Can we just default on congress instead?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/27/2011 09:40:14 PM · #151

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Shannon:
That's absurd, but if it makes you happy, then compare the policies of each president's first 2-1/2 years. The conclusion doesn't change.

You so sure about that?

Yes, I'm sure. The Bush tax cuts were passed in May, 2003 and singlehandedly exceed everything in the other column.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I just noticed this is an EDITORIAL!!! Come on.

Cop out. It's an editorial from a member of the New York Times' editorial board who previously spent 12 years at Money magazine as the Washington bureau chief covering politics, finance and taxes. So of course you'll just dismiss that as baseless opinion, ignore the similar previous analysis, which wasn't an editorial, and then toss in a comment claiming I'M the one resorting to rhetoric. Schmuck.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Medicare prescription package? Come on! That's a dem's wet dream and they were probably just annoyed that Bush actually was the one to put his name on it...

While it's true that Democrats generally favor social programs, only 9 House Democrats voted for that bill due to concerns over.. wait for it... the cost. Less than two months after the billed passed, it was revealed that the program would cost far more than its sponsors had claimed� a fact that had been deliberately hidden from Congress. Democrats demanded a revote, but were denied. "Lawmakers of both parties said the law would not have passed in its current form if Congress had known of the higher cost estimates" Ironic, eh?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Let's forget about that and just bemoan that the dems seem to have once again rolled over and now the only plans we are talking about involve cuts and no revenue increases.

When the debt limit MUST be raised and one side swears to block any increase that includes revenue increases, what choice is there? Disgustingly, Republicans are determined to oppose anything Democrats endorse out of hand, even if it's exactly what they asked for.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/27/2011 10:42:35 PM · #152

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Medicare prescription package? Come on! That's a dem's wet dream and they were probably just annoyed that Bush actually was the one to put his name on it...

While it's true that Democrats generally favor social programs, only 9 House Democrats voted for that bill due to concerns over.. wait for it... the cost.

As I remember most of the objections from the left side of the isle had to do with the fact that the bill forbade attempting to demand price reductions from the drug companies, who had given steep discounts to Canada's national plan, and often give discounts to private medical insurance companies. The provision that no discounts could be asked for made it clear that this was at least as much of a bill to protect big pharma profits as a desire to protect seniors against climbing drug costs.

Message edited by author 2011-07-27 22:44:19.

07/27/2011 10:57:13 PM · #153

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

The provision that no discounts could be asked for made it clear that this was at least as much of a bill to protect big pharma profits as a desire to protect seniors against climbing drug costs.

Indeed. It also made it clear that Republicans weren't interested in controlling deficit costs. Funny story... the foundation for this prescription drug plan was $400 billion that Bush set aside as an earmark for that purpose... another thing Republicans are supposed to be against.

07/27/2011 11:33:44 PM · #154

I guess at the end of the day I have very little time for someone who thinks this is all one party's fault.

07/27/2011 11:38:39 PM · #155

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I guess at the end of the day I have very little time for someone who thinks this is all one party's fault.

And where did anyone make that claim, Mr. Rhetoric?

07/27/2011 11:45:10 PM · #156

Originally posted by scalvert:

Ah, the Internet. It can always turn your own words against you and make you look like the schmuck...
This dandy of an essay has this to say about our Ms. Tritch:

"In its corporate wisdom, the New York Times recently decided to hide its most influential columnists behind a subscription wall. So those who have been accustomed to reading the likes of Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd for free on the Internet will have to pay $50 per year for the privilege. But to make this proposition more attractive, the Times promised that it would provide a little something extra for subscribers. Apparently, this involves publishing articles by its editorial writers that are not good enough to appear in the print edition of the paper.

The first of these articles appeared on October 4 and dealt with taxation. It was written by Times editorial board member Teresa Tritch, who writes most of the paper�s economic editorials. Tritch lists her qualifications as having degrees in German and journalism, as well as years of writing about personal finance for Money magazine where she explained why people should shop around for the lowest price before buying soap and things of that sort."

Op-eds must be like assholes. Everbody's got one...

Just remember this little post next time you start arguing with someone who quotes something from Fox News. I'll be there the second you start talking about the unreliability of such a news establishment. Editorials are in the editorial section for a reason. Schmuck.

Message edited by author 2011-07-27 23:47:32.

07/27/2011 11:49:57 PM · #157

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess at the end of the day I have very little time for someone who thinks this is all one party's fault.

And where did anyone make that claim, Mr. Rhetoric?

LOL. ya, I see you bitching about the democrats ALL the time... (eye roll)

07/27/2011 11:54:39 PM · #158

BTW, let me just jump ahead in the argument. Mr. Bruce Bartlett is clearly an opinionated columnist. He's no better than our Ms. Tritch. Here's the kicker. In his article, he links statistics from...wait for it...the Government Accountability Office! Holy cow. Now, that must be unbiased, right? Which must mean his whole point is valid.

