Jump to content
Guest Clevelander17

Federal Gov't Budget News & Discussion

Recommended Posts

The rich will pay more taxes, Boehner says

 

Washington (CNN) -- Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.

 

Obama, however, continued to insist on Republicans first ensuring no tax hike for anyone but the top 2% of Americans as a first step toward a broader agreement on tackling the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt.

 

The statements reflected how negotiations on the automatic spending cuts and tax hikes set to occur on January 1 -- the fiscal cliff -- have evolved since Obama's re-election last month.

 

More below:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jokes aside, I really want to see more serious talks about cuts to military spending occur.  We hear a lot about medicare and social security, which is great, but there is so much bloat and unnecessary (and arguably unconstitutional) spending occurring at the Pentagon and this should definitely be on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rich will pay more taxes, Boehner says

 

Washington (CNN) -- Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.

 

Obama, however, continued to insist on Republicans first ensuring no tax hike for anyone but the top 2% of Americans as a first step toward a broader agreement on tackling the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt.

 

The statements reflected how negotiations on the automatic spending cuts and tax hikes set to occur on January 1 -- the fiscal cliff -- have evolved since Obama's re-election last month.

 

More below:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

WHY????  I already pay too much in taxes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Do you?

 

nytimes_taxes_graph.gif

 

Yes as a single man, with a 6 figure salary, I pay way to much in taxes.  I'm looking at my pay stub right now.  I do itemize my tax return, but I pay way to much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What subjective comparison are you using to determine that you "pay way too much"?  Of course everyone looks are their pay stub and complains about how much of it goes to taxes, but what makes your situation exceptional?

 

And to answer your earlier question, this is why taxes on the wealthy must increase:

 

This is what caused our debt to increase.  Note that you won't find Social Security or traditional Medicare / Medicaid on this list...

cbodebtchangesmountain.jpg

 

And here's another way to look at it.  The Bush tax cuts are really the primary driver of our debt increase over the last 10 years.  I think the Bush tax cuts should be rolled back for everybody, but the top 2% of earners is a start. 

cbpp-chart-showing-deficit-causes-over-time1.jpg?w=462&h=319

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we go over the fiscal cliff and deal with the pain for a few years. Anyone who tells you there's a painless solution to this mess is a snake oil salesman.

 

BTW, MTS, since tax deductions for nonprofits are one of the potential casualties of this fiscal cliff, I think you and others should donate before the end of the calendar year to All Aboard Ohio, in support of its focused effort to improve passenger rail service in the Chicago-Cleveland-New York City travel market. If you'd like to learn more, drop me a line at 216-288-4883 or kenprendergast@allaboardohio.org and I'll send you more information.

 

That goes for other nonprofits, too. Those deductions are in serious danger.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the cuts put into the fiscal cliff were never supposed to take effect.  They were deemed so catastrophic that they would force both parties hands.  I don't know if I agree with that, but that is what people in DC believed at the time they were agreed to.

 

It really isn't that complicated.  It all boils down to the bush era tax cuts for the top 2% of wage earners.  If the GOP agrees to let the cuts expire, we have a deal.  If Obama and the Dems drop their insistence on those cuts expiring, we have a deal.  It's the same issue which, when you cast aside the nonsensical talking points, was at the center of the 2012 election.  All the rest in these 'negotiations' is nothing more than colored bubbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I think the top rate is just the biggest, most salient issue. Even if they get past that issue, I think the the two sides also have to agree what to cut, which might also be a battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^But I would suspect that, in reality, negotiations on those other cuts are really just moleholes compared to the mountain they have to get over on the top rates issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think if we can get past that issue, we might get back to the point where we all realize the other side doesn't want to run over your puppy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we go over the fiscal cliff and deal with the pain for a few years. Anyone who tells you there's a painless solution to this mess is a snake oil salesman.

 

BTW, MTS, since tax deductions for nonprofits are one of the potential casualties of this fiscal cliff, I think you and others should donate before the end of the calendar year to All Aboard Ohio, in support of its focused effort to improve passenger rail service in the Chicago-Cleveland-New York City travel market. If you'd like to learn more, drop me a line at 216-288-4883 or kenprendergast@allaboardohio.org and I'll send you more information.

 

That goes for other nonprofits, too. Those deductions are in serious danger.

 

The whole donations write-off situation is such a cluster-fudge.  Many of the organizations that count as "non-profit" and are thus eligible for tax-free donations are not true charities or are using their funds for ridiculous causes.  For instance, the Mormon Church which spends much of its largess and influence backing anti-gay legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also make a pretty penny working for a non-profit (especially in an executive position).

