The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

So unless something unexpected happens, at midnight tonight the government will cease all non essential functioning and furlough approximately 800k workers until such time as a new funding bill can be passed.

Boehner, Reid, and Obama have been holding negotiation sessions at the White House for the last three nights, and sentiment about "how it's going" seems to see-saw quite a bit, though at this point the sentiment seems to be strongly trending towards a shutdown. 

The Democrats had originally agreed to $33billion in cuts to the operating budget, which was what the Republicans had demanded.  After they supposedly reached agreement, however, the Republicans nearly doubled their demands, to $61billion in cuts.  As I read the news, now, however, the actual dollar figure isn't so much in dispute any more so much as the partisan riders the Republicans are insisting on (one is to totally wipe out federal dollars for abortions -- which will incidentally defund Planned Parenthood);

Worth noting:  this is NOT about Ryan's proposed spending bill.  This shutdown will be ONLY about funding for this fiscal year, which, incidentally, is already half-over (making the cuts more and more drastic as time goes on).

Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer all expressed a desire for the government to shut down so that they could use it politically going into the next election just as Clinton did.

In actuality, the number of bills out there and who they're offered by is immaterial.  They've been negotiating this one for weeks now, so they've essentially settled on a framework and ground rules and are now going around about the details.  The negotiation is between the bill passed in the house (which is why Boehner is there) and the Senate's version (which is why Reid is there).  This is reconciliation between two bills and the two houses, not between Ds and Rs in one body or another. 

No... republicans are refusing to compromise. When democrats were in charge of the House and Bush was president, the democrats compromised and came to agreements.

The current Congressional republicans simply refuse to compromise and then act as if the democrats are at 100% at fault. This problem is all in Congress.

The American people are not going to blame a non-elected DNC official (Dean) or a Senator (Reid) or a minority party Congressmen (Schumer). They are smart enough to assign blame to a Congress led by unyeilding republicans.

I wonder if the President and Messrs. Reid & Boehner hung out around the kegerator

I so-knew he had one of those installed in the OO!

+1
Great point.  That's where the leadership of a president is necessary to bring diverse points of view together and moderate a solution. 

Where do you think the meetings between Boehner and Reid have been held? In the White House.

Obama has been working on this issue with republicans and democrats round the clock. He is trying to avert a shutdown.

The problem is that congressional republicans can't back down because if they do, the Tea Party fringe of their party will revolt. They are afraid to compromise.

Boehner has led them down a path with only two exits...shut down the government and be blamed or piss off the Tea Party fringe and be opposed in the next primary. Now that's leadership. 

+1
Great point.  That's where the leadership of a president is necessary to bring diverse points of view together and moderate a solution. 

Today President Obama leaves for a family get-a-way to Colonial Williamsburg.  The president and his family will enjoy all of the national monuments and attractions.  The FAA has set up a no-fly zone over Williamsburg for the duration of the first family's trip.

There is some buzz that he may postpone his trip if the government shuts down, but I think that is unlikely.  Though the shutdown will force the closing of many of the federally run museums and attractions that the first family plans to visit, I'm sure arrangements will be made for those to be considered essential services for the duration of the president's trip.

Should be relaxing after all this budget-bla-did-de-bla stuff!

Looks like the plans are changing according to Fox.

President Obama has once again changed his travel schedule because of last-minute Washington deal-making.

Gallup Poll says 60% of Americans want a compromise and not a shutdown.
Rasmussen is a republican polling source. They worded their question oddly.
"Would you rather have Congress avoid a government shutdown by authorizing spending at the same levels as last year or would you rather have a partial government shutdown until Democrats and Republicans can agree on what spending to cut?"
No wonder they got those results.

you are probably right, but Rasmussen has been under a lot of fire lately by objective third party polling groups for their wording.

"Would you rather have Congress avoid a government shutdown by authorizing spending at the same levels as last year or would you rather have a partial government shutdown until Democrats and Republicans can agree on what spending to cut?"

I hope it shutdown instead of defunding clinics procviding reproductive services.

If POTUS caves, he's going to be toast with many of us who paid to get him elected.

This week the republicans invited Harry Reid again to introduce a bill that he would be willing to vote on, and the answer was no.

The 61 billion in cuts are useless.  We need closer to a trillion now.  Last month we spent 8X what we took in in revenue. 

Looks to me like both sides are saying "why can't you be reasonable and do it my way?"

Gallup Poll says 60% of Americans want a compromise and not a shutdown.

Rasmussen is a republican polling source. They worded their question oddly.

"Would you rather have Congress avoid a government shutdown by authorizing spending at the same levels as last year or would you rather have a partial government shutdown until Democrats and Republicans can agree on what spending to cut?"

No wonder they got those results.

