patrick.net

CBOEtrader says

They are both owned by the rich, and wont bite the hand that feeds them.

Perhaps, but clearly the Democrats are the ones trying to make taxes more progressive. And the ones trying to pass campaign finance reform.

The Republicans are the ones blocking the passage of said bills. And partisan Republican justices are behind Citizens United.

Certainly you can see the difference there, right?

tatupu70 says

And partisan Republican justices are behind Citizens United.

Yes, this was fucking awful.

tatupu70 says

And the ones trying to pass campaign finance reform.

Uh, didn't Obama promise to use public money, only to flip-flop after he saw how much private money he had to work with? He had his chance. He decided getting elected was more important than doing the right thing.

tatupu70 says

Certainly you can see the difference there, right?

Well yes, the supreme court ruling was god awful, whereas Obama's flip-flop was normal political self-serving behavior.

CBOEtrader says

Uh, didn't Obama promise to use public money, only to flip-flop after he saw how much private money he had to work with? He had his chance. He decided getting elected was more important than doing the right thing.

This line of reasoning is completely wrong. You play by the rules that are in place, regardless of how you feel about them. This is the same stupid argument made that Buffet should pay higher taxes because he thinks he is undertaxed. As you have said though--propaganda works...

The bottom line is that Obama and most Democrats want to enact campaign finance reform, but Replublicans block it at every opportunity. This is one of the many ways that the parties are different. And those who complain that there is no difference are obviously not watching.

tatupu70 says

You play by the rules that are in place, regardless of how you feel about them.

Bullshit.

"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

He lied. Are you denying this?

CBOEtrader says

He lied. Are you denying this?

Nope. We're not talking about him lying.

We're talking about which party wants to take money out of politics, and which party doesn't.

tatupu70 says

We're talking about which party wants to take money out of politics, and which party doesn't.

Neither of them do. That is the point.

Obama wanted to come across as a new type of politician, and the US ate it up...but he is more of the same.

You are deluding yourself to think otherwise.

CBOEtrader says

Neither of them do. That is the point.

I'm not sure how you can conclude this. Which party passes campaign finance bills? Other than McCain, can you think of any Replublicans who would support it?

I agree that Obama has been disappointing. But you are concluding that he doesn't want to change the system when I would argue he does and has tried, but has been stymied by the opposition party. That's a very different situation.

Cloud says

More people are on food stamps;

They sure are. That's an obvious result of record income inequality.

Cloud says

Nobody is better off except for his investment bankers and his pal Warren Buffet.

Unemployment is down. So, I'd say lots of people are better off.

tatupu70 says

Unemployment is down. So, I'd say lots of people are better off.

The government reported unemployment rate is down. In real life the population continues to increase and work force participation continues to decline.

There are more people, less of them are working and the unemployment rate went down. Amazing. Pretty cool what you can do with numbers when you are the government.

bob2356 says

What is your definition of the "job market" that's doing better. The number of people working is less than 10 years ago despite the population increasing by 30 million.

You guys just keep fucking making shit up.

In Mar 2002, total US nonfarm payrolls was 130.421 Million. In Mar 2012, it is 132.821 Million.

In Mar 2002, population was 282 million, 28 million of which were 65+. Total under 65 is 254 million.

In Mar 2012, US population is 313 million, 41 million of which are over 65. Total under 65 is 272 million.

130.421/254 = 51.3% employed under 65.
132.821/272 = 48.8% employed under 65.
2.5% less.

Unemployment rate in Mar 2002 was 5.7%. Now its 8.2%. 2.5% higher.

See the correlation???

Other states may be reporting better job conditions (with a liberal "spin" of course). In reality its a mess out there, especially in California. 4 million lost jobs in the last 20 years, and check this out:

http://laist.com/2011/07/25/bleeding_out_california_lost_more_t.php

Liberal policies are driving jobs, businesses and people out of California regardless of how the liberals try to spin it.

If the U.S. House holds the purse string & the majority is Republican , Who is responsible for tax dollars being spent?
I think the Senate, White House & Supreme Court play second fiddle to any funding decisions.

HEY YOU says

Where did the funds for the stimulus originate?

