[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by whoDean

Jangul, you seem to be misinterpreting.

It is just basic math, the more the government takes from your NBA contract the less you have to consume (purchasing goods and services), thereby harming the overall economy.

...
To whit:

Obama?s Folly: Why Taxing the Rich Is No Solution — The American Magazine

I wonder why some very powerful folks hide their money in, e.g., Cayman Island bank accounts rather than to continue to consume?

By the way, if you have not yet noticed, the problem of the last 3 years is not that the big business has no cash. On the contrary, they have been generating enormous profits. The problem is that they do not spend that cash, e.g., making investments, because they perceive the market as weak; i.e., the consumers do not buy goods because they do not have cash to spend so from the point of view of the big business there is no point to produce those goods.

There is only one institution that can stimulate economy at times like this, and this is a government. And, of course, it would help us all if the government had more cash to spend and one way to generate this cash is by taxation, preferably those who cave cash to spare (you know, like patriots who hide their cash in Cayman Island bank accounts).

[whoDean]

More smokescreen.

Obama's plan for raising taxes raises $.7trillion, but the deficit over the same period is $13trillion.

[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by whoDean

More smokescreen.

Obama's plan for raising taxes raises $.7trillion, but the deficit over the same period is $13trillion.

what Billl said:

Originally Posted by Billl

"It is just basic math, the more the government takes from your NBA contract the less you have to consume (purchasing goods and services), thereby harming the overall economy."

Because the US government takes tax money and stuffs it under a mattress, right?

For someone arguing "class warfare", you seem to be purposely ignoring the other half of the transaction. ie money in from the wealth and out the the poor via social services.

But yes, both sides of the isle are lying about the deficit. Our tax rate is too low and our spending is too high. You'll never get back to a balanced budget without addressing both of those.

Taxes need to be higher to handle the deficit, even if we are to scale down our spending. (Unless you are really serious about gutting out pretty much everything but military budget and going back to the "medieval ages".)

Seriously, you cannot have it both ways; at this moment it's jobs or deficit.

[Stefan S]

Israeli Defense Minister Praises Obama: Doing ‘More’ For Israeli Security Than Previous Presidents | Mediaite

[Stefan S]

Syracuse -- U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna took his own party to task today, saying the Republican Party is too willing to accommodate its most extreme members.

“I have to say that I’m frustrated by how much we — I mean the Republican Party — are willing to give deferential treatment to our extremes in this moment in history,” he told The Post-Standard editorial board.

Hanna, R-Barneveld, pointed specifically to Michele Bachmann of Minnesota — particularly her suggestion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin be investigated to see if she has ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood that would compromise her loyalty.
Hanna, a businessman who defeated Democratic incumbent Michael Arcuri two years ago, said his first term in Congress left him “sad in a lot of ways” because of the growing divisiveness on both sides of the aisle.

“We render ourselves incapable of governing when all we do is take severe sides...” he said. “If all people do is go down there and join a team, and the team is invested in winning and you have something that looks very similar to the shirts and the skins, there’s not a lot of value there.”

While he blamed the dysfunction on both sides, he said he feels more bitterness coming from the Republican caucus than from the Democrats. “I would say that the friends I have in the Democratic Party I find ... much more congenial — a little less anger,” he said.

Hanna defeated a challenger from his own party, tea party favorite Michael Kicinski of Earlville, in a primary in June. He will face Democrat Dan Lamb, a former aide to retiring Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Saugerties, in November.
Contact Paul Riede at priede@syracuse.com or 470-3260.

Rep. Hanna: Fellow Republicans indulge the party's extreme members too much | syracuse.com

[mn3]

Re: the article Stefan just posted:

Perhaps it's my imagination, borne in hope that this is happening; but doesn't it seem like more and more Republicans are speaking out now and trying to find a way to return more towards the center of the electorate?

[Jangul]

Originally Posted by whoDean

More smokescreen.

Obama's plan for raising taxes raises $.7trillion, but the deficit over the same period is $13trillion.

So a 700 billion dollar reduction in the deficit is not a reduction in the deficit because it's not a 13 trillion dollar deficit reduction? So rather than get that 700 billion on a minimal return to slightly less historically low rates for the rich, we should be figuring out how to pull that whole 13 trillion out of public school teacher's salaries and pensions I suppose.

