Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

[manurespreader]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

The GOP interpretation of the tea party (which you'll see commonly referenced in the political threads) is nothing but lipstick on the G-O-Pig. They believe that with taxes higher, we will be doomed to further recession as the aggregate amount of money going into the system will be decreased, and that with all of the other things such as removal of qualified dividends, heightened cap gains, and the like, people won't invest.

Personally, I don't like the idea of raising taxes when there's still plenty of bloated spending left to cut. However, if it takes Taxmageddon to get the spending cuts, I'm all for it. It'd be like instituting a $500 limit on spending for a trip, but you see something that costs $550 that you feel at the time you really need, and so you decide to up your limit just so you can get that thing. Unfortunately, there's not really much of a way to have a truly independent third party auditor. Sure, the credit agencies could have their treasury ratings, but they could still be subject to government insolvency, much like General Motors.

This might seem weird, but I would love to put the game Sim City in front of Congress and the President, tell them to use the exact same policies they would for the country that they are now, and see how they do...

so you are saying the tea party and republicans in general are for cutting the deficit, but not for tax increases. Certainly I agree there is plenty of fat but no where near enough to balance, the only way is simpson bowles, and republicans will never sign on to that. In other words it's all just talk, which is disappointing.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

There are several countries, Sweden among them, that are pushing for a reduction in the EU budget. This is not getting a warm reception from the countries that are net receivers of funds, such as Italy. The "bad guys" say they want reforms to fees and to expenses around administration, and believe me if you think we have a bloated govt, you ought to see the EU. Even that is likely not to happen. Gb might very well pull out eventually, as might Sweden.
The money Sweden donates to the EU is under scrutiny because all budget items there are being cut.( and it is a socialist country BTW)

I want to address a tax question also. We are worried about the so called fiscal cliff right. But since the cliff really represents a closing of the budget gap, which if you are fiscally conservative you are theoretically for, why are all tea partiers and right wing types so against it. Didn't they agree to the process months ago.? I know it might drag us into recession, but hasn't the tea party been campaigning for this type of thing for months?

I'm all for a compromise, but I don't understand the tea party platform I guess.

The defense budget is a big sticking point for a lot of Republicans (the taxes have already been addressed). Because this "fiscal cliff" would hit the defense budget with $50B, I think, it has a lot of hawks on edge. I happen to think that they could save a big chunk of that money by closing a large number of foreign bases, keeping only one or two bases in Europe (I'd close them all, but I'll compromise on this) and most of the bases in Asia, and then just keeping some small naval bases wherever needed for refueling and supplying the fleet. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest only keeping bases in countries that would pay the US for the benefits brought to their countries' economies and the protection inherent in such arrangements.

 

[joecct]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

The defense budget is a big sticking point for a lot of Republicans (the taxes have already been addressed). Because this "fiscal cliff" would hit the defense budget with $50B, I think, it has a lot of hawks on edge. I happen to think that they could save a big chunk of that money by closing a large number of foreign bases, keeping only one or two bases in Europe (I'd close them all, but I'll compromise on this) and most of the bases in Asia, and then just keeping some small naval bases wherever needed for refueling and supplying the fleet. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest only keeping bases in countries that would pay the US for the benefits brought to their countries' economies and the protection inherent in such arrangements.

so you are saying the tea party and republicans in general are for cutting the deficit, but not for tax increases. Certainly I agree there is plenty of fat but no where near enough to balance, the only way is simpson bowles, and republicans will never sign on to that. In other words it's all just talk, which is disappointing.

Increase tax revenue, which can be achieved by fixing (blowing up) the tax code. If we can get rid of "tax preference items", then revenue should go up, without increasing rates.

As for the defense budget - keep the hospital in Germany. The rest -- if we need 'em, we rent 'em. I don't think the Russians are coming through the Fulda Gap any time soon. Maybe I'd buy an island or two in the Med or Azores for prepositioned equipment in the event that the Hordes invade. I'd do the same in the Far East. Use Marianas as a Pacific Depot in case the NK's or some other tin pot dictator believes his press clippings. There is no longer a need to have an Army in Europe or Asia. If need be, we can get them in the neighborhood fairly quickly.

And then insist that for every $$ projected to be raised in revenue, there must be a corresponding cut in domestic spending. The sacred ox roast will held on the West Front of the Capital on February 14. All are invited.

As for the Navy, keep the Carriers. They are good force projection until the rest of the gang shows up.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

so you are saying the tea party and republicans in general are for cutting the deficit, but not for tax increases. Certainly I agree there is plenty of fat but no where near enough to balance, the only way is simpson bowles, and republicans will never sign on to that. In other words it's all just talk, which is disappointing.

