Well, after finishing my first class for Nurse Practitioner school, I have a few days before the next class starts next week. Glancing at headlines here, life clearly goes on and changes very little. I read an article today here that I agree with quite a bit. It's actually quite a bad thing for Democrats so a few of you here might actually enjoy it.
I've long held the belief that herds of human beings are wrong. When stocks are going parabolic and sucks in the public, that is when the pros are selling. Politics is the same thing. Ever since Bush was elected in 2000, I watched shriekers from both political spheres of America confidently claim the end of somebody or something. And they have been wrong.
The Democrats right now seem to think they will gain something from this, and they are wrong. Not because I think a vast majority of people like the shutdown, but instead it's because it's no longer a big deal. Republicans in congress are truly hated. But the verbal abuse means nothing, and in fact, I think they enjoy it. When it comes down to it, the vast majority of them come from specially made districts they can't be turned out from. While people may yell about this and be pissed about it, the majority of America, essentially, can't do dick about it.
When Hilary Clinton pushed for national health care, the shrieking was endless, but we now have the ACA. When Newt shut down the government, there was a price paid. But just a short time later, America rewarded the Republicans with all three houses. Since Reagan, we have seen unions get destroyed, wages destroyed, benefits destroyed and the stage has been set to begin dismantling social security. Many claim we regulated ourselves to death, but, there is nothing but punditry to back that up and today we have mega corporations that, ironically, have a much bigger effect on small business than regulations do.
I've joked in the past that being out of power is the best thing that Republicans could hope for and it's pretty much no longer a joke. 30 states are under Republican control and increasingly, they are negating as much federal law as possible by, ironically, creating a buttload of local laws. National elections are essentially becoming a moot point. If you don't like something and can manipulate the rules to get your way, you can claim that what you are doing is to support the constitution by blocking it's power to legally enforce law.
It's disheartening to watch and school has actually been a nice distraction. But also a sad reminder. In school, you get to engage your brain with weighty intellectual pursuits. That shit means nothing to people who still believe Obama is from Kenya and who believe the government dominates their every move. This too will pass, but not for quite awhile. The new deal had a pretty long run before it became abused, and I say we have at least ten to fifteen years of the Reagan equivalent called the NO DEAL. About the time I'm 65, maybe we will have some years of peace and moderation. It's about all I'm looking forward to politically right now.
hey Max what's up. Nice piece
ReplyDeleteLife is fortunately good for me Rick. Hope the same for you.
DeleteMike
Max,
ReplyDeleteGerrymandering is an old tool and its original use almost prevented the Democrat/Republican party from ever becoming in the first place. It had been used throughout American history by ALL interested parties.
It has been shown several times and in several ways that the Democrats have used tools to realign voting districts to an advantage. In many states in the 50’s – 80’s, school districts were used to determine voting districts... democrats have used this to reform voting for decades in the name of ‘integration’.
Democrats... ALL democrats have used Section 2 the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to get elected. What was meant to give black voters representation was used quite aggressively by the democratic party to insure that the party who wooed the black vote would control the house of Representatives from 1955 to 1995 and again from 2007 to 2011... one can only guess how the wooed the black vote.
Nancy Pelosi with the help of some deep pockets blocked Swartzenhager anti gerrymandering propostion in 2005 to make them more competitive in a Democrat dominated state. The state saw sense and in 2008 Californians passed essentially what was proposed by Swartzenhager over Pelosi’s protests.... Had Pelosi and friends not worked so hard to block fairness, California might be even bluer than it is...
Apparently in Maryland Republicans had 4 of the 8 congressional seats in 1993 and now they only have one... a haven for democrats?