You're not arguing an coherent point. How much money does the deficit need to be reduced by to not be considered a "smokescreen"? You claim you support deficit reduction. Well, if sun-setting Bush's tax cuts for the rich reduces the deficit by even a penny, then you should be all for it. And 700 billion dollars is significantly more than a penny, no matter how you try to shift the decimal point to deemphasize the sum.

The nation is supposed to shave thirteen trillion dollars off the deficit with absolutely no contribution to that noble endeavor by the upper class? Why should we? If the problem isn't significant enough to warrant any sacrifice on their part, then why would you waste your time trying to convince anybody at the lowest levels that they should care enough to give up pensions, jobs, and city services to remedy it? If the deficit doesn't matter to the rich, then it sure as hell doesn't matter to me, either. Don't talk about deficit reduction like it's some sort of shared concern or about how we need to make a shared sacrifice to address it until you can figure out what the meaning of shared is.

[whoDean]

You have a point, Powell.

From my standpoint, a compromise allowing for $.7trillion in additional taxation if $13trillion in spending is cut would be best, but neither side of the entrenched political bureaucracy has come up with anything like it, instead they are steering our economy into the ditch. Well, there is a culvert in the distance that will smash our vehicle to shreds.

But now on the campaign trail to say that Obama's tax increase is about reducing the deficit is disingenuous. It is about driving a wedge through our community to get votes.

[Medz]

This is pointless because you're not even addressing the causes of the deficit (economic downturn, health care spending, wars) and the policies you're suggesting (cutting 13 trillion in spending) will increase the deficit and cause massive suffering. Right now the biggest problem is a lack of demand. Cutting spending will only decrease that demand. If you ramp up spending and pump out more stimulus, then people will have money to spend again, they'll be less likely to pay down their debt and more likely to engage in economic activity, and that will push companies to hire again.

I still haven't heard what's supposed to happen after we magically cut 13 trillion from the budget. Basically you're saying you want to completely gut Social Security and Medicare, which leaves old sick people out dying in the streets, or moving back in with their kids. You think the economy is stifled now? Wait until you have to cover grandma's nursing costs and hip replacement surgery out of pocket for the next 10 years.

Having said all that, I agree now is not the time to raise taxes. The only benefit to raising taxes on the wealthy is to decrease some of the income inequality, which is not a bad thing, but now is not the time. The economy needs more cash being freely circulated, not less.

[mn3]

Medz, I do not think that the rich circulate very much of their Bush tax savings as it is. If the Bush Tax cuts were allowed to expire, they would continue to buy virtually everything they want - no difference in their spending habits - especially for the super-rich.

The incremental savings from less taxes goes into the investments that rich people have the ability to invest in. There are some investments that most of us have no access to: investments that require million dollar net worths. (Source: Rich Dad Poor Dad). That's the type of things the incremental money they don't have to pay in taxes is going to. I doubt much of this type of investment has much of a trickle down effect, although I acknowledge that since I don't know what Romney invested in using those overseas tax-sheltered accounts, I cannot say for sure that the trickle down effect had a minimal effect on the rest of us.

Romney's issue in this election, at least one of his issues, is that he has likely used every rich person investment available to him. This is too hard for most people to relate to.

[mn3]

Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.

"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?

"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

I actually have a hard time believing this could be accurate. Still, the point is that Harry Reid is able to make any accusation he wants because Romney has refused to fill the void by releasing returns. In the absence of proof from Romney, won't this Urban Legend just continue to grow?