You sir, need to reread the Constitution. Reid doesn't get to introduce budget bills. That's what the House gets to do. If they can't produce something that will pass the Senate and avoid a veto by the President, we get a shutdown.

Also, if you're so frakking concerned about the budget, why is it that you insist on zero tax increases on anyone?

When the senate recieves a bill they can counter it with one of their own  . . .and during that period of time Pelosi was the house and it would have been no problem for them to craft a bill that they could both agree on.

If Pelosi and Reid had tried to pass a budget after the midterms, you would have been foaming at the mouth and yelling about how they weren't respecting the will of the American people. Moreover, that's just lame deflection. The budget we're arguing over is only good until October. The exact same argument would be happening in the fall/winter instead of now.

You're normally a reasonable person, but that's an absolutely idiotic read of the situation.

If Pelosi and Reid had tried to pass a budget after the midterms, you would have been foaming at the mouth and yelling about how they weren't respecting the will of the American people. Moreover, that's just lame deflection. The budget we're arguing over is only good until October. The exact same argument would be happening in the fall/winter instead of now.

Who do they fear?  What kept them from passing a budget in their own image???

http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=19203 (http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=19203)

In a slightly unrelated note.  They passed a bill removing the 1099 requirement for 2012.  So YAY.

..insults don't help anybody..

Yeah (except when its "teabaggers" of course, right Nate?)

Not my fault they named themselves that. You'll note that I usually call them "Tea Partiers" or "Tea Partyists", though.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/08/135236360/the-shutdown-and-the-deficit
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/04/08/shutdowncuts_custom.gif?t=1302278123)
Seems like a pretty small amount to shut the government down over.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/08/135236360/the-shutdown-and-the-deficit


(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/04/08/shutdowncuts_custom.gif?t=1302278123)


Seems like a pretty small amount to shut the government down over.

Oh THAT'S why you called them teabaggers. You were not trying to be derogatory or insulting. Whatever.

$33B, $66B, WTH $100B.  It's all small change when there are sacred cows on both sides.

Dems to throw temper tantrum tomorrow.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/08/democratic-activists-plan-protest-dump-trash-boehners-home-saturday/

Did you forget where you come from? He never had Teatown.... :-*

Can you imagine holding the country hostage over Planned Parenthood? Do you realize how much good they do for this country? They may help 1% get abortions... This is the ultimate litmus test!

Actually, we're still only arguing over $33B.  It's not theoretical, that's the actual amount at stake.  

This brinksmanship will not solve any fiscal problems anywhere.  For all intents and purposes, it will not affect this year's deficit, and won't address the structural deficit (that's what Ryan's budget was for).  What's more, none of the numbers EVER under discussion were going to really effect the year's deficit.  At no point was a number in the air that would've done what the Republicans are advertising their (new) numbers would do.

So what other reason could there be for them to be forcing a government shutdown?  

You may be right about the lack of impact, but isn't cutting spending that will reduce debt/deficit still a good thing? We have to start somewhere, right?

He lives on Capital Hill.  They'll either get in serious poo with the authorities or they'll need to go to Ohio.

To be fair, in the article some folks want to dump trash on the WH. This so damned dumb and childish.

So what other reason could there be for them to be forcing a government shutdown?  

What's wrong with people not wanting their tax dollars to support the genocide of the poor and black?

You may be right about the lack of impact, but isn't cutting spending that will reduce debt/deficit still a good thing? We have to start somewhere, right?

This is the problem.  People don't even understand the funding that is getting cut. 

Shutting down the gov automagically throws 800k workers into furlough (which is, you know, unemployment) and, the longer it goes on, will have major echo effects throughout the economy.  Choosing a government shutdown as the preferred method of "starting somewhere" is flat ridiculous. Take the $33 billion (or whatever we're at now), finish up 2011 and move on to Ryan's structural proposal in 2012 and beyond.

For your edification, a list of what/who/how much is affected by the current shutdown.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2011/04/politics/interactive.govt.shutdown.list/index.html?hpt=T2

Did you miss the part about the sacred cows?  Both sides please.

Shutting down the gov automagically throws 800k workers into furlough (which is, you know, unemployment) and, the longer it goes on, will have major echo effects throughout the economy.  Choosing a government shutdown as the preferred method of "starting somewhere" is flat ridiculous. Take the $33 billion (or whatever we're at now), finish up 2011 and move on to Ryan's structural proposal in 2012 and beyond.

For your edification, a list of what/who/how much is affected by the current shutdown.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2011/04/politics/interactive.govt.shutdown.list/index.html?hpt=T2

Really?  Harry Reid must not understand, he says this hinges on the GOP wanting to stop taxpayer-funded abortion.  

You may be right about the lack of impact, but isn't cutting spending that will reduce debt/deficit still a good thing? We have to start somewhere, right?

I remember the good old days when budgets were actually passed before the fiscal year started in October.

