Biden Voted for Something He Said Last Night ‘Has Never Been Done Before’
Last night, Joe
Biden expressed significant skepticism about the idea of Mitt Romney’s
tax reform — that it was possible to lower rates, eliminate deductions,
and maintain revenue levels, in addition to the specific math involved.
Ryan cited the ample historical precedent that such a plan was possible:
REP. RYAN: You can cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve these important preferences for middle-class taxpayers —Amazing, in fact, might be a better description of Biden’s duplicitousness on the question of tax reform. While obviously no one has enacted a plan exactly like Romney’s before, the general principles have been applied twice, with John F. Kennedy’s proposed tax reforms that were later implemented slightly differently, and Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform, both of which cut marginal rates significantly and eliminated deductions for the wealthy, while gathering essentially the same revenue (technically the ’86 bill itself cost $8.9 billion in revenue over the first two years, but overall tax revenues increased substantially in its wake). But twice Biden claims that such tax reform “has never been done before.” But he should know better — he actually voted to do it, 28 years ago. On September 27, 1986, Biden voted (along with 32 other Democrats) to enact H.R. 3838, Ronald Reagan’s tax reform, which lowered rates, eliminated deductions, and barely affected the deficit.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Not mathematically possible.
REP. RYAN: It is mathematically possible. It’s been done before. It’s precisely what we’re proposing.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.) It has never been done before.
REP. RYAN: It’s been done a couple of times, actually.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: It has never been done before.
REP. RYAN: Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth. Ronald Reagan —
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy.
REP. RYAN: Ronald Reagan — (laughter) — (chuckles) — Republicans and Democrats —
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: This is amazing.
In fact, that bill actually lowered the top marginal tax rate to 28 percent, the top rate Romney and Ryan have proposed. Biden’s assertion that something like what Romney and Ryan are proposing “has never been done before” is, well, laughable.
Lou.
ReplyDeleteI am open to correction but you appear to have qualified your remarks in support of Rep.Ryan and his argument re tax cuts. If the assertion that "it has been done before" requires qualification, (not definition) then in my view and by a general definition of debating practice, the qualification is inadmissible as a means of sustaining the argument.
Cheers from Aussie
Our politicians one and all often fail to remember what they have said and done.
ReplyDeleteBiden's was televised for the entire country to see.
But twice Biden claims that such tax reform “has never been done before.” But he should know better — he actually voted to do it, 28 years ago. On September 27, 1986,
The top marginal rate in 1961 was 91%
ReplyDeleteThe top marginal rate in 1981 was 69.13%
The Top marginal rate now is 35%
What tends to matter to those right of center are arguments that are extremely narrow and void of as much context as possible. When the tax base was broadened in the past, the entire structure of income distribution was vastly different. But, Biden said something that can be construed as untrue when you use a tight calculus. We've cut rates by two thirds since 1961 and over time, the middle class has been destroyed. But, go ahead and stick to your outrage over Biden.
The top marginal rate in 1789 was zero since income taxes didn't exist. Of course back then, we didn't have millions dependent on government handouts and charities picked up the slack. Every new tax and government program leads US ALL down the path to either government dependence or a tax slave. We need to get back to the original design of this country and then ask certain people why they can't make it.
DeleteShould we go back to slavery too gotta, because that was certainly a part of the original design of this country? Nobody, including people on the left, want to see people slacking. You, on the other hand, are intoxicated with the message that you are such a hard worker and that anyone who isn't at your level of success is obviously not working hard enough.
Delete"Every new tax and government program leads US ALL down the path to either government dependence or a tax slave."
This is simply childish.
Max is there a subject on earth that you can not draw slavery or abortion into?
DeletePersonally I feel the taxes that attack us from every angle place me and mine in serfdom.
1773-2009 Freedom, not serfdom.