[Jeff Hause]

Posted at 11:25 AM ET, 07/31/2012 TheWashingtonPost
Retiring Rep. Steve LaTourette: You have to ‘hand over your wallet and your voting card’ to extremes

By Rosalind S. Helderman



Rep. Steve LaTourette, a key ally of House Speaker John A. Boehner and one of a dwindling number of congressional GOP moderates, issued a broadside against an increasingly polarized House on Tuesday, as he formally announced he will not seek a 10th term.
News of the Ohio Republican’s decision had leaked on Monday and he acknowledged at a news conference in his Painesville district that he was leaving local Republicans in the lurch by stepping out with only 100 days left before the November election.
But he said he had come to believe the personal toll of holding office outweighed his ability to get things done in a divided and bitter Washington.
“I have reached the conclusion that the atmosphere today and the reality that exists in the House of Representatives no longer encourages the finding of common ground,” he said.
LaTourette told reporters that to rise in party ranks, politicians must now hand over “your wallet and your voting card” to party extremes and he was uninterested.
LaTourette is one of a number of lawmakers who have retired this year and voiced similar concerns about increasing partisanship. In February, Maine Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R) announced she would not seek another term in the Senate, indicating Washington’s poisonous atmosphere was making it increasingly difficult to get anything done. Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (D) offered similar complaints when he declined to run again, as did Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
LaTourette said he would formally inform state officials of his decision on Aug. 8, a delay that will allow party officials to choose a Republican to face Democrat Dale Blanchard in November and skip a party primary to determine a GOP nominee.
He cited two specific issues that contributed to his decision--Congress’s struggle in passing a new highway funding bill and its failure to reach a bipartisan deficit reduction deal.
Long an advocate of increased infrastructure spending, LaTourette said he was ”horribly disappointed” in the debate over the transportation funding bill, calling it an “embarrassment” to the institution that a bipartisan bill approved by the Senate was not handily approved in the House.
A long-term funding bill ultimately passed, but only after months of internal Republican strife.
“We’re talking about about building roads and bridges for Chrissakes,” he said, adding that he had come to believe his Congressional colleagues have become “more interested in fighting with each other than getting the no-brainers done and governing.”
But he denied that his unexpected retirement came from being denied an opportunity to chair the Transportation and Infrastructure committee, calling reports that he was disappointed in his inability to get a chairmanship a “red herring.”
Despite his criticism of House operations, LaTourette offered no critique of Boehner, the fellow Ohioan who has led the House since Republicans took control in 2011. He noted that Boehner was among many who called Monday after news of his decision emerged to encourage him to rethink the decision.
And Boehner issued an effusive statement praising his long-time friend Tuesday, calling him “a close friend and an effective legislator who has served the people of Ohio with passion and unrivaled wit for nearly 20 years.”
. LaTourette has been among Congress’ most vocal detractors of a pledge signed by many Republican colleagues refusing to ever vote to raise taxes. He co-sponsored a budget framework earlier this year based on the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan that would pair spending cuts with tax hikes. The proposal only received 38 votes on the House floor.
He said he was particularly disappointed by the failure of members of both parties to make hard choices needed to reduce the deficit, including raising taxes and cutting entitlements.
“The time has come for not only good politics but good policy,” he said.
By Rosalind S. Helderman | 11:25 AM ET, 07/31/2012

Retiring Rep. Steve LaTourette: You have to ‘hand over your wallet and your voting card’ to extremes - 2chambers - The Washington Post

[Billl]

"I still haven't heard what's supposed to happen after we magically cut 13 trillion from the budget."

We'll have lowered growth for years or a sharp contraction, depending on how it is implemented. That is going to be the result of ANY deficit cutting plan though. We're currently injecting about a trillion extra dollars into the economy per year through borrowing. When we stop doing that (either though taxation, service cuts, or a combination), we'll have a trillion less dollars activity.

Our "growth" and standard of living is being artificially overstated via borrowing. ANY plan to change that is going to hurt. Both sides are still pretending like there is some magic bullet that will avoid that downturn, but their isn't.

[mn3]

Mitt Romney Tax Plan Helps The Rich The Most: Analysis

This is from the "centrist Tax Policy Center."

I don't get how any national candidate can run and win on that platform.

Swing state poll: Romney still struggling to convince voters he cares - The Washington Post

I watched this poll covered by Chuck Todd on Morning Joe today. He and Scarborough agreed this is very troublesome for Romney. He's going to have to find a way to change the narrative the Dems have built about him, and all this tax stuff - his policy position for the country, his personal tax return hiding issue, his foreign bank accounts, and his tax avoidance - is a huge challenge.

Let's take the case that the Republicans are 100% right - that the only issue in this race is the economy. Romney has become just about the worst Republican candidate imaginable to make the argument that he's the one to deal with that. Even his Bain experience plays into the negative tax and out of touch narrative.