Why did the previous Congress fail so miserably to do one of it's primary tasks?

Why have 5 of the last 7 election year Congresses failed to pass a budget in an election year? Why did the Republicans fail to pass a 2006 budget at all when they controlled both houses? In this case, as we vs us noted earlier, there was wide agreement that the budget process should be delayed until the Budget Commission's report was issued.

More to the point, why did Boehner reject a deal last night for $78 billion in cuts to Obama's original budget proposal in exchange for dropping the riders? Clearly it's about ideology and not money.

I read the list and I can say that my life will be unaffected. I do not think the repubs are "choosing" a shutdown, in my opinion they are tired of kicking the damned can down the rode for the zillionth time.

Really, you don't think it's choosing a shutdown when the Republicans are insisting that as part of the budget, Congress mandate that DC can't use locally raised funds to pay for abortions? What in holy hell does that have to do with the federal budget?

Gaspar? Uh, as I recall the plan calls for cutting taxes, cutting Social Security benefits, cutting Medicare benefits, cutting non-defense discretionary spending and cutting defense spending. What else is there?

I read the list and I can say that my life will be unaffected.

So this means you're pro-shutdown then?

Yay self interest.

Nope. Just don't feel it is as bad as the naysayers believe (and I don't really care).

I suppose if it was you who couldn't get a driver's license or renew your car tags, you might think differently.

What's the point of sacred cows here?  What possible good could kneecapping Planned Parenthood do in the short- medium- or long-term?  Aside from advancing a cherished Republican talking point, the money saved would be a drop in a drop in the bucket, and we would lose a hugely valuable service provider.  This is also my argument, incidentally against defunding NPR, but at least NPR has other major funding outlets.  

Also:  have we discussed -- anywhere, at all -- what the possible Republican sacred cows on the chopping block might be?  I have to say I've seen none whatsoever on offer.  If I give you Planned Parenthood, how bout I get to tax capital gains at 17.5%?

Here's a fantastic sign:

(http://i55.tinypic.com/28aqb91.jpg)

Of course, those folks have no problems ramming U.S. tax dollars up there, right?

I was not aware that a Federal shutdown would also shut down the State of Oklahoma.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/04/bill-maher-this-is-bullshit-and-i-want-my-money-back/

Here's a fantastic sign:

(http://i55.tinypic.com/28aqb91.jpg)

Of course, those folks have no problems ramming U.S. tax dollars up there, right?

Your family wouldn't be a large recipient of federal tax dollars, or wait, would it?

Apparently you're not aware that people actually reside in the District of Columbia. ;)

Yeah, it's stupid, but in a shutdown, they get shut down, too. Even though most of the DC government is paid for by local taxes, just as it is in every state. DC really should be a state. It would make the flag look funny, though.

[..cut flippant youtube video..]

You really don't get it do you? The stability of Treasuries is what keeps our borrowing costs low. It's what makes all the models investors use to value other things go. Screwing with that is inviting disaster. Even threatening to screw with it is inviting disaster.

Do you really want to see interest rates on our debt jump from almost zero to even 5%? Do you really think it's a wise idea to end the massive subsidies we get from the rest of the world through their demand for dollars in the form of Treasuries? As it stands, we get what is effectively free smile from the rest of the world precisely because nearly every serious investor in the world thinks that Treasuries are as good as gold, as far as getting their money back.

You and I pay for stuff, but we don't actually give anything up as a country to get stuff from China, Japan, Korea, Germany, and elsewhere. We send them IOUs instead of real value. IOUs that will likely never actually be paid back.

Worst of all, we are so frakking close to seeing the Euro in the toilet, thus removing the dollar's only serious competitor, that we would have to be monumentally stupid to love that up now.

You really don't get it do you? The stability of Treasuries is what keeps our borrowing costs low. It's what makes all the models investors use to value other things go. Screwing with that is inviting disaster. Even threatening to screw with it is inviting disaster.

Do you really want to see interest rates on our debt jump from almost zero to even 5%? Do you really think it's a wise idea to end the massive subsidies we get from the rest of the world through their demand for dollars in the form of Treasuries? As it stands, we get what is effectively free smile from the rest of the world precisely because nearly every serious investor in the world thinks that Treasuries are as good as gold, as far as getting their money back.

You and I pay for stuff, but we don't actually give anything up as a country to get stuff from China, Japan, Korea, Germany, and elsewhere. We send them IOUs instead of real value. IOUs that will likely never actually be paid back.

Worst of all, we are so frakking close to seeing the Euro in the toilet, thus removing the dollar's only serious competitor, that we would have to be monumentally stupid to love that up now.

Oh I get it. I am just not into the apocalyptic hyberbole. Here's a thought, why not just spend within our means? 

It isn't hyperbole. If we fail to raise the debt ceiling and end up defaulting on treasuries, there will be chaos that makes Lehman look like a spring day. Even without that risk, it's still stupid to give up the flow of free stuff from China and elsewhere.

