The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Do you want to offer a factual rebuttal of any of the points?

I don't understand why you are so in the tank for the Clintons. Of course they are better than the Republicans -- prune juice is better than lye. Of course we will back them if they are the nominee -- as 2000 showed, making the perfect the enemy of the good is national suicide. But you respond to anybody pointing out their faults the way NRO responds to anyone offering anything but hosannas about Israel. Pointing out the IDF kills children does not equal supporting Hamas, and pointing out the Clintons are in it solely for themselves does not equal supporting the knucks.

You usually post as a centrist-liberal. Now, true, the Clintons are "centrist," in the sense that that's where the most votes are, but they are in no way liberal. They are our Lee Atwater -- if the ladder had been easier to ascend on the right, that's the side they would have taken.

It can be useful to have droids like these when there is another part of the government that will actually work towards achieving positive policy outcomes. A Clinton White House plus a Warren-led Congress would be outstanding -- they would happily rubber stamp a solid liberal program in the knowledge that the national mandate reflected in a clean sweep of elected office showed that's where the public adoration was. But you can't guarantee that, and in the meantime I'd prefer to have the standard bearer of the left be actually, ya know, left.

You're making the perfect the enemy of the good, and also playing into the right's hands.

I don't know what liberal policies you'd like to see but let me tick them off. 1) Brady bill - last gun control legislation enacted into law. 2) Family and Medical Leave Act, 3) Allowing gays to serve in military, 4) Enterprise zones bringing economic opportunity to depressed areas, 5) raised taxes on the wealthy to balance budget, not via massive social program cuts.

Now, some may boo-hoo about welfare reform or DOMA, but Clinton was a man of his times. What he did was move the ball forward in the progressive direction on all these issues.

But, there's a much much larger picture you're missing here. It was black letter law that tax cuts for the rich plus massive defense spending was the way to stimulate the economy. Laughably giving Bush I credit for minor tax hikes that he was forced into doesn't cut it. Clinton ran, and won convincingly twice, on the exact opposite notion. This more than anything else has restored fiscal sanity. Yes, Bush II did win a narrow victory, and his disasterous Presidency re-inforced the folly of tax cuts for GOP campaign contributors, but if we the voters didn't have a time to look back on of economic success without doing all that, you never would have had the budget deals of the past two years, where once again taxes were hiked on the wealthy and defense spending was slashed by 1.5T dollars.

Why you're playing into the GOP's hands is simple. Righties will talk to their dying day about how it was all sunshine and lollypops during Reagan's Presidency. If people like yourself are running around saying you've been profoundly disappointed in every Dem President for IMHO flimsy reasons, while the other side is saying everything was grand when our guy was in, who do you think the majority of voters who tend to be low information are going to believe? Democratic inertia which your comments indicate you are practicing gave us George W Bush. Keep trashing the most successful Presidency in my lifetime (I'm in my early 40's) and the end result will be more Republican ones. Ralphie Nader already taught us that hard lesson. I'd suggest remembering that once in awhile. This of course is not to say Clinton was flawless. I personally would have chosen better looking interns to frolick with, or better yet a few more cold showers for him, but IMHO only an idiot would not consider that Presidency to be a smashing success.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

But, there's a much much larger picture you're missing here. It was black letter law that tax cuts for the rich plus massive defense spending was the way to stimulate the economy. Laughably giving Bush I credit for minor tax hikes that he was forced into doesn't cut it. Clinton ran, and won convincingly twice, on the exact opposite notion.

...

Why you're playing into the GOP's hands is simple. Righties will talk to their dying day about how it was all sunshine and lollypops during Reagan's Presidency. If people like yourself are running around saying you've been profoundly disappointed in every Dem President for IMHO flimsy reasons, while the other side is saying everything was grand when our guy was in, who do you think the majority of voters who tend to be low information are going to believe?

On your first point: Clinton didn't even aim to restore anything resembling a genuine progressive tax structure. The GOP screamed OH NOES SOCIALIZM!!111 on a 3-point hike in the top marginal rate when we should have been talking about a 35-point hike. The clue to how Clinton failed to change the dialog is that now when you talk about a 70-point top marginal rate 75% of liberals will look at you like you're insane. And yet, structures like that are the key to social mobility and equal opportunity, and the loss of those structures is what turned the US from a democracy into an oligarchy in 30 years, impoverished the middle class, and created a 17 trillion dollar debt.