Max,
DeleteI have no idea in hell what slavery has to do with tax rates and government revenue. However, I would like to point out your fallacy with the "lowest tax rates since 1961" a few points. JFK lowered tax rates, the economy boomed, and tax revenues INCREASED. In 1985, Reagan lowered the top rate to 28% and again the economy went into a boom and the tax revenues INCREASED.
I guess that your next point will be, how are we goint to pay for our interstate system? Every time I fill up my tank I pay additional tax for the gasoline. Where in the hell is that money being spent? Our government exists to defend our rights and freedom, but is taking those away via a tyrannical tax and regulatory system (think Obamacare) and buying votes with Obama phones, section 8 housing, food stamps, and welfare payments.
The Center estimates that the median-income family of four will pay only 5.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes in 2006, the lowest since 1955.
DeleteCenter for tax policy.
Seems everyone is paying less these days.
William, I will stop drawing abortion and slavery into discussions when you and gotta stop pining for the 1700's.
DeleteGotta, a point I continue to keep belaboring is that Reagan and Kennedy both faced a drastically different situation then we do now. The argument of conservatives is that if dropping taxes from 90% to 61% gave the economy a lift, then the model MUST hold true at all levels of taxation. The economy boomed in both cases, in my opinion, because we basically went from tight fiscal policy to looser fiscal policy and added liquidity. But, that's not even the whole story. Look at these links
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11480568/1/us-standard-of-living-has-fallen-more-than-50-opinion.html
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/01/222-years-of-long-term-interest-rates/
In the first chart, we can see that while interest rates were lower under Kennedy than Reagan, average wages were higher for Kennedy. Regardless, neither POTUS faced what we face right now which is, endless liquidity and ridiculous loose money policy, an economy that is dependent of government spending and a working class that has had it's earning power destroyed solely for the sake of rich fucking assholes. Whether tax revenues went up a tax cut is somewhat meaningless because we didn't do a goddamn thing about deficits and the debt and it is also meaningless because with each successive tax cut, workers lost ground and earning power. And you talk about tyranny from Obama? What the great generation built from the ground up and left for us has been fucking stolen by hucksters who talk like you do. The ones who demonize workers, unions, teachers and so on. The ones who are obsessed with nothing but seeing their tax bill reduced.
I don't want communism. Pull your head out of your ass and read that line again. I don't want communism, socialism, or any other stupid fucking ism that you people are so intent on labeling me with. I want a strong middle class and we won't have one if we leave it up to the market to decide who gets paid what. That is a harsh reality. There are several ways to accomplish what I want to see happen and using taxes is the least and most punitive way to do it. Make no mistake, I believe that if we continue down that insanity path of obsession with cutting taxes for the rich while raising them on the poor and continuing to pay them less money, we will face a genuine economic collapse. Bad as things are, people can still find a way to stand in line for an iphone. It's nowhere near as bad as it can get.
Good thread this, particularly to a friend of all Americans and a personal friend of one of the protagonists here!
ReplyDeleteLew replied to my post but failed to address the issue of qualification to support Mr Ryan’s contention.
Max gives us a tabulated summary of tax rates which show dramatic shifts over time but he does not provide any compensating details concerning various tax breaks and allowances. So Max in his defence of the middle class has been guilty of oversimplification.
Gotta provides us with a lesson in historical fact and then looks into his crystal ball to advise as to what should be done to resolve the problems faced by you all.
Of course the one thing all three have in common is that you are Americans and simply by taking the time to think and write about the subject; you display an interest in politics and a concern for your country.
I have the luxury of being a foreigner with no axe to grind so I can dispassionately look at your posts and see the good in each of them. What a great pity that those interested in the subject, right across your great country can not find some basis for agreement. I do think your economy will require a great deal of bipartisanship to heal itself.
Cheers from Aussie
You raise a fair point to me Kingston. I hate to commit the sin of Paul Ryan and just say "Trust Me", but if we are really going to discuss this, it requires an enormous of effort to sift through data. Under Reagan, it's true that deductions were taken away and it became tougher to evade paying tax. However, I would offer that not only have taxes continued to fall since then, but much of the tighter regulation has been eliminated. So now, what we are seeing is a request to keep taxes at their 60 odd year lows AND again rewrite the tax code to take away loopholes.