[Jangul]

The same magic bullet the overleveraged have used since eternity: Bankruptcy. When the interest on the debt load becomes more unpalatable than the consequences of not paying it back, debtors simply walk away and start over. There will be anew set of investors willing to wager on the post bankruptcy America. Hopefully, like Germany that version is run by competent adults.

[Jangul]

Originally Posted by Billl

"I still haven't heard what's supposed to happen after we magically cut 13 trillion from the budget."

We'll have lowered growth for years or a sharp contraction, depending on how it is implemented. That is going to be the result of ANY deficit cutting plan though. We're currently injecting about a trillion extra dollars into the economy per year through borrowing. When we stop doing that (either though taxation, service cuts, or a combination), we'll have a trillion less dollars activity.

Our "growth" and standard of living is being artificially overstated via borrowing. ANY plan to change that is going to hurt. Both sides are still pretending like there is some magic bullet that will avoid that downturn, but their isn't.

The same magic bullet the overleveraged have used since eternity: Bankruptcy. When the interest on the debt load becomes more unpalatable than the consequences of not paying it back, debtors simply walk away and start over. There will be a new set of investors willing to wager on the post bankruptcy America. Hopefully, like new and improved Germany, that future version will be run by competent adults.

[whoDean]

Originally Posted by Jangul

The same magic bullet the overleveraged have used since eternity: Bankruptcy.

When a country cannot repay it's sovereign debt it is called default, and the ramifications are terrible (much, much more pain for citizens than balancing the budget would be), nothing anyone in this country should want.

[mn3]

Not being an economist, and not being someone interested enough in the great depths of economics theories, here's what I've never been able to sort through for myself:

How can any economic model ultimately not fail? How can any economy ultimately not fail? If a rich person makes more money, that must be coming from somewhere, and that somewhere must be the pockets of other people (whether they be other rich people, middle class people, or the poor). Or a government can print more money - which for a time can address the fact that there are haves and have nots.

The way I understand this, any system, any economy in any governmental model is going to break down and collapse. Then I suppose, like Jangul says, just declare: "game over - bankruptcy" which has its own draconian effects on millions (maybe tens or hundreds of millions) of people in that society, so the whole system gets a reset.

I think the best game that can be played is to even out the wealth disparity as much as possible. Let everyone win some: the middle class and poor winning more than they are right now, and the rich a little/lot less so but still winning.

[Billl]

"The same magic bullet the overleveraged have used since eternity: Bankruptcy."

There is no such thing as national bankruptcy. Even if there was, it would have little impact on our current overspending. We are going to borrow an extra trillion dollars this year. That economic activity is going to do away one way or another.

[whoDean]

Originally Posted by mn3

If a rich person makes more money, that must be coming from somewhere, and that somewhere must be the pockets of other people .

Hint: This quote is your problem.

Originally Posted by mn3

I think the best game that can be played is to even out the wealth disparity as much as possible.

We always knew Newman was a communist

[mn3]

Originally Posted by whoDean

Hint: This quote is your problem.

If you're not joking, please explain how I'm incorrect. Seriously, I don't see any logical alternative. If someone makes a buck, someone else paid him the buck - either another human being (corporations are people too!) or a government. Someone got richer and someone or some government got poorer.

[Jangul]

People don't want bankruptcy in their personal lives either because of the terrible ramifications, yet it happens all the time. Banks and car companies go belly up and we bail them out. We paid zillions to rebuild postwar Germany and Japan and their ruin was absolutely their own fault. We lent aid to our cold war enemy Russia to avoid complete destabilization of their government. You don't think the world will be forced to bail out America, that country with the arsenal of nuclear weapons? I honestly don't see what other choice they'd have. America is too big to fail.

[hack]

What really gives pause is what the economy would be like if the US didn't have all the little benefits that come from its status as a superpower. Being the currency of choice for reserves; commodities worldwide traded in dollars, etc. Borrowing costs would soar -- the new set of investors will demand a return that matches the risk. Soft power would take a serious hit.

It's also unclear that it would just happen that way given how much it would hurt China. Could easily envision some sorta settlement that avoids a default and leaves China with significant ownership stakes in something (let's nationalise and trade them Goldman Sachs for debt forgiveness).