People buying bonds who should have been taxed all along.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGTCMDODNS

Plus on top of that Congress got cute in 2010 and gave all wage earners a 2% tax cut by eliminating that FICA payment and just printing the bonds to cover the resulting decrease in contributions.

All these tax cuts are just putting off the inevitable. We basically need to DOUBLE the tax rate in this country, it's in the mid-20% per GDP now:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=8rs

while debt-to-GDP is literally skyrocketing:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=8rr

We're going to have to grow up and understand that we can't have trillion-dollar defense establishments:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDEFX

and $2T+ in social benefits:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A063RC1

without paying $3T+ in taxes.

The demographic middle of the baby boom is age 57 now. 5 more years they're going to be eligible for their SS, and in 2020 they'll be on Medicare.

God help us all. I can't see the future, but I don't think we have the political maturity to fix our fiscal situation. It's all just going to fly apart some day.

Not like Greece, because we can print, but not like Japan, either since we are dependent on the ROW for so much of our present standard of living.

clambo says

Under Bush the debt was being paid down until the economic crisis hit
You ignorant liberals all conveniently forget that Congress 1. approved Iraq war 2. spends the money. The president doesn't have this power.

The sheer degree of bullshitting in these few assertions is commendable.

For one, the national debt grew under Bush -- no debt was being paid down:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=8rt

And the only reason the federal deficit fell was that the consumer debt take-on absolutely exploded 2001-2006:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=8ru

That chart compares the annual federal deficit (blue) with the annual consumer debt take-on (red).

From 2003 through 2006 consumers were borrowing & spending $1T+/yr into the economy, and the Feds were taking their cut of that over-stimulated economic activity.

And while "Congress" certainly approved the war, there are two things with that.

1) The vote in the House 252-6 (Republicans) and 82-126 (Dems). The Dems in the House largely voted against the war but the Republicans got what they wanted.

Same story in the Senate, but given the rural idiot states there were more rural idiot Dem senators voting for war.

(48-1 on the Republican side and 29-21 on the Dem side).

Clinton and Kerry did not vote wisely in 2002, but there vote did not matter since there were 12 completely pro-war idiot Dem senators to join with the 48 Republican idiot pro-war senators to get the war resolution through the Senate. In retrospect they could have voted No for the optics of a meaningless protest vote, but they gambled wrong on that.

The Iraq War was a Republican enterprise that the Bush admin dragooned this country into and trying to slough it off on the Democrats is a breathtakingly deceptive tack.

Bravo for the attempt tho.

Somalia-the true free market paradise, with very small government and very little, to no regulation. Then we do have the former Soviet union.

Somewhere in the middle is a nice sweet spot.

marcus says

We only survive with way less big money in politics. But I don't see how we get back to how it was even 50 years ago.

50 Years ago the rest of the world was in ruins, while a great man was telling soviets to tear down the wall in Berlin.

Those days are not coming back, we no longer have a world monopoly. The only thing we have is high self esteem and entitlement mentality... oh that we have out here all right!

First we bankrupt cities, then states, then the nation. How? Never ending spending and promises.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HIGH_SPEED_RAIL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-06-19-12-38

No, I favor the freedom that equal opportunity provides. Free enterprise. One succeeds or fails and owns the result.

I favor equality. Everyone should have an equal tax rate. If everyone enjoys public roads, public schools, public air and the like then everyone should have an equal "contibution". What should the equal tax contribution be? 5%, 15%, 20%? Why should anyone "get" but not "pay"? Where's the FAIRNESS IN THAT? What should the equal tax contribution be? Or don't you believe in fairness?

Honest Abe says

Everyone should have an equal tax rate

So you are saying capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income? Billionaire hedge fund managers would pay 35%, not 15%? How about Romney? Him too?

bob2356 says

So you are saying capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income?

CG comes from after tax income vs ordinary income.. you do understand where the funds for investments come from ? and what is a liability owed to worker (employee) or vendor for services vs ownership of assets/investments...

Honest Abe says

Or don't you believe in fairness?

Fairness is bullshit. Tax policy has to be designed to promote a healthy economy. period. Life isn't fair.

If someone doesn't like their tax rate they are free to give their money to charity. Then they can pay a much lower rate. That's freedom.

thomas.wong1986 says

CG comes from after tax income vs ordinary income..