There's plenty enough to balance with social security, medicare, and PPACA alone. Of course, according to the left, those are off limits.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

It's always a challenge for those of us who want to meld the best that conservatism and liberalism have to offer as an antidote to progressivism when dealing with the latter's consistent impulse to short-term expediency. Our message is that certain principles, followed consistently, lead to the best long-term outcomes.

A good analogy to me seems to be the adage, "never tell lies." In the short run, of course lying has many obvious advantages! however, I recall a great lesson from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, in which he observed the influential people in Philadelphia and how they interacted with each other, and how he yearned to join them. He realized that the only way to be part of a group is to gain AND HOLD the trust of that group's members, and so he resolved always to behave in a trustworthy manner, not necessarily because of any innate moral superiority, merely because it produced the best long-term outcome: if you always behave in a trustworthy manner, you will eventually become trusted by others.

We used his lesson with our children. Once, when our daughter was about four, she told an obvious lie in order to get out of trouble. We accepted that as a natural part of her development, and rather than upbraid her, we merely doubted everything she told us for the next month. She was absolutely miserable by the end of the month...."why won't you believe me?" and we would calmly reply, "well, you lied once, how do we know you aren't lying now?" Suffice it to say, she hasn't lied to us since. Similarly withy our son: "it is more important that we be able to trust you in the long term than any short-term consequences, so no matter what you do, never lie to us. If you don't want to tell the truth, remain silent or say 'I'm not going to tell you.'"

We know from millenia of human experience that personal responsibility and (generally) free markets produce better long-term results than any kind of centralized command-and-control system. Yet progressives always have the same message: "how can we be sure?" and opt for short-term expediency that ALWAYS produces substandard results.

I find it particularly ironic that the progressives always SAY their concern is "how can we be sure?" yet their answer ALWAYS lies with expanded government control. How is it that the basis of their message is distrust yet they have unfettered confidence in government to be reliable?



The liberal impulse is to inspire people to voluntary action. Enthusiastic voluntarism, in my experience, always produces better results than resentful compliance with external mandates.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I find it particularly ironic that the progressives always SAY their concern is "how can we be sure?" yet their answer ALWAYS lies with expanded government control. How is it that the basis of their message is distrust yet they have unfettered confidence in government to be reliable?

Remember, they're just like insects. The hive is built so that everyone pulls weight and is trusted. If you're not assimilated into the hive, you aren't trusted.

 

[joecct]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Empirical evidence?? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/970...aires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

 

[Rover]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I'm extraordinarily amused by the "negotiating" tact being used by Itch and The Boner. They ask for a plan, the Prez gives them one, then they say "that's not a plan" but offer nothing of their own. People, time for a reality check:

1) Obama ran on a platform of higher taxes. Mittens on lower taxes. Obama won.

2) If the GOP does nothing, which is in their nature, ALL taxes go up as well as massive defense cuts.

3) Polls show if the fiscal cliff is not resolved, the Republicans will bear the brunt of the blame.

What I'm amused about is how people with zero leverage can mouth off like they're in a position of strength. These conservative remind me of a story of a guy facing down a firing squad and telling them he's got them right where he wants them. Republicans made an all or nothing bet on winning the election to get what the want. They lost, but now they want to pretend that never happened. Even worse due to laws they themselves wrote (Bush tax cuts, sequestration) the Dems get what they want either way. This is going to be real fun to watch play out.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

What I'm amused about is how people with zero leverage can mouth off like they're in a position of strength. These conservative remind me of a story of a guy facing down a firing squad and telling them he's got them right where he wants them. Republicans made an all or nothing bet on winning the election to get what the want. They lost, but now they want to pretend that never happened. Even worse due to laws they themselves wrote (Bush tax cuts, sequestration) the Dems get what they want either way. This is going to be real fun to watch play out.

How is it that Boehner has zero leverage? He's still Speaker of the House, and his constituents - as well as those of his fellow Republicans who kept their seats - either preferred his way of handling things over the Dems' way, or they wanted an offset to the President and the Senate.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Part 1 and 2 on Govt. Subsidies. Something everyone should read. Part 3 tomorrow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/us/winners-and-losers-in-texas.html?hp&_r=0

Mr. Ryan’s (a guy that held a big political fundraiser in Texas) specialty is helping clients like ExxonMobil and Neiman Marcus secure state and local tax breaks and other business incentives. It is a good line of work in Texas.


Under Mr. Perry, Texas gives out more of the incentives than any other state, around $19 billion a year, an examination by The New York Times has found. Texas justifies its largess by pointing out that it is home to half of all the private sector jobs created over the last decade nationwide. As the invitation to the fund-raiser boasted: “Texas leads the nation in job creation.”

Creating jobs apparently is all about government handouts. Interesting.