As far as not spending within our means, ask Paul Ryan. Or the American Enterprise Institute. Even that bastion of right-wing economics believes in countercyclical deficit spending. If your "team" hadn't decided to cut taxes in a boom, thus leaving us with a boom-time deficit, we wouldn't be in the financial situation we're in now. Of course, some people just don't get that you raise taxes into growth to head off inflation.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign
that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial  assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

I ran across this quote from four years ago during that debate of raising the debt ceiling, which is eerily similar to my position:
http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/alternativestothedebtlimitincreasev20.pdf

Go ahead and fear-monger to OBAMA who made those statements while in the Senate.

And to your quote which started this, perhaps it can be modified to read, "Wow..just..wow. It's as if the Republicans OBAMA really [did] want to destroy the world's economy..."

Obama ain't the idiot threatening to not raise the debt ceiling today. Boehner is.

Translation: I am embarrassed because my double standard has been exposed.

That would be a translation fail. I meant what I wrote, not what you wish I meant.

Do you have some evidence that Obama thinks that the debt ceiling should not be raised at this time?

Yes, it needs to stop.  Needed to stop the last time, and the time before that.

We keep charging up our credit cards, then asking for more credit, then asking our parents and neighbors for money, finally just stealing it from our kids.  We need a Dave Ramsey intervention.  We've been owned!


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYKAbRK_wKA[/youtube]

The Romans were warned about this centuries before their collapse.  Apathy and fiscal irresponsibility consumed them.  We are on the fast track.  We cannot stop it, but we can slow the process.

The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. – Marcus Tullius Cicero

It isn't hyperbole. If we fail to raise the debt ceiling and end up defaulting on treasuries...

So a tax hike and spending cut it is.  Lets get it going.

Why?

If we cut spending alone we will have the budget balanced before 2015.  Heck, even doing the 1% solution gets us on the right track, but the economy must grow for any solution to work. It can be done without any tax increases, and foster additional tax reductions once the budget is balanced in 2015.  This kills three birds with one stone and is relatively simple to implement.  We grow the economy by eliminating the real and threatened tax increase rhetoric, we balance the budget, and we foster future growth by decreasing the tax burden on everyone.

(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/cuts3.jpg)

The "Tax the Rich" debate makes little since since they are the job creators.  It's borne more out of liberal envy than logic.

Ok, lets say that President Obama gets his way and we implement a new tax on the wealthiest 2% of the country.  Actually, lets take it a step further and say that we decide to go medieval on them and tax them at 100%.  We would collect a whopping 34 Billion dollars.  That's about 1% of our budget needs, and if we used it to service our debt it would take around 400 years.  It's a freaking joke.  Campaign talk to swoon those envious of success.  In the meantime we would decimate industry and our debt would grow exponentially faster than any pennies we could collect.  

The Romans were warned about this centuries before their collapse.  Apathy and fiscal irresponsibility consumed them.  We are on the fast track.  We cannot stop it, but we can slow the process.

The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. – Marcus Tullius Cicero

Good lord. What are you talking about?

You are trying to quote Cicero as being relevant to today?

Hell, this quote isn’t relevant to the end of the Rome, he wasn’t someone that foretold the end of the Roman Empire, he was part of its founding. Cicero died in 43 BC and Roman empire didn’t end until 1453 AD. And even after that The Holy Roman and Ottoman Empires were more successor governments of the Roman and Byzantine Empires respectively than new empires. It can be argued that the real end of the Roman Empire was World War One in the east and that the resulting World War Two was really a Germanic effort to reestablish the western empire. Only 2,000 years after Cicero death. But sure, tax and spending policy in the Roman Republic was a contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Empire hundreds and thousands of years later.  

Awesome!  Lets break that down then.  Tell me how this is not relevant to today?

The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. – Marcus Tullius Cicero

What parts are not relevant today?

Should we have a balanced budget?

Should public debt be reduced?

Should the government present its will as superior to that of the people?

Should we reduce our involvement in foreign wars and payments to foreign governments?

Should we discourage dependence among those who can work and be productive?


There is much wisdom in the founding philosophies of civilization.  Temporal distance is of little relevance.  Intelligence is temporary, but wisdom is timeless.  ;)

IOW, raising the debt ceiling solves nothing at this point in terms of lowering our cost of borrowing, especially if others read the writing on the wall that our economy is getting ready to take another dump.

I'm not a big fan of comparing personal and macro-government finances, but let's pretend that you're a consumer with $10k in debt and you keep racking up debt and charging it on a card every month.  What should be your first step to minimize your debt? There are several good answers to that question but I can tell you that the answer is NOT "just stop paying your creditors."  This is what not raising the debt ceiling amounts to.  That's the quickest and easiest way to tank your credit score and encourage your creditors to start legal proceedings against you.  

