The republicans on FoxNews say that the passage of the health care bill will result in the most complete election turnout of incumbents in the history of American elections.
This writer on Yahoo says that the way the republicans acted during the debate will actually cost them more seats.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1298
"Baby killer" shouter steps forward, highlights internal GOP dilemma
Mysterious shout of 'baby killer!' puzzles House members, media Stories from around the Web The Starting Point: Sandstorms, speed records & immigration reform Political effects of health care win uncertain for Dems Live blog of the House vote on health care reform House passes second historic health care vote House passes health care reform in historic vote.Last night, as the clock approached midnight and the long House debate on health care reform was finally winding down, Rep. Bart Stupak stepped to the microphone on the floor of the chamber to deliver his remarks. As the famously anti-abortion congressman was denouncing a measure to kill the deal he'd struck earlier in the day for President Obama to issue an executive order reiterating that no federal funds would pay for abortions, a voice suddenly shouted "Baby killer!" from the GOP side of the House floor.
Today, after a flurry of media questions about the identity of the shouter, GOP Texas Rep. Randy Neugebauer stepped forward as the offending shouter—though he stipulated he actually shouted, "It's a baby killer," in reference to the unamended health care bill, and has since apologized to Stupak for any suggestion that he personally was responsible for the killing of babies.
Neugebauer's confession will help speed the episode's exit from the news cycle—particularly once President Obama signs the health care bill into law and Congress moves on to fresh controversies. But the "Baby killer furor" highlights a far more serious, long-term political dilemma for the Republicans: how to appear to be a respectable Party capable of governing while also providing political shelter for the highly motivated, though vocally disruptive, protest wing of the party associated with the Tea Party movement. While many commentators are forecasting trouble ahead for Democrats identified with the health care bill, the GOP faces some major issues of its own.
Just look at the past weekend: Thousands of Tea Party protesters descended on Washington in an attempt to "kill the bill." It was an impressive turnout for a quickly organized protest —but coverage of the event soon was dominated by reports that some demonstrators had hurled racial and homophobic epithets at Democratic lawmakers as they entered the Capitol.
Nor were the passionate displays limited to the protestors outside. Even after admonishing members of his caucus to "behave like grown-ups" during the epic health care floor debate, Majority Leader John Boehner let loose with a cry of "Hell no!" in his own fiery floor speech denouncing the Democrats' handling of the legislative process.
Also noteworthy: Kentucky Congressman Geoff Davis unveiled a flag on the Capitol balcony featuring the "Don't Tread on Me" slogan famously used by past revolutionary militia groups.
The alliance between conservative lawmakers and movement activists was famously sealed in the wake of Rep. Joe Wilson's now-famous "You lie!" shout during an address by President Obama to both chambers of Congress. The incident earned some tut-tutting from party and congressional leaders, but Wilson saw his fundraising numbers skyrocket with Tea Party donations after his outburst on the floor. Additionally, Wilson's Senate colleague from South Carolina, Jim DeMint—who authored a book denouncing "America's slide into socialism" —also sought to amp up activist support with the challenge to make health care into the Obama administration's Waterloo, an assertion the left is having some fun with on his Facebook page today.
But one prominent conservative commentator—former Bush speechwriter David Frum—argues that last night's vote was an enormous political reversal for Republicans. Saying that the Republicans went for "all the marbles" by unanimously opposing the bill and refusing to compromise in any way—fueling activist fury at the same time—he writes:
So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.
Frum's assessment actually echoes a warning call that conservative writer William Kristol advanced in a famous memo preaching hard opposition to President Clinton's 1993 health care reform bill. Kristol then cautioned that party leaders couldn't afford to let any version of the measure pass, lest the provisions of the bill create powerful new political alliances for the Democrats, as had happened after the passage of Social Security and Medicare in prior battles over federal entitlements. (It should be noted that this morning Kristol appears to be backing away from his past prediction of GOP doom and gloom if the Democrats successfully passed health care reform.)
Kristol's strategy of going all-in on opposing health care proved a political winner then: GOP opposition—combined with internal Democratic political tensions—defeated Clinton's bill and set the stage for the 1994 Republican Revolution. In losing the vote this time out via a strategy of strict opposition, Frum argues that the GOP has left itself little in the way of legislative achievement to run on in future campaigns, an assessment at least one other conservative commentator agrees with. Liberal pundits, meanwhile, are offering tongue-in-cheek accolades to the "unsung hero of comprehensive reform": Republican leaders who refused to work to make the bill more moderate, thus unifying the fractious Democrats.
In many ways, the dilemma faced by modern Republicans is similar to the one Democrats faced in the '60s and '70s with the Vietnam-era anti-war movement. While the confrontation-minded (and media-friendly) activists garnered headlines and caused widespread disruption, the Democrats succumbed to damaging leadership divisions on the war—and in the process, allowed Republicans to tag them with sinister hippie and New Left leanings ever since. The challenge for Republicans going forward is to avoid the same undertow from its activist base—to establish majorities in Washington and not let the unsavory aspects of the fringe haunt them for decades to come.
In the short term, though, the GOP doesn't seem to be in much of a mood for introspection—at least not to judge by the remarks of the party's 2008 standard bearer, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who had previously made a mark as a compromise-minded lawmaker. "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview with The Hill. "[The Democrats] have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."
– Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 22, 2010, 02:38:51 PM
"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview with The Hill. "[The Democrats] have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."
He seems to be under the mistaken impression that there was Republican cooperation prior to this vote. ???
I think that in the short term, the bill will be a win for Democrats, not because it's a good bill, but because it's not anything like what the Republican fringe has been claiming it is. When people realize that, they'll get comfortable with it. Now, in several years when the mandate kicks in, people might not be so pleased with it.
Also, having the health care bill done means the Democrats can move on to things like financial regulation and other good ideas the electorate wants action on. If the Republicans hold to McCain's promise, they will look like fools standing in opposition to regulating the too-big-to-fail banks.
And I think the charge that using reconciliation to pass the "sidecar" will also lack teeth if the Democrats can explain that's how they got rid of much of the blatant pork, like the buyoffs for Landrieu and Nelson.
I think both sides acted poorly. I think their will be a mighty flushing sound in the upcoming election.
Congressional approval hit 11% today.
This is historic change. We woke up with a far more parental form of government this morning. I am hopeful that the passage of this bill will help the very people it was designed to aid, however I fear that it will be as successful as every other government entitlement program.
A small amount of heroin leads to a lifetime of addiction.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 22, 2010, 02:54:33 PM
I think both sides acted poorly. I think their will be a mighty flushing sound in the upcoming election.
Congressional approval hit 11% today.
This is historic change. We woke up with a far more parental form of government this morning. I am hopeful that the passage of this bill will help the very people it was designed to aid, however I fear that it will be as successful as every other government entitlement program.
A small amount of heroin leads to a lifetime of addiction.
You would do well to wait for a poll that actually polled people after the health care bill passed before deciding what it's done to Congress' approval rating.
I fail to see how this is a big expansion of government. More like a big expansion of health insurance companies.
I guess I don't get why so many republicans act as if a big central government will destroy America.
The federal government is already in almost all parts of our lives already. Why is this the straw that breaks America's back?
Quote from: nathanm on March 22, 2010, 02:57:07 PM
You would do well to wait for a poll that actually polled people after the health care bill passed before deciding what it's done to Congress' approval rating.
I fail to see how this is a big expansion of government. More like a big expansion of health insurance companies.
You may be right.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 22, 2010, 03:03:02 PM
I guess I don't get why so many republicans act as if a big central government will destroy America.
The federal government is already in almost all parts of our lives already. Why is this the straw that breaks America's back?
There is no single straw, it's the incremental creeping. The slouching towards the inevitable.
I frequently site this quotation because even the Socialist Norman Thomas understood how this works.
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened. – Norman ThomasPresident Obama, Sebelius, and a host of others keep flashing the claim that Conservatives are against healthcare reform, and any reasonable person knows this to be untrue. When I hear such accusations I see the trappings.
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. – Frederic Bastiat
Quote from: Gaspar on March 22, 2010, 03:28:48 PM
President Obama, Sebelius, and a host of others keep flashing the claim that Conservatives are against healthcare reform, and any reasonable person knows this to be untrue. When I hear such accusations I see the trappings.
They did vote against it, you know. All of them. Even though it's essentially the Romney plan that was implemented in Mass. It amazes me that the Democrats put forth an essentially Republican plan and had such a hard time passing it. It amazes me even more that the Republicans couldn't see the enormous gamble they were taking by not supporting what is mostly their plan.
The far right of the Republican party convinced the moderates that they could kill the bill. That got everybody in the party shouting extremist rhetoric and completely distorting what this bill does. Had it not passed, it would have been a big win for the Republicans. Since it did, people are going to see first hand what it really does. When the sky does not fall, people will be pleased that it's not as bad as they were told. Since the Republicans set the bar so low, Grandma not getting euthanized by a Death Panel will be seen as a major success.
Of course, how could they possibly have voted for it anyway after painting as the return of Hitler?
Republicans have essentially handed the Democrats a future reserve of goodwill from the electorate. I know you won't be happy with it no matter what happens, but the moderates, they will come to like their ObamaCare just as retirees like their MediCare. That's a pretty big stick to beat the Republicans with, don't you think?
If the Republicans also stand firm against financial reform, I think they stand a good chance of tanking in November. Even Tea Partiers want to see more regulation of the too-big-to-fail set. You'd better hope that McCain was just venting when he said Republicans would no longer be cooperating with Democrats on anything.
We're still many months away from the election and one major thing will happen between now and then: the economy will get better.
Unless something major happens, we're on course for a mild recovery. It won't be all bells and whistles but come November there should be some measurable change for the better. If that's the case, then the D's won't lose quite as badly as initially thought.
And as I said before, regardless of the content of the bill, it was a crucial demonstration of the ability of the D's to actually execute. They finally got something done, which is the baseline level of competency you might need to re-elect them. If they can't actually do what they say they're going to do, then there's no reason to keep them in. So that's a major hurdle cleared, and one that we weren't sure they could get over.
I don't think this means they won't lose seats, but it just might not be as bad as the R's are saying it'll be.
Quote from: we vs us on March 22, 2010, 04:15:32 PM
We're still many months away from the election and one major thing will happen between now and then: the economy will get better.
Unless something major happens, we're on course for a mild recovery. It won't be all bells and whistles but come November there should be some measurable change for the better. If that's the case, then the D's won't lose quite as badly as initially thought.
