The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

my favorite pro wrestler is for real, the other guys are faking
my soccer team doesn't dive
my kids would never do something like that
my lawyer is fair and only concerned about justice, the other guy's lawyer is a money grubbing ambulance chaser
my college football team is the one that doesn't cheat

All pro wrestling is fake
My soccer team dives all the time
I don't have any kids myself
My lawyer better be a greedy bastard or I'll hire someone else
Every college sports team breaks the rules, even if by accident

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Whatever, Foxton.

I've never suggested dismantling the entire healthcare system or stopping flu vaccinations or shutting down emergency rooms - pure strawmen on your part. I absolutely understand the value of providing *basic* care for everyone so that we don't live in "squalor," and I 100% agree that we should pay to treat "easily curable" (read: inexpensive to treat) diseases. I would fight tooth and nail against any proposal that discontinued those things. I'm talking about the decisions currently made in our system to spend millions of dollars to extend people's lives by a few miserable months. It's ludicrous. How much should we spend so that someone can spend an additional 6 months in a hospital bed? A million? A billion? The entire GDP? If you don't think it's the entire GDP, then you agree that there is a line and that some care should be denied. The only remaining discussion is where that line should be drawn.

 

[Carter]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Whatever, Foxton.

I've never suggested dismantling the entire healthcare system or stopping flu vaccinations or shutting down emergency rooms - pure strawmen on your part. I absolutely understand the value of providing *basic* care for everyone so that we don't live in "squalor," and I 100% agree that we should pay to treat "easily curable" (read: inexpensive to treat) diseases. I would fight tooth and nail against any proposal that discontinued those things. I'm talking about the decisions currently made in our system to spend millions of dollars to extend people's lives by a few miserable months. It's ludicrous. How much should we spend so that someone can spend an additional 6 months in a hospital bed? A million? A billion? The entire GDP? If you don't think it's the entire GDP, then you agree that there is a line and that some care should be denied. The only remaining discussion is where that line should be drawn.

I wonder what the response would be if it was announced that there would be universal limits, regardless of ability to pay, for life prolonging treatments. I have no idea, but I wonder if the rich would want to chip in and push that limit up for everyone.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Here's my position in a nutshell:
Is it really worth the cost? If your answer is "yes" then you shouldn't have any problems with the existing system - you already think we're getting good value for the money spent. Personally, I don't think it's worth it;

I was in complete agreement with you to this point.

I think we simply have to start denying care to people who cannot afford it.

This is where I disagree with you. I don't think that it is just about if the person can, or can not afford it, but spending $100,000 to save someone who is 30 from dying now so they can live for another 40 or 50 years is far more cost effective than spending $10,000 to save someone who is 82 so they can make it for another year or two.

To reign in health care costs we MUST address end of life care. At some point we have to recognize that it gets to the point where it isn't worth the cost to keep someone alive longer given the quality of life that person will have at the end.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

http://www.economist.com/node/21530104

So the debate is poisonously skewed. But there are three good reasons why the wealthy should pay more tax...

First, the West’s deficits should not be closed by spending cuts alone. Public spending should certainly take the brunt...but, as that ratio implies, experience also argues that higher taxes should be part of the mix. In America the tax take is historically low after years of rate reductions. There, and elsewhere, tax rises need to bear some of the burden.

Second, there is a political argument for raising this new revenue from the rich. Spending cuts fall disproportionately on the less well-off; and, even before the crunch, median incomes were stagnating. Meanwhile, globalisation has been rewarding winners ever more generously. Voters’ support for ongoing austerity depends on a disproportionate share of any new revenue coming from the wealthy.
...
Indeed, the third argument for raising more money from the rich is that it can be done not by increasing marginal tax rates, but by making the tax code more efficient.

What a liberal shill of a rag for having the gaul to say that raising taxes on the wealthy should be part of any austerity package...

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

http://www.economist.com/node/21530104

What a liberal shill of a rag for having the gaul to say that raising taxes on the wealthy should be part of any austerity package...