DeleteCall my cynical Kingston, but I fully believe that what Romney and Ryan plan to do is take away many deductions that will mean basically nothing to someone who is wealthy, but will make a painful difference to those who have lost jobs or have seen their income and benefits decrease substantially over time. Even what Lou posted says that no one HAS done exactly what Ryan is proposing, so on that tack, Biden is correct. As for the priniciples being similar, I don't think that's true. When labor is given a bigger piece of the distribution pie and are asked to pay more taxes, that's one thing. Now, we telling them they rightfully deserve less income AND should pay more taxes. I think that comparing the Ryan plan to past tax cuts is dishonest.
King, regardless of who wins in November RR or OB it matters little.
DeleteThe die has been cast in this country. The new senators and congressmen coming to DC over past one, and next few election cycles have been, and will be elected to protect our people from the serfdom of socialism.
I suggest for your education you review info@senateconservatives.com
study the page for a few moments and see the face of our strong Tea Party backed patriots.
1773-2009 Don't Tread On Me!
Max said,
DeleteCall my cynical Kingston, but I fully believe that what Romney and Ryan plan to do is take away many deductions that will mean basically nothing to someone who is wealthy, but will make a painful difference to those who have lost jobs or have seen their income and benefits decrease substantially over time.
---------------------------
First, income comes from labor and many jobs offer bennies like health insurance which is at risk to Obamacare which will force some employers to kick their plan and force you onto a government exchange. A real screw over to the lowest paid workers amongst us. Secondly, a large percentage of "taxpayers" get an entire refund of all taxes paid, plus an additional refund (that they never paid in for) called the Earned Income Tax Credit.
I have often wondered how much revenue would be saved (not raised) by just eliminating the EITC.
K, Done before comment:
DeleteJohn F. Kennedy’s proposed tax reforms that were later implemented slightly differently, and Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform, both of which cut marginal rates significantly and eliminated deductions for the wealthy, while gathering essentially the same revenue
The U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986) to simplify the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters and other preferences. Referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts" (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981 being the first), the bill was also officially sponsored by Democrats, Richard Gephardt of Missouri in the House of Representatives and Bill Bradley of New Jersey in the Senate.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was given impetus by a detailed tax-simplification proposal from President Reagan's Treasury Department, and was designed to be tax-revenue neutral because Reagan stated that he would veto any bill that was not. Revenue neutrality was targeted by decreasing individual tax rates, eliminating $30 billion annually in loopholes, and increasing corporate taxes.
1886 Federal Revenue $1,439.3 billion
1987 Federal Revenue $1,581.9 billion
1988 Federal Revenue $1,676.2 billion
1989 Federal Revenue $1,822.4 billion
As you can see, the first 2 years were nominal increases in revenue then it increased $1,822.4 billion.
I can also look up and provide the statistics on the JFK tax changes.
Gotta,
DeleteThat's a typical red herring. For years now, businesses that provide benefits such as health insurance have been shifting more cost onto their employees. It's got nothing to do with Obama care and everything to do with wanting to save costs. Health care is expensive and has been getting more expensive and again has nothing to do with Obama care. You have an agenda which is that you would like to see Obama leave the white house and you would like to see our previous state of health care reinstated and see things stay exactly the same. You comment reflects that.
As for this comment, "I have often wondered how much revenue would be saved (not raised) by just eliminating the EITC." You raise a very good question. Over time Gotta, as I'm sure you are well aware, the single theme of yours that makes me lose my mind is when you make the claim that poor people simply don't want to work and that in general they are somehow inferior to you. Related, is the claim that somehow, poor people, by nature of their being poor and not making an effort to earn more money, are getting pity benefits that take food off of your table.