On your second point: you're saying "they lie so we need to lie, too." I'm not going to do that. If I were the DNC chair I would sing from that sheet of music, but as a private citizen I have the right to tell the truth.

 

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Forgetting the Clintons for just a bit, the 4th Court of Appeals upheld the subsidy for federal exchanges.

Guess it will be up to SCOTUS to decide what "the State" means.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Forgetting the Clintons for just a bit, the 4th Court of Appeals upheld the subsidy for federal exchanges.

Guess it will be up to SCOTUS to decide what "the State" means.

Not necessarily. Appeal of DC court's decision goes to full appeals court. While the court makeup isn't necessarily predictive of the outcome, it is an 8-5 majority Dem appointees. If both appeals courts rule in the Admin's favor, or against the Admin frankly, it seems less likely to go to the SCOTUS from what I've read on the subject.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

On your first point: Clinton didn't even aim to restore anything resembling a genuine progressive tax structure. The GOP screamed OH NOES SOCIALIZM!!111 on a 3-point hike in the top marginal rate when we should have been talking about a 35-point hike. The clue to how Clinton failed to change the dialog is that now when you talk about a 70-point top marginal rate 75% of liberals will look at you like you're insane. And yet, structures like that are the key to social mobility and equal opportunity, and the loss of those structures is what turned the US from a democracy into an oligarchy in 30 years, impoverished the middle class, and created a 17 trillion dollar debt.

On your second point: you're saying "they lie so we need to lie, too." I'm not going to do that. If I were the DNC chair I would sing from that sheet of music, but as a private citizen I have the right to tell the truth.

Kep we live in a different world. A 70% tax rate is unrealistic most likely because it wouldn't work. You also have to look at the overall tax structure not just the nominal top tier rate. What I would be curious about is the tradeoff between lowering rates and limiting deductions over that time. Its a question I don't have the answer to right now but would need to know before I jump on board with jacking up tax rates to 1950's levels.

For your second point, you have just edged out Bob Gray for that CNN prime time anchor opening due to your excellence in false equivalency. You completely glossed over the liberal accomplishments of the Clinton era but are babbling something about everybody being liars - ie "they're all the same". Uh...no, they're not Mr Nader.

Not sure why you need to downgrade all the progress I listed but again, degenerate every and all Dem accomplishment and you are doing the bidding of the people who you don't want to see running the country. I can't make it any clearer for you than that, with the obvious acknowledgement that no Admin is perfect.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

-- prune juice is better than lye. ... making the perfect the enemy of the good is national suicide.

Yes, but when you choose the lesser of two evils, you're still choosing evil.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Not necessarily. Appeal of DC court's decision goes to full appeals court. While the court makeup isn't necessarily predictive of the outcome, it is an 8-5 majority Dem appointees. If both appeals courts rule in the Admin's favor, or against the Admin frankly, it seems less likely to go to the SCOTUS from what I've read on the subject.

I think there are similar cases working their way through different federal circuits as well. Somewhere I read about one out of Indiana. The 7th Circuit is heavily Republican appointees. Seems like another issue destined for the Supreme Court.

If you can say nothing else about the PPACA, it's been a full employment for lawyers law.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

On your first point: Clinton didn't even aim to restore anything resembling a genuine progressive tax structure. The GOP screamed OH NOES SOCIALIZM!!111 on a 3-point hike in the top marginal rate when we should have been talking about a 35-point hike. The clue to how Clinton failed to change the dialog is that now when you talk about a 70-point top marginal rate 75% of liberals will look at you like you're insane. And yet, structures like that are the key to social mobility and equal opportunity, and the loss of those structures is what turned the US from a democracy into an oligarchy in 30 years, impoverished the middle class, and created a 17 trillion dollar debt.

On your second point: you're saying "they lie so we need to lie, too." I'm not going to do that. If I were the DNC chair I would sing from that sheet of music, but as a private citizen I have the right to tell the truth.

So, just out of curiosity, are you voluntarily paying your taxes based upon these more progressive rates you advocate, or are you taking advantage of the current status of the law for your own financial betterment?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Kep we live in a different world. A 70% tax rate is unrealistic most likely because it wouldn't work.

Now who's enabling the opposition narrative? It worked for 40 years -- the 40 most economically successful years in the nation's history. It, the unions, and compulsory free education built the American middle class. It's no surprise Sauron's minions have spent the last several decades attacking all three.