You raise taxes even 0.00000000001% on job creators and you're going to kill the economy. Those Bush Tax Cuts are going to pay dividends, just wait.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Whatever, Foxton.

I've never suggested dismantling the entire healthcare system or stopping flu vaccinations or shutting down emergency rooms - pure strawmen on your part. I absolutely understand the value of providing *basic* care for everyone so that we don't live in "squalor," and I 100% agree that we should pay to treat "easily curable" (read: inexpensive to treat) diseases. I would fight tooth and nail against any proposal that discontinued those things. I'm talking about the decisions currently made in our system to spend millions of dollars to extend people's lives by a few miserable months. It's ludicrous. How much should we spend so that someone can spend an additional 6 months in a hospital bed? A million? A billion? The entire GDP? If you don't think it's the entire GDP, then you agree that there is a line and that some care should be denied. The only remaining discussion is where that line should be drawn.

A lot of people still think that because we're America, we don't have to draw such lines. Therefore such lines rarely get drawn, despite logic and economic reality screaming that they have to be.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You raise taxes even 0.00000000001% on job creators and you're going to kill the economy. Those Bush Tax Cuts are going to pay dividends, just wait.

Taxes and big gov't are going to kill 'Merica.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oUZI1w0Wec4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[pirate]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

http://www.economist.com/node/21530104



What a liberal shill of a rag for having the gaul to say that raising taxes on the wealthy should be part of any austerity package...

Ok, how about this...somebody write up a guarantee that any increase in taxes is immediately and directly applied against the debt, without one cent being passed through the cluster bleep of government BS.

That might get some support.

Tell 'the rich' you are going to raise $XX billion directly from them, give them the account number and ask them go to Paypal and send it in with the promise it will be used to reduce the debt obligation of the country...they may not like it, but they'll like it more than the idea of giving $XX billion to DC for them to waste the majority of it on processing, government workers benefits etc. Tell them they can pay $XX right now or pay $XX+15% if it is taken out as income tax etc.

The comment in the quote about voters supporting ongoing austerity depends on the wealthy paying more taxes...yeah, no kidding, everybody would vote for somebody else to pay more taxes. Why don't we all just vote that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have to give all of their money to the government tomorrow, that would probably pass.

 

[Carter]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

This is where I disagree with you. I don't think that it is just about if the person can, or can not afford it, but spending $100,000 to save someone who is 30 from dying now so they can live for another 40 or 50 years is far more cost effective than spending $10,000 to save someone who is 82 so they can make it for another year or two.

I have a close friend who is both one of the nicest people I've ever known and a general practicioner. He works in a clinic in Milwaukee with a rather poor clientele. We've had discussions in past years about the incredible battles he fights to get funding or coverage for some of his patients. I can't remember the exact conversation, something in the news about fighting to prolong someones life, and he pipes up and says "And I spend most of my time convincing people to die." Which, while sad, he clearly believed was the proper course of action in a lot of his elderly cases.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Ok, how about this...somebody write up a guarantee that any increase in taxes is immediately and directly applied against the debt, without one cent being passed through the cluster bleep of government BS.

That might get some support.

Tell 'the rich' you are going to raise $XX billion directly from them, give them the account number and ask them go to Paypal and send it in with the promise it will be used to reduce the debt obligation of the country...they may not like it, but they'll like it more than the idea of giving $XX billion to DC for them to waste the majority of it on processing, government workers benefits etc. Tell them they can pay $XX right now or pay $XX+15% if it is taken out as income tax etc.

The comment in the quote about voters supporting ongoing austerity depends on the wealthy paying more taxes...yeah, no kidding, everybody would vote for somebody else to pay more taxes. Why don't we all just vote that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have to give all of their money to the government tomorrow, that would probably pass.

And that sound you hear is the point going ten miles over your head...