Chuckle. Bruce's article is only good for elucidating the opinion of one Mr. Bartlett. Ms. Tritch's graph is really only good for elucidating the world according to Ms. Tritch. Otherwise it wouldn't be on the editorial page.

07/28/2011 12:37:51 AM · #159

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Editorials are in the editorial section for a reason. Schmuck.

Still having trouble reading?

Originally posted by scalvert:

So of course you'll just dismiss that as baseless opinion, ignore the similar previous analysis, WHICH WASN'T AN EDITORIAL, and then toss in a comment claiming I'M the one resorting to rhetoric.

Maybe you'd prefer Mr. Bartlett's take on the prescription drug plan, high corporate taxes, or the Bush tax cuts? He is, after all, a conservative Republican who served as a domestic policy advisor under Reagan and as deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department under H.W. Bush. The conclusions still don't change.

To be clear, I don't blame only one party for the current state of the country, but the blame is far from even. Every graph or statistic I've posted includes Democratic programs adding to the problem, albeit to a far lesser extent. There may be two sides to every story, but facts are not evenly distributed and the biggest problem I have with Democrats is their general longstanding failure to call out naked lies and confront misinformation (and not always from the opposition). I'm only posting these articles to debunk the myth that Democrats are tax-and-spend socialists while Republicans are fiscally responsible job creators (the truth is almost comically reversed). Would you criticize an American in the early 1940's for never bitching about the Allies when they shared at least some of the blame for appeasement and fostering conditions that encourage radicalism to flourish? You might if you hated Jews or identified with German or Japanese nationalism, but not on the grounds of objective fact. I'm not saying that Republicans currently in Congress are evil, either, although that may be debatable. It's more like McCarthyism, where people used fear and baseless claims to whip up public fervor for political gain and ideology... at the expense of honesty and the interests of America.

Message edited by author 2011-07-28 00:57:25.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/28/2011 12:45:37 AM · #160

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

BTW, let me just jump ahead in the argument. Mr. Bruce Bartlett is clearly an opinionated columnist. He's no better than our Ms. Tritch.

LOL... looks like you posted before you realized Mr. Bartlett agreed with what I've been saying and then had to try and discredit your own authority. Funny stuff. "Ah, the Internet. It can always turn your own words against you and make you look like the schmuck..."

Message edited by author 2011-07-28 00:46:30.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/28/2011 12:45:45 AM · #161

No matter the quality of the data presented in an opinion piece, the joy of writing on the editorial page is that you have no responsibility to get to the whole truth, since it is assumed your piece will be balanced by another editorial that argues the other side.

Sadly many of our news outlets have taken the freedom of the editorial page and extended it to the entire news section. A generation ago the idea of journalism was to try to the best of your abilities to tell the entire story. Now we narrow cast news to suit opinion and wonder why there is little ability to come towards the middle, while we all get fed whatever facts will best bolster the ideas we already hold. We are living in an echo chamber where the shrillest voices dominates the discussion.

Watching Mr. Boehner cave to the Tea Party demands that he move right instead of towards the middle today was a pretty crushing blow to hopes of a middle ground. The market might drop another 200 tomorrow.

07/28/2011 12:47:41 AM · #162

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

The market might drop another 200 tomorrow.

Optimist.

07/28/2011 01:08:38 AM · #163

More food for thought, this time from Alan Greenspan and one of the architects of the trickle-down theory.

07/28/2011 09:34:41 AM · #164

This morning's Time magazine viewpoint: Still True Today: Frequently Forgotten Facts of the Debt Debate, an editorial with the inconvenience of "verifiable facts, not opinions."

07/28/2011 12:07:43 PM · #165

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, let me just jump ahead in the argument. Mr. Bruce Bartlett is clearly an opinionated columnist. He's no better than our Ms. Tritch.

LOL... looks like you posted before you realized Mr. Bartlett agreed with what I've been saying and then had to try and discredit your own authority. Funny stuff. "Ah, the Internet. It can always turn your own words against you and make you look like the schmuck..."

WHAT?!?! Shannon, you have to be joking. I hope that is joking. If you think that Ms. Tritch and Mr. Bartlett would agree on anything over a lunch you are delusional. I used the article to a) show that Ms. Tritch, according to some, isn't the paragon of economic expertise you paint her as and b) ironically show that using one biased author to castigate another biased author represents a Gordian knot.

I don't put any more stock in what Mr. Batlett says than Ms. Tritch. He twists statistics just as much as the next guy. Look at one of his lines:

"Interestingly, the latest Internal Revenue Service data on distribution of the tax burden were released the same day Tritch�s tirade appeared. The data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003, although they earned just 16.8 percent of the adjusted gross income. The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than half of all federal income taxes, the top 10 percent paid two-thirds, and the top half of taxpayers paid 96.5 percent � meaning that the bottom half paid just 3.5 percent.