How about a deliberate redistricting by Illinois for the 2012 elections.... http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0608/Democrats-revenge-in-2012-a-radical-Illinois-gerrymander
And Florida: http://freebeacon.com/gerrymanders-gone-wild/
How about the 3rd district of Maryland with a hideous redraw to keep Sarbanes in office
Check out the redistricted Illinois 4th district, known as the ‘Latin Earmuffs’ drawn to protect Rep. Luis Gutierrez’s
Listen Max, you can do exactly what I have done and pick examples of what Republicans do. The fact is that Gerrymandering is not, as Democrats want to shout from the roof tops, a Republican initiative. The fact is, perhaps the most recent high profile revelations occurred as an attempt to regress the damage done by the democratic party in using integration and voter rights to rig elections but in any case... the use of redistributing is not a Republican only phenomena... perhaps its just that republicans are winning at the underhanded tactic for the moment...
"perhaps its just that republicans are winning at the underhanded tactic for the moment..."
DeleteFor this piece I wrote, that is really my only point. There is a lot of context that is being ignored here that DOES make a difference. If you are equating the voting rights of 1965 to tea party types shutting the government down to try and force a president to negate a law, I call that a dishonest equivalent. Your bigger point, however, is not something I dispute.
“The Democrats right now seem to think they will gain something from this, and they are wrong. Not because I think a vast majority of people like the shutdown, but instead it's because it's no longer a big deal. Republicans in congress are truly hated.”
ReplyDeleteOh I think you are wrong Max. There are a growing number of people who care and the ONLY reason in my opinion is that Boehner is a stooge and McConnell is a waste of vote. These men are not moderates; they are career politicians feathering their own nests. Boehner had the perfect opportunity to tell the people of America exactly what this dispute was about.... instead he handed the microphone to Reid and Obama.
Firstly ALL appropriations originate in the HOUSE.... not the Senate and not the Oval office. The president is the administrator... he budgets the money he receives. The Senates roll is that of ‘consent’. We see just how far this administration believes in the theory of ‘Advise and Consent’.
Secondly this was about the budget... the spending.... the debt..... so it had and has every place in the world with talking about a budget and indeed when talking about extending the presidents bank account. I say this rhetorically of course, because it is, after all, the house that votes to spend the money allowed by raising the debt ceiling.... right?
The president is wrong about how congress appropriated monies for laws on the books. Just because the war on drugs is law, does not automatically mean that the president can demand the extra money to invade yet another country in the name of that law.... if congress does not want to expand expenditure on the law, the president must adjust his spending priorities in enforcing the law.
These facts and the urgency of our debt and spending problem should have been conveyed loud and clear by Republican leadership but they didn’t.
The biggest mistake Cruz and friends made was lingering on Obamacare for so long.... they should have immediately said “fine.... everything else is on the table.... I think it would be prudent to cut this, and this and this.... and by the way, we should also vote that congress and staff use the same damn medical care that you have cooked up for the rest of the country... Mr. President” But alas, they didn’t.
More and more people Max are starting to understand that the debt problem is REAL. The only way the debt problem is not real is for the US to sell of a considerable amount of federal lands to... the Chinese? And throw in with the bankers getting about a Trillion and a half in debt forgiveness from the FED... and that still doesn’t address the ever widening rift between real GDP (were taxes are derived) and the exponential growth of entitlement debt.
This is comical because you don’t see the irony of your statement.
“30 states are under Republican control and increasingly, they are negating as much federal law as possible by, ironically, creating a buttload of local laws.”
States rights.... distributed government.... local control..... I am sure you have heard all of these phrases before. Most of the local laws are in direct retaliation and attempt to regain control of our communities. Would the globalist concede that the power should reside in the community most of these laws would be abolished or minimized.
I have come to the conclusion that anyone who pushes for the federal government to have more control because it is unfair and to chaotic for power to rest in the states, do not like America.... do not like the border boundaries between the states and and seek a total unified government with the states being mere administrative districts. To take this thought to its logical conclusion.... nations states are too unfair and chaotic to the world population for anything other than a world government to preside...... Now there are some federalist who seek to extend our government into world governance.... but those are the imperialists....