I'm not a big fan of comparing personal and macro-government finances, but let's pretend that you're a consumer with $10k in debt and you keep racking up debt and charging it on a card every month.  What should be your first step to minimize your debt? There are several good answers to that question but I can tell you that the answer is NOT "just stop paying your creditors."  This is what not raising the debt ceiling amounts to.  That's the quickest and easiest way to tank your credit score and encourage your creditors to start legal proceedings against you.  

At this point we don't even acknowledge the reality of the situation.  

That's just patently not true.  We nearly shut down the government over how much money we were going to cut from last year's budget.  The President actually convened the Deficit Commission to come up with suggestions, and he'll probably adopt at least some of the suggestions during his speech on Wednesday.  Even though you choose not to believe it, the HCR bill is also projected to reduce the deficit by $100+ billion, so the President has actually already started work.  Paul Ryan's draconian budget proposal is out and very much under discussion.  Despite the fact that most economists lobbyists  believe it's misplaced, austerity seems to be at the top of everybody's agenda --despite the fact that our debt to GDP ratio isn't nearly as dire as the GOP is saying it is.

Point is, EVERYBODY'S discussing it, and EVERYBODY'S working on it.      

That's just patently not true.  We nearly shut down the government over how much money we were going to cut from last year's budget.  The President actually convened the Deficit Commission to come up with suggestions, and he'll probably adopt at least some of the suggestions during his speech on Wednesday.  Even though you choose not to believe it, the HCR bill is also projected to reduce the deficit by $100+ billion, so the President has actually already started work.  Paul Ryan's draconian budget proposal is out and very much under discussion.  Despite the fact that most economists believe it's misplaced, austerity seems to be at the top of everybody's agenda --despite the fact that our debt to GDP ratio isn't nearly as dire as the GOP is saying it is.

Point is, EVERYBODY'S discussing it, and EVERYBODY'S working on it.     

I guess that wasn't fair.  What I meant is that no one is discussing the repercussions of our current spending path.  Sure, it's a political football as it usually is, and the everyone is wrapped up in the drama, but not the reality.

The 100 billion savings in Obamacare has already been reveled to be untrue.  Sebelious admitted in March that $500 billion was double-counted, and the CBO has revised it's estimates.  We cannot afford Obamacare any more than we can afford anything else at this point.  Ryan's budget is not draconian, it's flaccid.  We have to do far more, but both the Democrats and the Republicans realize that it is easier to get things done in a crisis, so I am convinced that they will provide lip-service until there is a crisis that gives them license to act.

I am deeply upset with the new Republican leadership.  They were elected to do what needs to be done and they are playing the same games as the democrats, beholden to the same sacred cows.

I am deeply upset with the new Republican leadership.  They were elected to do what needs to be done and they are playing the same games as the democrats, beholden to the same sacred cows.

To compare, China is booming with a tax rate of 9.9% of GDP, as is Germany with 11.8% GDP. The UK has a tax rate of 28.5% GDP and France is at 21.4%. The country with the highest standard of living in the world is Norway whose tax rate stands at 28.2%. We have a long way to go with taxes before they become onerous and hurt the economy and if the last 10 years have proven anything, it’s that lowering taxes is not a good driver of economic growth.

While we certainly could cut some spending, especially defense spending, we don’t really other than the stimulus have a big spending problem. As we continue to recover from the recession the deficit will drop somewhat without any action on taxes or spending. So let’s look at the numbers aside from the recession.

In 2000 we had a stable economy and a basically balanced budget. Taxes as a percentage of GDP were at 12.7%. When Bush took office he cut taxes (and increased spending with his wars) so that by 2007 (before the recession) we were running an annual deficit of ~500 billion per year. Today taxes as a percentage of GDP are all the way down to 8.5%. If we were to raise taxes to 2000 levels (which were lower than taxes in 1988 when Reagan left office) we would increase revenue by .6 trillion dollars, which would more than cover what the deficit was pre-recession.

To compare, China is booming with a tax rate of 9.9% of GDP, as is Germany with 11.8% GDP. The UK has a tax rate of 28.5% GDP and France is at 21.4%. The country with the highest standard of living in the world is Norway whose tax rate stands at 28.2%. We have a long way to go with taxes before they become onerous and hurt the economy and if the last 10 years have proven anything, it’s that lowering taxes is not a good driver of economic growth.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS

http://www.marketingcharts.com/topics/europe/un-norway-has-best-standard-of-living-niger-worst-10652/

We can't let Norway be ahead of us. Let's raise our tax rate to 40% and leave them in the dust.

NOT

FIFY

C'mon now.  That's just silly.  Who's suggesting a tax rate that high . . . aside from you and Gaspar?