The EITC, to me, was another smoke and mirrors trick by tax jihadists to buy off the middle the class and trick them into accepting being pushed into poverty despite getting up and going to work every day. Cheap TV's from China helped soothe the loss of manufacturing jobs, and things like the EITC helped soothe the fact that lost manufacturing jobs were being replaced by shitty, lower paying service jobs. Some people, because they are so freaking obsessed with what they think is being taken from them, don't realize we have come very close to unwinding a vast majority of what the New Deal created.
When the EITC is taken away, and you know that's what the douchebag Republicans are waiting for, you may see a true outrage and/or a TRUE great depression style economic collapse that makes the public outraged about the gap in income and wealth. You are concerned about you and perhaps your progeny. Everyone else seems to be just a crowd of people you need to keep on eye on lest they come for your hard earned wealth.
Lou,
DeleteThanks for your follow up post. This may or may not be interesting to people for some perspective http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm Looking at the last sentence of your reform of 86 para, I very seriously doubt the Rymney plan is going to remotely consider raising corporate taxes, which as we all know are the highest in the world (though no corporation actually pays that rate)
The term, "Broadening the tax base" is a Frank Lunz like euphemism for making poor people pay more taxes. On some level, I will concede that Reagan's plan, through eliminations of loopholes and tougher enforcement, did some of what it advertised it would do. My problem though, is that it was temporary. Basically it was a deal for rich people wherein they got the tax cut, but lost ways to dodge taxes. Almost immediately, however, an agenda began to keep the rate but reinstate loopholes and reduce ability to enforce revenue laws. Now, we are being told that we should look at what Reagan did and how successful it was based on what happened for a few short years. At this time, taxes are half what they were when Reagan cut them, many loopholes have been recreated, and things like the EITC are one of the few things keeping the working poor from starving. To me, the Rymney plan is just another tax cut for the rich waiting to happen. Any loopholes taken away will promptly be reinstated, the EITC will be taken away and won't return.
I dunno, I see a brutally shortsightedness on what Republicans want to see happen. The top marginal rate is 35% and a guy like Romney makes millions and millions of dollars but pays only 15%. Simultaneously, we have seen our debt grow to astronomic proportions and the Bush tax cuts certainly have done nothing but add to this. Now, after much of working America has taken a pay cut and shittier jobs, the solution we are being sold is that we need to make poor people pay more taxes and we need to cut the safety net those poor people will need later in life. Why are cutting those nets? Because rich people believe they won't need them and they don't want to pay for someone else's benefit. At some point, I would think rich people would realize that they have a good thing going and that it might not be in their interest to make things so bad that real revolution occurs.
The Reagan plan was pretty good eliminating deductions lowering the tax rates simplifying the system. Problem is then congress steps in and begins adding deductions for all their special interests. How do you fix that???
DeleteThe only thing I can say about the poor is are Americans really poor? Did removing 10 million middle class from the tax rolls fix anything? Is the safety net now so broad that it doesn't serve just the needy but those that chose to sit idle? Have we created such a safety net that many do not want to take an entry level job as they make more on benefits?
I have no problem with a safety net for the needy. Defining the needy is the problem. Like taxes we expand it to pander for votes.
Max,
DeleteFocusing a minute on just the top 1%, if my sums are correct, and they were taxed at 100%, that additional tax would reduce the national debt to a little over 15T. That assumes Congress would exercise self-control. But then, what would be the plan for next year? Or, take that trillion dollars and give it to the remainder of the population. I think you'll find that a trillion dollars won't go far when divided among everybody else, huh? Even then, what would be the fix next year?
Respectfully Jean, your comment adds nothing to the discussion. Not a single liberal is asking to tax the 1% at 100%. The money that such a move would bring in is a meaningless figure. Our debt was rung up by five presidents, three of them Republican, two of them Democrat. Yet, the way we discuss the matter is to portray fatalistic outcomes or completely unrealistic solutions. Taxes, are but one piece of paying back debt. Spending is another piece. You cannot cut both and fix the problem. Nonetheless, I believe many conservatives are offering this as being possible.
