And people say GOP isn't willing to compromise.....

[Attic]

At this point I don't understand why the repubs won't budge on closing the rich/corporate tax loopholes/breaks. It sounds like the issue is in how that money would be used, not whether or not they agree with it on principle. Something not getting it's fair look in the media. Though, the repubs may have been better served by giving in on that right away and then moving forward. The elimination of those tax breaks is something the majority of america favor and it would undermine a lot of the liberal stance that those taxes are so important for revenue. The revenue generated from this doesn't really begin to solve the deficit problem at all, and I believe the repubs realize this, they are just not moving forward properly by giving in on this and then saying "ok done, now how are we REALLY going to solve the budget issue?".

I'm shocked the American people are getting poloraized on the budget discussin over a insignificant amount of government revenue that can come from closing some tax breaks for the rich and corporations, though this is the talking point magnified by the lack of comprise that is undermining the conservative stance on resolving the budget issues.

 

[fskimospy]

At this point I don't understand why the repubs won't budge on closing the rich/corporate tax loopholes/breaks. It sounds like the issue is in how that money would be used, not whether or not they agree with it on principle. Something not getting it's fair look in the media. Though, the repubs may have been better served by giving in on that right away and then moving forward. The elimination of those tax breaks is something the majority of america favor and it would undermine a lot of the liberal stance that those taxes are so important for revenue. The revenue generated from this doesn't really begin to solve the deficit problem at all, and I believe the repubs realize this, they are just not moving forward properly by giving in on this and then saying "ok done, now how are we REALLY going to solve the budget issue?".

I'm shocked the American people are getting poloraized on the budget discussin over a insignificant amount of government revenue that can come from closing some tax breaks for the rich and corporations, though this is the talking point magnified by the lack of comprise that is undermining the conservative stance on resolving the budget issues.

As best I can tell it's the crazies that were elected in November. The objections on the Republican side appear to be purely ideological in nature. The tax increases that they have refused so far are so small that any party who was actually interested in making a deal would have taken them a long time ago.

Of the remaining Republicans who aren't insane, I imagine they are worried about a primary challenge from someone who is crazy, and considering the nature of the Republican base today, they are probably scared with good reason. I think the Republican party will continue to radicalize at least through the next election.

 

[a777pilot]

Ok let's get this straight:

Obama wants:
- a one-time increase in the debt limit through 2013
- to include elimination of tax credits/breaks/subsidies for the rich and corporations
- to reinstate the Clinton tax rates for those making over 250k in a couple years.
- adjustments to Social Security and Medicare programs (increases the cap, means testing)

Republicans want:
- small incremental increases in the debt limit that will need to be raised before the 2012 elections
- to cut government spending to 18% of GDP with almost no cuts to their favorite programs
- no tax increases, instead lower taxes rates further
- wholly reform Social Security and Medicare (Ryan plan)
- balanced budget amendment

Sounds like someone is a fucking liar. Again, maybe that is me!

 

[CallMeJoe]

The Republicans are quite willing to compromise. All the Democrats have to do is give the Republicans everything they want and the Republicans will gladly let the Democrats vote for the resultant bill.

They'll even let President Obama sign it if he can't gain any political advantage from doing so.

 

[her209]

Sounds like someone is a fucking liar. Again, maybe that is me!

You should put it in your signature. That way you don't have to post it over and over again.

 

[Jhhnn]

I owe $1000 a month for my mortgage. I also buy my children $1000 worth of chocolate bars per month. One of these things is a debt, one is not.

Heh. Dimness.

Tell it to the people who work for govt on your behalf, & the seniors & disabled who depend on the govt to pay the rent & feed themselves. Tell it to the kids whose moms are on public assistance, & to the people who work everyday yet still qualify for EITC. Tell it to the Defense contractors & all the other businesses who provide goods & services to the govt. Tell it to the business travelers who depend on Air Traffic Control & the trucking companies who depend on the interstate highway system.

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto- this isn't 1789 either. We live in a complex modern society, of which govt is an important part, a lot more important than most Righties are willing to admit.

