In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 14 2013 02:48 oneofthem wrote: a large part of the wealth disparity increase is also due to the tax system's preference for capital gains income vs wage. may not show up in income, but does affect behavior.
The preference is for wage income...
you are probably talking about credits and aids on the lower end, but in terms of the question, given a dollar, would you rather have it as wage or capital gains, the answer is pretty obvious. at least for the kind of income that has figured most in increased wealth gap. payroll, ss etc taxes are all wage borne as well.
asking capital gains and such nonwage income to contribute its proper share to the public coffer isn't that unfair now, given that the wealth is generated by economic activity within the u.s. Though, this is just rhetorics mostly. it's still important to keep investment within the u.s. attractive. but, there's quite a bit of space between the capital gains rate and the top bracket wage rate.
On February 14 2013 02:48 oneofthem wrote: a large part of the wealth disparity increase is also due to the tax system's preference for capital gains income vs wage. may not show up in income, but does affect behavior.
The preference is for wage income...
you are probably talking about credits and aids on the lower end, but in terms of the question, given a dollar, would you rather have it as wage or capital gains, the answer is pretty obvious. at least for the kind of income that has figured most in increased wealth gap. payroll, ss etc taxes are all wage borne as well.
asking capital gains and such nonwage income to contribute its proper share to the public coffer isn't that unfair now, given that the wealth is generated by economic activity within the u.s. Though, this is just rhetorics mostly. it's still important to keep investment within the u.s. attractive. but, there's quite a bit of space between the capital gains rate and the top bracket wage rate.
I was referring to double taxation (as I usually do, it's kinda my thing here )
As aksfjh pointed out it's hard to make generalizations because of differing effective tax rates. But I'll at least stand by the point that comparing the nominal rates is hardly apples to apples.
The Republicans, especially Graham, are trying to play for time in hopes they better their chances for reelection to seem more conservative in the home states because they are terrified of the far right. So what do they do they block Hagel for defense secretary, first time in history.
On February 15 2013 07:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Republicans, especially Graham, are trying to play for time in hopes they better their chances for reelection to seem more conservative in the home states because they are terrified of the far right. So what do they do they block Hagel for defense secretary, first time in history.
I'm more convinced they're trying to make the government as dysfunctional as possible without somebody calling "bullshit" on them to make the case that the government "doesn't work."
support for Isreal is core to the republican base. If they allowed anyone though that wasn't 100% in support of Isreal they would lose their primary by a mile and a half. I'm surprised that anyone thought that hagel had a chance.
Hagel will be the next Secretary of Defense there is no doubt about that as it is only a matter of time. But what matters is the Republicans are hijacked by the far right and idiots like Rand Paul they are willing to burn any bridge due to the fear of not being conservative enough.
On February 15 2013 08:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Hagel will be the next Secretary of Defense there is no doubt about that as it is only a matter of time. But what matters is the Republicans are hijacked by the far right and idiots like Rand Paul they are willing to burn any bridge due to the fear of not being conservative enough.
These are my thoughts more or less, Hagel is a good choice and Repubs just don't have the clout needed to stall indefinitely.
Senate Democrats are officially proposing to pay down about a year of the sequester with new legislation called the American Family Economic Protection Act.
The plan would raise $55 billion in new revenue, largely by imposing the so-called Buffett rule, which would phase in a minimum effective tax rate requirement for taxpayers who earn more than $1 million a year.
The bill would pair those revenues with $55 billion in spending cuts, divided equally between defense and farm subsidies. The defense cuts would be phased in through the beginning of next decade, corresponding to an expected troop drawdown in Afghanistan.
Senate Republicans are expected to unanimously oppose the legislation, demanding that the sequester be paid down with domestic spending cuts alone.
But as March 1 approaches, the pressure will build on both parties to reach an agreement to at least delay, if not fully repeal or replace the sequester. And to direct some of that pressure on to House Republicans, House Dems today introduced similar legislation to pay down the sequester, tilted more heavily toward new tax revenues than spending cuts. The House bill would wipe out about 10 percent of the sequester by implementing the Buffett rule, repealing subsidies for big oil and gas companies, and cutting farm subsidies.
Senate Democrats are officially proposing to pay down about a year of the sequester with new legislation called the American Family Economic Protection Act.
The plan would raise $55 billion in new revenue, largely by imposing the so-called Buffett rule, which would phase in a minimum effective tax rate requirement for taxpayers who earn more than $1 million a year.
The bill would pair those revenues with $55 billion in spending cuts, divided equally between defense and farm subsidies. The defense cuts would be phased in through the beginning of next decade, corresponding to an expected troop drawdown in Afghanistan.