And as I said before, regardless of the content of the bill, it was a crucial demonstration of the ability of the D's to actually execute. They finally got something done, which is the baseline level of competency you might need to re-elect them. If they can't actually do what they say they're going to do, then there's no reason to keep them in. So that's a major hurdle cleared, and one that we weren't sure they could get over.
I don't think this means they won't lose seats, but it just might not be as bad as the R's are saying it'll be.
I agree. The economy will be a very big issue, and I'm seeing some promising trends in the markets. Of course I have my "local lenses" on and everything looks better in Oklahoma. If Stocks continue to grow and we don't have a second punch, the Democrats will be able to tout the stimulus program as a worthwhile investment.
I also think that it's important for Republicans to tread very lightly. They just got pimp-slapped, and crying about it will only make them look more like they deserved it. This is another example of why McCain was never presidential material.
There is a certain amount of buyer's remorse that comes with every large purchase, and this is the largest purchase in the history of the world. The President will have to continue to sell it even after the close, to keep the customers happy. The only problem for him is that the product is to be paid for without delivery for a long long time.
Today, in the 80% of districts and states that overwhelmingly support health care reform, the Republicans will have to run on the record of having tried and failed to block it. That is going to be hell for them.
David Frum, one of W's speechwriters, posted this (http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo) on his blog last night. It's definitely made the rounds of the blogosphere, and thought it's a bit hysterical it also makes some solid points about the challenges Republicans now face.
"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?"
Quote from: we vs us on March 22, 2010, 05:00:21 PM
David Frum, one of W's speechwriters, posted this (http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo) on his blog last night. It's definitely made the rounds of the blogosphere, and thought it's a bit hysterical it also makes some solid points about the challenges Republicans now face.
"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?"
Yes. The GOP fell into the irrational and erratic hole dug for them by http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9385.0
So, is Rush moving on to Costa Rico where they have free health care, black market oxycontin, and hookers?
Quote from: fotd on March 22, 2010, 04:53:27 PM
Today, in the 80% of districts and states that overwhelmingly support health care reform, the Republicans will have to run on the record of having tried and failed to block it. That is going to be hell for them.
Oh that explains why 37 states are taking steps either to challenge the bill through the courts or find ways to opt out of Obamacare altogether.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Health-Overhaul-States/2010/03/17/id/353087
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 22, 2010, 03:03:02 PM
I guess I don't get why so many republicans act as if a big central government will destroy America.
The federal government is already in almost all parts of our lives already. Why is this the straw that breaks America's back?
Why, you ask? Mainly because there will be a tipping point when the number of direct employees, contract employees, people recieving various retirement, disability, social benefits including healthcare that the cost becomes unsustainable. Actually, we've arrived at that point. Now that the shock of the trillion dollar threshold has come and gone, all there is to do is wait and watch our credit rating slowly dive and we will be owned by foreign governments. Call me nuts. Go ahead.
Cashew, almond, pecan, walnut, filbert,......
Might as well be a classy nut.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 23, 2010, 12:02:29 AM
Cashew, almond, pecan, walnut, filbert,......
Might as well be a classy nut.
Dang. Red beat me to it.
Quote from: fotd on March 22, 2010, 05:11:52 PM
Yes. The GOP fell into the irrational and erratic hole dug for them by http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9385.0
So, is Rush moving on to Costa Rico where they have free health care, black market oxycontin, and hookers?
Does one of your personas know this by experience?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2010, 09:51:09 PM
Why, you ask? Mainly because there will be a tipping point when the number of direct employees, contract employees, people recieving various retirement, disability, social benefits including healthcare that the cost becomes unsustainable. Actually, we've arrived at that point. Now that the shock of the trillion dollar threshold has come and gone, all there is to do is wait and watch our credit rating slowly dive and we will be owned by foreign governments. Call me nuts. Go ahead.
So I've been toying with this idea for awhile and finally someone mentioned it in "print." (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/22/the_final_health_care_vote_and_what_it_really_mean/)
"The significance of Obama's health legislation is more political than substantive. For the first time since Ronald Reagan told America government is the problem, Obama's health bill reasserts that government can provide a major solution. In political terms, that's a very big deal."
And that's what's been occuring to me over and over again. It's no wonder that Obama's stirring up so much smile, and that people are so exercised over his "agenda." His platform is a frontal assault on Reaganism, the core beliefs of which are so pervasive in our country as to be considered unquestionable truths about how the world works.
I'm in my mid thirties, and I can't think of a time in my adult political life when it wasn't a given that any expansion of government -- regardless of intent or composition -- was a bad thing. I can't think of a time where people who were on welfare weren't thought of as weak, or lazy, or as actively gaming the system. I can't think of a time when the free market wasn't considered a mystical self-regulating force that could transform us if we'd just let it be more . . . self-regulating. And as an addendum, anything government can do, private business can do better.
I was discussing the HCR bill with some of my contemporaries at work and there came a point where some of my "liberal" ideas just left them with their mouths agog. They couldn't believe I would support such a huge expansion of government, or give the welfare queens stuff they didn't deserve, or redistribute taxes. But all of these arguments -- while they may seem like common sense -- all stem from cultural assumptions that were born with Reagan. My contemporaries think it's self evident that these things are true; as people who've grown up with Reagan as a background, these aren't arguable, they're simply truths.
Only they aren't. They're ideological assertions. But we've been swimming in them for so long that we take them as simply the way things are.
You can see it in a certain type of Democratic congressperson (ahem, Blue Dogs, ahem) whose views are just a kinder, gentler form of being Republican. You can see it in Bill Clinton's presidency, where it became pretty evident pretty quickly that the only things he could get done were triangulations on certain Reaganist memes (ahem, welfare reform, ahem). This is one of the reasons I think the D's have been so tangled up and confused by their own power; suddenly they've been called upon not only to advance an agenda, it's an agenda that contradicts a lot of their core assumptions about the world (markets don't need regulating; government should be shrunk; deficits are bad; welfare is a pox; etc).
And I think this is why many people on the left consider Obama not just a promising president but something of a visionary. Not necessarily for what he's done -- though he's really starting to amass a pretty solid record -- but for what he represents, which is an ideological challenge (and possibly the death knell of) Reaganism. ie: government can be smart and even necessary; markets aren't perfect and need regulation; certain forms of government assistance can indeed be beneficial.
Quote from: we vs us on March 23, 2010, 07:21:35 AM
all stem from cultural assumptions that were born with Reagan.
They're ideological assertions.
I don't believe they were born with Reagan, he just brought them to the forefront the same as Obama is bringing forward ideological assertions you prefer.
I don't believe government has no role in my life. I want some protection from things I cannot protect myself from without help. The obvious would be an invading army. Beyond that I do like things like food inspection. Bridges that don't fall down because they are built to acceptable standards. Police and fire service. I also believe there are some good things in the new health care. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves. I do not believe in helping those who can but choose not to help themselves.
Edit: Washed my fingers and can't type a thing with them.
Quote from: nathanm on March 22, 2010, 04:09:54 PM
They did vote against it, you know. All of them. Even though it's essentially the Romney plan that was implemented in Mass. It amazes me that the Democrats put forth an essentially Republican plan and had such a hard time passing it. It amazes me even more that the Republicans couldn't see the enormous gamble they were taking by not supporting what is mostly their plan.
That's like saying my wife's bike is a fire truck because they are essentially the same. They are both red, have wheels and can get you to a fire.
There are quote a few differences, I would rather see someone run a detailed compare/contrast article but every article I found was on one side or the other so here is from the "It's not the same" camp:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2Y3NjUxZDRiNmNkZDI2NzI3ZGFhMjY1YTJiMTEyYTk=
Quote from: we vs us on March 23, 2010, 07:21:35 AM
So I've been toying with this idea for awhile and finally someone mentioned it in "print." (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/22/the_final_health_care_vote_and_what_it_really_mean/)
"The significance of Obama's health legislation is more political than substantive. For the first time since Ronald Reagan told America government is the problem, Obama's health bill reasserts that government can provide a major solution. In political terms, that's a very big deal."
And that's what's been occuring to me over and over again. It's no wonder that Obama's stirring up so much smile, and that people are so exercised over his "agenda." His platform is a frontal assault on Reaganism, the core beliefs of which are so pervasive in our country as to be considered unquestionable truths about how the world works.
I'm in my mid thirties, and I can't think of a time in my adult political life when it wasn't a given that any expansion of government -- regardless of intent or composition -- was a bad thing. I can't think of a time where people who were on welfare weren't thought of as weak, or lazy, or as actively gaming the system. I can't think of a time when the free market wasn't considered a mystical self-regulating force that could transform us if we'd just let it be more . . . self-regulating. And as an addendum, anything government can do, private business can do better.
I was discussing the HCR bill with some of my contemporaries at work and there came a point where some of my "liberal" ideas just left them with their mouths agog. They couldn't believe I would support such a huge expansion of government, or give the welfare queens stuff they didn't deserve, or redistribute taxes. But all of these arguments -- while they may seem like common sense -- all stem from cultural assumptions that were born with Reagan. My contemporaries think it's self evident that these things are true; as people who've grown up with Reagan as a background, these aren't arguable, they're simply truths.
Only they aren't. They're ideological assertions. But we've been swimming in them for so long that we take them as simply the way things are.
You can see it in a certain type of Democratic congressperson (ahem, Blue Dogs, ahem) whose views are just a kinder, gentler form of being Republican. You can see it in Bill Clinton's presidency, where it became pretty evident pretty quickly that the only things he could get done were triangulations on certain Reaganist memes (ahem, welfare reform, ahem). This is one of the reasons I think the D's have been so tangled up and confused by their own power; suddenly they've been called upon not only to advance an agenda, it's an agenda that contradicts a lot of their core assumptions about the world (markets don't need regulating; government should be shrunk; deficits are bad; welfare is a pox; etc).
And I think this is why many people on the left consider Obama not just a promising president but something of a visionary. Not necessarily for what he's done -- though he's really starting to amass a pretty solid record -- but for what he represents, which is an ideological challenge (and possibly the death knell of) Reaganism. ie: government can be smart and even necessary; markets aren't perfect and need regulation; certain forms of government assistance can indeed be beneficial.
So, by your preferred economic model, how do we finance a burgeoning government expansion in a sustainable fashion? What happens when more people depend on the government for income than the private sector? How does the government create revenue by taxing it's own productivity? Those models have not proven succesful where they've been tried, like the former Soviet Bloc.
"Most of the studies of the optimum size of government made by reputable scholars in recent decades have indicated that total government spending (federal plus state plus local) should be no lower than 17 percent, nor larger than about 30 percent of GDP. In a just completed paper, economists at the Institute for Market Economics in Sofia, Bulgaria, have provided new estimates of the optimum size of government, using standard models, with the latest data from a broader spectrum of countries than had been previously available. Their conclusion is that there is a 95 percent probability that the optimal size of government is less than 25 percent of GDP.