But do continue to over simplify & engage in that favorite right wing rhetorical fol-de-rol- false equivalency.

 

[a777pilot]

You should put it in your signature. That way you don't have to post it over and over again.

Good idea. I will.....wait. I'm a fucking liar.

 

[umbrella39]

FTFY:

Exactly. This was used for Bush before Obama. He's not only a bad parody troll he's also not very original.

 

[nonlnear]

Heh. Dimness.

Tell it to the people who work for govt on your behalf, & the seniors & disabled who depend on the govt to pay the rent & feed themselves. Tell it to the kids whose moms are on public assistance, & to the people who work everyday yet still qualify for EITC.

People who trust a counterparty to provide their sustenance when they have no legal recourse against it shouldn't be surprised when it doesn't deliver on their expectations and they find they have... no recourse.

Tell it to the Defense contractors & all the other businesses who provide goods & services to the govt.

With pleasure.

Tell it to the business travelers who depend on Air Traffic Control & the trucking companies who depend on the interstate highway system.

I'm not opposed to infrastructure programs when a natural monopoly is justifiable (such as highways, and some utilities). I'd like to see fuel taxes separated from the budget and earmarked to cover the entire highways budget, a big chunk of the EPA, and about half the defense department. That sounds downright green when you think about what it would do to the market. I just get there through a slightly different rationale from those on the left.

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto- this isn't 1789 either. We live in a complex modern society, of which govt is an important part, a lot more important than most Righties are willing to admit.

But do continue to over simplify & engage in that favorite right wing rhetorical fol-de-rol- false equivalency.

I wasn't oversimplifying anything at all. The simple fact is that most federal government outlays are not debts. This is a simple matter of fact. It's not "simplifying" anything to observe that a simple fact is, in fact, simple.

Just so you know, I don't oppose tax increases - even for the rich. But that possibility wasn't painted on your jump to conclusions mat, was it?

 

[Craig234]

People who trust a counterparty to provide their sustenance when they have no legal recourse against it shouldn't be surprised when it doesn't deliver on their expectations and they find they have... no recourse.

That's imbecilic. People should be able to trust the government.

You're talking like the 'she should have bought bigger locks if she doesn't like rape' crap.

Just so you know, I don't oppose tax increases - even for the rich. But that possibility wasn't painted on your jump to conclusions mat, was it?

It's hard to say much credit is deserved for not joining the crazies, but so many do, I guess it's tempting to say 'that's good'.

But what do you mean 'even' the rich, given the terrible wealth grab they've had? They're the clear FIRST group justified for higher taxes, any question for others is after them.

 

[Double Trouble]

The fact is that nothing they do right now will really even begin to actually 'solve' the debt problem. Until they actually do take *real* steps to address the deficit and debt, I say "no more taxes under any circumstances". I know the math. I know eventually tax increases are going to be needed to pay for the reckless spending we've done all these years. But until we start addressing that issue, I'm 100% against new taxes.

 

[Double Trouble]

I like how you try and paint Obama's compromise position as evidence of his unwillingness to compromise.

That doesn't sound much like a "compromise" position on Obama's part either. Sounds to me like both sides are pretty entrenched. The GOP is taking a rigid ideological position, and Obama is simply trying to ensure his political future by trying to get rid of this issue so it doesn't become the focal point of the next election. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's interesting watching the right wing getting more and more desperate in trying to make people believe Obama is acting as awfully as their representatives are. It's not working.

Anyone who believes Obama and all the actors on both sides aren't all just acting in their own best interest instead of the people's interest is just naive.

 

[tweaker2]

As a class of people the rich have done, is doing and will continually do well in these hard economicic times while the gov't, the middle class and the poor suffer.

The very rich, via Bush and Cheney ransacked the treasury, maxed out the national credit card and took us down the economic road to ruin for fun and profit. The rich aren't suffering at all. They're living off of the butterfat they got for themselves under Bush and they refuse to give any of it back. Zero...Nada.