DeleteConversely, we cannot just tax the rich, give the money to the poor via social programs and fix the problem that way. Again, no one is asking for this. Personally, I look at it differently. The rich, who are at the heads of industry and boards of directors, have a very big say in how much labor is allowed to participate in sharing profit. Right now, we live in a paradigm where everyone is uber concerned about what everyone else, put another way, a lot of people seem to believe that if those below them begin to make more money, it will come at their expense. Tax policy in this kind of mindset is meaningless. Promise of a tax cut does not excite a low income voter, and actuality of a tax cut for the wealthy is not going to do shit to improve our economy or lower our debt.
If the wealthy want the poor to pay more taxes, why don't they pay them better? Regardless of the answer to that hypthetical question, I keep coming back to what I believe is an inescapable truth, if we do not take in more then we spend and create a surplus, we cannot pay down debt.
"If the wealthy want the poor to pay more taxes, why don't they pay them better? Regardless of the answer to that hypothetical question, I keep coming back to what I believe is an inescapable truth, if we do not take in more then we spend and create a surplus, we cannot pay down debt."
DeleteExcellent Max. There in lies the problem. How to grow the economy. The political shills state, small business is the growth engine of the economy. LOL. Most small business doesn't pay squat as they are small business and generally not flush with cash. A few make a decent paycheck, the rest minimum wage. There are exceptions in specialized industries. Pretty neat how both parties ignore big business where the money is and has been largely outsourced. Total denial of the outsourcing issue by both parties, Graphic artist, IT professionals, programmers, hi-tech manufacturing and design, all outsourced, all good paying jobs all totally ignored.
With respect to small business owners, they are used as political pawns by both parties. As a person who votes Democratic more often than not these days, I absolutely want them to own the mistake of bad trade deals and admit what a disaster they were. In small doses, Bill Clinton has done this, but on the other hand, he is still heralded as a hero and his party is still heralded as being for the middle class despite being actively engaged in signing off of the trade deals and banking deregulation that has destroyed the middle class. Kinda like Republicans still, somehow, being seen as a party that has credibility on reducing our debt.
DeleteAnyway, from the outside, what you said makes sense to me. I don't believe small business is going to be the engine of America. Not when mega corps are sitting on literally trillions of dollars BOTH at home and abroad. With their money, their completely unfair access to legislators and their ability to either buy or destroy all their competition, I believe it is they who will decide the fate of how well nation economies do.
I know the EPA is a worthless shake down outfit in your eyes, but to people like the Kochs or big oil, they are pocket change to be bought off and sent packing. Big business today is one giant trust and I think much of it should be busted up. Thanks to the repeal of Glass/Steagall, we will likely never accomplish that goal.
Health care is expensive and has been getting more expensive and again has nothing to do with Obama care.
ReplyDeleteLook around you kids, it's the health of people pushing up the cost of healthcare. The fact that more people are overweight, obese is the cause of rising healthcare costs.
Instead of giving free healthcare they should put people on a diet, Change their SNAP benefits to enable them to only but healthy foods, require the people overweight to attend healthy cooking classes, but no this is America where we can choose to be fat, eat crap and expect everyone else to pay for it.
"but no this is America where we can choose to be fat, eat crap and expect everyone else to pay for it."
DeleteBingo. Freedom Aint Free. At work, I was recently sent to a seminar with several other charge nurses. The main focus was that we need to be better at customer service because medicare is going to start making emotional satisfaction a component of how we are reimbursed. I think this is a major mistake. In the ICU, I saw many many instances where a doctor did some extra test solely to please the family. Not because it would add anything or tell them something they didn't already know, but did it simply to keep a family out of their face. Catering to America's consumer desire and focusing on more ass kissing is not going to make the cost of care go down.