Senate Republicans are expected to unanimously oppose the legislation, demanding that the sequester be paid down with domestic spending cuts alone.
But as March 1 approaches, the pressure will build on both parties to reach an agreement to at least delay, if not fully repeal or replace the sequester. And to direct some of that pressure on to House Republicans, House Dems today introduced similar legislation to pay down the sequester, tilted more heavily toward new tax revenues than spending cuts. The House bill would wipe out about 10 percent of the sequester by implementing the Buffett rule, repealing subsidies for big oil and gas companies, and cutting farm subsidies.
As much hate as farm subsidies get, now might not be the best time to enact cuts to them. The midwest is still in a drought last time I checked, and will need all the help it can get.
Senate Democrats are officially proposing to pay down about a year of the sequester with new legislation called the American Family Economic Protection Act.
The plan would raise $55 billion in new revenue, largely by imposing the so-called Buffett rule, which would phase in a minimum effective tax rate requirement for taxpayers who earn more than $1 million a year.
The bill would pair those revenues with $55 billion in spending cuts, divided equally between defense and farm subsidies. The defense cuts would be phased in through the beginning of next decade, corresponding to an expected troop drawdown in Afghanistan.
Senate Republicans are expected to unanimously oppose the legislation, demanding that the sequester be paid down with domestic spending cuts alone.
But as March 1 approaches, the pressure will build on both parties to reach an agreement to at least delay, if not fully repeal or replace the sequester. And to direct some of that pressure on to House Republicans, House Dems today introduced similar legislation to pay down the sequester, tilted more heavily toward new tax revenues than spending cuts. The House bill would wipe out about 10 percent of the sequester by implementing the Buffett rule, repealing subsidies for big oil and gas companies, and cutting farm subsidies.
Senate Democrats are officially proposing to pay down about a year of the sequester with new legislation called the American Family Economic Protection Act.
The plan would raise $55 billion in new revenue, largely by imposing the so-called Buffett rule, which would phase in a minimum effective tax rate requirement for taxpayers who earn more than $1 million a year.
The bill would pair those revenues with $55 billion in spending cuts, divided equally between defense and farm subsidies. The defense cuts would be phased in through the beginning of next decade, corresponding to an expected troop drawdown in Afghanistan.
Senate Republicans are expected to unanimously oppose the legislation, demanding that the sequester be paid down with domestic spending cuts alone.
But as March 1 approaches, the pressure will build on both parties to reach an agreement to at least delay, if not fully repeal or replace the sequester. And to direct some of that pressure on to House Republicans, House Dems today introduced similar legislation to pay down the sequester, tilted more heavily toward new tax revenues than spending cuts. The House bill would wipe out about 10 percent of the sequester by implementing the Buffett rule, repealing subsidies for big oil and gas companies, and cutting farm subsidies.
On February 12 2013 23:07 paralleluniverse wrote: SotU tonight. The media buzz seems to suggest that Obama will focus on jobs, instead of the counterproductive obsession with deficits. Hopefully, he really will focus on jobs, ask for more spending on infrastructure, education, etc. It's doubtful that he will get it, but reshaping the public debate is a important step now.
I don't think he can completely ignore talking about deficits, given that the sequester is imminent. He should clearly reject Republicans saying that there will be no tax hikes as the deal averting the fiscal cliff contained entirely tax hikes. This ignores the fact that the deficit reduction deal of 2011 contained entirely spending cuts, muche lh more so than recent tax hikes. In fact, and I know this will never happen, he should ask for the sequester to be delayed until 1 year after the unemployment rate hits 6.5%.
Obama should continue to assert that the best way to achieve fiscal sustainability is not through cuts and suffering but through growth and jobs. It would also be good, if he outlines some debt relief for underwater homeowners, and ways to make it easier for them to refinance, or otherwise fix the drag caused by the slow housing recovery.
However, SotUs usually seem to achieve nothing substantial. So one should not expect much.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think those cuts were just reductions in the baseline growth rate of spending.
Depends how you look at it. There's been reductions in the rate of growth of spending, i.e. spending is increasing slower than normal. But there's also has been actual reduction in spending as a share of GDP. i.e. spending as a percentage of GDP is down, see FRED. There's also been reduction in spending government consumption and investment.
People need to get over this obsession, at least for until the economy is better.
So yes, spending cuts, actual reductions in the level of spending, have not been enacted yet.
Got it.