 

Only in a few rare instances. I run a nonprofit and I know many others who run nonprofit organizations. We've all taken vows of poverty to do what we do.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also make a pretty penny working for a non-profit (especially in an executive position).

 

Only in a few rare instances. I run a nonprofit and I know many others who run nonprofit organizations. We've all taken vows of poverty to do what we do.

 

Agreed...some of the bigger non-profits and ones that are not true to their mission may have executives that are paying themselves excessive salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What subjective comparison are you using to determine that you "pay way too much"?  Of course everyone looks are their pay stub and complains about how much of it goes to taxes, but what makes your situation exceptional?

 

And to answer your earlier question, this is why taxes on the wealthy must increase:

 

This is what caused our debt to increase.  Note that you won't find Social Security or traditional Medicare / Medicaid on this list...

cbodebtchangesmountain.jpg

 

And here's another way to look at it.  The Bush tax cuts are really the primary driver of our debt increase over the last 10 years.  I think the Bush tax cuts should be rolled back for everybody, but the top 2% of earners is a start. 

cbpp-chart-showing-deficit-causes-over-time1.jpg?w=462&h=319

 

My subjective issues is as an American citizen who does the right thing, I no treated as a full American citizen. One example, I pay a shit load of taxes and if I desire to get married, I can't and if I do it not considered legal in the majority of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also make a pretty penny working for a non-profit (especially in an executive position).

 

Only in a few rare instances. I run a nonprofit and I know many others who run nonprofit organizations. We've all taken vows of poverty to do what we do.

 

Churches are non-profits and it is not rare at all for the preacher to pull off in a luxury vehicle........ and, it seems to me far too often that the poorer the congregation, the better off the preacher is financially

 

I also think there are pleny of "non-profits" in which their reach, means, and influence is so great that attracting top talent to run them (and paying that person accordingly) is actually quite appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My subjective issues is as an American citizen who does the right thing, I no treated as a full American citizen. One example, I pay a shit load of taxes and if I desire to get married, I can't and if I do it not considered legal in the majority of the country.

 

There's a real simple solution to this.... Give me your friggin' money and I'll gladly pay your taxes. You're like the guy who wins the lottery and then bitches about how much income tax he has to pay. Way to go Leona Helmsley, the Queen of Mean.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My subjective issues is as an American citizen who does the right thing, I no treated as a full American citizen. One example, I pay a sh!t load of taxes and if I desire to get married, I can't and if I do it not considered legal in the majority of the country.

 

There's a real simple solution to this.... Give me your friggin' money and I'll gladly pay your taxes. You're like the guy who wins the lottery and then bitches about how much income tax he has to pay. Way to go Leona Helmsley, the Queen of Mean.

 

 

Isn't not that simple, when my rights are not squashed, I'll gladly pay without complaint.  Until since I'm "seperate" and not "equal", then I shouldn't have to pay more taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any oppressed group's rights grow stronger when they pay taxes. You gain a claim against your oppressor. If you pay fewer taxes, an oppressor can afford to marginalize you. Every gain in personal liberty in this or other country occurred not because of one's humanity, but because there was an economic gain to be had by bringing the oppressed group into the mainstream.

 

Along a similar line (and to ensure we stay on topic), what economic benefits can be gained in legalizing marijuana nationally? Some of the numbers in this Joe Klein piece are pretty remarkable....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889166,00.html

 

It's why we legalized alcohol in 1933 -- we needed the tax money, the fight against organized crime was failing and it was a very expensive fight for taxpayers to sustain.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any oppressed group's rights grow stronger when they pay taxes. You gain a claim against your oppressor. If you pay fewer taxes, an oppressor can afford to marginalize you. Every gain in personal liberty in this or other country occurred not because of one's humanity, but because there was an economic gain to be had by bringing the oppressed group into the mainstream.

 

Along a similar line (and to ensure we stay on topic), what economic benefits can be gained in legalizing marijuana nationally? Some of the numbers in this Joe Klein piece are pretty remarkable....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889166,00.html

 

It's why we legalized alcohol in 1933 -- we needed the tax money, the fight against organized crime was failing and it was a very expensive fight for taxpayers to sustain.

 

I hear you, but after paying taxes, I'm still a second class citizen in the eyes of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, the wheels of progress move slowly. How did it take for this nation to go from realizing that some things in the Bible (ie: keeping slaves) should no longer be legal, to allowing the descendants of slaves to marry the descendants of slave owners?

 

Imagine if all LGBT put all of their taxes in escrow until they were given equal rights, I'll bet a new civil rights law would be passed pretty quickly. Who knows, maybe that should be in the Fiscal Cliff laws!

 

(a thinly veiled attempt to keep/get us back on topic)


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gays have been paying a disproportionate amount of taxes since forever. I hardly think that is a reason we are gaining rights lately.

