The good news is that if the Euro collapses the US dollar comes out looking very good.

[Maui]

The CBO does some stupid things. Like assuming an approximate 7% increase in federal spending year over year as normal, even without any new programs or departments.

Yes, accounting for inflation and economic growth is stupid. It makes perfect sense that the government should be able to do everything for the exact same dollar amounts it would have cost in 1788, that government employees should still be earning the exact same salaries they earned then and that the extra 397 million U.S. citizens added since then should need to divy up the same amount of services that had been available to the first 3 million citizens. That wouldn't amount to a cut at all...

[Diogenes]

The CBO does some stupid things. Like assuming an approximate 7% increase in federal spending year over year as normal, even without any new programs or departments.

Yes, accounting for inflation and economic growth is stupid.

Yes it is. For one, it STIMULATES inflation, and it PRESUMES growth. Increases in government projections should be made AFTER the fact, not PRIOR to the fact. What other real world phenomena can you just assume an arbitrary growth\inflation rate?

Apart from that, the government ALREADY HAS TOO MUCH MONEY! That Bitch is a 1000 lb invalid who is still munching cookies and cake. It needs to reduce it's calorie intake or it's going to die!

It makes perfect sense that the government should be able to do everything for the exact same dollar amounts it would have cost in 1788, that government employees should still be earning the exact same salaries they earned then and that the extra 397 million U.S. citizens added since then should need to divy up the same amount of services that had been available to the first 3 million citizens. That wouldn't amount to a cut at all...

What a childish little fantasy land you live in. What a silly string of nonsense you have strung together as a Non-Sequitur. I'll only deal with the most obvious. Federal employees are already paid WAY TOO MUCH, and many of them do nothing useful to the nation whatsoever. This truth is easily demonstrated by the fact that so many of the organization's they serve DIDN'T EVEN EXIST During most of this nation's history. Even since they were created, they have had no measurable positive impact on the issues for which they were brought into being. In many cases, there results have been WORSE than doing nothing.

Energy, Education, Housing and Urban development, etc. have all been horrible failures as departments. We have simply paid bureaucrats exorbitant sums of money to sit in their offices and pontificate, with no actual BENEFIT to anyone other than these worthless bureaucrats.

There is so much wrong with your comprehension of reality that I cannot write a message long enough to explain it to you. (and your attention span wouldn't let you comprehend it anyway.) Needless to say, people such as yourself are responsible for the tidal wave which is coming to crush us all. Unfortunately, I am forced against my will to be a party to the consequences of your folly. If only it could crush you twice and leave me alone, but that is not the nature of catastrophe caused by mass stupidity.

To anyone else reading, how many of you think presuming an automatic 7% growth/inflation rate is reasonable? I dare say if these idiots persist, we are going to have a -50% growth rate, and a 1,000,000% inflation rate! Then we start killing each other.

Zimbabwe America, here we come.

[ScottL]

Without going on the validity of said programs, the "nixing" of said programs would increase our unemployment considerably. As for government employees being overpaid, that is patently false in all respects. There's a disparity in pay just like in the private sector. The big whigs get the big bucks and those actually doing work get the leftovers, it is how it is everywhere else. Now if you were to rephrase that to the extent of saying those most deserving are doing without, well then I'd agree.

Reminds me of the argument that poor people don't pay taxes, but last time I checked bus drivers, burger flippers, school janitors, video store clerks, department store salesmen/women were all poor and still paying taxes.

[Diogenes]

Without going on the validity of said programs, the "nixing" of said programs would increase our unemployment considerably. As for government employees being overpaid, that is patently false in all respects. There's a disparity in pay just like in the private sector. .

Oh, sure, there are private sector jobs that pay more, but the difference is they are paying for actual productive work. With bureaucrats, the only way you can tell the difference between paying them and not paying them, is that when you pay them, everything they manage gets worse.

The big whigs get the big bucks and those actually doing work get the leftovers, it is how it is everywhere else. .