Instead of both sides insisting on protecting their sacred cows, simply cut all spending by a like percentage across every single government department and make them learn how to operate on less money.  That's the only way you can get around the politicking.  Well not all of it because it will be the awful Republicans tossing gubmint workers out on their ears, but at least the cuts are somewhat blind and not idealogical.

Thank you: this is reasonable.

Instead of both sides insisting on protecting their sacred cows, simply cut all spending by a like percentage across every single government department and make them learn how to operate on less money.  That's the only way you can get around the politicking.  Well not all of it because it will be the awful Republicans tossing gubmint workers out on their ears, but at least the cuts are somewhat blind and not idealogical.

My gosh, has it really come to this on PP?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDHUfPQ17WU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

+100

. . .and we're back.  We would only need a 1% reduction to balance the budget in 4 years (the One Percent Plan). 

Here's the thing. Nobody gives a flying love if we spend beyond our means, as long as we have a plan to keep the deficit to a dull roar at some point in the future. If investors did care, interest rates on Treasuries would be much higher. The financial markets want a plan, they don't want us to destroy the economy. Of course, they actually understand reality. Ideology is worthless to them because it loses them money.

If you believe in magical fairies, anyway.

1% reduction can do it.  It's a 1 percent reduction.  Plus the 3 % inflation(ish) with the increase in revenue that hopefully goes with that.

except Congress, they should get their taxes doubled for allowing this mess to happen in the first place and then playing games with it.

The freshmen would all holler, "t'weren't us".

That would be so simple, and then all the sacred cows are taken out of play. 

Do tax increases count as sacred cows?

Do tax increases count as sacred cows?

I don't see why it should be if every taxpayer saw a 1% increase, it's not a class envy thing and no one group is being asked to give more than another.  That would mean a 1% decrease in net receipts from the government to those who don't actually pay taxes.

I don't see why it should be if every taxpayer saw a 1% increase, it's not a class envy thing and no one group is being asked to give more than another. 

Actually, the rich will have a bigger tax increase which should keep all the social justice folks happy.

Someone with $100,000 taxable income would pay $1000 more.
Someone with $50,000 taxable income would only pay $500 more.
The rich guy pays twice as much more than the average working stiff pays more.  (Using some descriptive words used by others.)

It's obvious we don't have a plan to keep the deficit at a dull roar.

That's funny. The stimulus is expiring, which will cut the deficit spending, and HCR should save quite a bit also. Seems like there's already hope for the future.

I find it shocking that people think the problem is overspending when the effective tax rate is the lowest it's been in something like the last hundred years. Before the income tax, recall we had pretty beefy tariffs. Ideology gets in the way of thinking, I guess.

Oh, and regarding a 1% across the board increase? Not really going to work without fixing the problems we find here, otherwise it pretty much is a tax increase on the poor and middle class without a corresponding tax increase on those making more:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-you-can-pull-a-ge-on-taxes-2011-04-01

You missed my point. My point is that those whose income is largely not wage income will not pay 1% more in tax, much less 1% of their income. A person working a fast food job will in fact pay 1% more. A person making a couple hundred grand a year will just throw 1% more into a Roth IRA. I think we both agree that our current tax system is broken. Maybe I think it's a little more broken than you do..

And just wow on the WIC cuts. Of all the things. Shame on the entirety of Congress for that one. And Obama for going along with it.

Nope, YOU missed the point. Everyone pays 1% more, no gimmicks, no loopholes.  Corporations and all individuals.  If the government would accept Milk Bones as currency my beloved Mr. Butch would even contribute.  No loopholes, no excuses, we all pay and we all accept there will be some cuts in government services.  At a 1% reduction in spending, no one would ever be able to tell the difference.  At a 1% increase in taxation on every individual and corporation, no one will feel a difference.

We can keep going back and forth if you like. My point is that with the present tax code, that's simply not possible, and there's no political will for a significant rewrite.

I get what you're saying, and if it had a snowball's chance in hell of actually playing out that way, I'd agree with you. I think I've mentioned many times before that I'd be perfectly happy going back to Clinton rates with some adjustments for inflation. That would mean everybody who pays tax would pay more than 1% extra.

What you keep missing is that if everyone gives a nominal amount, no one sacrifices more than anyone else.  That's true "economic justice".

You are trying to extrapolate too much out of the conversation.

I am expecting to be taxed any year now on the perquisite that I work in a heated/air conditioned office. (Yes, heated in the winter and air conditioned in the summer.)  Is the heat/ac that I receive worth more than the heat/ac that a co-worker who is paid less receives?  If not, am I getting a bargain.  What if my co-worker can't afford the tax?  What about the workers that are in the non-airconditioned portion of the building.

That's for giving some one a new idea Red.  ;)

Talk to me about justice when certain forms of income don't get preferential treatment. Until then, the word is meaningless when it comes to the tax code. We can keep discussing this plate of beans, but it's so far divorced from reality that it's pretty much pointless.

