Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

[walrus]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

But there are more things for an accountant to do than just taxes.

Lots of stuff for lawyers to do besides lawsuits but you suppose they'll support medical Tort reform? Lets face it we can't get anything done because congress doesn't listen to us they listen to the money. Somehow they keep getting reelected?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just pass the deficit commission's plan? Compared to the gigantic steaming turds floated by both sides since, I'd say it's far superior to them.

I know your thing is Dark Ironic Fatalism, but what do you think the actual problems are with each of the proposals (Ryan, Simpson-Bowles, Obama)?

My fear is Congress will use negotiations to trade in the wrong direction. The GOP will ease off cutting x in order to avert a raise of tax a and the Dems will ease off a raise of tax a to protect spending on x. The real thing to do is the exact opposite: each side has to trade their delicious but unhealthy stuff in exchange for the other having to eat vegetables. That way we all get healthy, albeit grumpily.

And if we do it fast enough, we can burn the Europeans and take their women. When faced with a difficult task, take incentive where you can find it.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I don't know. I'm a retired accountant.

But there are more things for an accountant to do than just taxes.

But were you a kick *** accountant?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

"Lana?"
"Lana?!"
"LANA?!"
"WHAT?!"
...
...
...
"Danger Zone."

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I know your thing is Dark Ironic Fatalism, but what do you think the actual problems are with each of the proposals (Ryan, Simpson-Bowles, Obama)?

Can't remember Simpson-Bowles, but Ryan's cannot be taken seriously when he cuts taxes and spares the military completely, and Obama's is simply middling - doesn't cut the military enough, doesn't reform entitlements enough, pushes too much out to the back half of the budget cycle, etc.

If those are the starting points, we're boned. Ryan's plan has probably the right target number, but the wrong methods, Obama's got the right methods, but the wrong target number. Which means well end up with Obama's numbers and Ryan's methods. Hurray for more tax cuts while increasing the military budget and wiping out all domestic spending!

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I've never understood this, but given that there is a new budget every year, what is the point of announcing that "My budget will save $5.2 trillion over ten years." Don't we usually end up with 6 trillion in new spending/lower taxes compared to that budget by the time 10 years down the road shows up?

As far as I can tell, if your budget doesn't cut X amount *this* year, there's no guarantee it will ever happen and it's just a pretty soundbite.

Edit: I mean, one year, I'm pretty sure Clinton said his budget would eliminate the national debt by 2015 or so. Obviously between economic downturns and new spending/lowered taxes in the intervening 20 years, that isn't going to happen.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

WSJ didn't care for Barry's avoidance.

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

WSJ didn't care for Barry's avoidance.

Because clearly he was proposing to cover the entire deficit with the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and wasn't considering anything else at all.

They have a point, but then they go full derp to try to score political points...

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I know your thing is Dark Ironic Fatalism, but what do you think the actual problems are with each of the proposals (Ryan, Simpson-Bowles, Obama)?

Ryan's priorities are all ****ed up and his numbers don't add up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...n-is-so-flawed/2011/04/11/AFHLOpMD_story.html
Obama's priorities aren't as ****ed up as Ryan's, but the $4T in deficit reduction over 12 years is insufficient.
The Simpson-Bowles plan gets $4T in deficit reduction by 2020 (3 years faster than Obama): http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sit...files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

FWIW, I think the commission's approach is the most balanced, although I don't think it is quite aggressive enough. If they souped it up a bit and got us into balance by 2020, I would support the commission's plan over the others, no question. I especially agree with their reforming of the tax code by dumping the nonsensical deductions/credits and lowering rates. Simplified and paying a bit more is better than the idiocy we're doing now and have been doing for eons.

And as bronconick pointed out, these long-term plans are vulnerable to annual ****-ups in Congress as they decide to increase funding for whatever they think will lead to their re-election. If we're going to commit to one of these things, we have to make sure that we stick to it over the long-term... and god knows that will be difficult if not impossible given the morons we have in DC.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Because clearly he was proposing to cover the entire deficit with the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and wasn't considering anything else at all.

They have a point, but then they go full derp to try to score political points...

That would be a great selling point for the college crowd.

Subscribe to FT.com today. More news. Better analysis. None of the derp.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Because clearly he was proposing to cover the entire deficit with the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and wasn't considering anything else at all.

They covered the other points. I just cherrypicked that quote about taxing the rich because if true, it's enlightening.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

They covered the other points. I just cherrypicked that quote about taxing the rich because if true, it's enlightening.

How is it enlightening? No one's said that "taxing the rich" will cure all ills or solve the budget crisis in and of itself. But that fact doesn't mean raising the top marginal rate is the wrong thing to do. Just because it's not a cure-all doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the solution.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Because clearly he was proposing to cover the entire deficit with the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and wasn't considering anything else at all.

They have a point, but then they go full derp to try to score political points...