Their is a war on Max... for this country, its constitution and for liberty... I don't think peace is coming soon.
The problem, TS, is that the debt problem is only real to Republicans when they don't control enough votes to cut taxes and spend their asses off. You can dress this up in any suit of freedom outrage that you want, but since Reagan, budget deficits (yes, I understand the difference between spending and debt defiicits) grow under Republicans and they shrink under Democrats. Republicans have a very, very narrow view. Cut taxes at all costs, kick any ass that threatens us, and unwind as many social programs and large corporate regulations as possible. I say that with a bitter sneer of course, but with or without the emotion, this is what has happened when Republicans have been in office.
DeleteUltimately, this discussion is a waste of time TS, but I don't mean any disrespect by that. If we were truly serious about the debt TS, we would run budget surpluses and pay it down. WHICH, we could have been doing after Clinton was POTUS. I've seen nothing in 30 odd years since Reagan that remotely convinces me that Republicans, conservatives or libertarians care about the debt as much as they care about creating a world wherein there are essentially no rules, no taxes and no federal government that can do anything more then hold a parade for a POTUS who ultimately shouldn't have any power either.
That you see this as a war TS, is emblematic of the state of America right now. Everything is some fucking grandiose war wherein someone needs to win and someone needs to lose. I don't take any handouts whatsoever, but I personally see absolutely nothing for me to gain if folks who think like you do break the federal government of the ability to do anything. I also don't see how that will pay our debt down either. Ultimately, I think a deep but unspoken libertarian dream is to dissolve the government and tell China to fuck off on all the debt it holds because it was rung up by fascist statists.
“The problem, TS, is that the debt problem is only real to Republicans when they don't control enough votes to cut taxes and spend their asses off.”
DeleteWell Max when you say republicans.... you must be talking about the capitulating one’s who are the normal run of the mill beltway boys and girls.... My alignment in this matter is firmly behind the kind of people who had the integrity to vote as they were elected unlike the ones who were elected to vote one way and took a kickback to vote the other. That’s how deep real dedication and integraty runs in Washington. I have started a little thing that I will post in the next couple of days dealing with the ‘success’ of the Clinton administration. Things that effected his 8 years in office started years before he won election and lasted long after he left. Things are not as cut and dried as you what them to be and they don’t translate well to defending the politics of this president.
“Ultimately, this discussion is a waste of time TS, but I don't mean any disrespect by that. If we were truly serious about the debt TS, we would run budget surpluses and pay it down.”
In brief, I would have to say that you are being disingenuous when talking about bush continuing what occurred during the Clinton years...
Three quick points: 1) immediate cost reductions as a result of welfare reform were reversed and created more social problems after the Tech Wreck of 2000. Bush, whether you care to admit it was the received the ‘bust’ of Clinton’s ‘boom’ 2) immediately after 9/11The stock market and indeed the economy went straight to the bottom and so did tax revenues. 3) Regardless of how you would have reacted to 9/11 the U.S went to war in Afghanistan with a house vote of 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting, and in the Senate: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting and into Iraq with a house vote of 297-133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. ... congress jointly authorized the expenditure but of course because some didn’t they can gripe but when NOT ONE REPUBLICAN voted for Obama care they have no right to stand up? By the way, the house originates budgets not the president and I think its pretty darn stupid of him to claim that you don’t negotiate funding on a law that has been previously passed when he signed the last credit increase with a sequester agreement....
“That you see this as a war TS, is emblematic of the state of America right now....”
Their is, IMHO, a crisis with the function, form and direction of this country and the way it is run.. This isn’t some left/right sabre rattling... this is about the future of this country from top to bottom and its urgent... and getting more urgent every day. By the way... how’d you like that political $200 million bone Obama threw to McConnell... now that’s principled integrity from both!
So many people are knowingly lying about our financial situation. Senators, CNBC talking heads, Obama puppets etc...
ReplyDeleteSo let me make this as simple as I can.