 

To what extent and for how long have gays paid a disproportionate share? And I don't mean to say only taxes give one group a louder voice. Rather the sum total of economic strength (wealth, disposable income, purchasing power, tax contributions, etc) of any group gives them more political strength.

 

Sorry I got us off on this sidetrack. Maybe I should move this discussion to a more appropriate thread.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gays have been paying a disproportionate amount of taxes since forever. I hardly think that is a reason we are gaining rights lately.

 

To what extent and for how long have gays paid a disproportionate share? And I don't mean to say only taxes give one group a louder voice. Rather the sum total of economic strength (wealth, disposable income, purchasing power, tax contributions, etc) of any group gives them more political strength.

 

Sorry I got us off on this sidetrack. Maybe I should move this discussion to a more appropriate thread.

 

Since the day we start working!  We didn't have a voice, we still have virtually no voice when it comes to taxes in the same breath as hetro couples.  If MayDay and his partner get married they cannot file joint.  How is that equal?  What benefits do they get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I think we're witnessing one of the biggest games of political "chicken" the country has seen in the last few decades.  I don't think a deal will get done in time and we will in fact go over the cliff.  Republicans are weighing their options on what to hold out on, and Democrats obviously feel they have the upper hand.

 

If we do go over the cliff, Obama & Democrats can blame Republicans, then immediately start working to enact tax cuts for the middle class, and look like the saviors on both accounts.  Obama might also decide to restore funding to some portion of the defense sector after going over the cliff, looking like the hero once again.

 

As I see it, Democrats have no incentive whatsoever to avert going over the cliff.  They have too much to gain by letting it play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real good article: 

 

Let's Eliminate Sports Welfare

by: Patrick Hruby

 

Perhaps you’ve heard the news: America is barreling toward a self-induced “fiscal cliff” of federal tax hikes and spending cuts, largely because Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on how to make the nation’s budget moderately less unbalanced. On one side, President Obama wants to raise money by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans; on the other, House Speaker John Boehner wants to reduce costs by slashing social welfare programs. Both men and their respective parties seem stuck at an ideological impasse -- think who’s better, Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith? only with the world economy at stake -- and yet each camp is ignoring an obvious way out.

 

Well, maybe not a way out. But definitely a way forward. An easy, overdue fix to the nation’s fiscal woes. A course of action rock-ribbed liberals and hardcore conservatives can agree on. A policy shift that would not only save cash, but also act as a trust-building, goodwill-generating building block toward larger, harder and more essential partisan compromise.

 

Ready? Here goes.

 

Eliminate Sports Welfare.

 

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/40595178/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I think we're witnessing one of the biggest games of political "chicken" the country has seen in the last few decades.  I don't think a deal will get done in time and we will in fact go over the cliff.  Republicans are weighing their options on what to hold out on, and Democrats obviously feel they have the upper hand.

 

If we do go over the cliff, Obama & Democrats can blame Republicans, then immediately start working to enact tax cuts for the middle class, and look like the saviors on both accounts.  Obama might also decide to restore funding to some portion of the defense sector after going over the cliff, looking like the hero once again.

 

As I see it, Democrats have no incentive whatsoever to avert going over the cliff.  They have too much to gain by letting it play out.

 

The problem with this thinking is that after a month or two, the President is going to start owning whatever fallout comes from barreling over the "cliff," particularly if the economy recedes.  Ultimately Presidents are held responsible for the economy.  Republicans may take a beating in the short-term, but in the long-term, whatever happens as a result of the fiscal cliff will fall on Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real good article: 

 

Let's Eliminate Sports Welfare

by: Patrick Hruby

 

Perhaps you’ve heard the news: America is barreling toward a self-induced “fiscal cliff” of federal tax hikes and spending cuts, largely because Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on how to make the nation’s budget moderately less unbalanced. On one side, President Obama wants to raise money by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans; on the other, House Speaker John Boehner wants to reduce costs by slashing social welfare programs. Both men and their respective parties seem stuck at an ideological impasse -- think who’s better, Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith? only with the world economy at stake -- and yet each camp is ignoring an obvious way out.

 

Well, maybe not a way out. But definitely a way forward. An easy, overdue fix to the nation’s fiscal woes. A course of action rock-ribbed liberals and hardcore conservatives can agree on. A policy shift that would not only save cash, but also act as a trust-building, goodwill-generating building block toward larger, harder and more essential partisan compromise.

 

Ready? Here goes.

 

Eliminate Sports Welfare.

 

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/40595178/

 

 

 

While I mostly agree with that piece, this is a race-to-the-bottom situation.  Municipalities compete against one another to host these teams by offering them the best deal and incentives (such as building stadiums).  It's more of a local issue, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is mostly a local issue. Let's keep this focused on federal Fiscal Cliff issues.