I assume that Tritch would be happier with the British tax system, where the top income tax rate is 40 percent. But according to British tax data, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay just 21 percent of income taxes, the top 5 percent pay 40 percent, and the top 10 percent pay 52 percent. The bottom 50 percent, meanwhile, pay 11 percent of all income taxes. In other words, wealthy British pay higher rates � as Tritch would have it here � but pay less of the overall tax burden."

I will just assume those numbers are correct. He hopes to give the impression that the US is much more "progressive" than we give it credit for. Look, our rich pay more money than those socialist Brits. But there is a second possible explanation to the statistic. The gap between our top 1% and our bottom 50% is far larger in the US than in Britain. If the Brit 1% only make 50 times the average bottom 50% and the US 1% makes 1000 times the average bottom 50%, the numbers would come out like Mr. Bartlett reports.

No, I have no faith in Mr. Bartlett. I never did.

Message edited by author 2011-07-28 12:13:09.

07/28/2011 12:30:40 PM · #166

Back to the actual conversation. Here's a decent comparison of Reid and Boehner's plan.

Reid vs. Boehner

Here's a question I haven't seen answered. 1 trillion dollars in cuts over ten years amounts to taking what % off the deficit? 10%? 20%? My guess is it's not very high and we can hardly get THIS passed.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

07/28/2011 02:01:47 PM · #167

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, let me just jump ahead in the argument. Mr. Bruce Bartlett is clearly an opinionated columnist. He's no better than our Ms. Tritch.

LOL... looks like you posted before you realized Mr. Bartlett agreed with what I've been saying and then had to try and discredit your own authority. Funny stuff. "Ah, the Internet. It can always turn your own words against you and make you look like the schmuck..."

WHAT?!?! Shannon, you have to be joking. I hope that is joking... No, I have no faith in Mr. Bartlett. I never did.

Not sure if there's a point to this clown act, but thanks for the guffaw.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Here's a question I haven't seen answered. 1 trillion dollars in cuts over ten years amounts to taking what % off the deficit? 10%? 20%? My guess is it's not very high and we can hardly get THIS passed.

Looks like you misunderstand what that number means. The proposed cuts don't take ANYTHING off the deficit� they cut the size of the deficit increase. If politicians agreed to cut $1 trillion next year alone (not over 10 years), the deficit would still go up by about $700 billion. If they cut ALL of discretionary spending (roughly a third of government, including defense, highways, Coast Guard, FBI, border security, etc.), we'd still be in the red or possibly just break even. This fact will become increasingly difficult to hide now that the first baby boomers have reached retirement age, and we'll be revisiting the same issue in a year or two no matter what happens next week. Neither party has the courage to confront the problem at its core, which requires both mandatory spending cuts- raising the retirement age, cutting benefits for those who don't need them, and most importantly reigning in healthcare costs- and revenue increases, starting with tax breaks that were supposed to be temporary and did not have the intended effect.

From the NYTimes, "Eventually, the country will have to confront the deficit we have, rather than the deficit we imagine. The one we imagine is a deficit caused by waste, fraud, abuse, foreign aid, oil industry subsidies and vague out-of-control spending. The one we have is caused by the world�s highest health costs (by far), the world�s largest military (by far), a Social Security program built when most people died by 70 � and to pay for it all, the lowest tax rates in decades. To put it in budgetary terms, the deficit we imagine comes largely from discretionary spending. The one we have comes partly from discretionary spending but mostly from everything else: tax rates, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security."

This cannot be done with spending cuts alone or tax hikes alone. It must be both. When America ran record deficits after WWII (even larger than now as a % of GDP), postwar cuts in military spending and taxes raised to over 90% for the top earners quickly erased that debt and we enjoyed both boom times AND low unemployment despite all the veterans returning to the job market. This time we're doing the opposite, with extremely low tax rates for top earners and a defense budget four times the size of China and Russia combined. Is anybody be surprised by the result?

Another misnomer is that we owe all that debt to China, and a few Tea Party wingnuts would even like to see us default and dare China to collect. Problem is, that's not true. Most U.S. debt (about 40%) is owed to Americans, primarily the Social Security trust fund piggybank that most of us paid into and that Uncle Sam has been stuffing with IOUs to fund the wars and Bush tax cuts. China ranks a distant second, so a default would literally mean stiffing ourselves. Yay.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

07/28/2011 02:44:07 PM · #168

Another look at our revenue problem:

CBO's Dire Debt Outlook Is Mainly Due to Lower Revenues

07/28/2011 03:30:02 PM · #169

I understood that already Shannon, but I'm trying to ascertain what % we are changing. There will of course always be an annual deficit until we have a balanced budget. Duh.