30 years from now we will need to come up with an additional 120 TRILLION dollars in tax revenue to fund our obligations(currently unfunded).
That means between then and now we need to collect an extra 4 TRILLION in taxes every YEAR starting NOW. Right now we are collecting 2.7 Trillion and would need to collect 6.7 Trillion. That's over a 100% increase in taxes. How fast do you think our country will grow with 80% of your paycheck being confiscated?
THat's why there is going to be MASSIVE dollar devaluation and MASSIVE inflation. PERIOD! UNAVOIDABLE!
You lost me on the last one live and I was otherwise tracking with you. I personally don't want to pay higher taxes just to pay higher taxes or to fund some utopia. But we've reached a ridiculous extreme. Reagan will always be the deficits don't matter guy. Up until then, there was still a believe that if you spent, taxes needed to go up. Bush Sr. was the last honest Republican and under Clinton we had Paygo. Now, We can't even BEGIN to discuss raising taxes and you are correct, like children we will keep ignoring this reality until we can't and the tax hike will then be massive.
DeleteI don't buy the massive inflation angle though. I believe that if you are raising taxes and taking money out of the system, you will keep a lid on inflation. Greenspan endlessly printed, but inflation was rather tame. There are multiple reasons for that, but the bottom line, IMO, was that money never made it to the people who actually spend it. Hence, no inflation. If, as I believe happened in previous generations, higher taxes serve as a punishment to hoarding rather then a reward like now, and the wealthy decide to stop engaging in every rent seeking behavior possible, then yes, we hill have pretty sharp inflation.
There is a double edged sword here though live. The stock market is where it is largely because of devaluation and weakness of the dollar. Anthing that strengthens the dollar will give power to those with cash and few assets. With that in mind, why would we do anything but keep devaluing the dollar?
Obamacare will guarantee the Pubs sweep into both houses of congress, take over and win in 2016.
ReplyDeleteThanks to all those folks that lied to us the repeal will take place in early 2017.
Wanna bet?
DeleteRespectfully TD, bombast like your comment here is exactly what I'm talking about. People who are enraged are convinced that the entire universe shares their rage. Historically, there are much more solid trends. Republicans stand a much better chance winning mid terms that historically go against the party of the POTUS. If elections were held tomorrow, the Pubs might actually have to answer for their complete fail. But, a month is an eternity and unless they pull the same stunt in January or February, this worthless event will be as forgotten as Benghazi. Kinda surprising you are soooooooooooo sure of this when your own whack job governor signed up for the medicaid expansion.
DeleteHey Max :-)
DeleteIdk. This one may stick in the memories of the voters - particularly in the old-school Business Pubs.
There's a good possibility that the U.S.'s credit rating may still get downgraded as a result of this futlie political pissing contest. Everybody watches the stock market cuz it's big, splashy and headliney, but take a look at the debt market - you know, that market with players like Fidelity who manage millions of Americans' 401k's - over the last couple of weeks. Check out the short-term Treasury yields.
This retarded exercise in political masturbation has certainly caught the eye of the world. If they were thinking about dumping the dollar before, they're REALLY thinking about it now. If we get downgraded, add a few basis points, it could prove to be very costly to the American taxpayer. Ironic, isn't it? In their war on Obamacare and debt, the TEAs may have just driven up the cost of our debt. And of course, it can ultimately end up really screwing up our already shaky economy.
Well, the Business Pubs understood this and didn't like it. During this freak show, the Chamber of Commerce went to visit the congressional Pubs to give them a good, "What The Fuck Are You Doing?!?!" dressing down.
They knew the score and you can be sure that they won't forget, particularly if we go thru with this self-inflicted bullshit again at the beginning of the year. They will be funding their own non-TEA candidates come election time.