Either way, a future that includes competent adults would be great. And one does have the feeling that a serious break with the present era would help. A lot of people hare having a really hard time taking Greenspan's cue and admitting that the past 30 years of economic policy need to be ditched.

[Medz]

We can't default or go into bankruptcy, because we print our own currency. We could issue $16 trillion worth of currency and erase the deficit overnight. There's all this fear mongering over the deficit yet there's more demand than ever to buy US debt. That means the markets aren't worried about default, and in fact, they see US debt as the safest place to keep their money. Considering we have a monopoly on issuing US dollars, the deficit is nothing more than a political crisis, it's not a financial one. The problem is that the Fed, which was designed to be safe from political manipulation, has been too focused on the political ramifications of its actions. Geithner is 100% to blame.

The reality is, we mostly owe money to ourselves. China owns about 8% of our debt, and their economy is completely tied to ours.

[hack]

We can default. Printing money would come with serious consequences too. Ultimately, especially if we do it while the euro is a mess, investors won't have too many other places to park their money, and that's a factor certainly.

[mn3]

Originally Posted by hack

Could easily envision some sorta settlement that avoids a default and leaves China with significant ownership stakes in something (let's nationalise and trade them Goldman Sachs for debt forgiveness).

.

Throw in Donald Trump and the Koch brothers and I make that deal yesterday.

[mn3]

Excerpt released today from a speech Obama is giving this afternoon. The Dems are sharpening their message. This is strong, IMO:

President Barack Obama will use a new report from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center to hammer away at a consistent campaign theme: that Mitt Romney favors the rich, while Obama will help the struggling middle class.

"And yet, the centerpiece of my opponent's entire economic plan is a new, $5 trillion tax cut. A lot of this tax cut would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of all households. Folks making more than $3 million a year -- the top one-tenth of one percent -- would get a tax cut worth almost a quarter of a million dollars. A quarter of a million dollars," Obama will say later in Mansfield, Ohio, according to remarks released by his campaign.

"But it gets worse. Under my opponent's plan, guess who gets the bill for these $250,000 tax cuts? You do. And you don’t have to take my word for it," he will say. "Just today, an independent, non-partisan organization ran all the numbers. And they found that if Governor Romney wants to keep his word and pay for his plan, he'd have to cut tax breaks that middle-class families depend on to pay for your home, or your health care, or send your kids to college. That means the average middle-class family with children would be hit with a tax increase of more than $2,000."

"But here's the thing –- he's not asking you to contribute more to pay down the deficit, or to invest in our kids' education. He's asking you to pay more so that people like him can get a tax cut."

[Medz]

Originally Posted by hack

We can default. Printing money would come with serious consequences too. Ultimately, especially if we do it while the euro is a mess, investors won't have too many other places to park their money, and that's a factor certainly.

We can default only if we lost the ability to print money, or if an active choice is made to completely stop printing money. If you want to say that hyperinflation is a risk, that's a separate issue (although the fear mongering about hyperinflation is one of the major reasons why the deficit is so high.) But if a $16 trillion debt hasn't scared people away from buying up more of the debt, and the markets are supposed to be the most rational actors, then there's no need to fear deficits.

Right now the government, by decreasing its spending, is acting as a drag on the economy and slowing the recovery. A big reason for that is the campaign to scare everyone with the deficit numbers. If the federal government stepped up to support the state governments in avoiding layoffs, unemployment wouldn't be as high and we'd be in a much better position.

Obviously this isn't Obama's fault considering Congress has essentially become a defunct body of government and economic policy is their responsibility, but his failing is that he hasn't used his position to articulate this message to the American people. They shouldn't believe that the country is broke, because it's not. Every time he compares government spending to household finances, he's failing the American public through misinformation.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by mn3

Excerpt released today from a speech Obama is giving this afternoon. The Dems are sharpening their message. This is strong, IMO:

President Barack Obama will use a new report from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center to hammer away at a consistent campaign theme: that Mitt Romney favors the rich, while Obama will help the struggling middle class.