Liberals and Conservatives cannot communicate using that lexicon.  The term "Justice" has s definition that is unique to each ideology.

Liberal Justice- is providing for the unfortunate using capital taken from the fortunate.  It is based on a belief that life is a lottery, and those with means have amassed those means by luck or by taking advantage of others.  Therefore, they owe a capital debt to society, and have a responsibility to right the injustice caused by their success.  Success and property are viewed as finite, and ownership is granted by government.  Justice is the voice of the majority.

Conservative Justice- recognizes that wealth is built through hard work, innovation, and skill.  Justice is simply a level playing ground where each able bodied person can achieve based on skills, work ethic, and creativity.   The poor can become rich, and the rich can become poor and all have the freedom to succeed or fail.  I have no right to your property and you have no right to mine.

I thinks you might be a little mistaken. Why do you feel compelled to label and then identify what the label means?

Liberal definition by Dictionary.com...

 lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/  Show Spelled
[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]  Show IPA
 
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.


Read number 8 over and over...

Oh Good Lord!  I just got done watching the president's speech.  Nothing serious about it.  I'm happy he seems willing to make some cuts but this speech was supposed to be specifics and ended up being more generalization.

The one thing that did come out of it was a new term: “spending reductions in the tax code" is the new term for tax increases.  What is it with generating new vocabulary for things that you don't want to address head on?

I guess the best part of the speech was all of the folks that fell asleep.  ABC was good enough to put a camera on one of them.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKx8szuzioI[/youtube]

Jumpin Joe, you never fail to deliver.

How would you define social/economic justice?

Defining income to be taxed has always been a problem.

I thought the reason CGT were lower was to encourage investment. If the CGT rate was the same as the income tax, why would anyone want to invest?

Why wouldn't they? What else are they going to do with their money, sit on it?

Why wouldn't they? What else are they going to do with their money, sit on it? You make me laugh sometimes.  :D

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKx8szuzioI[/youtube]

Jumpin Joe, you never fail to deliver.

Why?

I didn't mention social/economic justice in my response.

How about you define mid century intellectualism?

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

Yep. Or bank it. Or donate it. Or buy tax free munis. Or take it overseas (along with themselves).

Nathan, do you not recall all these wealthy people and corporations sitting on billions and billions of dollars in cash while waiting to see what the outcome of Obamacare and whether or not the Bush tax cuts would be repealed?  That's only been a few months back...

Or making what little a tax free municipal bond makes.

Remember the effective rate is higher since the income is tax free.  How much more obviously depends on your tax rate.  How one scatters their money about also depends on how risk adverse they are and if they have enough to lose some.

David Cay Johnston is a columnist for tax.com and teaches the tax, property and regulatory law of the ancient world at Syracuse University College of Law and Whitman School of Management. He has also been called the “de facto chief tax enforcement officer of the United States” because his reporting in The New York Times shut down many tax dodges and schemes, just two of them valued by Congress at $260 billion. Johnston received a 2001 Pulitzer Prize for exposing tax loopholes and inequities. He wrote two bestsellers on taxes, Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch. Later this year, Johnston will be out with a new book, The Fine Print, revealing how big business, with help from politicians, abuses plain English to rob you blind.

Given that we're talking about the investor class, they're not terribly risk averse and they have enough to lose some without going completely broke. ;)

If you're talking about me, I'm risk averse and don't have much to lose. :P

There is a class in between that has money to invest but isn't really rich in the world of big money.  My perception of this class is in the magical $250,000/yr area.  They may want to have some money in a relatively secure place to make sure they don't go completely broke if the market takes a nose-dive.  

That's above my income.  I fall into the group above living from paycheck to paycheck but don't make enough to be willing to lose much.

The $250k/yr folks who are the sort to invest (outside of a 401(k) or IRA, anyway) have enough savings in stable instruments like CDs to make losing their entire portfolio not what it would be for you or I. They'd not be taking vacations to far flung places, rather than buying ramen.

They almost all are reliable voters and donors for the Democrats, though. Maybe the ones who are Republicans, who I admittedly speak to less about this sort of thing, would quit investing if they had to pay more. I doubt it, but maybe.

A strong wave of populist outrage greeted last month's news that  G.E.--in addition to paying no income tax on $5.1 billion in U.S. profits--received a $3.2 billion tax refund from the government. Given the country's sour fiscal condition, the company's big refund sparked a fresh round of calls to end large-scale tax breaks for corporations--and for the rich more broadly--as the best way to shrink the deficit.

Enter the Yes Men--a group of anticorporate pranksters known for carrying off convincing parodies of corporate speech and pro-business spin that often receive broad media pickup. The group mocked up a G.E. press release that purported to return the company's IRS refund back to the U.S. Treasury in order to assist the ailing jobs economy.