Because most governments are - and have been for many years - larger than the optimal, there are insufficient data to give a point estimate as to the best size, other than it is less than 25 percent. Other studies have shown small-population homogeneous countries, such as Finland, may have slightly higher optimal government sizes than heterogeneous countries, such as Switzerland and the United States.
The ramifications of this study and previous ones are important for the current debate going on in the United States and many other countries, about having the government spend more to "stimulate" the economy - i.e. create jobs and increase growth rates.
Rather than increasing the size of government, the empirical evidence shows that sharply reducing taxes, regulations, and government spending down to at least 25 percent of GDP would do the most to spur economic growth and create more jobs over the long run.
There is virtually no empirical evidence - in the United States or anywhere else - to support the belief of economists of the Keynesian school that a big increase in government spending will make matters better, rather than worse. Economists of the Austrian school have, in general, supported smaller government as a way to achieve higher levels of both prosperity and individual freedom, and the empirical evidence shows them to be correct.
In the United States, periods of rapid economic growth, such as 1983-89 and 1992-99, have been associated with a reduction in the total size of government. During the 1970s and much of the last decade, total (federal, state and local) government spending grew to a post-World War II record (36 percent), and these periods were associated with lower economic growth. In recent decades, many European countries have greatly increased government spending as a percentage of GDP, and as a result most of them experienced lower growth rates and much higher rates of unemployment than the United States."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9918
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 23, 2010, 10:33:41 AM
That's like saying my wife's bike is a fire truck because they are essentially the same. They are both red, have wheels and can get you to a fire.
There are quote a few differences, I would rather see someone run a detailed compare/contrast article but every article I found was on one side or the other so here is from the "It's not the same" camp:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2Y3NjUxZDRiNmNkZDI2NzI3ZGFhMjY1YTJiMTEyYTk=
And I do believe that Democrats were in control of the House and Senate in Mass at the time this was passed.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2010, 11:08:25 AM
How does the government create revenue by taxing it's own productivity?
Jimmy Carter promised during his campaign for the Presidency to raise Federal revenue by creating federal jobs and then generating federal income tax from those new jobs.
I didn't quite understand that.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 23, 2010, 11:27:37 AM
Jimmy Carter promised during his campaign for the Presidency to raise Federal revenue by creating federal jobs and then generating federal income tax from those new jobs.
I didn't quite understand that.
Well, it's not all as circular as all that. Hire Fed workers, pay them, and they spend their paychecks out in the world, thus stimulating the economy. Presumably that stimulus would create jobs that would then pay income tax.
Caveat: I don't know what he was talking about and wasn't really around for his stump speeches; I'm only walking through what I
think he meant.
Quote from: we vs us on March 23, 2010, 11:43:04 AM
Well, it's not all as circular as all that. Hire Fed workers, pay them, and they spend their paychecks out in the world, thus stimulating the economy. Presumably that stimulus would create jobs that would then pay income tax.
Caveat: I don't know what he was talking about and wasn't really around for his stump speeches; I'm only walking through what I think he meant.
Wait, isn't that precisely what Reagan did with "voo-doo" economics, only with an emphasis on private sector employment?
It's okay, President Carter didn't know what he was talking about either. We are all in good company on that one.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2010, 11:47:40 AM
Wait, isn't that precisely what Reagan did with "voo-doo" economics, only with an emphasis on private sector employment?
It's okay, President Carter didn't know what he was talking about either. We are all in good company on that one.
It's less voodoo than Reagan. He wanted the stimulus to make it into the economy through the rich. Turns out the rich, among other things, are too few in number to make much of a dent on the economy. And they don't spend efficiently. They order one yacht, rather than keep buying groceries for a year.
Not that I'm defending Carter here. There aren't that many (in the grand scheme of things) federal workers, either.
Quote from: we vs us on March 23, 2010, 11:43:04 AM
Well, it's not all as circular as all that. Hire Fed workers, pay them, and they spend their paychecks out in the world, thus stimulating the economy. Presumably that stimulus would create jobs that would then pay income tax.
Caveat: I don't know what he was talking about and wasn't really around for his stump speeches; I'm only walking through what I think he meant.
I was there (voting age too) but it was a long time ago so I don't remember all the details.
If Uncle Sam hired someone at $100, Sam would get back approx $20 in direct income tax, leaving Sam $80 in the hole. 4 more jobs in the private sector at $20 each to Sam would make a break even. It would actually be a few less jobs because, presumably the companies that hired the extra 4 workers would pay some more income tax. I don't remember that happening.
Quote from: we vs us on March 23, 2010, 12:25:47 PM
Turns out the rich, among other things, are too few in number to make much of a dent on the economy.
Then how can anyone expect them to pick up the tab for the economy by taxing the heck out of them?
From Kimberly Strassel in the WSJ
"President Obama was elected by millions of Americans attracted to his promise to change Washington politics. These were voters furious with earmarks, insider deals and a lack of transparency. They were the many Americans who, even before this week, held Congress in historic low esteem. They'll remember this spectacle come November."
Quote from: we vs us on March 23, 2010, 12:25:47 PM
It's less voodoo than Reagan. He wanted the stimulus to make it into the economy through the rich. Turns out the rich, among other things, are too few in number to make much of a dent on the economy. And they don't spend efficiently. They order one yacht, rather than keep buying groceries for a year.
Not that I'm defending Carter here. There aren't that many (in the grand scheme of things) federal workers, either.
Who do you work for? The poor?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2010, 01:27:07 PM
From Kimberly Strassel in the WSJ
"President Obama was elected by millions of Americans attracted to his promise to change Washington politics. These were voters furious with earmarks, insider deals and a lack of transparency. They were the many Americans who, even before this week, held Congress in historic low esteem. They'll remember this spectacle come November."
Obama also campaigned on health-care reform. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2010, 01:38:01 PM
Who do you work for? The poor?
Nope. A corporation.
Quote from: we vs us on March 23, 2010, 01:45:11 PM
Nope. A corporation.
Which is owned by poor people?
Sorry to punch your buttons but:
"Turns out the rich, among other things, are too few in number to make much of a dent on the economy. And they don't spend efficiently. They order one yacht, rather than keep buying groceries for a year."
Is an incredibly flawed principle on many levels. One of the worst leftist meme's.
The rich spend more on value-added services which help keep many other businesses, well, in business.
(http://webpages.charter.net/micah/repjesus86.png)
$726,409 in airport grants purchased Stupak's vote.
Announced it on his own website. What a slap to his constituents.
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100322/i/r3234687515.jpg?x=400&y=295&q=85&sig=xE4s9zHsfnBZlq3uXalL7w--)
Culture of . . . oh never mind.
30 pieces of silver.
That pic is some creepy smile
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2010, 02:35:24 PM
$726,409 in airport grants purchased Stupak's vote.
Announced it on his own website. What a slap to his constituents.
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100322/i/r3234687515.jpg?x=400&y=295&q=85&sig=xE4s9zHsfnBZlq3uXalL7w--)
Culture of . . . oh never mind.
30 pieces of silver.
Anyone else think Rep. Pelosi has been pulled a bit tight?
What was Keith Richards doing there in the background, or was that Ronnie Wood? I just don't think the pearl ear rings are his style.
"I'll have what she's having."
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2010, 02:47:17 PM
Anyone else think Rep. Pelosi has been pulled a bit tight?
What was Keith Richards doing there in the background, or was that Ronnie Wood? I just don't think the pearl ear rings are his style.
Actually, I thought Geddy Lee got a haircut, but IT does look more like Keith Richards.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2010, 02:50:10 PM
Actually, I thought Geddy Lee got a haircut, but IT does look more like Keith Richards.
Geddy looks a whole lot better than that fossil. I saw Rush recently on Palladia- man they still got it.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2010, 02:51:44 PM
Geddy looks a whole lot better than that fossil. I saw Rush recently on Palladia- man they still got it.
Would have loved to be there!
(http://static.gigwise.com/artists/Image/ronniewoodWENN200.jpg)
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100322/i/r3234687515.jpg?x=400&y=295&q=85&sig=xE4s9zHsfnBZlq3uXalL7w--) Ronnie Wood all day long
Figured out who it is. . . Balcmeg (D - Gondor)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2010, 03:56:34 PM
Figured out who it is. . . Balcmeg (D - Gondor)
Oh, that made one hell of a mess on my keyboard...
Post of the the Galactic Empire award.
Yeah, 21 million jobs created under Reagan tax codes was a total coincidence, Swake. ::)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2010, 04:27:18 PM
Yeah, 21 million jobs created under Reagan tax codes was a total coincidence, Swake. ::)
Yeah and the cuts really hurt the government. . . Tax revenue doubled.
But this is just history.
Lets try something new and see if it works.
I see he removed his post, he must be re-tooling it.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2010, 04:38:22 PM
Yeah and the cuts really hurt the government. . . Tax revenue doubled.
But this is just history.
Cutting taxes from the pre-Reagan levels was probably a good idea. Even Laffer himself thinks that cutting income taxes from their currently very low rates wouldn't have the same effect it did in the 80s. Also, the significant wage and price inflation during/after those tax cuts mix up the message quite well.
It's probably true that a 70% top marginal rate is too high, unless it only applies to truly stratospheric levels of income.
In 2005, a CBO study found that reducing taxes across the board by 10% would likely result in an overall decrease in government revenue. The study estimated that only 28% of the reduced revenue would be recouped over ten years.
And Reagan's 21 million jobs? How many of those were in defense? How many were due to the explosion of new technologies? How much of it actually had to do with cutting taxes and raising interest rates?
A bunch of hypotheticals trying to counter history. Why is it people have such a hard time giving President Reagan his props, yet even the most fiscally conservative will heap praise on the Clinton Admins fiscal policies.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2010, 07:40:40 PM
A bunch of hypotheticals trying to counter history.
Huh? You make no sense. Last I checked, our top marginal rate now is not 70%, as it was in 1980. Slavish dedication to historical precedent is not helpful when there is no real precedent due to radically different conditions.
Interestingly, looking at the numbers (federal revenue as a percentage of GDP), there's no clear correlation between the Reagan tax cuts and increased revenue. There was a spike a few years after the cut, but the trend in that direction began in 1977.
Looking at the data, it appears there's a much stronger correlation with the condition of the economy as a whole than any change in tax policy. The biggest increases in revenue (both in raw numbers and as a percentage of GDP) come not from tax cuts, but from financial bubbles.