Speaking of Buffett, though, the GOP is doubling down on their attacks on him.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110923/NEWS01/110929871#buffett-urged-release-tax-returns

Huelskamp said in his letter that Buffett's return is important because his story runs counter to available data about tax rates. The congressman suggested that Buffett is comparing apples to oranges if most of his money comes from capital gains.

“Regardless of the rate you pay for these sources of income, you are certainly paying a great deal more in taxes than nearly all Americans as a result of this income,” Huelskamp wrote. “Perhaps the assertion about paying a lower rate in taxes than your secretary is true, but it is certainly misleading.”

That's not misleading, you dolt. That's his point. He never said he paid an absolute amount less than his secretary, he said he paid a lower percentage in federal taxes than anyone else in his office, including his secretary.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, made similar points Thursday in an interview with ABC News.

“I know that Mr. Buffett's not likely to release his tax records, but I'll bet what it'll show you is that most of what he earns is from capital gains, which is taxed at a 15 percent tax rate, rather than deriving it as income, which he'd pay a much higher tax rate,” Cornyn said in the interview.

No kidding, he flat out admitted that's why he paid a lower tax rate when this story broke. So you need him to release his tax returns to prove his own point?

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

No kidding, he flat out admitted that's why he paid a lower tax rate when this story broke. So you need him to release his tax returns to prove his own point?

He released them. On TV.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/X5IzdOlhrY8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Republicans need another talking point.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The comment in the quote about voters supporting ongoing austerity depends on the wealthy paying more taxes...yeah, no kidding, everybody would vote for somebody else to pay more taxes. Why don't we all just vote that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have to give all of their money to the government tomorrow, that would probably pass.

This is rhetorical foul play, though I'm not sure what the name of the logic error is. Your statement is the same as dismissing polling on any call for lower taxes by saying, "yeah, no kidding everybody would vote to lower their taxes. Why don't we all just vote to drop all our taxes to zero tomorrow, that would probably pass."

All of this ignores that there's no "baseline" of correct or natural taxation -- it's a floating function that's politically negotiated. Conservatives try to flatten the function out so the wealthy pay a smaller relative percentage of the burden -- that appeals to their ideological preference that the users of services should be the ones to pay for them. Liberals try to make the function more progressive so the wealthy pay a larger relative percentage of the burden -- that appeals to their ideological preference that a responsibility of society is to alleviate suffering, even if that impinges on property rights. Either idea taken to the extreme would make a hell on earth. Politics is about finding the balance, and that balance always shifts.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

That's not misleading, you dolt. That's his point. He never said he paid an absolute amount less than his secretary, he said he paid a lower percentage in federal taxes than anyone else in his office, including his secretary.

No kidding, he flat out admitted that's why he paid a lower tax rate when this story broke. So you need him to release his tax returns to prove his own point?

It cracks me up how this argument goes back and forth. As soon as you prove that the secretary is paying the higher percentage they IMMEDIATELY play the total dollars card. Like that's relevant. Like someone making 75,000 a year is ever going to be able to pay a higher dollar total then someone making 10's of millions.

It's comical.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You raise taxes even 0.00000000001% on job creators and you're going to kill the economy. Those Bush Tax Cuts are going to pay dividends, just wait.

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-21-2011/moneybrawl---the-extinction-of-subway--bill-o-reilly---the-super-rich'>Moneybrawl - The Extinction of Subway, Bill O'Reilly & the Super Rich</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:397629' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

He released them. On TV.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/X5IzdOlhrY8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Republicans need another talking point.

Was it the long form or the short form? We know the GOP has a lot of form envy

 

[pirate]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

This is rhetorical foul play, though I'm not sure what the name of the logic error is. Your statement is the same as dismissing polling on any call for lower taxes by saying, "yeah, no kidding everybody would vote to lower their taxes. Why don't we all just vote to drop all our taxes to zero tomorrow, that would probably pass."