Nice slider their pfunky but the Chinese are saying exactly the same thing the rating agencies side the last time.... The US Federal Government refuses to get a grip on its spending which, regardless of massive tax increases exponentially out-paces any expected future rise in GDP, and therefore tax revenue to cover the out of control spending..... Its the DEBT dammit! The tea party made it an issue in the elections and the were buried by the mainstream that insists that the US Dollar is universally loved and the 'Faith and Credit' of the U.S. Dollar will live on in perpetuity.... Again, just to be clear.... It's The DEBT dammit!
DeleteThe fundamental situation that the debt growth rate significantly outpaces that of fiscal income and gross domestic product (GDP) remains unchanged," Dagong said on its website.
"For a long time the U.S. government maintained its solvency by repaying its old debts through raising new debts, which constantly aggravates the vulnerability of the federal government's solvency. Hence the government is still approaching the verge of default crisis, a situation that cannot be substantially alleviated in the foreseeable future," it added.
And again, I decide to bang my head against a brick wall by responding to you. Tea party types and libertarian types believe that NOBODY but them believes that our debt is a problem. Kind of that guy with one eye in the land of the blind thing. When we got downgraded before, it had everything to do with politics and much less to do with the actual size of the debt.
DeletePrior to Reagan, if spending went up, so did taxes. Republicans have taken this threat off the table and have decisively won that battle. No matter how in debt we are, no matter how many ten to one deals of spending cuts to tax raises get offered, Republicans won't accept it. The logic, expressed another way, is like someone who is 20k in credit card debt telling the CC company that instead of getting another job and brining in more income, they will just spend less. They won't pay down that debt mind you, but they will spend less.
Conservatives want there to be consequences for the poor for not working which basically means they want the poor punished for not being successful andnot becoming Republicans. On the flip side, however, Republicans want no punishment for creating deficits, creating debt and basically not doing a damn thing in Washington because, oh yeah, that's another belief which is that government shouldn't be allowed to do anything because that's what the founding fathers intended.
IMO, there is no consequence to recklessness. Rather then raising taxes and going after where the REAL spending occurs, the conservatives want to simply slash the living shit out of any program that helps the poor and pretend that this will somehow pay our debt down.
I am so sorry you feel frustrated because I am not buying what you are selling Max. Contrary to what you think, I do understand your position. I just strongly disagree with it and because all I seem to hear to be the solution is "you must raise taxes" to fund all of the liberal programs that can be devised and justified, IN THE LIBERAL MIND, and show me no compelling reason to hang the US 'Full Faith and Credit' out there to be totally destroyed by such ineptness...... I'm not convinced.
DeleteOctober 16, 2013
Among the factors Fitch said it would consider going forward is "the impact of the debt ceiling brinkmanship and government shutdown on our assessment of the effectiveness of government and political institutions, the coherence and credibility of economic policy, THE POTENTIAL LONG-TERM IMPACT ON THE U.S. SOVEREIGN'S COST OF FUNDING AND COST OF CAPITAL FOR THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR LONG-TERM GROWTH."
August 6, 2011
To avoid a downgrade, S&P said the United States needed to not only raise the debt ceiling, BUT ALSO DEVELOP A "CREDIBLE" PLAN TO TACKLE THE NATION'S LONG-TERM DEBT.
In its report Friday, S&P ruled that the U.S. fell short: "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the ... PLAN THAT CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION RECENTLY AGREED TO FALLS SHORT OF WHAT, IN OUR VIEW, WOULD BE NECESSARY TO STABILIZE THE GOVERNMENT'S MEDIUM-TERM DEBT DYNAMICS."
June 02, 2011
Moody's Investors Service said today that if there is no progress on increasing the statutory debt limit in coming weeks, it expects to place the US government's rating under review for possible downgrade, due to the very small but rising risk of a short-lived default. If the debt limit is raised and default avoided, the Aaa rating will be maintained. HOWEVER, THE RATING OUTLOOK WILL DEPEND ON THE OUTCOME OF NEGOTIATIONS ON DEFICIT REDUCTION. A CREDIBLE AGREEMENT ON SUBSTANTIAL DEFICIT REDUCTION WOULD SUPPORT A CONTINUED STABLE OUTLOOK; LACK OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT COULD PROMPT MOODY'S TO CHANGE ITS OUTLOOK TO NEGATIVE ON THE AAA RATING.