"And yet, the centerpiece of my opponent's entire economic plan is a new, $5 trillion tax cut. A lot of this tax cut would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of all households. Folks making more than $3 million a year -- the top one-tenth of one percent -- would get a tax cut worth almost a quarter of a million dollars. A quarter of a million dollars," Obama will say later in Mansfield, Ohio, according to remarks released by his campaign.

"But it gets worse. Under my opponent's plan, guess who gets the bill for these $250,000 tax cuts? You do. And you don’t have to take my word for it," he will say. "Just today, an independent, non-partisan organization ran all the numbers. And they found that if Governor Romney wants to keep his word and pay for his plan, he'd have to cut tax breaks that middle-class families depend on to pay for your home, or your health care, or send your kids to college. That means the average middle-class family with children would be hit with a tax increase of more than $2,000."

"But here's the thing –- he's not asking you to contribute more to pay down the deficit, or to invest in our kids' education. He's asking you to pay more so that people like him can get a tax cut."








So what is the President's plan? I keep asking and can't seem to get an answer that doesn't include a finger pointed directly at the GOP. I really want to know.


Also, please show me one quote from Romney or his people that suggest he is going to raise taxes/or plans on raising taxes on the middle class. I am unaware of such a thing.'


In light of all the current deficit/debt talk, we shouldn't continue to fool ourselves into thinking this tax cut expiration/continuation has anything to do with paying debt. They spend everything and will continue to spend everything. It is all sound bites and pandering from both sides. If you disagree, tell me the President's plan.

[mn3]

Also, please show me one quote from Romney or his people that suggest he is going to raise taxes/or plans on raising taxes on the middle class. I am unaware of such a thing.'

His plan:

Tax

(That's actually a link to Romney's official website, and his page on taxes). That's what the Tax Policy Center analyzed, if I'm not mistaken. It's pretty specific, so it's able to be scored and is susceptible to analysis.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by mn3

His plan:

Tax

That's what the Tax Policy Center analyzed, if I'm not mistaken.

Still do not see were Romney has suggested raising anyone's taxes. He seems to want to cut taxes. Is the President lying?

[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by hack

What really gives pause is what the economy would be like if the US didn't have all the little benefits that come from its status as a superpower. Being the currency of choice for reserves; commodities worldwide traded in dollars, etc. Borrowing costs would soar -- the new set of investors will demand a return that matches the risk. Soft power would take a serious hit.

It's also unclear that it would just happen that way given how much it would hurt China. Could easily envision some sorta settlement that avoids a default and leaves China with significant ownership stakes in something (let's nationalise and trade them Goldman Sachs for debt forgiveness).

Either way, a future that includes competent adults would be great. And one does have the feeling that a serious break with the present era would help. A lot of people hare having a really hard time taking Greenspan's cue and admitting that the past 30 years of economic policy need to be ditched.

All valid points.

Can you easily find and post a ling to where Greenspan admits this. Thanks!

[DYNOMITE]

Something I brought up some time ago and would like to revisit it. $200,000 is too low a floor for raising taxes. That is far from being "super rich". A family in this day and age who makes 200-250K are still mainly consumers with most of that money. If you want to make the argument that the more money circulating in the economy the better, then 200K is too low a number for a tax cut-off.

[Billl]

"Still do not see were Romney has suggested raising anyone's taxes."

Romney's plan is to close unspecified "loopholes" to make his tax cuts revenue neutral. In practice, the only tax deductions/credits big enough to do that are the widespread ones like mortgage interest, dependent deductions etc.

Of course, no republican is going to say the phase "I want to raise your taxes".

[Jeff Hause]

Reuters just apparently said the same thing based on nothing they've read, according to Dynomite:

UPDATE 1-Romney tax plan helps rich, hurts middle class-study | Reuters

PS: Today, the Communists win:

Health Reform: No-Cost Contraception Starts Today

[Jeff Hause]

PPS: "It's the economy. stupid" update:

Obama Is Leading in Florida, Ohio and Penn.: Poll - Businessweek

The swing-state polling finds Obama supported by at least 50 percent of the voters surveyed in all three states, with the president leading Romney by 51 percent to 45 percent in Florida, 50 percent to 44 percent in Ohio and 53 percent to 42 percent in Pennsylvania.