Nathan, probably=hypothetical. What is so hard to grasp? Care to cite data and/or analysis by recognized experts? Up to this point you simply sound like the blowhard Harvard undegrad Matt Damon's character smacked down in Good Will Hunting. Too much macro econ from a jaded professor and limited real world experience is what your sophomoric musings sound like.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2010, 09:19:21 PM
Nathan, probably=hypothetical. What is so hard to grasp? Care to cite data and/or analysis by recognized experts? Up to this point you simply sound like the blowhard Harvard undegrad Matt Damon's character smacked down in Good Will Hunting. Too much macro econ from a jaded professor and limited real world experience is what your sophomoric musings sound like.
Any prediction of the future is a hypothetical. You can be an donkey if you want, but it certainly doesn't contribute to good discussion.
Economics is so hard to get right precisely because it's fuzzy. There is to this day no reliable quantification of the amount of good the Reagan tax cuts did. As I mentioned earlier, I think they probably did some good. There are strong reasons to believe that would not be the case were we to attempt yet another broad based tax decrease on the wealthy. The least of which, as anybody with common sense can grasp, is the vast difference in magnitude in the change from a 70% top marginal rate to a 28% top marginal rate and any possible decrease from here.
For 2008, the top bracket had crept back up to 35%.
This year they sent me the 1040A booklet instead of the 1040 booklet. It doesn't have the brackets listed after the tables. I guess they don't want me to know.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 23, 2010, 10:43:57 PM
For 2008, the top bracket had crept back up to 35%.
Interestingly, the tax increases didn't manage to thwart the 1990s boom.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2010, 01:46:59 PM
Which is owned by poor people?
Sorry to punch your buttons but:
"Turns out the rich, among other things, are too few in number to make much of a dent on the economy. And they don't spend efficiently. They order one yacht, rather than keep buying groceries for a year."
Is an incredibly flawed principle on many levels. One of the worst leftist meme's.
The rich spend more on value-added services which help keep many other businesses, well, in business.
The corporation is actually owned by a mix of: individuals, other companies, funds and their managers, and the original owner, who still has at least some preferred stock. All of these stakeholders are represented by a board of directors, who have in turn hired a CEO and other upper management figures to run the company. So it's an entity that is professionally run and is accountable to a mix of different shareholders. Nowhere in that structure is there a slot that requires one or more rich guys to make the company run. Of course, there will be many folks in there who are incidentally rich, but none upon which my company specifically relies on to be rich in order to function.
Even the original owner, for whom the company is named, isn't integral to the business any more. He performs a specific function within the organization (new hotel development) but nowhere is my organization reliant on his personal capital to keep us funded. In other words, his tax situation means love-all to my employment.
In the country at large, this structure is the rule not the exception. That's why the corporate structure exists (in all it's pseudo-personhood glory): to protect the personal capital of individual investors.
In the case of my company, I'm sure my owner did put up some of his own money way back in the day, but that initial investment is long gone . . . as the company took on a life of its own -- and more people were brought in and given voices in the management of it in return for their capital -- I'm sure the company paid him back whatever he put in initially.
So, no, I'm still not convinced this is the worst meme of the left. In fact, deifying the rich as the One True Font of Pure Capitalism just doesn't wash in this day and age. This is kinda one of the things I was talking about in my Reagan rant up above. It's one of his ideological pillars that we take for granted nowadays but which, really, in the end, doesn't hold true.
And of course, keep pushing my buttons. I definitely intend to keep pushing yours ;)
Quote from: we vs us on March 23, 2010, 11:19:22 PM
And of course, keep pushing my buttons. I definitely intend to keep pushing yours ;)
What station do we get if we push the right most button? ;D
Quote from: nathanm on March 23, 2010, 10:49:00 PM
Interestingly, the tax increases didn't manage to thwart the 1990s boom.
Reagan & Bush I (as opposed to Bush II) had set the economy up pretty well. Clinton rode it to the top. It was starting to have problems by the end of Clinton's 2nd term, at least in the machine tool manufacturing business. (Nothing I haven't said before.)
Quote from: nathanm on March 23, 2010, 09:26:50 PM
Any prediction of the future is a hypothetical.
Economics is so hard to get right precisely because it's fuzzy.
The basic laws are steadfast. The behavior of complex systems can be extrapolated with if historical data exists (and it does). There are many outside factors that influence systems and are beyond control, but basic economic theory is not fuzzy. Principals have remained the same since the days of Hammurabi and beyond. It gets fuzzy when politics are injected into the system.
QuoteThere are strong reasons to believe that would not be the case were we to attempt yet another broad based tax decrease on the wealthy.
What are these reasons? If you have made some discovery that affects a thousand years of economic theory, please let us know. Your statement also requires qualification. Past tax cuts affected everyone, and the "Wealthy" make up a minute proportion of the economy (less than 2%). The "for the wealthy" BS no longer flies, because it only preys on emotion, and has little affect on the outcome of such economic changes. Yes taxes on the wealthy decreased more because they pay more in taxes and are affected more by rate changes. More than half of the "wealthy" are actually small businesses filing under LLC and only pulling a salary from that business.
QuoteThe least of which, as anybody with common sense can grasp, is the vast difference in magnitude in the change from a 70% top marginal rate to a 28% top marginal rate and any possible decrease from here.
"Common sense" would therefore dictate that the boom to the economy would be smaller with tax cuts now. Agreed? So would 15% growth be bad? How about 10%? Perhaps 5%? Or even if the adjustment took us out of the negative, would it be bad?
You offer opinion, and your contribution to the discussion is valuable, but don't fight the BASIC laws of economics. It's like fighting the laws of physics, eventually you get hurt.
Quote from: we vs us on March 23, 2010, 11:19:22 PM
The corporation is actually owned by a mix of: individuals, other companies, funds and their managers, and the original owner, who still has at least some preferred stock. All of these stakeholders are represented by a board of directors, who have in turn hired a CEO and other upper management figures to run the company. So it's an entity that is professionally run and is accountable to a mix of different shareholders. Nowhere in that structure is there a slot that requires one or more rich guys to make the company run. Of course, there will be many folks in there who are incidentally rich, but none upon which my company specifically relies on to be rich in order to function.
Even the original owner, for whom the company is named, isn't integral to the business any more. He performs a specific function within the organization (new hotel development) but nowhere is my organization reliant on his personal capital to keep us funded. In other words, his tax situation means love-all to my employment.
In the country at large, this structure is the rule not the exception. That's why the corporate structure exists (in all it's pseudo-personhood glory): to protect the personal capital of individual investors.
In the case of my company, I'm sure my owner did put up some of his own money way back in the day, but that initial investment is long gone . . . as the company took on a life of its own -- and more people were brought in and given voices in the management of it in return for their capital -- I'm sure the company paid him back whatever he put in initially.
So, no, I'm still not convinced this is the worst meme of the left. In fact, deifying the rich as the One True Font of Pure Capitalism just doesn't wash in this day and age. This is kinda one of the things I was talking about in my Reagan rant up above. It's one of his ideological pillars that we take for granted nowadays but which, really, in the end, doesn't hold true.
And of course, keep pushing my buttons. I definitely intend to keep pushing yours ;)
Thanks for the Bus3010 lecture. I'm quite aware of how corporate structures work and their purpose, you should know that by now. I see it's allowed you to comfortably side-step the wealth argument and what happens when rich people are allowed to put money back into the economy. Many wealthy people put money into funds, stocks, and other investment products which help provide the capital necessary for companies to expand, and in some cases, continue to operate when times are lean.
The people who stay in the hotel you work at and the companies who have meetings and book large blocks of rooms don't pay for it with government chits (although I'm quite aware the government books thousands if not millions of room nights per year).
Low income people generally don't utilize your restaurant and banquet services (but one example of what I mean with "value-added services"). Let's face it, you work in a more upscale hotel. Your company depends on wealth to operate, both from investors and from customers. Less wealth to spend means less potential customers and investors. Last I checked, local, state, and federal governments were not investing heavily in the hospitality industry.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 24, 2010, 08:05:55 AM
You offer opinion, and your contribution to the discussion is valuable, but don't fight the BASIC laws of economics. It's like fighting the laws of physics, eventually you get hurt.
You're presuming the Chicago School is correct, which they've proven not to be over the years. (See: Most of South America while they still were listening to the IMF)
The point is that a tax cut today is unlikely to be revenue-positive as it was in 1981, precisely because the economic elasticity is lower due to the lower top marginal rate.
Besides, how can you yell about deficits out one side of your mouth while the other screams "tax cut!" (Which you already received thanks to Obama's stimulus package)
FFS, even Milton Friedman agrees with me on this. He predicted that the 2003 tax cuts would lead to larger deficits. (He was in favor of them on the grounds that government spending would have to be cut..as if, but agreed that they would be revenue-negative even over the longer term)
Quote from: nathanm on March 24, 2010, 02:01:20 PM
You're presuming the Chicago School is correct, which they've proven not to be over the years. (See: Most of South America while they still were listening to the IMF)
Besides, how can you yell about deficits out one side of your mouth while the other screams "tax cut!" (Which you already received thanks to Obama's stimulus package)
Because tax cuts have shown to increase tax revenue by spurning economic growth. The fact is that it works every time it has been done. Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Most liberals site the Bush tax cuts as the prime example of why tax cuts don't work, but they worked beautifully, the problem is that the base-line spending under Bush was rising faster than revenue. Revenue increased, but the Bush admin was spending like drunken sailors.
Now when you look at the system under Regan, the cuts were more substantial, and the growth in revenue was also more substantial.
(http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/189E2F493584C501D918220FE46EC723.gif)
In total there have been 19 major tax cuts in our history, and each has produced increased revenue and economic growth. The two major cuts prior to Bush produced expected results. Had the Bush administration been responsible for spending, the Bush tax cuts would have had a more pronounced effect.
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
Quote from Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits... In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D.
McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy
As for our current administration. . .Tax cuts may not be a good idea. They currently have no control over spending and additional revenue would mean the birth of more programs. Much like the Bush administration, I think President Obama and Pelosi would find more license to spend.
Quote from: nathanm on March 24, 2010, 02:01:20 PM
You're presuming the Chicago School is correct, which they've proven not to be over the years. (See: Most of South America while they still were listening to the IMF)
The point is that a tax cut today is unlikely to be revenue-positive as it was in 1981, precisely because the economic elasticity is lower due to the lower top marginal rate.