Your point here about obesity is dead on and fits into this. If a doctor really leans on someone and tells them how unhealthy their lifestyle is and hurts their feelings, they may not get paid or may see their compensation reduced because their patient wasn't satisfied with what they heard. If you get mad seeing someone buying Fruit Loops with SNAP benefits, imagine what a doctor feels like when the same overweight, hypertensive, smoking patient comes in a for a checkup because he says he is having a hard time breathing.
Until we change our habits we will continue to see the cost soar. Look at the biggest problems in healthcare, Hypertension, High cholesterol, Heart disease. For the most part caused by poor choices in diet.
DeletePathetic. What does O care do to help, co-pay at 15-20 dollars to see a doctor or medicaid, Free. Think that will help lower the cost of healthcare?
No but the doctor will make me feel better by telling me I look good.
Obamacare has nothing to do with what you are describing that lies at the center of the matter, namely that America has become a nation that is notorious for talking incessantly about personal responsibility while actually doing the opposite. I've said this before, my experience suggests to me that poor people are not going to suddenly flock to doctors offices because they have "free" healthcare. It's not like food stamps that they can turn in for something they enjoy or sell on the street for crack money. To use the benefit, you need to actually make time to go to the doctor and then actually show up. They aren't going to get food there. They aren't going to get a TV for showing up. They aren't going to get free boob jobs, tummy tucks or liposuction. They aren't going to get a ticket to a CT scan just because they have a headache.
DeleteIf we use your example of whether a copay will make a difference over medicaid, I would ask the question, are the only unhealthy people with the problems you listed those without insurance? Does an employer funded health plan functionally create a difference not seen with people who have medicaid? I don't believe so. What I believe you want to see is for people to step up and stop consuming healthcare for things they did to themselves. In theory, a single payer system will only encourage people to never change. In function, I believe our current insurance system is no different. If you have an employer sponsored plan, you really don't have any consequence except that you feel shitty and die early.
At the risk of going Al Gore, I think we need to look at a deeper question. Why are people so freaking miserable in this country that they endlessly consume anything they can in order to try and feel happy? Whether it's food, drugs, sex, media, etc, we seem to live to do nothing but consume and never seem to be satiated.
The comment to co-pays and free access to healthcare is what I was referring to. People will go when they have a cold after a few days, when they get the flu, when they hurt their hand or foot. For 20 bucks or free on medicaid, why not? It does nothing to lower the cost of healthcare except to the individual user. Until we address the root issue, nothing changes except the cost continues to rise with more unhealthy people going in for the doc visit to make them feel better.
ReplyDeleteMy plan is 30 dollars to see my PCP, 50 dollars to see a specialist and a 6K deductible. I only see the doc when I absolutely need to once this year, the specialist far to often. At the cost of 20K a year for insurance soon to be 24K, I use it sparingly. Because of the cost I exercise try to eat healthy like you.
"Why are people so freaking miserable in this country that they endlessly consume anything they can in order to try and feel happy? Whether it's food, drugs, sex, media, etc, we seem to live to do nothing but consume and never seem to be satiated."
I totally agree with you, I ask myself that same question.
I got where you were headed with that. Just as a difference of opinion rather then a support for Obama's plan, I'm still not convinced. In theory, it could happen where people make visits for very mundane things. In general, I have seen most people wait too long to address things even when they have insurance. I know I have in the past even when I had really good insurance that basically covered everything. The younger people are, the less likely I believe they are going to go for simple things.
DeleteI don't believe your point is invalid, rather, I don't believe it will be as drastic people believe based on what I have seen over the time I have been in the field. Additionally, I think we could construct a system to deal with that and reduce it, the key of course would be that we actually want to address the problem. Right now, I believe the majority of effort is being spent in waging as much war as possible to undue Obama care before anyone gets a chance to really see what it looks like. I think we can address what you are concerned about, but not unless we first accept a system where your concerns can possibly come to pass. We aren't there yet.