If women had not entered the workforce in the 70s the median family income would have plummeted, and as it was it stagnated, all at a time when we are creating record wealth. Of course it is the right's job to obfuscate those facts, but it is the left's job to educate people and give them the tools to protect themselves.

You also have to look at the overall tax structure not just the nominal top tier rate. What I would be curious about is the tradeoff between lowering rates and limiting deductions over that time. Its a question I don't have the answer to right now but would need to know before I jump on board with jacking up tax rates to 1950's levels.

It is true that the top marginal rate is just a tiny slice of the whole structure, but (1) it's symbolically important, (2) it drives the rest of the structure in a progressive system, and (3) its history is actually a very good picture of what's happened to the revenue philosophy in the country. In 1955 (picked more or less randomly) we had a system that constantly returned surplus profits back into salaries (and purchasing power) for middle and lower income labor, which strengthened the entire structure. Now all those profits just go to the perpetuation of a greater wealth gap, much of it (several trillion dollars) hidden off-shore. That's a very unhealthy direction for a democracy to go. Wealth inequality leads inexorably to authoritarianism, either directly or with a layover in violent upheaval. Leveling is not just ethical -- it's also practical.

For your second point, you have just edged out Bob Gray for that CNN prime time anchor opening due to your excellence in false equivalency. You completely glossed over the liberal accomplishments of the Clinton era but are babbling something about everybody being liars - ie "they're all the same". Uh...no, they're not Mr Nader.

I did not say anything remotely like that, and you've now used it twice in an attempt to skew what I said. To quote your golden boy, that dog won't hunt. I have gone out of my way to say of course the sides are not the same and of course the Dem will be preferable because the GOP is currently possessed by evil spirits. I recommend you: (1) read more closely, (2) be more honest in your argument, and (3) don't just fire and forget talking points when it seems like a statement might slightly resemble your target. I've seen you argue better than that; stop being lazy.

Not sure why you need to downgrade all the progress I listed but again, degenerate every and all Dem accomplishment and you are doing the bidding of the people who you don't want to see running the country. I can't make it any clearer for you than that, with the obvious acknowledgement that no Admin is perfect.

You use "all" twice, and neither is warranted. You are using a prefab argument to shoot down something that's bugging you, but you aren't putting in the work to analyze what about it is bugging you -- you're just painting with a broad brush. I can't make it any clearer for you than that. Well, maybe I can. Here it is as simple as I can make it. I think it is misconstrue-proof, but we'll see.

1. The GOP is a cesspool. There is no way any sentient being with a moral compass can support them.

2. The Dems are our only alternative, therefore the only contested fight is over nominations. Once the nominee is selected, it's balls-deep support all the way to the general.

3. The Dems are a very broad spectrum. The main variance is regional with respect to state and local candidates, so that washes out. The only variance that matters is between directly competing candidates. (It is pointless to compare, say, a southern blue dog Senator with a northeastern liberal Governor. They are different, but those differences are driven by constituent differences.) The presidency, being national, overrides all these caveats and all variances are relevant.

4. The 2016 Dem presidential field is Hillary vs the field. In name recognition, money, and patronage she towers over any given competitor (just as she did in 2008).

5. Hillary has no real record, so I am taking Bill as a predictor of her policies.

6. Bill is a hero for breaking the GOP stranglehold on the White House. He won in 1992 because he's a great politician and the economy under Bush Sr. had been in the toilet. He won in 1996 because he's a great politician and the economy was booming under his watch. Good for Bill. I'm very glad he was president.

7. Bill also won because he triangulated EVERY issue. This was great for him because it reinforced his power, putting him at the center of any debate, but it continually dampened any movement towards real political change -- in essence, he was always willing to give the other team a run as long as he scored one. He personally wound up with lots of runs, but for the country as a whole it was still a tie game. Had he been less risk averse (or less self-obsessed), the country was due for a true pendulum swing back from the failure of Reaganomics. He blew it.

8. We are in another one of those hinge moments that are occurring with bizarre frequency, probably because the country is so evenly split. There was no chance for a realigning election between 1932 and 1980. Amazingly, we have had chances for realigning elections now in 1992, 2000, 2008, and 2016. In each case the left has failed -- in 1992 we elected a guy on promises and he turned out to be self-serving, in 2000 we got fucked, and in 2008 we elected a guy on promises who I still think gave it the old college try but was met with the worst brick wall Congress any president has ever had to deal with.