Besides, how can you yell about deficits out one side of your mouth while the other screams "tax cut!" (Which you already received thanks to Obama's stimulus package)
FFS, even Milton Friedman agrees with me on this. He predicted that the 2003 tax cuts would lead to larger deficits. (He was in favor of them on the grounds that government spending would have to be cut..as if, but agreed that they would be revenue-negative even over the longer term)
Milton Friedman could have flipped a coin and figured that one out, so could most Americans with high school educations who have never taken an econ class. You can't ramp up government spending to the historic highs Bush did while cutting taxes without creating a deficit. He, and the GOP Congress should have exercized more fiscal restraint, and Iraq should have been thought through a whole lot better.
IMO, as a net effect on the economy, I don't think Bush's tax cuts were near as
imperative as the cuts Reagan enacted. I think Reagan's cuts did, in fact, create a better shock to jump-start the economy. There was a whole lot of lending going on in the late 1990's and early 2000's which was keeping the economy flush. We know where that finally ended up.
However, there is undeniable data that reducing taxes coincides with a rise in total tax revenue. We can sit here and argue the point of whether or not it's a coincidence or a direct result until we are blue in the face, but I don't really see the point.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 24, 2010, 02:57:58 PM
However, there is undeniable data that reducing taxes coincides with a rise in total tax revenue. We can sit here and argue the point of whether or not it's a coincidence or a direct result until we are blue in the face, but I don't really see the point.
I think what you're missing is that I
agree with the premise. I've looked at the data. Reducing the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28% increased tax revenues somewhat. (it's not as much as it looks like at first thanks to inflation, but there is indeed an inflation-adjusted increase)
In the case of the 2003 tax cuts, looking purely at revenue growth (what little there was) is not as illustrative. In 2003, the increase in revenue was caused by the housing bubble, not by the tax cut.
The reason the tax cut strategy worked is that there was high employment elasticity. At the lower marginal rates we have today, there is much less elasticity to fuel an overall revenue increase.
Quote from: nathanm on March 24, 2010, 03:11:30 PM
In the case of the 2003 tax cuts, looking purely at revenue growth (what little there was) is not as illustrative. In 2003, the increase in revenue was caused by the housing bubble, not by the tax cut.
Prove it.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 24, 2010, 03:28:15 PM
Prove it.
If you look at the graph of federal revenue as a percentage of GDP, it's all very clear. The increases do not correspond well to the timing of the tax cuts, they are farther off than with the 80s tax adjustments.
Quote from: nathanm on March 24, 2010, 04:00:43 PM
If you look at the graph of federal revenue as a percentage of GDP, it's all very clear. The increases do not correspond well to the timing of the tax cuts, they are farther off than with the 80s tax adjustments.
Nathan, that's not proof, that's a supposition. Why not simply say it coincided with an increase in the Monarch population in California?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 24, 2010, 04:04:17 PM
Nathan, that's not proof, that's a supposition. Why not simply say it coincided with an increase in the Monarch population in California?
You honestly expect me to dig up economics papers because you refuse to believe even the people who came up with the idea of supply-side economics?
If you'd take a moment to understand the basics of the theory, it would become patently obvious why there is a difference in economic response to tax cuts when the pre-cut rate is different.
Quote from: nathanm on March 24, 2010, 05:00:16 PM
You honestly expect me to dig up economics papers because you refuse to believe even the people who came up with the idea of supply-side economics?
He also wants an authentic copy of Obama's birth certificate in his hands by end of working day tomorrow..... chop-chop.... :P
Quote from: Conan71 on March 24, 2010, 03:28:15 PM
Prove it.
Arthur Laffer, Reaganomics magician extraordinaire, gets it wrong on the economy.....
8/28/2006-Arthur Laffer debates Peter Schiff The four pillars of ReaganomicsThe following is Arthur Laffer's November 13 address to members of The Heritage Foundation's President's Club at the fall 2006 President's Club meeting, held at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, DC.http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/The-four-pillars-of-Reaganomics
QuoteAnd Reagan couldn't hold the comment back and he said, and I'm going to quote it, and I think this is a direct quote, he said, "Well, Dick, I guess we're just going to have to reverse those policies, now aren't we? We're going to have to scare the bajeebers out of our enemies with Star Wars and we're going to have to make our friends stinking rich with supply-side economics."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you realize-I mean, it's just amazing that I'm going on 67 years old today and the taxes on the ownership of capital are the lowest they have been in my lifetime. [Applause.] And that is because of Ronald Reagan and the supply side move that he and others have done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But let me tell you that today, because of Ronald Reagan, the minimum wage in the United States-the minimum wage relative to the average wage in the United States is the lowest it's been in 50 years. It doesn't get any better. As all of you know, the minimum wage is the black teenage unemployment act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another one that he did on regulations: do any of you remember the air traffic controllers? [Applause.] Do you remember what he did? He fired them. And he wouldn't let them work for government again. Since that time, union membership in the United States has gone from well above 30 percent to down around 12 to 14 percent. [Applause.] That is Ronald Reagan's legacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outsourcing is not new. Immigration is not new. Not only are these people the life's blood of America, they are, but let me just say to you tonight, on economic terms, the illegal immigrants are also the life's blood of this society. And I'm going to be hard core with you. They produce high quality labor at low cost and they cheat on their taxes. It doesn't get any better.
Gaspar,
What you forgot (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not intentionally leave out) were the three tax HIKES that Reagan also oversaw, starting in 1983-ish...about 18 months after the tax cut.
Then the tax hikes during George I. And I think there was one by Billy-Bob. And a growing, if somewhat anemic, economy during that time. Well, after the oil bust, anyway.
And I guess I just flat out missed your praises for the largest tax cut in the history of the world. Anywhere. Anytime. You know, that $288 billion cut last year that we got with the Obama stimulus package. Remember that one?
Probably more to the point, does anyone really think there won't have to be tax hikes in the future?? Really??
Since there ain't gonna be any spending cuts....
Pillars of economics...
To Democrats, low wages are the problem...
To Republicans, low wages are the answer...
(How is that for a sweeping generality?)
The Reagan Years in Tulsa were the worst economically speaking I ever witnessed. Bank failures, foreclosures, deflation coupled with very high interest rates...higher tax rates on capital gains...much worse than the past 2 years.
Quote from: fotd on March 24, 2010, 09:06:36 PM
The Reagan Years in Tulsa were the worst economically speaking I ever witnessed. Bank failures, foreclosures, deflation coupled with very high interest rates...higher tax rates on capital gains...much worse than the past 2 years.
And $40 a barrel oil which tumbled to $9 a bbl leaving many speculators suddenly unable to make payments on their mountain of debt they'd gotten into to finance business activities and lavish lifestyles predicated on $40 a bbl oil. That's not taking into account a lot of rampant loan fraud taking place in S&L's and their direct involvement in drilling and exploration.
An entire industry collapsed, FOTD. I don't disagree with your perception that the last two years have been nothing like that collapse for our state. It helps though to keep it in perspective. Ballsy entrepreneurs helped us diversify and move on in large part to lower taxes and lower interest rates.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 24, 2010, 09:35:37 PM
Ballsy entrepreneurs helped us diversify and move on in large part to lower taxes and lower interest rates.
I don't think taxes had much to do with helping the ballsy entrepreneurs. Interest rates, on the other hand...
Maybe if I had actually met an entrepreneur who refused to expand his or her business because of high taxes, I might actually believe that line of reasoning. The ones I work for are much more concerned with interest rates, energy prices, and the overall economy.
Maybe it's different in larger business, as the biggest client I have only employs a few thousand people in his many entrepreneurial endeavors.
Quote from: nathanm on March 24, 2010, 10:05:46 PM
I don't think taxes had much to do with helping the ballsy entrepreneurs. Interest rates, on the other hand...
Maybe if I had actually met an entrepreneur who refused to expand his or her business because of high taxes, I might actually believe that line of reasoning. The ones I work for are much more concerned with interest rates, energy prices, and the overall economy.
Maybe it's different in larger business, as the biggest client I have only employs a few thousand people in his many entrepreneurial endeavors.
I got some nice interest on CDs and a money market account in the 80s, mostly above 6%, a little over 10%. I recently closed out the money market account because it paid 0% for several months. I sometimes kept the minimum amount in the account just to keep it open but no interest was just unacceptable.
My turn to play semantics. I don't believe an entrepreneur would refuse to expand because of high taxes either. I believe they refuse to expand because they didn't have the money to expand due to high taxes. They also refuse to expand due to poor economic forecasts, the most probable reason, probably caused by high taxes.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 24, 2010, 10:53:32 PM
My turn to play semantics. I don't believe an entrepreneur would refuse to expand because of high taxes either. I believe they refuse to expand because they didn't have the money to expand due to high taxes. They also refuse to expand due to poor economic forecasts, the most probable reason, probably caused by high taxes.
Unless the tax rate is 100%, there is money to expand, provided collateral and a sound business plan.
If high taxes were the cause of economic problems, the Euro wouldn't be worth a buck forty and the financial crisis would never have happened. Most often, economic issues are caused by bubbles, liquidity crises, or both. Except at the extreme ends of the spectrum, taxes play little part in any of those.
Quote from: nathanm on March 25, 2010, 12:20:12 AM
Unless the tax rate is 100%, there is money to expand, provided collateral and a sound business plan.
If high taxes were the cause of economic problems, the Euro wouldn't be worth a buck forty and the financial crisis would never have happened. Most often, economic issues are caused by bubbles, liquidity crises, or both. Except at the extreme ends of the spectrum, taxes play little part in any of those.
Depends on how much money is enough.
Edit:
A business plan that works with cash on hand may not generate enough cash flow occasionally to make payments on a loan.
Quote from: nathanm on March 25, 2010, 12:20:12 AM
Unless the tax rate is 100%, there is money to expand, provided collateral and a sound business plan.
If high taxes were the cause of economic problems, the Euro wouldn't be worth a buck forty and the financial crisis would never have happened. Most often, economic issues are caused by bubbles, liquidity crises, or both. Except at the extreme ends of the spectrum, taxes play little part in any of those.
LOL.
Historically speaking (for what that's worth) people have gone to war over taxation, or have the libs reinterpreted that too?
Quote from: nathanm on March 25, 2010, 12:20:12 AM
Unless the tax rate is 100%, there is money to expand, provided collateral and a sound business plan.
If high taxes were the cause of economic problems, the Euro wouldn't be worth a buck forty and the financial crisis would never have happened. Most often, economic issues are caused by bubbles, liquidity crises, or both. Except at the extreme ends of the spectrum, taxes play little part in any of those.
Huh? The Euro being worth $1.40 (actually about $1.33 today) has incredibly little to do with high taxation. Things like money supply, reserve requirements, inflation, and trade demand are what most impact a currency. Taxes only factor into that equation as they relate to ancillary inflationary pressures.