My question is how much are we changing compared to doing nothing. 10%? 20%? That number is not readily available.

What I fear is happening is we are going to pass something like this 1 trillion dollar savings which will amoung to the deficit being 10% smaller over that ten years (as compared to where it would be without cuts) and the politicians are all going to smoke stogies and slap each other on the back over what a good job they did and the American public will think, "phew, crisis averted! We can go on with life and stop worrying about this." In the meantime we will then be $20 trillion in debt instead of $12 (or whateve it is).

That's my nightmare scenario.

Message edited by author 2011-07-28 15:33:41.

07/28/2011 03:53:29 PM · #170

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My question is how much are we changing compared to doing nothing. 10%? 20%? That number is not readily available.

It's not readily available because it's variable and to some extent unknown as the economy changes and additional bills influence revenue and expenditures. You can certainly compare the last chart you posted to CBO deficit projections to get the numbers you're looking for, but it won't necessarily preclude the scenario you're worried about. For example, CBO projections from a two years ago would show a much smaller deficit because Bush tax cuts were set to expire. Once those were extended, everything went out the window and the same thing could easily happen again. Maybe a trillion dollar platinum coin will shake things up.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/28/2011 03:59:13 PM · #171

I figured that was the case, but hey, we seem to be able to make projections about other things...

Remember that Warren Buffet conversation, I just ran across this article from the Wall Street Journal:

Warren Buffett is Wrong on Taxes

Whether or not he is actually "wrong" doesn't matter (the article IS on the "opinion" page) as much as the part that is pertinent to our discussion about effective tax rates:

IRS data for 2008, for example, show that households in the top 10% of earners (above about $114,000) paid 19% of their income to the feds. Those in the top 1% (above $380,000) paid 23.3%. The top 0.1% of earners, with incomes of $2 million or more, end up paying a slightly lower tax of 22.7%, because they get more of their income from investments (more about this below).

So what about the rest of us? According to IRS data, a median-income household ($35,000) in 2008 paid about 4% of its income in federal income tax.

This is very in-line with what I figured...

EDIT: To cite the actual data source you can find the IRS data here in Table 1. It's interesting. In 2008 the average tax rate (for income tax) was 12.24%.

Message edited by author 2011-07-28 16:12:29.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/28/2011 04:17:45 PM · #172

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And what you figured hardly matters. The wealthy doesn't get wealthy because of income. You could tax it at 100% and you wouldn't make a dent in what the top %1 owns. I swear you come across like a closet republican who really just wants to tax the middle and lower class into oblivion.

07/28/2011 04:30:15 PM · #173

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Whether or not he is actually "wrong" doesn't matter (the article IS on the "opinion" page) as much as the part that is pertinent to our discussion about effective tax rates

07/28/2011 04:32:15 PM · #174

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I figured that was the case, but hey, we seem to be able to make projections about other things...

Remember that Warren Buffet conversation, I just ran across this article from the Wall Street Journal:

Warren Buffett is Wrong on Taxes

Whether or not he is actually "wrong" doesn't matter (the article IS on the "opinion" page) as much as the part that is pertinent to our discussion about effective tax rates:

IRS data for 2008, for example, show that households in the top 10% of earners (above about $114,000) paid 19% of their income to the feds. Those in the top 1% (above $380,000) paid 23.3%. The top 0.1% of earners, with incomes of $2 million or more, end up paying a slightly lower tax of 22.7%, because they get more of their income from investments (more about this below).

So what about the rest of us? According to IRS data, a median-income household ($35,000) in 2008 paid about 4% of its income in federal income tax.

This is very in-line with what I figured...

And what you figured hardly matters. The wealthy doesn't get wealthy because of income. You could tax it at 100% and you wouldn't make a dent in what the top %1 owns. I swear you come across like a closet republican who really just wants to tax the middle and lower class into oblivion.

No, that's just your projection on me. I believe all taxes should be progressive and every new tax should be progressive as well. The more you make, the higher % you should pay in effective tax (screw whatever the marginal rate is). I was just pointing out that 1) The rich pay more in absolute dollars (never really debated) and 2) The rich pay more as a % of their income (there were implications this was wrong).

The debate is over whether the rich should pay EVEN MORE as a % of their income. I would vote "yes". BUT, I am under no fantasy that we can somehow get out of our mess by ONLY doing this. I think we've dug ourselves into a hole so big and deep that it will affect every person everywhere. No one will be spared. I know, happy thoughts!

Just try to remove your clouded judgement about me. I'm no closet republican. I probably do sit to the right of you, but that doesn't make me a republican. If it does, I'm a bad one never having voted for a Republican president.

Message edited by author 2011-07-28 16:35:57.