Of course the debt squabbles draw attention to the dysfunction but if something were actually being done by Republican and Democratic knuckleheads during regular business.... there would be no need for the dramatics. You can’t tell me that there is no good faith deep cut that can’t be addressed without forcing a conversation about taxes. We don’t see news spots about a knockdown-dragout on the House floor about defence cuts because just as many Democrats have bases and contractors in their states as do Republicans. We don’t see the grandiose gestures about the fraud infused Social Security Disability Claims that have jumped by 1.5 million since 2009 or the billions lost through fraud and mismanagement in Medicad and Medicare.... or for that matter why Obama had to spend so much money printing ‘closed for business’ signed and having them plastered all over this country...
While you can blame Reagan for breaking the cycle of increased debt/increased taxes... you refuse to blame the democratic congresses and indeed presidents for not reversing that function and at the same time trying to create on the back of all that accumulated debt, the biggest government run boondoggle in history. All I heard the President say after the debt ceiling deal is that he is concerned with the debt but that there is plenty of time to deal with that....(Uh Hum... after he leaves office)
By the way... that fella with the credit card... If he charged more than he makes... shame on him.... If he as the ability not to watch cable tv for a few months then he can pay down his debt and kept his credit.... Of coarse if he does decide to get another job to pay down a debt that already concerns the CC company.... I don't think it would be a good idea to tell either the CC company or the potential employer that you are a spend-a-holic and intend to run up even more debt.
"While you can blame Reagan for breaking the cycle of increased debt/increased taxes... you refuse to blame the democratic congresses and indeed presidents for not reversing that function "
DeleteUm, this is exactly what we did under Clinton. Mind you, not that it was entirely his idea, but we did do that. There was welfare reform. There was reduced spending..sorta. I mean they did play games with taking things off budget. Under Obama, Democrats continue to agree to cuts in spending for social programs. I'm sorry TS, you can make a lot of fair attacks on Democrats, but in comparison to Republicns, you just cannot claim that somehow Republicans are so much better on this.
When you mention military spending in both Republican and Democrat districts, well, that is where we hit the heart of the matter. While in discussion you will only chide Democrats for pork, it's refreshing to know that somewhere in there you accept a teensy weensy piece of reality.
"I just strongly disagree with it and because all I seem to hear to be the solution is "you must raise taxes" to fund all of the liberal programs that can be devised and justified, IN THE LIBERAL MIND,"
Saying stupid shit like this is why you don't understand. You say it best, all you hear is raise taxes to pay for liberal programs. I hear that theme a lot from tea party types. Democrats, IMO, have done next to nothing for the middle class. The signed off on these shitty trade deals that sent our jobs away, they spread their legs wide for wall street and didn't knee cap Greenspan when they should have. I can go point for point on the stupid shit Democrats have done that have helped create debt and helped tilt the country into such a bad spot that it will be very tough to climb out of. These fucking tax cuts from Bush have racked up a chunk of debt that will not be paid back in proportion equal to the lopsided benefit that just a few gained. But that's life. I accept it and I accept the inevitable reality that taxes will go up quite sharply someday because we refuse the only thing we can seem to come up with now are sequester cuts.
As final thought TS before I retreat to a new class next week, I have some nuance on taxes that you may or may not appreciate. I don't back down on my claim that it was Reagan divorced us from higher taxes as a consequence of spending. It's relevant to me because it impacts the way we make decisions on spending. If the wealthy had to truly choose between lower taxes or less money to the military, or to corporations in the enormous corporate welfare programs we have, something would give. Currently, there is not penalty, at least, not a penalty paid by the people who really have something to lose in wealth. Hence, we don't have discussions about what we really want to spend money on.