You also neglect a very, very important factor which is starting to get touched on in this discussion by Red Arrow and Gaspar: the psychological impact of high taxes, impending regulations, impending legislation (like health care reform), and lethargic economic forecasts.
Any of those issues can and do cause businesses and individuals to begin to hoard money and assets, begin to opt out of a market, or move operations to areas where they can operate with lower costs. Regardless of whether or not their fears of the effects of health care reform, higher taxes, new industry regulations, or impending tanking of the economy are justified or irrational, the net effect is the same: they slow down or quit spending the money that keeps the economy moving.
Some of your assumptions almost sound as if the economy and business exist in a vacuum.
FOTD
Remember the cause of all that turmoil?? A lot of it was directly related to the Federal bail out of the Savings and Loans. (See the trend here? Bail out the billionaires, let the pee-ons twist in the breeze?)
That is one of the places where the Bush family (Neal) got hundreds of millions for helping to run the S & L's into the ground.
There were some VERY expensive properties in downtown Tulsa that sold for dollars through that. Not pennies on the dollar... dollars. Like 50, 100, or even a couple hundred dollars. Through HUD. To their "good ole' boy" buddies around town.
They may have gotten them at a ridiculous discount but the fact remains most new owners continued to lose on what they thought was a steal.
The taxpayer, Rooney and Kaiser are currently resurrecting downtown. Long strange haul.
But before Reagan, those do dah daze in Tee town were something else...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 24, 2010, 08:43:41 PM
And I guess I just flat out missed your praises for the largest tax cut in the history of the world. Anywhere. Anytime. You know, that $288 billion cut last year that we got with the Obama stimulus package. Remember that one?
Probably more to the point, does anyone really think there won't have to be tax hikes in the future?? Really??
I got mine. Tax
hike that is. My Federal (and State) Income Taxes both were higher for 2009 than 2008. I can guarantee that I don't make anywhere near $250,000/yr (meaning my income is lower, not higher than $250.000/yr).
Because you made more. Congratulations on your success in your career. I would love nothing better than if my tax bill doubled every year. Because that means I would be doing much better every year. (Are they hiring at your company - wouldn't mind contributing to a company that gives raises.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 07, 2010, 09:07:09 PM
Because you made more.
You don't know that. I could have lost some deductions or any number of things.
The point is:
My taxes went up when they were promised to go down. Someone else on here complains about that all the time from a previous administration.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 07, 2010, 11:40:26 PM
You don't know that. I could have lost some deductions or any number of things.
The point is:
My taxes went up when they were promised to go down. Someone else on here complains about that all the time from a previous administration.
Yet you choose not to elaborate, so how can we know that your taxes, relative to your income, went up or down.
So, did they?
Quote from: Hoss on April 07, 2010, 11:57:02 PM
Yet you choose not to elaborate, so how can we know that your taxes, relative to your income, went up or down.
So, did they?
You're right, I choose not to elaborate. I make a lot less than $250,000/yr and my taxes went up. That is enough.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 08, 2010, 12:10:04 AM
You're right, I choose not to elaborate. I make a lot less than $250,000/yr and my taxes went up. That is enough.
Not surprising you won't divulge.
I'll tell you right now I didn't receive any raise this last tax year and my taxes went down. Not only that, my refund was about $300 more than last year (up about 20 percent).
Quote from: Hoss on April 08, 2010, 01:30:57 AM
Not surprising you won't divulge.
I'll tell you right now I didn't receive any raise this last tax year and my taxes went down. Not only that, my refund was about $300 more than last year (up about 20 percent).
You can adjust your refund by the amount you have your employer withhold or by the amount you pay on quarterly estimated payments. It's not necessarily related to whether your taxes went up or down.
Other than that, I was testing the waters. It seems that when Reagan lowered taxes, it didn't matter whether or not "your" taxable income went up. It only mattered that "your" taxes went up. When a democratic president promises that "your" taxes won't go up, everyone asks if "you" made more money.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 08, 2010, 07:50:55 AM
You can adjust your refund by the amount you have your employer withhold or by the amount you pay on quarterly estimated payments. It's not necessarily related to whether your taxes went up or down.
Other than that, I was testing the waters. It seems that when Reagan lowered taxes, it didn't matter whether or not "your" taxable income went up. It only mattered that "your" taxes went up. When a democratic president promises that "your" taxes won't go up, everyone asks if "you" made more money.
That's true, but I didn't make any changes to my withholding; exemptions or otherwise. I'm trying to establish a baseline. So to say that your taxes went up, but also inferring that you changed your withholding status or other tax deductions/adjustments muddies the water.
Quote from: Hoss on April 08, 2010, 09:23:19 AM
So to say that your taxes went up, but also inferring that you changed your withholding status or other tax deductions/adjustments muddies the water.
Intentional. I'm trying to compare responses to changes in individual taxes resulting from Reagan tax cuts vs. Obama's.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 08, 2010, 10:55:01 AM
Intentional. I'm trying to compare responses to changes in individual taxes resulting from Reagan tax cuts vs. Obama's.
n/a for me. Wasn't working a job that gave me much money from 1980 (I was 12) to 1988 (do the math). Your first comparison.
Your taxes are a direct reflection of deductions, credits, etc. If you actually ended up with more going to the Fed and state, then you had fewer of those type of offsets. Muddying the water is pretty much exactly to the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch play book, isn't it?
Your taxes did not actually go up, they went down. It was the circumstances surrounding your tax situation that changed. If they had not changed, you would have had more visibility of the fact they went down. Sorry you didn't get more benefit from it. I didn't get much either (none) due to changes in my situation, but I am very glad they didn't go up more than they would have without the tax cuts.
As for Reagan, you mention his tax cuts, but how about the affect of the three tax hikes he had a little bit later. Did they affect you much? (Didn't do too much for or against me. They were for much higher income people.)
And then Bush I tax hikes?? ("Watch my lips") A couple of them.
And the one under Billy Bob Clinton?
Quote from: Hoss on April 08, 2010, 11:28:13 AM
n/a for me. Wasn't working a job that gave me much money from 1980 (I was 12) to 1988 (do the math). Your first comparison.
I am more interested in the responses now to the cuts then vs. the cut now than whether you were even alive in the Reagan years.
About what I expected, along party-lines.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 08, 2010, 11:51:41 AM
Your taxes did not actually go up, they went down.
The line on Form 1040A indicating my 2009 tax has a larger number than the equivalent line on my 2008 tax form. Talk about trying to muddy the water. Did you learn math in Oklahoma schools?
Cuts to the incremental tax rates and increased standard and personal deductions during the Reagan years helped keep my taxes from rising faster than they did. I was at the beginning of my career and got several nice raises for increased productivity and also some for inflation. Between raises and inflation, it is difficult to quantify the effect of the cuts. As I remember, the raises in rates were above my income bracket. I still have most of the 1040 booklets if you are interested in particular rates and brackets for just a few years.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 08, 2010, 12:59:07 PM
The line on Form 1040A indicating my 2009 tax has a larger number than the equivalent line on my 2008 tax form. Talk about trying to muddy the water. Did you learn math in Oklahoma schools?
Cuts to the incremental tax rates and increased standard and personal deductions during the Reagan years helped keep my taxes from rising faster than they did. I was at the beginning of my career and got several nice raises for increased productivity and also some for inflation. Between raises and inflation, it is difficult to quantify the effect of the cuts. As I remember, the raises in rates were above my income bracket. I still have most of the 1040 booklets if you are interested in particular rates and brackets for just a few years.
Then just indicate if the percentage change between what you're being taxed this year vs last and the percentage change between this years adjusted income and last years. But then again, if you do that you're not factoring in whether or not a deduction helps your taxes in the long run or not.
So how about the percentage change between this years taxes (not your deducted taxes but what the 1040 says you should have paid) versus last years, then see what the difference is between your gross this year and last. I'm not saying it will be less or more, no do I really care But, you can't throw out "I'm paying more taxes" if you're not willing to state whether or not you made more along the same scale of your tax increase or not.
Spinning much here?
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 08, 2010, 12:59:07 PM
The line on Form 1040A indicating my 2009 tax has a larger number than the equivalent line on my 2008 tax form. Talk about trying to muddy the water. Did you learn math in Oklahoma schools?
I'm intensely curious about the change in your tax situation that caused your total tax bill to be higher this year. Were there some deductions you couldn't take this year?
Are you saying that line 21 is the same or lower than last year, yet line 37 is higher?
If you look at the tax table, it's plainly obvious that, for the same AGI, the tax owed is slightly lower this year. Now, you may have to pay them more now if you usually underpay slightly and owe at tax time, but most people's total tax bill is lower.
Obviously, if AMT is involved, all this goes out the window and only God (and TurboTax) know what's up.
He got a raise. Or a kid left the household. Or mortgage interest went down. Or couldn't itemize versus standard deduction. Or any one of dozens of reasons.
As for math, apparently you missed all those years through school.
If one were to be interested in reality, one could look at the tax tables that come with one's 1040 forms. As an example, for 2008 a single person with an AGI of 50,000 would have a tax bill of $8850.
Same circumstance in 2009 is $8694. That is what they mean by T-a-x C-u-t.
Spelled slowly so more easily understood, in case English was missed along with math.
Quote from: Hoss on April 08, 2010, 11:28:13 AM
n/a for me. Wasn't working a job that gave me much money from 1980 (I was 12) to 1988 (do the math). Your first comparison.
I believe he's talking about me.... give me a little time, and I can be more forthcoming about HOW and WHY the Reagan administration raised my taxes in a time of national recession and double-digit unemployment......
Quote from: JeffM on April 08, 2010, 06:48:23 PM
I believe he's talking about me.... give me a little time, and I can be more forthcoming about HOW and WHY the Reagan administration raised my taxes in a time of national recession and double-digit unemployment......
Thank you, I wanted to let you into this on your own.
For the rest of you, I got a small raise but I believe the way pay periods crossed the 31 Dec/ 1 Jan date, I didn't get exactly 1 year salary each year. Also, my investment income was about 1/2 for 2009 compared to 2008. But ... 2009 Form 1040A, Line 37 (total tax) was still higher than 2008 Form 1040, Line 61 (total tax). I paid more tax in spite of this great tax cut for the middle class.
By the way, I never have doubted that the $ you paid in taxes went up. As I have been getting beat-up, the reason is why.
Don't know why your numbers went up, but it was only because the AGI with adjustments that calculates that number went up.
It's all in the tables.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 08, 2010, 09:37:03 PM
Don't know why your numbers went up, but it was only because the AGI with adjustments that calculates that number went up.