Well, actual reductions in population growth also haven't happened yet. So what's your point? Either way you slice it, whether you prefer to view it as a reduction in the rate of spending increase, or a slower increase in nominal spending, or an actual reduction in spending per GDP, it's still dramatic, large, and not normal. And more importantly, not good for the economy.
Where do you get cause to state that? Certainly not your FRED chart.
Well, from that graph it's clearly a large reduction. Have there been larger reductions in the past? Yes, but you have to go back a few decades, and economic growth as stronger back them, whereas now the economy is weak. From this post several days ago which you seen, it's not really normal. Normal would be continuing the previous trend.
But anyway, what's the point? That spending hasn't been cut and that the $2.5 trillion agreed to in cuts aren't really cuts?
Well no, the normal thing to do is not follow the trend. There are periods where government expenditures saw robust growth and periods of paltry growth. If the trend in the 90's had been sustained government expenditures would be less than today. Also note that many of the previous trends were unsustainable and would have grown government to over 100% of GDP if left unchecked.
Regardless the $2.5T in agreed to cuts aren't really cuts. They're cuts to a projected reality that will almost certainly not exist.
But beside that point only about $1T is actually agreed to. The other $1.5T is what congress is supposed to replace the $1.2T sequester with. Instead the move right now is to replace the $1.2T sequester with something less. (I assume we're talking about the $2.5T from the budget control act?)
The $1.5 trillion cut agreed to in 2011 does not include the $1.2 trillion sequester, it doesn't even include interest savings. The $1.5 trillion number comes from CBPP:
Note: the Budget Control Act also required across-the-board budget cuts, called sequestration, if the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, otherwise known as the “supercommittee,” failed. The $1.5 trillion in budget reductions discussed here do not include the additional budget cuts that will be made if sequestration takes place.
Your argument that spending hasn't really been cut because projected spending isn't real, would also imply that projected deficits aren't real either. For example, all projections of healthcare costs exceeding 1000% of GDP in the future can't be real, because the country would collapse before healthcare costs could ever get to 1000% of GDP. Therefore, the deficit problem, by this reasoning, is not real.
You also seem to think that an actual decrease in the rate of spending isn't a cut, a change in spending of less than 0 is a cut, and any change in spending greater than 0 is not a cut. In plain English, this would be right. But I don't think it's the correct way to think about in the context of the economic effects. In budget jargon, a cut is a reduction in spending from the baseline, so that an increase in spending can still be a cut if it had been projected to increase even more. Moreover, there's nothing economically special about a change in spending of 0 that justifies we call a change less than it a cut. If we expect spending of $X as determined by current policy (a baseline) and get less than it, then the role of government has in a sense been shrunk, so we can call this a cut. Or economically, we require spending of $X to fill a deficiency of demand, but then we get far less, whatever you want to call it, a cut or an increase, there isn't enough spending in the economy.
I've made a few word substitutions. Imagine had Obama said this in his recent speech:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about my Administration's efforts to strengthen the recovery and pursue a goal that it shares with the labor movement: maximum employment.
As an objective of public policy, maximum employment doesn't appear in the U.S. Constitution, in any presidential decree, or even in the mission statement of the Labor Department. A law passed in 1946 made it a general goal for the U.S. government, and today I pledge to do everything in my power to attain this goal.
With so many people today unable to find work, it might seem odd to highlight such an ambitious and distant goal for employment. I do so because the gulf between maximum employment and the very difficult conditions workers face today helps explain the urgency behind my Administration's ongoing efforts to strengthen the recovery. My colleagues and I are acutely aware of how much workers have lost in the past five years. In response, we have taken, and are continuing to take, forceful action to increase the pace of economic growth and job creation.
Its more then just Benghazi he said things that weren't 100% in support of isreal and thats treason in DC politics. Now instead of losing their primary's to people saying that they don't support isreal for allowing a guy who doesn't support isreal they get to use it to win a general election against an obama whos now anti isreal.
So basically they're completely and utterly obsessed with Isreal. Its not any better really but what can you do.
On February 15 2013 23:28 Sermokala wrote: Its more then just Benghazi he said things that weren't 100% in support of isreal and thats treason in DC politics. Now instead of losing their primary's to people saying that they don't support isreal for allowing a guy who doesn't support isreal they get to use it to win a general election against an obama whos now anti isreal.
So basically they're completely and utterly obsessed with Isreal. Its not any better really but what can you do.
They don't like Hagel because he said a few mild things about Israel and a lot of bad things about Bush, that's why they don't support his nomination. But the main reason for the filibuster as Graham says is Benghazi.
EPT
)
I was all excited there for a minute