9. Now, just between us girls, I think we're going to keep on getting chances until we finally flip the switch. The reason all these critical test elections keep coming around is this is the inflection point where the country starts moving left in dramatic fashion -- too many people have been damaged too severely by the plutocracy, and there's not enough voter intimidation in the world to prevent the people from finally speaking. But I'd rather it be sooner than later, if for no other reason than later could be too extreme. If the pendulum swing back to the right of the 80s had happened instead a decade earlier it might not have been so damaging to the country. Likewise, now we are well-placed to make an orderly burial of the right, whereas in another decade that could be a bonfire instead.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Kep we live in a different world. A 70% tax rate is unrealistic most likely because it wouldn't work. You also have to look at the overall tax structure not just the nominal top tier rate.

The 70% rate never "worked" in practice, it was purely cosmetic: it merely encouraged lobbyists to have their <strike>puppets</strike> legislators insert all sorts of special-interest deductions into the tax code, which in turn helped lead to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Note that for most people affected by it, the AMT is a flat tax of 26% (or 28% if income is high enough), and there have been complaints that "too many" "middle-income" taxpayers are being affected by the AMT. So, on the one hand, a flat tax of 26% is viewed as "too high" by defenders of the middle class, while a top rate of 39.6% is simultaneously seen as "too low." The difference is in how deductions are treated (AMT adds back many deductions and recalculates the tax. It is beyond annoying to have to figure out your tax twice each year!)

Most tax reform proposals purport to be revenue-neutral: remove all the special interest deductions and lower rates so that in the short run, tax revenues are pretty much the same. The argument is that, in the long run, by removing perverse incentives to engage in tax-sheltered activities, people allocate their investments based purely on the economics, leading to better long-term effective outcomes.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

If you can say nothing else about the PPACA, it's been a full employment for lawyers law.

Do the dems get caught up in wasting valuable govt human resources charging windmills like the gop? (i.e., spending a good chunk of the 90s trying to pin that Clinton did have sexual relations with that woman). This is ironic as they're simultaneously trying to cut govt human resources.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Do the dems get caught up in wasting valuable govt human resources charging windmills like the gop? (i.e., spending a good chunk of the 90s trying to pin that Clinton did have sexual relations with that woman). This is ironic as they're simultaneously trying to cut govt human resources.

Unfortunately, the answer is "yes." Whether it's litigation to try to overturn things like "Defense of marriage" acts, or the like, they are as guilty as the Republicans in this charade.

That is what has really caused my cynicism about politics and government in general. It seems that for both sides it's just a game. Legislation is created, without compromise, knowing the other side will not or cannot accept it, with both sides spoiling for a court fight to dump it in the Supreme Court's lap. It's silly, and an abomination.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

So, just out of curiosity, are you voluntarily paying your taxes based upon these more progressive rates you advocate, or are you taking advantage of the current status of the law for your own financial betterment?

My tax rate plus charitable giving rate exceeds the rate I advocate for my income (see below).

Since you asked (sort of) here are my preferred rules:

1. Earned income and capital gains taxed at same rate. All dollars are equal.

2. Minimum 10% income tax for every wage earner. Every wage earner pays at least $1 in income tax.

3. Brackets (marginal):

Married filing jointly (as an example)

0-25k: 10%
25k-50k: 20%
50k-100k: 30%
100k-200k: 40%
200k-500k: 50%
500k-1M: 60%
1M-5M: 70%
5M-20M: 80%
20M+ : 90%

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Unfortunately, the answer is "yes." Whether it's litigation to try to overturn things like "Defense of marriage" acts, or the like, they are as guilty as the Republicans in this charade.

That is what has really caused my cynicism about politics and government in general. It seems that for both sides it's just a game. Legislation is created, without compromise, knowing the other side will not or cannot accept it, with both sides spoiling for a court fight to dump it in the Supreme Court's lap. It's silly, and an abomination.

Its a smokescreen for hate politics. Its pretty much the nuclear option on a minor scale that occurs over and over.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Since you asked (sort of) here are my preferred rules:

1. Earned income and capital gains taxed at same rate. All dollars are equal.

ah, does this mean you favor the abolishing the corporate income tax, so that all corporate profits are taxed directly to shareholders? if "all dollars are equal," then eliminating the corporate income tax and taxing shareholders on profits instead makes very good sense.