So what. Passive income should be taxed at a higher rate than labor. Tax dividends and capital gains 3 times for all I care.

We do NOT have a lack of available capital right now. Taxing capital gains at a higher rate will have ZERO effect on business formation. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or stupid.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/132185-capital-gains-taxes-affect-new-business-startups

Higher capital gains tax NEGATIVELY effects business formation.

Tatupu - you said fairness is bullshit. Then why is the liberal mantra "Make the rich pair their FAIR share"??????????????

Admit that aking money from private individuals and giving it to a bunch of people dumber than you and I always distorts the economy- especially after waste, fraud, subsidies, perks, insider trading, mismanagement and the like are figured in.

And you are right, life is not fair, which is why some earn more than others...but should not be punished because of it.

After all, life is not fair, as you said yourself.

Honest Abe says

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/132185-capital-gains-taxes-affect-new-business-startups

Higher capital gains tax NEGATIVELY effects business formation.

I'm not sure if Mr. Gentry is lying or stupid, but he is wrong.

Honest Abe says

Then why is the liberal mantra "Make the rich pair their FAIR share"??????????????

I don't know. Because it's a poor argument.

Honest Abe says

Admit that aking money from private individuals and giving it to a bunch of people dumber than you and I always distorts the economy- especially after waste, fraud, subsidies, perks, insider trading, mismanagement and the like are figured in.

What are you talking about? Tax policy has nothing to do with spending policy. Let's try to stay on topic.

Honest Abe says

And you are right, life is not fair, which is why some earn more than others...but should not be punished because of it.

Nobody is being punished. Anyone who thinks they are paying too much in taxes can give all their riches away. Problem solved.

thomas.wong1986 says

bob2356 says

So you are saying capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income?

CG comes from after tax income vs ordinary income.. you do understand where the funds for investments come from ? and what is a liability owed to worker (employee) or vendor for services vs ownership of assets/investments...

No, please try to explain this gobbledygook paragraph to me. Where does the source of funds for investments, be they after tax or before tax, have any relation to to capital gains taxes. Capital gains is a tax on the profit not the principle. You are aware that the capital gains tax is on the GAIN in value of capital investment aren't you? The only the gain is taxed, not the investment money. Shilling the tired old falsehood that somehow capital gains represents a double taxation just makes you look either willfully uninformed at best or cynically ideological at worst.

Honest Abe says

Everyone should have an equal tax rate.

Honest Abe says

Higher capital gains tax NEGATIVELY effects business formation.

So everyone should have an equal tax rate unless Honest Abe says they shouldn't. It's like being pregnant abe, either it is or it isn't. Making even one exception invalidates your entire argument.

"Marxist type communistic progressive income taxes has been shown to lower work ethic and has even been found to drive up illegal activity". Source: "The Effect of Taxes on Labor Supply in the Underground Economy" - The American Economic Review, 84 no. 1 (1994) 231 -254

Progressive taxation dismantles the cause and effect relationship between working hard and achieving success. The effect on individual optimism is all pain and no gain.

"Generation after generation , the evidence shows that increasing taxes on the wealthy raises virtyally no revenues. In the view of many economists tax revenues actually decline in the long run because of the negative impact on the incentives for successful people to work and earn". From: Dollar's Demise Traces Roots to U.S Tax Trap" by Kevin Hassett

This type of mentality (progressive taxation) reveals that liberals support Communistic practice's, though publically they deny any attachment to Communism.

Well, you're not fooling me.

Honest Abe says

Progressive taxation dismantles the cause and effect relationship between working hard and achieving success. The effect on individual optimism is all pain and no gain

It seemed to work pretty well between 1940 and 1970... Don't you think?

Funny how history always seems to disprove your theories, isn't it?

No it didn't. It only looked that way. Imagine how much better Americans would be if they hadn't been bilked and their money, trillions of dollars, wasted, squandered and used to distort the economy and cause numerous recessions along the way. Government is the negation of liberty - in case you haven't noticed.

Honest Abe says

No it didn't. It only looked that way.

lol. I see. And how did you come to that conclusion?

tatupu70 says

It seemed to work pretty well between 1940 and 1970... Don't you think?