At the moment the very rich are circling overhead around the badly wounded nation they created that was at one time healthy and vibrant before they got done with it. They operate under the principle that the weaker the gov't gets, the stronger they get. This directly correlates to the idea that the weaker the middle class and the poor get, the stronger they get.

In a narrowly defined way, the rich are as anti-gov't as any entity can get. They want to own it via their bought politicians or hobble and neuter as much as possible it if they can't get their way with it.

Oh yes, and they'd be pro-gov't too if they could own it outright.

THIS is what's going on right now in the Capital. It's not about anything else. Everything that we see that's happening now on the hill is merely the rich's means to an end being played out.

 

[nonlnear]

That's imbecilic. People should be able to trust the government.

Yes. Governments should be trustworthy as intermediaries and regulators. Once they actually manage wealth you've got a much bigger counterparty problem, due to sovereign immunity. I want a court system that is trustworthy in the resolution of disputes. That's hard enough to build. A government that can be trusted to make good on unspecified expectations about future disbursements of taxes that may or may not be able to be raised in completely unforeseen economic, demographic, and political circumstances is a MUCH taller order. That's essentially hoping that a government can function as an insurance policy against everything. That's crazy.

You're talking like the 'she should have bought bigger locks if she doesn't like rape' crap.

More like "she shouldn't have walked through the swamp on a cold night wearing only her unmentionables if she didn't want to catch pneumonia". Rape requires a violent aggressor so it's not exactly an apt metaphor. Pneumonia is a foreseeable outcome of the risks that one chooses to assume - much like the risk of not getting what you hope for when trusting a government agency to guarantee payments [which never even were guaranteed from the beginning] over a long term period. Closing one's eyes and wishing risk away is not a risk management strategy that deserves sympathy when it doesn't pan out.

It's hard to say much credit is deserved for not joining the crazies, but so many do, I guess it's tempting to say 'that's good'.

Hey, there's always some common ground to be found.

But what do you mean 'even' the rich, given the terrible wealth grab they've had? They're the clear FIRST group justified for higher taxes, any question for others is after them.

I simply meant that I don't have an a priori objection to taxes that target the rich. There are some such taxes that I advocate. I said "even the rich" because I suspected that Jhhnn might find that surprising given what he assumes about my views, not that taxes on the rich require more justification than other taxes. That's all.

 

[Craig234]

On the rape vs. pneumonia, I think rape is more apt. The 'evil guy' you say doesn't exist, I say is the guy who does wrong in steering wealth to the rich away from everyone else, the guy who chooses to hut social security or make it unaffordable, there are villains involved - who would love to rationalize their behavior blaming the victim.

I do not think that having the government break the trust with citizens is pneumonia - other than to anti-government ideologues who love to cheer such destruction.

It's a little like finding a company is poisoning workers because that's its cheapest way to get rid of them, and then saying, "HA! They should have known that's how capitalism acts!"

No, it's not. Social Security has worked well for 70 years and can keep working just fine - absent malicious acts by people in and out of government.

If people think like what you suggest they can't trust the program, then that'll kill it, why would they support the cost then?

We all know that Social Security is one of this country's greatest success stories in the 20th century.
Mitch McConnel

 

[nonlnear]

On the rape vs. pneumonia, I think rape is more apt. The 'evil guy' you say doesn't exist, I say is the guy who does wrong in steering wealth to the rich away from everyone else, the guy who chooses to hut social security or make it unaffordable, there are villains involved - who would love to rationalize their behavior blaming the victim.

I do not think that having the government break the trust with citizens is pneumonia - other than to anti-government ideologues who love to cheer such destruction.

It's a little like finding a company is poisoning workers because that's its cheapest way to get rid of them, and then saying, "HA! They should have known that's how capitalism acts!"

No, it's not. Social Security has worked well for 70 years and can keep working just fine - absent malicious acts by people in and out of government.

If people think like what you suggest they can't trust the program, then that'll kill it, why would they support the cost then?