DeleteRight now, it's a one way street. Keep taxes low and cut only social programs that the wealthy are bitter about because they believe they single handidly pay for them without a benefit from them. I'd like to see rich people actually have to make a choice for once.
wanna bet is right Mick. Anyone seen the early polls for president 2016. ya better hope Hilary Clinton doesn't run. If the election were held today she would beat any republican Paul, Christie, Cruz, Rubio by double digits.
DeleteGet rid of this train wreck.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-woes-widen-as-insurers-get-wrong-data-2013-10-18
If it has tits, tires, or run by the government, you're gonna have problems.
Bumdump Ching! Thanks for coming tonight folks! Don't be kind to your waiters, it only encourages them to keep their shitty jobs while taking your hard earned money away.
DeleteMax I'm sorry
DeletePrior to Reagan, if spending went up, so did taxes. Republicans have taken this threat off the table and have decisively won that battle. No matter how in debt we are, no matter how many ten to one deals of spending cuts to tax raises get offered, Republicans won't accept it. The logic, expressed another way, is like someone who is 20k in credit card debt telling the CC company that instead of getting another job and brining in more income, they will just spend less. They won't pay down that debt mind you, but they will spend less.
The real deal,not the Bullshit !
The federal government raked in a record of approximately $2,472,542,000,000 in tax revenues through the first eleven months of fiscal 2013, which ran from Oct. 1, 2012 through the end of August, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement for August.
That is up about $285 billion from the approximately $2,187,527,000,000 in taxes the government took in through August of fiscal 2012.
Despite these record tax revenues, the federal government still accumulated a $755 billion deficit in the first eleven months of fiscal 2013. Total federal spending through the first eleven months of the fiscal year was $3.228 trillion.
At the end of last year, the president struck a deal with Republicans in Congress to enact legislation that increased taxes. This included pushing the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, increasing the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent, and phasing out personal exemptions and deductions starting at an annual income level of $250,000.
An additional 3.8 percent tax on dividends, interests, capital gains and royalties--that was embedded in the Obamacare law--also took effect this year.
While in school I guess you missed this little thing.
And the spending is More more more until.....................................
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSo just for curiosity sake, did you seriously expect that spending would be cut so deeply in one year that the budget deficit would be zero? Regardless, you didn't really make any argument against what I was saying. Republicans didn't RAISE taxes. We are basically talking about the stupid Bush tax cuts that were supposed to only last ten years. I mean c'mon. You're calling the expiration of Bush tax cuts a tax hike? Oh, yea, Obama extended them so they are his. Yeah. Talk about bullshit.
DeleteBottom line, I'm frustrated. If there was a law that said taxes had to go up five percent every year until deficits were closed, I believe there would be less of this bullshit. Essentially, we cannot even begin to talk about a genuine tax raise to pay for this insane spending that has gone on since 2000. 7 trillion of debt has acrued under Obama, yet, the budget deficit has narrowed. That could not be said under Bush and it could not be said for the six years that Republicans controlled all three houses.
A point I keep making that keeps gettig ignored is that is that you cannot pay down debt until you run a surplus. Last we did that, Repbulicans said, Nope, can't keep paying down debt. gotta get a tax cut. The tax cuts of bush did nothing for the economy. Republicans wail about uncertainty, but keep pushing us to the brink every six months for another fucking pound of flesh in debt ceiling deals. Unlike the majoryt of you, I can call bullshit from democrats when I see it. You can call bullshit on Obama on nothing more.
Max.....We can keep arguing about debt and taxes until hell freezes over,we both have our point of view.
DeleteWhat is not bullshit is this President owns the last 5 almost 6 years of our economy.
The poor keep getting poorer,we are spending more welfare dollars supporting them.The middle class keeps getting poorer and more middle class are drifting below the poverty line and they are relying on public assistance.
Average median income has dropped for the last several years.