 

[Rover]

How is it that Boehner has zero leverage? He's still Speaker of the House, and his constituents - as well as those of his fellow Republicans who kept their seats - either preferred his way of handling things over the Dems' way, or they wanted an offset to the President and the Senate.

Simple. What happens if The Boner can't make a deal with Obama?

Answer: Taxes go back to Clinton levels plus big cuts in defense while entitlement programs are excluded. That is the current law passed by Boehner himself.

So I ask again, where is his leverage?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Simple. What happens if The Boner can't make a deal with Obama?

Answer: Taxes go back to Clinton levels plus big cuts in defense while entitlement programs are excluded. That is the current law passed by Boehner himself.

So I ask again, where is his leverage?

Reid passed it, too. Of course, this all goes back to the whining about the debt ceiling. I still don't think we should have allowed it to go up. IIRC, about 20 minutes after it went up, the messiah dictator spent even more money on something new.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Simple. What happens if The Boner can't make a deal with Obama?

Answer: Taxes go back to Clinton levels plus big cuts in defense while entitlement programs are excluded. That is the current law passed by Boehner himself.

So I ask again, where is his leverage?

So every law that was passed during the current Congress is completely the responsibility of the Republican held House of Reps? That speaks to a very weak Senate and President when they outnumber the House 2:1. They should be fired.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

So every law that was passed during the current Congress is completely the responsibility of the Republican held House of Reps? That speaks to a very weak Senate and President when they outnumber the House 2:1. They should be fired.

You'll never be able to explain to me how Barack Obama was reelected. Never. But it is pretty easy to figure out that the Republicans took their sweeping mandate from 2010 and cashed it in on Social Issues across the nation. The Bone Man chanted after the 2010 election JOBS JOBS JOBS and accomplished "nothing" his two years in power. I'm pretty certain they all should be fired. But, you get, and we get the government we deserve.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

You'll never be able to explain to me how Barack Obama was reelected. Never. But it is pretty easy to figure out that the Republicans took their sweeping mandate from 2010 and cashed it in on Social Issues across the nation. The Bone Man chanted after the 2010 election JOBS JOBS JOBS and accomplished "nothing" his two years in power. I'm pretty certain they all should be fired. But, you get, and we get the government we deserve.

I'll take a crack at why Obummer was re-elected: The wallbanger, golfer, leprechaun, all of them, have been using the BO technique, which is exactly the same as the BB technique used (and still used even when in power) by the left.

 

[Rover]

So every law that was passed during the current Congress is completely the responsibility of the Republican held House of Reps? That speaks to a very weak Senate and President when they outnumber the House 2:1. They should be fired.

Perception wise, this bill is, and I think that's what rigthies are struggling with currently. You're on the hook, whether you think that's fair or not. Public is speaking and they're blaming the GOP if they don't get it done.

Basically Itch McConnell made a bad bet. He wrote a bill he had no intention of seeing implemented under the idea that he'd have a majority in both houses and the WH. Reid and co passed the bill with full knowledge they could live with it if it did become law, hence the off-limits on the entitlements once sequestration kicks in.

Now we're at the end of the road. Either the GOP accepts some tax hikes and defense cuts, or they accept all tax hikes and defense cuts. Unless there's some previously unknown clause in the Constitution allowing the House to act unilaterally, they're screwed with the approval of the American public.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

The third in command has made a counter: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/03/gop-cliff-counteroffer/1743307/

If the G-O-Pigs don't hold firm on the debt ceiling this time around, the country is officially ****ed.

 

[unofan]

The third in command has made a counter: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/03/gop-cliff-counteroffer/1743307/

If the G-O-Pigs don't hold firm on the debt ceiling this time around, the country is officially ****ed.

Really? The debt ceiling? That artificial construct wherein Congress threatens to not pay for things it's already promised to pay for? The thing whose sole purpose is to let the minority party grandstand for the cameras? You want the GOP to make its last stand on that?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Really? The debt ceiling? That artificial construct wherein Congress threatens to not pay for things it's already promised to pay for? The thing whose sole purpose is to let the minority party grandstand for the cameras? You want the GOP to make its last stand on that?

At this point, it's the only defence they have against out of control spending. Of course, I read somewhere (not going to bother posting a link since it's a site you automatically discredit anyway) that Obama wants to remove more cheques and balances, including Congress' control on the debt ceiling.

 

[unofan]

At this point, it's the only defence they have against out of control spending. Of course, I read somewhere (not going to bother posting a link since it's a site you automatically discredit anyway) that Obama wants to remove more cheques and balances, including Congress' control on the debt ceiling.

Congess' control on the debt is its power to budget. The debt ceiling is a redundent tool left in place for political posturing. But if you want to m ake that your line in the sand, I think we've seen twice who took the blame for those incidents. So, please proceed.