[Jeff Hause]

LOL -- great one:

New Romney ad blames auto bail out for job loss - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by Jeff Hause

Reuters just apparently said the same thing based on nothing they've read, according to Dynomite:

UPDATE 1-Romney tax plan helps rich, hurts middle class-study | Reuters

PS: Today, the Communists win:

Health Reform: No-Cost Contraception Starts Today

My feeling is that, in terms of electoral vote, it will not be a close election. Lots of undecided will an mass shift their votes and align with one of the main candidates. In my humble, it's too early to tell which way it will all go and, of course, the stewardship of economy will be the deciding factor. (The GOP has been much more vocal in their opposition to Obama's policies. But I do not know they sounded and looked convincing to undecided. Lots of my generally centrist friends, even those traditionally aligned with the Republican party, are very outraged with the constant partisan warfare, especially in the Congress, and believe that, de facto, GOP candidates just sit on their hands, do nothing, and pander to the far out right. I would not be surprised if some of them shifted their votes or decided not to vote at all, but we will see.)

I expect that things will clarify after the debates. The voters will be able to compare the candidates making, a shoulder to shoulder, the case for themselves and their policies. The candidates will be forced to ad-lib, which I think seriously benefits Obama.

[Jeff Hause]

Yup. Looooooooooong way to go...

[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by Jeff Hause

LOL -- great one:

New Romney ad blames auto bail out for job loss - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

How possibly can this work?

The ad is released on the heels of a new Quinnipiac/CBS News/New York Times poll, which shows President Obama with a 6 percent lead in the battleground state of Ohio, the focus of the ad. The ad is risky as the auto bail out has proven popular in the state that ranks second in auto industry workers.

Obama for America spokesperson Frank Benenati called the ad a "new low."

"While the President was busy saving the US auto industry - which has 1 in 8 Ohio jobs tied to it - Mitt Romney was busy arguing that we should turn our backs on an iconic industry and the workers in Ohio," Benanati wrote in a statement.

...

And jobs were lost during the bail out, but only a fraction of the number that would have been lost without it. The structured bankruptcy, however, was estimated to have led to the loss of 365,000 jobs compared an estimated 1.8 million jobs if the federal government did not intervene, according to a 2010 study by CAR.

[mn3]

Frank Gaffney Plotting To Take Down Grover Norquist With Muslim Brotherhood Accusations

My favorite story of the day so far. I never thought I'd be rooting for Grover Norquist.

[hack]

Greenspan, agiain: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...y/24panel.html.

Medz, I mean, maybe -- bond investors have yet to punish the US, so perhaps they won't. But printing money is basically the same thing as defaulting -- it's destroying the returns on government debt. Will it be in reality? Good question. Dismal science, etc. etc.

[mn3]

Yikes on the Greenspan article. That deregulation of the banking/mortgage industry has done a lot of damage. It's incredible to me that we're having to re-fight the same battle all over again. Romney and the Republicans are trying to eliminate all regulations because that worked so well the last time.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... well, I guess we'll be fooled again.

[mn3]

Mitt Romney Florida Victory May Depend On Condoleezza Rice Or Marco Rubio

Rice isn't running and she won't be selected. Pro-choice Republicans in 2012? Don't think so.

Rubio would be a hail-Mary pick. Romney's got to get to 40% (or so) of the Latino vote to have a chance - according to just about everyone. He's at 25%. So, maybe it's Rubio by default. But if I'm Marco Rubio, I say "no."

That guy's star is rising. He could very well be the President in 2017. But he's very new, and from what I've heard he's not very good on the stump yet. Give him four years, and his skills will be a lot better developed. Also, I bet a guy like him doesn't want to be associated with the sinking ship that is the likely outcome for Romney.

[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by mn3

Mitt Romney Florida Victory May Depend On Condoleezza Rice Or Marco Rubio

Rice isn't running and she won't be selected. Pro-choice Republicans in 2012? Don't think so.

Rubio would be a hail-Mary pick. Romney's got to get to 40% (or so) of the Latino vote to have a chance - according to just about everyone. He's at 25%. So, maybe it's Rubio by default. But if I'm Marco Rubio, I say "no."