It's all in the tables.
The hype is bigger than the cut.
I am single, no dependents, salary, some interest income, and no mortgage (which would make it possible to itemize). This makes my taxes simple enough I can do them without TurboTax or H&R Block.
I have to use the standard deduction and the standard exemption, quantity = 1. In 2008 they were $5450 & 3500 respectively. In 2009 they were $5700 & $3650 respectively. The difference was $400 on the total between the 2 years. That comes off your income, not your taxes. In other words, if all else was the same, your taxable income for 2009 would be $400 less than for 2008. This is only about 1% on a $40,000 taxable income. If you are in the 25% bracket, that will save you about $100 on your taxes for the year.
Hopefully I can attach copies of the 2008 and 2009 Tax Rate Schedules
For a taxable income of $40,000 in 2008, your tax would be $4481.25 + 25% of the amount over $32,500 = $6,356.25
For a taxable income of $39,600 in 2009, your tax would be $4675.00 + 25% of the amount over $33,950 = $6,087.50
(I got the $39,600 by assuming the same AGI except using the increased standard deduction and exemption discussed above.)
The difference is $268.75 per year. If you get paid every other week, it would be approximately $10.34/paycheck.
I'm not about to turn the reduced rates down but it won't make me go buy a new car. So much for the great tax cut for the middle class.
Now for the clinker. Most of my first paycheck for 2009 included pay for 2008 and only a little of my first check in 2010 included pay from 2009. Boiled down, this means I got more than a year's salary as taxable income in 2009. This overwhelmed the cuts for 2009 and I payed more tax in 2009 than in 2008.
Yep, the hype is bigger. You would have to be a millionaire to really benefit. The got better cuts - much earlier - about 2001 and 2003.
Actually the percentage change on this one is about 4%, similar to one of the Bush I rich people cuts earlier in the decade. Because it covered so many people, it turned out to be the biggest tax cut in the history of the world - $289 billion. Neither of us is gonna get rich on that one.
Why would you use the schedules rather than the tables?? The instructions specifically state not to. And that the schedules are for reference only. (Don't make much difference, but rules are rules....)
So, you actually made more in 2009, so there was more tax - the difference you saw. It all evens out year to year. Either way, we are both screwed. But you know what? We are the lucky ones...it is our grandkids that are really gonna have to deal with this crap. We have done a number on them that is beyond shameful!!
I won't buy a new car either.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 08, 2010, 11:11:20 PM
Yep, the hype is bigger. You would have to be a millionaire to really benefit. The got better cuts - much earlier - about 2001 and 2003.
Actually the percentage change on this one is about 4%, similar to one of the Bush I rich people cuts earlier in the decade. Because it covered so many people, it turned out to be the biggest tax cut in the history of the world - $289 billion. Neither of us is gonna get rich on that one.
Why would you use the schedules rather than the tables?? The instructions specifically state not to. And that the schedules are for reference only. (Don't make much difference, but rules are rules....)
So, you actually made more in 2009, so there was more tax - the difference you saw. It all evens out year to year. Either way, we are both screwed. But you know what? We are the lucky ones...it is our grandkids that are really gonna have to deal with this crap. We have done a number on them that is beyond shameful!!
I won't buy a new car either.
I didn't use the schedules on my real tax but it was easier to use them for an example which will be close enough and I was able to post supporting documentation.
If someone believed all the hype about the great middle class tax cut, I should have paid less tax in 2009 since my raise was truly not that big and especially since my interest income was down so much. Just like a small tax cut, I wasn't about to turn the raise down and I am grateful to still have a job. Salary up a little is better than down any any day.
No kids, no grandkids here. After about another 30 years (I hope), I won't care about the USA or anything. My only interest in doing the right thing is to do the right thing.
The Tax Rate Schedules also clearly show the marginal rates for different levels of taxable income. The dollar range each rate covers was raised a bit but the rates stayed the same. It will depend where you were within the rate whether or not you get a break from shifting the range.
Quote from: JeffM on April 08, 2010, 06:48:23 PM
I believe he's talking about me.... give me a little time, and I can be more forthcoming about HOW and WHY the Reagan administration raised my taxes in a time of national recession and double-digit unemployment......
Dreaming up a real whopper, eh? ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on April 09, 2010, 11:09:39 AM
Dreaming up a real whopper, eh? ;D
Probably, but I'm willing to give him a chance to unconfuse us.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 09, 2010, 11:16:47 AM
Probably, but I'm willing to give him a chance to unconfuse us.
I'm anxious too. I enjoy his creative interpretations.
There's another major hurdle to a new year of prosperity: our tax code. No human being understands it. The current code, which runs over 8,000 pages and countless thousands more pages of IRS rulings and interpretations, is beyond redemption. ..Incalculable amounts of the nation's intellectual brainpower are devoted to the dead-end task of coping with the current tax code. Over one-half million people in the U.S. make their living off it, whether in lobbying, lawyering, tax preparing, or accounting. ... Americans spend five and one-half billion hours a year filling out tax forms ... and spend between $100 billion and $300 billion to comply with the current code. – Malcolm S. Forbes
Sorry to upset the revisionist history of the Reagan deification squad, but....
I don't have my tax papers from the 80s, so I'm relying mostly on memory and my annual "Social Security Statement"...
Between 1981 and 1988, my income ranged from around $1200 to around $3600 per year. I was a high school student the first two years, and a full time college student with some pretty hefty scholarship responsibilities for the other years...
I drove a '76 Chevette, while a couple of my Reagan loving friends drove an MG and a Fiero-- the Fiero guy used to love to go late night shopping for Beemers (BMW's).... I remember one young republican girl who refused to date me, because someday she was going to "marry money"... so we could only be "friends"..... ah, the good ol' days....
What I remember is that there was a tax increase that hit me, but didn't make as big of a difference as the arbitrary policies that would make me EXEMPT one year from any taxes and fully taxable the following year.
When my Pell Grants were getting cut on a regular basis, I had to work more. When I worked more, my income went above a certain level ($2000? or $2400?) which would affect the tax refund after I filed my 1040-EZ ;D .... I remember those new payroll taxes as just adding a little extra bite on every single paycheck-- memories pretty foggy, but I remember not having to pay much, if anything, in federal taxes, but felt the bite of those hefty increased ss/medicare taxes. I felt the effect because I was consistently broke.... that'll happen when Jesus tells your stepdad to sell everything to become an evangelist, but that's another story for another day.
So, I accepted the increase in payroll taxes, because my generation was consistently told that Social Security will not be there for us when we get old; the baby boomers would bankrupt the system. The tax increases were supposed to keep the system solvent for at least the next couple of generations. And Reagan agreed with these regressive payroll tax increases, because liberals were busy scaring old people by telling them that Reagan and Republicans were going to take their ss checks away...... (please see my other youtube reply that has 10 mins of the 2nd Reagan/Mondale debate). http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=15341.45
I was undecided about who to vote for until a couple of weeks before the 1984 election.... on the Mondale side, I was still thinking about voting for him because I was afraid of further cuts in Pell Grants and eligibility for student loans and a minimum wage perpetually stuck at $3.35 per hr...... on the Reagan side, I thought unions had become too powerful, and that the economy had indeed turned around (even if it didn't turn around for struggling college students like me).
I'm referencing this blogger because his post quotes both conservative economist Bruce Bartlett and the more liberal views of Paul Krugman...
Reagan raised taxes
http://brewcitybrawler.typepad.com/brew_city_brawler/2008/10/reagan-raised-taxes.html
I voted as one of those "Reagan democrats" because I felt his admin would be more serious about handling the deficit problem. (even though I knew it was likely I'd take a financial hit personally to accomplish it). I also voted for Reagan so that I could thumb my nose at the liberals who supported the public funding of "abortion on demand" and insisted Reagan would instigate a nuclear war and destroy social security. When liberals played the fear card, I recoiled... I wish conservatives these days would take note.
I'll save my post about the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and how the Gramm-Rudman budget cuts screwed with me for another day.....
At birth each man is given a large stone.
Release your bitterness, your jealousy and your anger.
(http://www.icanhasforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/star-wars-yoda-motivational-awesome.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar link=topic=15225.msg160614#msg160614 date=1270834940
i]There's another major hurdle to a new year of prosperity: our tax code. No human being understands it. The current code, which runs over 8,000 pages and countless thousands more pages of IRS rulings and interpretations, is beyond redemption. ..Incalculable amounts of the nation's intellectual brainpower are devoted to the dead-end task of coping with the current tax code. Over one-half million people in the U.S. make their living off it, whether in lobbying, lawyering, tax preparing, or accounting. ... Americans spend five and one-half billion hours a year filling out tax forms ... and spend between $100 billion and $300 billion to comply with the current code. – Malcolm S. Forbes[/i]
You'd think Malcolm Forbes would have both been better at math (half a million folks is only .025% of a population of 200 million, which I use to be fair to a man who died 20 years ago) and have known what it is accountants do. (which is, and was, largely not "coping with the current tax code")
While I would appreciate simplification of the tax code through lowering the base rate and removing deductions and that sort of thing, software renders the whole thing mostly irrelevant for those who can bother to keep even half-decent records.
. . .He may carry it on his shoulders complaining of its weight, and blaming the great burden for his inability to succeed. He may demand that others come to his aid, and curse those who do not. Each of his failures become the stones fault, and his triumphs are in spite of it.
He may chisel the stone until it is no more than rubble and dust, and at his death, leave no evidence of his being.
He may see the beauty in the stone, shaping it into a monument to his struggle, illustrating the pain and passion of individual endeavor. The stone becomes his legacy long after his bones are dust.
--Yoder.
::)
I simply posted what happened. It happened a long time ago.
Bitter? Nope. Jaded? You betcha.
And I refuse to take personal advice from a DOGMATIC GROVER NORDQUIST CLONE.
I will NEVER support any federal, state, or local policies that use our greatest human resource (young people struggling to better themselves) as a political football... I oppose policies that hurt full time students directly or indirectly by freezing minimum wage, raising payroll taxes, slashing Pell Grants, privatizing govt. student loans while subsidizing bank profits, standing idly by while tuition costs skyrocket.... etc, etc, etc.....
As an old geezer, I will consistently support certain progressive education policies even though it may not always be in my short-term economic interests to do so....
Quote from: JeffM on April 09, 2010, 12:59:46 PM
When my Pell Grants were getting cut on a regular basis, I had to work more. When I worked more, my income went above a certain level ($2000? or $2400?) which would affect the tax refund after I filed my 1040-EZ ;D .... I remember those new payroll taxes as just adding a little extra bite on every single paycheck-- memories pretty foggy, but I remember not having to pay much, if anything, in federal taxes, but felt the bite of those hefty increased ss/medicare taxes.