Funny how history always seems to disprove your theories, isn't it?

Many things changed after 1975 due to growing dominance of both Japanese and European economies. It wasnt 1950s or 60s any longer and the high taxes to rebuild the world didnt apply anymore..

Yes we had higher taxes decades past.. we were the ones paying for rebuilding nations.

bob2356 says

Capital gains is a tax on the profit not the principle. You are aware that the capital gains tax is on the GAIN in value of capital investment aren't you? The only the gain is taxed, not the investment money.

Yes I do understand gains, but you havent talked about the potential losses from Capital Investments...

Therefore you ignore the risks investor makes with after tax disposable incomes.

There is a difference between income earned and capital gain/losses!

This was NEVER an issue until Obama and his cronies were elected.
Its just another Chicago style shake down!

thomas.wong1986 says

Many things changed after 1975 due to growing dominance of both Japanese and European economies. It wasnt 1950s or 60s any longer and the high taxes to rebuild the world didnt apply anymore..
Yes we had higher taxes decades past.. we were the ones paying for rebuilding nations.

So, the competition from Japan and Europe caused the divergence in income among US workers? It caused the 1% to continue to get large raises while the bottom 95% pay stagnated? It caused income inequality to reach current record levels?

thomas.wong1986 says

Yes I do understand gains, but you havent talked about the potential losses from Capital Investments...

Therefore you ignore the risks investor makes with after tax disposable incomes.

There is a difference between income earned and capital gain/losses!

Risk? What risk? You don't pay capital gains taxes if there is no capital gain. If you lose money you take a loss against your taxes.

Are you talking about risk of loss of principle? So you are saying that capital gains taxes should be low and earned income taxes should be high as a subsidy against possible bad investments? People working for a living should subsidize investors to make more risky choices than they should have because investors can make it up in low cap gains taxes on profitable investments?

That's a perfect example of the problem, not the solution.

In the US history, two presidents will be remembered for cutting cherry trees.

President Washington, as a boy of 6, cut a cherry tree at his father’s farm to test his new hatchet. He later told his father: "I cannot tell a lie, father, you know I cannot tell a lie! I did cut it with my little hatchet.''

President Obama, as a man of 46, telling us the best way to get cherry is to cut cheery trees, 1% each time so 99% will be happy to get the cherry. He told us: "I cannot tell a lie, people, you know I cannot tell a lie! I don’t know how to plant cherry trees, but I know how to cut them to get cherries for you. Please give me four more years. I will cut more cherries for you.”

Let me take a wild guess.... If a Republican gets elected then even though the exact same things would happen, everyone on the right would instantly go silent and suddenly everything would be all peachy-keen...

Ruki says

Then Warren Buffet is lying.

So, give examples of people running from investments because the taxes were so high.

Ruki, Corporate Taxes are the lowest they've been since WW2. Income and Capital Gains taxes are the lowest, too.

Explain the 50s and 60s when this country saw the greatest boom in history, when the upper bracket paid 90% of income to the IRS.

bob2356 says

Risk? What risk? You don't pay capital gains taxes if there is no capital gain. If you lose money you take a loss against your taxes.

Are you talking about risk of loss of principle? So you are saying that capital gains taxes should be low and earned income taxes should be high as a subsidy against possible bad investments? People working for a living should subsidize investors to make more risky choices than they should have because investors can make it up in low cap gains taxes on profitable investments?

That's a perfect example of the problem, not the solution

You have be to be kidding! The losses on investments are capped per year, so any significant loss will take an eternity to write off, so that's already totally skewed and unfair as they tax all of your potential profits.

What right does that idiot and his crony government have to take capital gains taxes (and go to war with them) on invested money that they have already taxed you with, which, if they are sound investments, help create and secure a lot of jobs while they subsidize home-owning and flipping to the hilt so that every dipshit can brag about their great home/asset/investment and living the American dream. None of the capital investments made by the simple taxpayer (not talking about too-big-to-fail crony corporations here) is subsidized in any form whatsoever. Please come back with that senseless reasoning once capital investors get "interest adjustments" and taxpayer bailouts when they are deep in the shitters, or fight against bailouts for big banks and other corporations close to the POTUS, then you might actually be onto something.