That guy's star is rising. He could very well be the President in 2017. But he's very new, and from what I've heard he's not very good on the stump yet. Give him four years, and his skills will be a lot better developed. Also, I bet a guy like him doesn't want to be associated with the sinking ship that is the likely outcome for Romney.

From this link:

Rice is regarded as an unlikely vice presidential pick because of her association with some of the Bush administration’s controversial actions,. including the U.S. invasion of Iraq in a failed search for weapons of mass destruction. She also has publicly said she supports women’s access to a full range of reproductive options.

Rubio, widely regarded as a rising star in Florida politics, has seen his national stature fade this summer after the Obama administration announced a change in deportation policy that sucked much of the air from an immigration reform proposal Rubio had promoted in Spanish and English news outlets but hasn't introduced in the Senate.

...

Obviously, neither choice would play to religious right. Maybe it would suppress their vote. But as a play to the center and an attempt to lock Florida, they may work.

If he loses Florida, he would have to take Virginia and North Carolina (they may go his way anyway but surely Rice or Rubio do not help there) and also take both Pennsylvania and Ohio. Not likely!

The saying is that VP never wins the race (but may lose it, like Palin was so terrible that her choice called into serious question whether Big Mac's is even reasonable). However, in this case locking Florida may be a necessity and also the most reasonable path for Romney.

[mn3]

Do you think Rubio would say "yes" Stefan?

[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by mn3

Do you think Rubio would say "yes" Stefan?

I think so. Once you start playing the "game" of politics at this level and you are tapped for VP, you just assume the (possible) President needs you and you say "yes".

I do not think he would hurt himself in a long run. That is, unless he is so unbelievably green that it would be a path of gaffes in Palin's style. But i do not think that's the case. The guy is much more mature and reasonable. I do not know how it would all play at the national level, but i'd say, 90% he would say, "yes'. (all of this on the assumption there are no skeletons in his closet.)

[mn3]

Rubio's not a joke or a clown like Palin was. He's an intelligent guy. But, he's very green. I think from what I've seen that he is a real risk right now of hurting his long term political standing by creating an image that he's not up to being VP.

I'm not saying I'm certain of this.

[mn3]

A Romney policy adviser who is not authorized to talk to the press provided more details. The aide wrote in an email that the study by the Tax Policy Center does not include the economic growth that would result from the lowering of the corporate tax rate and from cutting the size of government over the next decade.

Ah yes. We've failed, once again, to account for the Supply Side Trickle Down Effect. That's always worked so well (meaning never) for our economy every time that's been tried.

Romney Campaign Says Tax Report Presents Incomplete Picture

Except, ... oops! The TPC study DID account for the Supply Side Trickle Down.

UPDATE: 4:15 p.m. -- The TPC report addressed so-called "dynamic scoring" that some economists say helps tax cuts pay for themselves in increased economic growth and resulting higher tax receipts.

Using a model presented in the past by Romney economic adviser Greg Mankiw, the TPC study said that if economic growth occurred at the rate they predicted, Romney's plan would still shift about $33 billion (instead of $86 billion) away from high earners and onto lower- and middle-income earners.

"Thus even generous assumptions regarding the ability of tax cuts to partially pay for themselves does not change the basic qualitative results," the TPC study concluded.

[Medz]

Originally Posted by hack

Greenspan, agiain: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...y/24panel.html.

Medz, I mean, maybe -- bond investors have yet to punish the US, so perhaps they won't. But printing money is basically the same thing as defaulting -- it's destroying the returns on government debt. Will it be in reality? Good question. Dismal science, etc. etc.

I don't see why it's the same as defaulting. The majority of the debt is owed to the US government. A large percentage is owed to wealthy Americans. Yes we're probably issuing too much debt but we're at no threat of default and that shouldn't constrain our spending during a recession. That's why these austerity policies are failing all around the world, and why we're shooting ourselves in the foot by downsizing local governments - not to mention killing off our future productivity in terms of education as we complete the transition to a skilled-labor/service society, and infrastructure as labor mobility becomes increasingly important.

If we were paying people to dig holes and fill them up again, that would be better than doing nothing. Paying them to build high speed railroads and schools and hospitals would be even better. But the point is, the government needs to stop paying people for unemployment and start paying them for labor that benefits society.