Pretty much as I expected. You moved from a tax exempt income (Pell Grants) and very little other income to taxable income. A belated welcome to the world of taxpayers to you. I think the results may have been similar no matter who was President.
I won't argue whether it was "fair" or not. I was fortunate enough to go to Grad School at TU (77-79) on the GI bill and a Teaching Assistant scholarship. Very little income tax. When I got a real job, I got sticker shock for sure. I welcomed the income tax cuts. I wasn't fond of the SS increases but accepted them as a forced retirement savings that wouldn't reach a "lifetime limit" of benefits if I reached my Grandparents ages (95 for Grandpop, 97 for Grandmom). One or two years I maxed out and got one or two paychecks without SS taken out. The idea of a maximum benefit based on contributing up to a certain salary was OK. Then "they" started talking about taxing without limits but only providing benefits based on taxes on lower wages. Means based benefits are even more disturbing to me since I have been contributing 15% (including my employer's share) of my salary for a lot of years. I will be really unhappy if big brother punishes me for also saving to have a more comfortable retirement.
Edit:
Almost forgot...(it's been a lot of years)
Based on my High School performance, I earned a National Merit Scholarship. As I remember, it was worth about 20% of my expenses for the first couple semesters. Unfortunately, in spite of my work and achievement, my dad "earned too much money" and it was taken from me. I believe you have said you did get through college so you didn't
need the grants but life would have been a lot easier with them. I can at least somewhat sympathize on loosing money to help go to college. The summers between my freshman and sophomore and between my sophomore and junior years I was fortunate enough to get a manual labor job that paid more than minimum wage. Between my junior and senior years that job had to go to a minority because of affirmative action even though I had two summers of seniority.
Quote from: JeffM on April 09, 2010, 12:59:46 PM
I drove a '76 Chevette, while a couple of my Reagan loving friends drove an MG and a Fiero-- the Fiero guy used to love to go late night shopping for Beemers (BMW's).... I remember one young republican girl who refused to date me, because someday she was going to "marry money"... so we could only be "friends"..... ah, the good ol' days....
The Fiero guy wanted a motorcycle? I remember seeing an article in an engineering magazine that all the Fiero body mount pads were machined in one setup on a giant milling machine.
Beemer = BMW Motorcycle
Bimmer = BMW Automobile
Per the BMW Car Club of America, at least around 1995.
I believe a Beezer was a BSA (English) motorcycle. (not totally sure on this, I'm not a motorcycle guy)
Yes, I know that (those not in the know) often call a BMW automobile a Beemer.
fotd has a '74 2002 beemer...the first car he ever bought...the zen of automobile maintenance.
bmw....Bob Marley and the Wailers :D
Quote from: fotd on April 10, 2010, 11:43:32 PM
fotd has a '74 2002 beemer...the first car he ever bought...the zen of automobile maintenance.
bmw....Bob Marley and the Wailers :D
2002 (model, not year) Bimmers are pretty much a cult car anymore. Neat cars but like many of their era, not maintenance free.
RM,
You asleep?
We're drifting here.
Back on topic youse guys...don't make me come over and smack y'all.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 11, 2010, 11:27:16 AM
Back on topic youse guys...don't make me come over and smack y'all.
"Please, sir, may I have another?"
I could have sworn Kevin Bacon just walked by.
Not sure if Obamacare will affect the elections, but it sure impacted this doctor:
http://standardspeaker.com/news/surgeon-quits-hospital-job-cites-obamacare-1.754068
Quote from: guido911 on May 03, 2010, 08:15:53 PM
Not sure if Obamacare will affect the elections, but it sure impacted this doctor:
http://standardspeaker.com/news/surgeon-quits-hospital-job-cites-obamacare-1.754068
My favorite comment on the above:
"Another oppressed country club Republican deciding to quit a job because it doesn't pay enough."Conservative TRAITOR. He puts his politics over his practice...
Maybe he can get a job at a call center.... or not.
I hope he loses EVERYTHING... including his ability to get health insurance.
I hope he gets a job at McDonald's...... or Walmart.... I hope he has a pre-existing condition..... and has to declare bankruptcy because of it.
That would be a just and fitting karma punishment for this JERK.
Just like this smarmy little scumbag from Florida.......
Doctor Jack Cassell Tells Obama Supporters To Seek Help Elsewherehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/jack-cassell-doctor-refus_n_523076.html
(http://somecountryforoldmen.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/stupid-doctor-sign1.jpg)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html
The Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Quote from: JeffM on May 03, 2010, 08:26:55 PM
My favorite comment on the above: "Another oppressed country club Republican deciding to quit a job because it doesn't pay enough."
Conservative TRAITOR. He puts his politics over his practice...
Maybe he can get a job at a call center.... or not.
I hope he loses EVERYTHING... including his ability to get health insurance.
I hope he gets a job at McDonald's...... or Walmart.... I hope he has a pre-existing condition..... and has to declare bankruptcy because of it.
That would be a just and fitting karma punishment for this JERK.
Just like this smarmy little scumbag from Florida.......
Doctor Jack Cassell Tells Obama Supporters To Seek Help Elsewhere
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/jack-cassell-doctor-refus_n_523076.html
(http://somecountryforoldmen.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/stupid-doctor-sign1.jpg)
Did you read this comment though:
"In 2003, Polidora had his privileges revoked at Hazleton-St. Joseph Medical Center and Hazleton General Hospital following a dispute about
a Greater Hazleton Health Alliance policy he believed compromised the privacy of his patients. One issue leading to the dispute was Polidora's belief that
each patient should be allowed to recover at his or her own pace - and not within a time specified by outside agencies, like Medicare, that never see the patient."
I'd say in this case, he put patient care above all else.
Otherwise, consider he's been in practice for 30 years, he's an orthopedic surgeon and still has his own private practice. Sounds to me as if he's starting to semi-retire but it's a good opportunity to vent about another government policy he sees as unfair. Medicare isn't the only one who never sees the patient, insurance companies don't either.
Quote from: JeffM on May 03, 2010, 08:26:55 PM
Conservative TRAITOR. He puts his politics over his practice..
Oh I get it, because he stands on his personal principles he is a TRAITOR. Your doucheness never ceases to amaze.
Doctors are still free people in this country. At least for a little while longer.
It is within his rights to refuse treatment to anyone, or dismiss any patient he chooses.
You cannot force a doctor to treat you anymore than you can force the neighbor kid to mow your lawn.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 04, 2010, 09:16:52 AM
Otherwise, consider he's been in practice for 30 years, he's an orthopedic surgeon and still has his own private practice. Sounds to me as if he's starting to semi-retire but it's a good opportunity to vent about another government policy he sees as unfair. Medicare isn't the only one who never sees the patient, insurance companies don't either.
Yes, his concerns, as reported are perfectly valid. Sadly, this incident is being reported as some sort of mark against health care reform, when in fact the entirety of our current health care system (aside from the two people a year who fully self pay) works the same way.
Quote from: guido911 on May 04, 2010, 09:54:24 AM
Oh I get it, because he stands on his personal principles he is a TRAITOR. Your doucheness never ceases to amaze.
Your doucheness should have had you banned from this site a long time ago.
I'm unsurprised at your allegiance to the conservative elitist arrogant douchebag cause.... oooh, I'm sorry, I've resorted to name calling.... /snark.
Oh gee. Who are you calling an "idiot" this week?
Oh yeah, Contessa Brewer.... ::)
Quote from: JeffM on May 05, 2010, 08:15:24 AM
Your doucheness should have had you banned from this site a long time ago.
I'm unsurprised at your allegiance to the conservative elitist arrogant douchebag cause.... oooh, I'm sorry, I've resorted to name calling.... /snark.
Oh gee. Who are you calling an "idiot" this week?
Oh yeah, Contessa Brewer.... ::)
What a snappy retort.
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 09:08:59 AM
What a snappy retort.
Well, it *is* better than "FU, you POS." :D
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 09:08:59 AM
What a snappy retort.
"Oh well allow me to retort!"
(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/141980/7_16_2009_Jackson.jpg)
*cough*
I'm keeping the ban hammer warm.
WV dem that supported Obamacare ousted in a primary, in part because of his vote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37097991/ns/politics-capitol_hill
Come on guys... you can be much nastier using much nicer words.
Just as violence is the last resort of the incompetent, profanity is the last resort of the intellectually incompetent.
But then again, I certainly enjoy a good old fashioned expletive undeleted from time to time....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 12, 2010, 08:08:00 PM
Come on guys... you can be much nastier using much nicer words.
Just as violence is the last resort of the incompetent, profanity is the last resort of the intellectually incompetent.
But then again, I certainly enjoy a good old fashioned expletive undeleted from time to time....
go love yourself, then!
See! I told you so!
Just quit your job, the government will take care of you says Queen Pelosi:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd6U2GaGSU
She is one stupid, scary woman. Where do they find these stiffs like her, Rep. Waxman, Sen. Reid, etc.?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2010, 12:12:28 PM
She is one stupid, scary woman. Where do they find these stiffs like her, Rep. Waxman, Sen. Reid, etc.?
Maybe the same place they found the Quitt...errr....Governor Palin?
Quote from: Hoss on May 14, 2010, 02:10:10 PM
Maybe the same place they found the Quitt...errr....Governor Palin?
That's entirely possible. Empty dress suit.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2010, 05:12:38 PM
That's entirely possible. Empty dress suit.
How about Rep Suntan and his cabana boy?
;D
Trust me.
Elect Heironymous Supreme Commander!
Heironymous for King!
Heironymous for Senate!!
Just a funny (imvho) blog headline about one Senator that supported the healthcare bill:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/21/arkansas-runoff-winner-gets-chance-to-be-loser-rasmussen/
First casualty announced today.
Executive Vice President James Slabaugh said nHealth has stopped accepting new group customers and will terminate all business by Dec. 31.
"The uncertainties in the regulatory climate coupled with new demands imposed by national health care reforms have made it challenging to sustain the level of sales required to remain viable over the long run," Slabaugh wrote.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38194.html#ixzz0qHFYapWe
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2010, 10:43:57 AM
First casualty announced today.
Executive Vice President James Slabaugh said nHealth has stopped accepting new group customers and will terminate all business by Dec. 31.
"The uncertainties in the regulatory climate coupled with new demands imposed by national health care reforms have made it challenging to sustain the level of sales required to remain viable over the long run," Slabaugh wrote.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38194.html#ixzz0qHFYapWe
Or it was an unsuccessful startup.