It's the equivalent of saying "my opponent proposes to prosecute armed robbery as one way to combat crime. But prosecuting armed robbery will do NOTHING to stop domestic violence!" Aha!, the crowd hoots, and gets the message: we should do nothing to stop armed robbery.

I think we're going to get a lot of that "change the subject, quick, look over here!" in the next few months. The raison d'être of one segment of the political-media class is to keep the top rate low by any means necessary. It's been the primary motivation of 75% of the Republicans and 25% of the Democrats for 30 years. The country's interest be darned, their $2M Georgetown townhouses aint gonna pay for themselves!

I'm sure these demographics have nothing whatever to do with who our Members live near, work with, marry, go to church with, share values with, etc. I'm sure they're all salt of the earth types who understand that making $250,000 really does make somebody incredibly fortunate by the standards of ordinary Americans. No really -- they're just like you and me. I see them eating in diners and wearing hard hats every few Octobers.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

How is it enlightening? No one's said that "taxing the rich" will cure all ills or solve the budget crisis in and of itself. But that fact doesn't mean raising the top marginal rate is the wrong thing to do. Just because it's not a cure-all doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the solution.

I agree.

It's "enlightening" as to just how much our deficit has grown, that even if you taxed everyone earning over $100K this year at 100% of their income, it wouldn't be enough to cover the federal budget deficit. It's just a fact that's a little shocking to me, that's all. Maybe it's not really a big deal.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I've never understood this, but given that there is a new budget every year, what is the point of announcing that "My budget will save $5.2 trillion over ten years." Don't we usually end up with 6 trillion in new spending/lower taxes compared to that budget by the time 10 years down the road shows up?

As far as I can tell, if your budget doesn't cut X amount *this* year, there's no guarantee it will ever happen and it's just a pretty soundbite.

Edit: I mean, one year, I'm pretty sure Clinton said his budget would eliminate the national debt by 2015 or so. Obviously between economic downturns and new spending/lowered taxes in the intervening 20 years, that isn't going to happen.

Presidents always project out most of the hard stuff to years when they'll no longer be in office. It's a classic dodge that Presidents of both parties have used for many years. Anytime I see a projection that goes out that far, I immediately become skeptical, because it's a way of hiding that they aren't really doing much while they are still in office.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Is there anyone on this thread who is not cynical about our government?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Presidents always project out most of the hard stuff to years when they'll no longer be in office. It's a classic dodge that Presidents of both parties have used for many years. Anytime I see a projection that goes out that far, I immediately become skeptical, because it's a way of hiding that they aren't really doing much while they are still in office.

Absolutely true. The presidential dodge is time, the Congressional dodge is rosey economic predictions ("never mind that developed western economies typically grow about 3%, the US will grow at 8% for the next 30 years! Because... sob... I believe... in America.)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Is there anyone on this thread who is not cynical about our government?

Being "cynical" (or realistic) is fine as long as it doesn't paralyze you. "Where's there's life, there's hope."

Institutions either use us or we use them. At least the great merit of our political institutions is we can throw the bums out. Given that, every persistant problem with our politicians is just our own faulty oversight. Want politics to be more honest? Be more honest.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Is there anyone in this country who is not cynical about our government?

Better question.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Ross Perot went from being highly respected to highly suspect. Remember? He was against govmint spending, but the basis of his fortune is government contracts. He blamed Bush for sending goons to disrupt his daughter's wedding reception. And claimed he shot a Black Panther assassin in the azz/ And, my favorite, gave up his commission in the Navy "because the sailors were using bad language." Anyway, in Perot's case it was personal, he wanted to deny Bush a second term and was singularly successful. Clearly, Trump's motivation here is different. And the world is a different place now, where a guy like Trump is seen as a plausible candidate (and may be, who knows?). He's got a lot of baggage from his personal life. And as a NY player has undoubtedly done business with guys with broken noses. Some picture surfaces of Trump with his arm around Joey Bagodonuts and he'll have a lot of 'splaining to do. The "birther" issue gives him street cred with the Jesse Ventura crowd. But it may be more than that. Maybe some people want to slap back at BHO or are worn out by constant references to what a superior person he is. Anyway, my sense is some people really believe the nonsense, while others just see it as an easy way to rain on his parade. As to an independent run, I'm doubtful he'd be willing to do it. The guy has a lot going for him (money and name recognition to name two) but has some serious potential problems with his private life. I'm guessing there are some very interesting items in his various pre-nups and divorce decrees. And that personal stuff always comes out, just ask John Edwards. Bottom line, I think this is a tease.

Of course, there is some benefit to being 'human' and never having claimed otherwise...I can see Trump saying, "yeah I did that, so what?" Edwards had played the family, god loving card so long he had further to fall. Now, I'd never vote for Trump and the birther thing is just ridiculous. But, as we move further towards the American Idolization of politics, he has as much chance as anybody.