Labor participation rate is still dropping.
So what in the hell do you think is the problem here ?
Now my thoughts are you need a sound economy that will expand a tax base that will improve tax revenues.
The liberal political approach does nothing to accomplish this.
The liberal Obama administration simply does nothing to support business growth and in fact has proved to be hostile.
This whole argument comes down to No business growth no job growth no economic growth.
Call this what you want this is not bullshit.
Dems need to realize that obligations for the big social programs (and defense) are unsustainable at current levels. Pubs need to realize that the debt will never get paid down (if that's truly a concern) if taxes remain at historically low levels.
ReplyDeleteThe 40 year old credit card bill has come due. We all gotta pay more. We're all gonna get less.
We don't need a Laffer Curve, a Nobel Prize winning economist, or a bipartisan commission to figure this out.
We only need a calculator.
The debt, however, does not need to be paid off by next Monday. We can be smart about this if we have the political will.
I agree with you pfunky..... 'we' created this problem by electing the ineptness that resides in Washington and uses what ever additions to bills they can to throw $$$ to there constituency, regardless of it true worth, for the only purpose of getting reelected. We have been asleep and hopefully we are waking up and paying attention.
DeleteWhere I totally disconnect with statements like yours is that we are having no real discussion about the debt we have accumulated. We are having no real discussion about the the real elephant in the room which is the unrealized forward opligation indebtedness we must face. That and not the advertised national debt is what is going to kill us. It is running away from tax revenues as such an exponential rate the we could raise taxes to the moon and they would not equalize. Besides, by the time you started pressing taxes to that extent the real wealth makers would have or would be in the process of exiting the US for a better life elsewhere... You might be about to tax their fortune but you would lose their talent.. Talk about brain drain.
Not only are we not talking about it.... democrats are in a full on assault to insure that we take on yet more. The cost of AHCA is already multiplied and it would appear that, without some major infusion of cash (cash always fixes problem.... ask teachers, they will tell you) this entire system could very likely put healthcare in the US in a mess far exceeding what it was before.
So, without real substantive talks about how we fix this problem, why in the world would anyone who would have to contribute to this mess want to do so without a plan.... and 1 or 2 trillion over ten years is not a plan.... We cannot tax our way out of this mess, we cannot grow our way out of this mess..... what is left is our belts....
"The debt, however, does not need to be paid off by next Monday. We can be smart about this if we have the political will. "
DeleteJust a thought on this.... something much easier to do is a comprehensive energy plan.... we haven't been about to talk about that either....... The clear near term options like nuclear are to dangerous (they don't have to be but the word 'nuclear' is enough to kill the conversation)... the long term renewables are to expensive and inefficient for the foreseeable future and the old school of coal is already on the president's hit list....
If we can't work out a sensible, pragmatic way to approach energy selfsufficiency and we already know the building blocks, how are we ever going to get serious about the the monstrosity that is the unrealized debt, except to keep monetizing and driving people further in the hole.
Quite instructive this entire conversation. So far I've learned that Max still believes that Reagan caused all our ills, and Clinton actually was a fiscal conservative,,,,gafawww.
DeletePlunky, bless her little liberal heart, still thinks that we can wiggle our way off the 17T fish hook, that is if we do it little by little. I guess she forgot that we are still funding the debt from Wilson's WWI.
Another thing I learned is that the demise of the Tea Party seems a tad overrated. Every other paragraph out of the socialist's mouths displays their fear for the Tea's emerging leaders. Recognizing true leadership I guess is difficult being that their have been so few leadership examples within the government ranks.
Good luck Max in your continued studies. Our country needs qualified people in our health care ranks. That is if there will be a health care field left at all under the socialist's administration.
I do learn so much about our deficient educational system and what it has wrought over the past few decades.
Let's party! 17T and more to come in February! YAHOO!
Wow, talk about coming late to the party. I really regret having missed this one.
ReplyDeleteHey, Max!
Jean