There is a simple, undeniable truth which is imperative to remember when contemplating trusting a government agency with long term wealth management. I'll put it to you in Socratic form:

Can a government make an accounting rule so strong that it cannot break change it?

Look at the regulatory burden imposed upon anyone who wants to sell a long term guarantee of wealth. Then look at the standards to which government agencies doing (kind of) the same thing are held to. It's utterly laughable. To sell an annuity you have to build a battleship. Government income programs are much larger, exposed to many more risks, and they are rafts strung together with string. You might say, "Well then let's repair it and build it properly," to which I would respond by pointing to the rhetorical question a couple lines up in this post.

As for the claim that other countries have functional social welfare systems, so we can too... I'm not going to make unilateral arguments that it's totally impossible. However the fact that this is the largest economy in the world with more military prowess than the rest of the world combined actually makes it systemically harder to build a system that is robust enough to weather the political risks because the stakes in American politics are so much higher. This is the budget that steers the world. If one is going to build a social welfare system in the USA that has even the faintest hope of not being raided it has to be at the state level, simply because American monetary policy is too strong a corrupting influence, and as such is too close to federal fiscal policy.

 

[Craig234]

There is a simple, undeniable truth which is imperative to remember when contemplating trusting a government agency with long term wealth management. I'll put it to you in Socratic form:

Can a government make an accounting rule so strong that it cannot break change it?

Look at the regulatory burden imposed upon anyone who wants to sell a long term guarantee of wealth. Then look at the standards to which government agencies doing (kind of) the same thing are held to. It's utterly laughable. To sell an annuity you have to build a battleship. Government income programs are much larger, exposed to many more risks, and they are rafts strung together with string. You might say, "Well then let's repair it and build it properly," to which I would respond by pointing to the rhetorical question a couple lines up in this post.

As for the claim that other countries have functional social welfare systems, so we can too... I'm not going to make unilateral arguments that it's totally impossible. However the fact that this is the largest economy in the world with more military prowess than the rest of the world combined actually makes it systemically harder to build a system that is robust enough to weather the political risks because the stakes in American politics are so much higher. This is the budget that steers the world. If one is going to build a social welfare system in the USA that has even the faintest hope of not being raided it has to be at the state level, simply because American monetary policy is too strong a corrupting influence, and as such is too close to federal fiscal policy.

The question isn't about Social Security. It's about our basic ability for democracy to serve the people instead of corporations and the rich. That's not going well since Reagan.

 

[nonlnear]

The question isn't about Social Security. It's about our basic ability for democracy to serve the people instead of corporations and the rich. That's not going well since Reagan.

I wasn't talking specifically about SS either. It applies to every program that gives people an expectation fo logn term benefits, so HHS as well as pensions, etc. As for the ability of the government to serve the people instead of corporations, I was saying much the same thing when talking about the incentives of the game in DC. I simply don't have any hope that the game can be changed substantially for the better through ordinary legislative processes. Trying to swim against the tide may be viewed as heroic or foolish, but it's a low probability play either way.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

May I remind you that folk who hate themselves work on an unconscious desire to destroy themselves. This destruction includes all humanity and the world.

I think we may have found your calling! We need to send you to Washington so you can remind the congressmen on a daily basis how much they hate themselves. How their constant bickering and contempt is really their own desire for self destruction and word ruination. :thumbsup:

 

[GuitarDaddy]

The fact is that nothing they do right now will really even begin to actually 'solve' the debt problem. Until they actually do take *real* steps to address the deficit and debt, I say "no more taxes under any circumstances". I know the math. I know eventually tax increases are going to be needed to pay for the reckless spending we've done all these years. But until we start addressing that issue, I'm 100% against new taxes.

You must see realize that "no comprimise" line of reasoning is destined to fail! Expecting complete capitulation from the other side without giving up a thing is just pig headed and stupid, especially when the other side controls one half of congress and the exectutive branch.

Taxes are basically the only bargaining chip the republicans have, and to stick their heads in the mud and expect the dems to just bend over without any comprimise on taxes is ignorant and shows that they don't want a deal they just want to obstruct and disrupt as much as possible.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Republicans are way too willing to compromise on spending. About taxes, they're not willing to compromise, because they aren't willing to tax everyone equally.