It sucks not being at the top of a money pyramid, but that is the reality of how things work. Even the socialists institute this same pattern, with the only difference being that the socialists running things are getting the big bucks. The Soviet Union was just the reinstatement of Monarchy under a different name. The Premier was the King, the party officials were the Nobles, and everyone else were poor peasants.

Socialism just makes it more difficult for those who are poor to work their way into a higher financial class.

Now if you were to rephrase that to the extent of saying those most deserving are doing without, well then I'd agree.

Now that's a tough call. Some people are born with talents that will give them an edge up over other people. Our Movie Actors and Sports figures come to mind. Some people are born to wealthier families and start out with a leg up in the world. Some people just get lucky. Is this tantamount to saying that others are more deserving because they are doing without these advantages?

That some people will get more money for less work is an axiomatic fact of nature, and we tread a dangerous ground when we insist everyone must fit a Procrustian bed of "fairness of outcome."

Reminds me of the argument that poor people don't pay taxes, but last time I checked bus drivers, burger flippers, school janitors, video store clerks, department store salesmen/women were all poor and still paying taxes.

Don't mistake the taxes of one government for the taxes of another government. Poor people usually don't pay federal income tax. (The Feds usually pay THEM.) Everyone pays a State sales tax, and Everyone pays Federal Gasoline taxes at rates 5 times greater than the oil companies (that did ALL the work) profits. In some states, the poor pay state property taxes if they own property, and they pay the landlords taxes on that property if they don't.

Poor residents also pay Municipal sales taxes and other fees, but the VAST AMOUNT of money we are referring to is the United States Federal Government money. Poor people normally contribute NOTHING to this massive pile of debt, yet they get to vote to keep spending more of it on the backs of those people who actually do pay it.

The country was founded on a principle of "No Taxation without Representation." We have since the 1960s turned that principle on it's head. Now we need to fight for "No Representation without Taxation." If people aren't paying into the system, they shouldn't be deciding how the money gets spent.

[KitemanSA]

The country was founded on a principle of "No Taxation without Representation." We have since the 1960s turned that principle on it's head. Now we need to fight for "No Representation without Taxation." If people aren't paying into the system, they shouldn't be deciding how the money gets spent.

How bout that. We sort of agree on something!

[ScottL]

Diogenes, you say all that as though the government doesn't collect off the interest of the temporary funds it collects from the poor. I say temporary as you've noted alot of the time, those funds are paid back if they make under I think it was $20,000/year but I could be off, its been a while since I've been in that bracket.

I personally don't believe in a flat tax in the slightest, but I also don't buy the tax brackets. The flat tax is disingenuous in that if the government didn't pay back the lowest, a high enough % of their income could be the line between making and breaking a family or individual. I also don't like brackets because for instance those who make $249,999/year vs $250,001/year there would be a large tax disparity disproportionate to the difference.

It would seem to be that there would be a method for allowing taxation at a rate that doesn't harm the most vulnerable while not dissuading those with money from re-investing in jobs. A sloping tax rate of some sort.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes, you say all that as though the government doesn't collect off the interest of the temporary funds it collects from the poor. I say temporary as you've noted alot of the time, those funds are paid back if they make under I think it was $20,000/year but I could be off, its been a while since I've been in that bracket.

I personally don't believe in a flat tax in the slightest, but I also don't buy the tax brackets. The flat tax is disingenuous in that if the government didn't pay back the lowest, a high enough % of their income could be the line between making and breaking a family or individual. I also don't like brackets because for instance those who make $249,999/year vs $250,001/year there would be a large tax disparity disproportionate to the difference.

It would seem to be that there would be a method for allowing taxation at a rate that doesn't harm the most vulnerable while not dissuading those with money from re-investing in jobs. A sloping tax rate of some sort.

My recollection is that Hong Kong had a flat tax of 10% and you had to earn more than a certain amount of money to pay this tax. As it should happen, it became a "Status Symbol" among the people of Hong Kong to be able to brag that they paid taxes. The City also had more money than it knew how to spend.

What about that system?