As things stand now, one rationale for having a different rate for capital gains is that corporate income has already been taxed, and so the differential rate exists to address double-taxation of the same income. Your precept "all dollars are equal" is consistent with either taxing corporate profits directly to shareholders or continuing to maintain a differential rate.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Kep your issue seems to stem from an overinflated assessment of what exactly was accomplished during the 1980's. Really, the only lasting legacy of Reagan is lower nominal tax rates. The world he lived in, dominated by the Cold War, is long, long gone. His other themes are deader than he is. Massive military expansion in peacetime is a non-starter, so much so that his own party voted to cut military spending by 1.5T over 10 years. Further tax cuts for the rich is also widely derided now as evidenced by tax hiking Presidents winning 4 out of the last 6 elections. The culture wars of the day are also done. Think back to 1984. Gay marriage? A black President? Back then people were still taking their political advice from Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker and Jerry Falwell.

Think of it this way: why do you think older knucks' are so angry all the time, if we're still living under the thumb of a guy who left office 25 years ago and who's been dead for decade already?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

ah, does this mean you favor the abolishing the corporate income tax, so that all corporate profits are taxed directly to shareholders? if "all dollars are equal," then eliminating the corporate income tax and taxing shareholders on profits instead makes very good sense.

I'm not sure. Intuitively I think if a non-person entity (in my world, corporate personhood doesn't exist) "makes" a dollar that dollar should probably float freely throughout the system until it comes to rest in some actual person's possession. So, if it is paid as a dividend then that's taxed on the recipient, but if it's reinvested for capital improvement then I don't see any "income" to tax.

In my world, the tax system serves two purposes: to collect the revenue needed to run the government, and to redistribute wealth downwards to continually keep equal opportunity more than just an empty phrase. Taxing companies as companies doesn't, in my mind, serve the latter function, and while it could serve the former that money could more effectively be used as a wealth amplifier through investment or, at the least, payroll.

So, provisionally, I would abolish corporate taxes.

I think both your points are valid.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Kep your issue seems to stem from an overinflated assessment of what exactly was accomplished during the 1980's. Really, the only lasting legacy of Reagan is lower nominal tax rates. The world he lived in, dominated by the Cold War, is long, long gone. His other themes are deader than he is. Massive military expansion in peacetime is a non-starter, so much so that his own party voted to cut military spending by 1.5T over 10 years. Further tax cuts for the rich is also widely derided now as evidenced by tax hiking Presidents winning 4 out of the last 6 elections. The culture wars of the day are also done. Think back to 1984. Gay marriage? A black President? Back then people were still taking their political advice from Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker and Jerry Falwell.

Think of it this way: why do you think older knucks' are so angry all the time, if we're still living under the thumb of a guy who left office 25 years ago and who's been dead for decade already?

I think Reagan's lasting legacy is he moved the Overton Window wildly to the right. In the 70's a minimum guaranteed income was a Republican idea and the EPA was created under a Republican president. The Dems were securely to the left of that. That range was the politically "feasible" ideas of the day. Today, the GOP platform calls for the abolition of estate taxes, the budget proposed by the GOP VP nominee destroys Medicare and Social Security, teachers are demonized as "takers," and anybody who suggests raising taxes on the wealthy is met with a coordinated multi-million dollar attack saying they will hurt the wittle job creators' feewies so much they might just pull up stakes and move to a capitalist paradise like Szechuan Province.

Reagan and his handlers lowered American horizons and aspirations so much that we are content to pit the urban poor against the rural poor to fight for the scraps that drop from his cronies' gaping maws, and call that "progressivism."

That was real, lasting damage. He quite literally set the American left back, in terms of our ambitions, by more than 50 years, and we still haven't recovered. That was one hell of an "achievement."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Either that or it will serve to just inflame the people of those states to see how much their insurance rates truly increased as a result of the PPACA, causing the number of insured peoples in those states to plummet. I don't really see a third option.

I'm curious how this impacts those covered through the expanded Medicaid coverage in those states.

Here's a thought.

If you are Rick Scott (FL), Scott Walker (WI), John Kasich (OH), Rick Snyder (MI), or Tom Corbett (PA), all facing competitive races and important races for the long term balance in the House of Representatives, you are faced with a lose-lose proposition. If you say, "still no exchange," you are basically forcing a large tax increase on health care- that strikes me as a pretty good issue for their Democratic opponents to run on in the fall. If you say, "ok, we'll build an exchange," you are alienating your base going into the fall- and, of course, this problem goes away for Americans in these states.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

I think Reagan's lasting legacy is he moved the Overton Window wildly to the right.

Most historians would probably say that Reagan's lasting legacy was the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the liberation of Warsaw Pact countries from Soviet domination....