All of this ignores that there's no "baseline" of correct or natural taxation -- it's a floating function that's politically negotiated. Conservatives try to flatten the function out so the wealthy pay a smaller relative percentage of the burden -- that appeals to their ideological preference that the users of services should be the ones to pay for them. Liberals try to make the function more progressive so the wealthy pay a larger relative percentage of the burden -- that appeals to their ideological preference that a responsibility of society is to alleviate suffering, even if that impinges on property rights. Either idea taken to the extreme would make a hell on earth. Politics is about finding the balance, and that balance always shifts.

Well, I guess I should have put a smilie at the end of my comment...I wasn't really proposing we take Bill and Warren's money regardless of any 'vote', although I suspect a few of you already started drafting the petition.

Voters’ support for ongoing austerity depends on a disproportionate share of any new revenue coming from the wealthy....that is the quote.

 

[geezer]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The whole Buffet thing was exposed last week. The story was he pays himself a $100,000 salary, his secretary earns $60,000, and his secretary's husband some x amount where his underling actually has a higher income (and hence, higher tax rate) than her boss. His whole spiel about him not paying enough was either dishonest or misleading when you consider his reported earnings. (Most of his potential income is reinvested, so it isn't taxed)
It's a myth that he "makes" millions.

My point being, the higher income gets a higher tax rate. Buffet makes less than the secretary.

Although personally, I still think he and everyone else should be paying more taxes to pay down the debt.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The whole Buffet thing was exposed last week. The story was he pays himself a $100,000 salary, his secretary earns $60,000, and his secretary's husband some x amount where his underling actually has a higher income (and hence, higher tax rate) than her boss. His whole spiel about him not paying enough was either dishonest or misleading when you consider his reported earnings. (Most of his potential income is reinvested, so it isn't taxed)
It's a myth that he "makes" millions.

My point being, the higher income gets a higher tax rate. Buffet makes less than the secretary.

Although personally, I still think he and everyone else should be paying more taxes to pay down the debt.

Ok, where is this talking point coming from, because you're the third person on two different sites to say pretty much the exact same thing, even though it is demonstrably false.

He showed his taxes to Charlie Rose. He reported an AGI of 60-some million dollars last year, on which he paid an average of 17.4%.

Also, you don't get to claim a deduction for "reinvestment of capital gains" on a personal level, with the exception of your primary residence. If I sell 100 share of MSFT and use the proceeds to buy however many shares of Intel, I still pay capital gains on the sale of Microsoft. If your argument is that he never sells out, well he at least sold out to the tune of about $60 million dollars worth.

Yes, his salary as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway is $100,000 - which has long been known as a protest against other CEO's absurdly high compensation packages. But that's his entire point, that when the bulk of his personal income comes from capital gains, he pays a lower overall rate than his secretary, especailly when taking into account FICA taxes.

 

[geezer]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Ok, where is this talking point coming from, because you're the third person on two different sites to say pretty much the exact same thing, even though it is demonstrably false.

He showed his taxes to Charlie Rose. He reported an AGI of 60-some million dollars last year, on which he paid an average of 17.4%.

Also, you don't get to claim a deduction for "reinvestment of capital gains" on a personal level, with the exception of your primary residence. If I sell 100 share of MSFT and use the proceeds to buy however many shares of Intel, I still pay capital gains on the sale of Microsoft. If your argument is that he never sells out, well he at least sold out to the tune of about $60 million dollars worth.

Yes, his salary as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway is $100,000 - which has long been known as a protest against other CEO's absurdly high compensation packages. But that's his entire point, that when the bulk of his personal income comes from capital gains, he pays a lower overall rate than his secretary, especailly when taking into account FICA taxes.

I honestly don't remember; there's a good chance it was on slate.com. If he really reported that much income, I don't know what loophole got him down to 17 percent. He must have a really good accountant.
The way I understood it was he avoided taxes on the 60 million by never claiming it as personal income at all, so he didn't need a deduction. It was just part of his corporation. His only "personal" income was $100k.