The fake release included the G.E. logo and a link to a slick website that looked very much like the company's official one. The Associated Press fell for it, as did USA Today (the paper promptly removed its story, and then ran a piece pointing out how the AP had fallen for the prank).

"The AP did not follow its own standards in this case for verifying the authenticity of a news release," AP Business Editor Hal Ritter said in a story explaining the gaffe.

Below is an excerpt from the fake press release:


GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt has informed the Obama administration that the company will be gifting its entire 2010 tax refund, worth $3.2 Billion, to the US Treasury on April 18, Tax Day, and will furthermore adopt a host of new policies that secure its position as a leader in corporate social responsibility.


"We want the public to know that we've heard them, and that we know many Americans are going through tough times," said GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt. "GE will therefore give our 2010 tax refund back to the public and allow the public to decide how to spend it."


Immelt acknowledged no wrongdoing. "All seven of our foreign tax havens are entirely legal," Immelt noted. "But Americans have made it clear that they deplore laws that enable tax avoidance. While we owe it to our shareholders to use every legal loophole to maximize returns — we also owe something to the American people. We didn't write the laws that let us legally avoid paying taxes. Congress did. But we benefit from those laws, and now we'd like to share those benefits. We are proud to be giving something back to America, and we are proud to set an example for all industry to follow."

And just to complete the giddy circuit, the Yes Men--which teamed with another advocacy group known as US Uncut on the prank--sent out its own post-hoax PR statement, underlining the bigger political point.

"This action showed us how the world could work," US Uncut spokesman Carl Gibson said in the statement on the Yes Men's actual website. "For a brief moment people believed that the biggest corporate tax dodger had a change of heart and actually did the right thing. But the only way anything like this is really going to happen is if we change the laws that allow corporate tax avoidance in the first place."

G.E. has long operated an in-house accounting department that's legendary for taking maximal advantage of US tax laws and loopholes. More than 970 employees staff the company's tax division--among them a clutch of onetime IRS agents and former government officials. As one tax specialist noted as word spread of G.E.'s 2010 refund, the company prospers via "fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore."

Just saw on a breaking news segment that the Obama administration is pulling the plug on the border fence.

Darn.  I thought the electric fence was a good idea.
 :)

Nate, Conan, you can both be pissed!

CBO has scored the cuts to be voted on today.
A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the fiscal 2011 spending deal that Congress will vote on Thursday concludes that it would cut spending this year by less than one-one hundredth of what both Republicans or Democrats have claimed.

A comparison prepared by the CBO shows that the omnibus spending bill, advertised as containing some $38.5 billion in cuts, will only reduce federal outlays by $352 million below 2010 spending rates. The nonpartisan budget agency also projects that total outlays are actually some $3.3 billion more than in 2010, if emergency spending is included in the total.

The astonishing result, according to CBO, is the result of several factors: increases in spending included in the deal, especially at the Defense Department; decisions to draw over half of the savings from recissions, cuts to reserve funds, and mandatory-spending programs; and writing off cuts from funding that might never have been spent.



Holy smoke-screen Batman, we've been BSed.  I wish Biden were awake to see this!

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12109/ContinuingResolutions.pdf

Guess those Tea Party nut jobs were right!  Neither side is serious.

You mean the same CBO which made a $500 bln error in calculating Medicare savings under Obamacare?

I wonder what the real number is?

Strange how they never make those mistakes in the people's favor?

I wonder what the real number is?

Many of you are at lunch (eating sh!t) and have no concern for how poorly managed health hurt our economy and our environment. 

You were one of the posters we discussed actually.

Guys, I think Hoss is right.

But it sounds like the House Dems are starting to fight back, that's good.

It's time they show their obstructionist behavior out in the open.

Wow..just..wow. It's as if the Republicans really do want to destroy the world's economy...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/10/ftn/main20052567.shtml

Even if the Tea Party's 2011 budget had been passed and Ryan's 2012 budget passes, the debt limit will have to be raised. Even the Tea Party has no plan to immediately balance the budget. I'm tired of social bull getting tacked on to important budgetary legislation.

A growing number of Democrats are threatening to defy the White House over the national debt, joining Republican calls for deficit cuts as a requirement for consenting to lift the country’s borrowing limit.

The tension is the latest illustration of how the tea-party-infused GOP is driving the debate in Washington over federal spending. And it shows how the debt issue is testing the Obama administration’s clout as Democrats, particularly those from politically competitive states, resist White House arguments against setting conditions on legislation to raise the debt ceiling.

The push-back has come in recent days from Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a freshman who is running for reelection next year. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told constituents during the Easter recess that he would not vote to lift the debt limit without a “real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction.”

Waiting for Nate to wet himself over dems not wanting to raise the debt ceiling.