 

[fskimospy]

That doesn't sound much like a "compromise" position on Obama's part either. Sounds to me like both sides are pretty entrenched. The GOP is taking a rigid ideological position, and Obama is simply trying to ensure his political future by trying to get rid of this issue so it doesn't become the focal point of the next election. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyone who believes Obama and all the actors on both sides aren't all just acting in their own best interest instead of the people's interest is just naive.

Politicians always act in their own best interests, so what? The ideological radicalization of the GOP base has caused their elected officials to act like crazy people because they will lose in primaries otherwise. Obama on the other hand is attempting to appeal to the middle, because he needs them to win reelection. It doesn't particularly matter why the GOP representatives are acting insane or why Obama is acting moderate however, particularly because the incentives for both to continue this way will likely persist through the next election at a minimum.

In its current state, the GOP is unfit to govern.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Politicians always act in their own best interests, so what? The ideological radicalization of the GOP base has caused their elected officials to act like crazy people because they will lose in primaries otherwise. Obama on the other hand is attempting to appeal to the middle, because he needs them to win reelection. It doesn't particularly matter why the GOP representatives are acting insane or why Obama is acting moderate however, particularly because the incentives for both to continue this way will likely persist through the next election at a minimum.

In its current state, the GOP is unfit to govern.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-tax-stance-far-outside-political-mainstream/

Case in point: Obama is TO THE RIGHT of most republican voters!

"With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American."

Lulz.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wasn't talking specifically about SS either. It applies to every program that gives people an expectation fo logn term benefits, so HHS as well as pensions, etc. As for the ability of the government to serve the people instead of corporations, I was saying much the same thing when talking about the incentives of the game in DC. I simply don't have any hope that the game can be changed substantially for the better through ordinary legislative processes. Trying to swim against the tide may be viewed as heroic or foolish, but it's a low probability play either way.

Are you without hope or do you see a way outside of ordinary legislative processes that might fix things?

The only thing I can see that will wake people to the disaster we are creating is that weightless feeling in the pit of one's stomach after we've gone off the cliff. And even then I just see it creating more pointing fingers. The hunger created by self hate is enormous, almost as enormous as the need to pretend we aren't acting out that hate. The drunk destroys his liver so he won't feel his emotional pain. The world is our liver. Most drunks die from alcoholism and some bottom out and reform. Nobody looks at the real problem in my opinion.

 

[Fern]

At this point I don't understand why the repubs won't budge on closing the rich/corporate tax loopholes/breaks.

Despite what the Obama supporters in the media and the Progressive/Lib posters here would have you believe, they have compromised.

It was only a few months ago that the (Repubs in the) House passed a budget (Ryan Plan). It included a reduction in the tax rates for corps and individuals, among several other things the Progressive/Libs oppose.

They have dropped almost all of that an reduced the amount they voted to cut spending.

So, yeah they've compromised. They moved quite far away from that.

The elimination of those tax breaks is something the majority of america favor..

The progressives/Libs and media have been touting closing "loopholes". Loopholes have a bad connotation and everyone is in favor of closing.

But they're lying because they not actually talking about loopholes. The only loophole I know of is the one for hedge and fund managers that allows them to pay on 15% on their income. AFAIK, Obama's plan doesn't touch that.

I'm gonna put the definition of a loophole down below.

But one of my points is that I wouldn't be so sure the American people support this because no one is saying what "loopholes" would be closed

I think they're talking about raising a pretty good chunk of revenue and I don't think a few little things here and there are going to be sufficient.

I'm sure just raising tax the rate a few % points on the rich is going to be enough. Remember, many of these people pay alternative minimum tax. Therefore, raising their regular tax a bit may actually result in zero additional revenue. Tax law is very complicated and some time will be needed to estimate the effects of any tax proposal we do ultimately see.

So, before we're sure the American are going to like it, I think we better wait to see what it really is.

Fern