 

I say we go over the fiscal cliff, endure an economic slowdown in the short term, and come out leaner in the long term.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we go over the fiscal cliff, endure an economic slowdown in the short term, and come out leaner in the long term.

 

Agreed.

 

The problem with this thinking is that after a month or two, the President is going to start owning whatever fallout comes from barreling over the "cliff," particularly if the economy recedes.  Ultimately Presidents are held responsible for the economy.  Republicans may take a beating in the short-term, but in the long-term, whatever happens as a result of the fiscal cliff will fall on Obama.

 

Perhaps.  Obama also won re-election despite historically high unemployment and an economy still stuck in neutral.  So long as we go over the cliff, polling already indicates the majority will blame Republicans.  All the Democrats have to do is craft legislation for middle class tax breaks after the cliff, and dare Republicans to vote against them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Problem is that Boehner would never let any such legislation go to vote without the Dems attaching 'equivalent' (percentage wise) cuts for the rich.  If the GOP won't vote on only a tax cut for the middle class now, what would make them do so after we go over the cliff?

 

EDIT - to be clear, I don't think we will go over the cliff (or down the slope, depending on how you look at it).  Something temporary will eventually be passed which will take us the next Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we go over the fiscal cliff, endure an economic slowdown in the short term, and come out leaner in the long term.

 

Agreed.

 

I generally agree with this as well, and my wife and I combined are a fairly high-earning couple, though not top 2%.

 

My problem is that my comfort with this lasts only as long as the Republicans control at least one House of Congress or the presidency.  With the GOP in control of the House, from which all taxing and spending bills are constitutionally required to originate, there is some check against the Democrats simply pocketing the extra tax money and running the deficit right back up again with yet more unsustainable spending programs.  The GOP only holds onto the House because of gerrymandering, however, and its majority in the Senate shrank in the recent elections despite the playing field actually being nominally somewhat in the GOP's favor.  (It still has the filibuster, but I despise that with a holy fiery passion.)  And, of course, Obama won another term.

 

I would gladly pay substantially higher taxes for a genuine balanced budget amendment ("genuine" meaning "one with teeth").  But I have nightmares about higher taxes simply paving the way for even higher spending and no decrease in the debt or deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Are you suggesting that all unsustainable spending programs originate from the legislative initiatives of Democrats?  :-o

 

Re the balanced budget amendment idea....... is there some simplified summary of the cuts (and effects of those cuts) which would need to be made to reach a balanced budget on the federal level?  Without looking too much into it, I have to imagine there would be a devastating butterfly effect which would cause even more cuts which would lead to more such effects and then more cuts and on would go the carousel....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Are you suggesting that all unsustainable spending programs originate from the legislative initiatives of Democrats?  :-o

 

No.  But enough of them do.  Most of the biggest spenders in absolute terms in Congress are Democrats.  Many of the biggest deficit spenders are Republicans because of their ridiculous consumption of supply-sider Kool-Aid, but that would be taken out of the equation by the balanced budget amendment itself.

 

Re the balanced budget amendment idea....... is there some simplified summary of the cuts (and effects of those cuts) which would need to be made to reach a balanced budget on the federal level?  Without looking too much into it, I have to imagine there would be a devastating butterfly effect which would cause even more cuts which would lead to more such effects and then more cuts and on would go the carousel....

 

If you believe in the universality of austerity spirals, then yes.  Personally, I don't; we are not Greece.  A significant portion of Greece's economy was built around transfer payments (including fictitious entities set up specifically to receive them ... I could tell some horrible stories related by a Greek professor who spoke at one of the professional association meetings I attended a few months ago).

 

A sharp return to a balanced budget would of course cause a contraction, since deficit spending is accounted straight into GDP; for whatever reason, we don't subtract deficit spending from GDP before reporting the figure (even though any household or company that finances spending with debt is not richer in any meaningful sense to the extent such spending is debt-financed ... not until and unless the debt is paid down faster than the asset purchased with it depreciates).  However, I believe that contraction would be singular, not cascading, and would be an acceptable price to pay in order to buy a measure of economic hope and freedom for younger generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that's not getting discussed, at least in any news I've seen, is the long term impact of having the federal reserve rate at essentially ZERO.  While low rates are great for borrowers, it sucks for savers.  People who want to keep money in the bank and earn a safe 3, 4 or 5 percent have no place to go, except some type of municipal bonds, likely through a trader or financial advisor.  What's a mom & pop in their 60's to do?  Or a young kid who has a snow shoveling/grass cutting business who wants to save for a car?  These people are getting nothing off standard bank accounts and aren't saving as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...