Sorry, can't help chuckling at the last two responses!

What's great here are not the individual arguments. What's great is that, at least so far, we've pretty well managed to disagree without flying off the handle or attacking each other. I hope we can stay that way!

More willingness to compromise from the politicians on both sides might get our government working again. I hope that finally begins to happen!

On the other hand, it's rather startling to read some of the campaign literature from 150 years ago. Most of the stuff coming out nowadays is pretty tame by comparison.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's 'A plague on both your houses!'"

I'm right there with you. Just one question Mary. Does your dog enjoy hiking? If so, pm me his/her name and you can count on my vote.

"He is just looking for material to bash him. Why don't he focus on what he is going to do instead of just looking for trash."

My guess is because he doesn't know what he's going to do. Trash in politics is used as a distraction. He's had four years and they haven't been that great. Hopefully the next four are better for us all no matter who wins the election.

Just a friendly, complimentary fact-check; if you're not interested, please don't read the post!

"Democrats tried to get through a bill that required that people and corporations that contribute to political speech have to be publically disclosed. We should at least know who's buying off the government. The Rs fillibustered it."

Dems are very interested in knowing who donates to Reps - in some cases so they can hassle said donors (See Target, Wal-Mart, that one guy up in North Dakota). They're own donors, not so much.

"Rs got us into two wars that are a large part of the deficit. Ds "ended" Iraq war (although we're still there but at least much reduced). There is a plan to end Afganistan war. The Libya war was short and somewhat successful. We have avoided an Iran war."

IIRC - The Afghanistan war resolution was passed with a nearly unanimous vote with Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) the lone dissenter. The Iraq war resolution had maybe 15-20 nay votes. Mostly democrats. The Libya war or intervention or whatever was not submitted for a vote - a violation of the law. I'm afraid, unfortunately, that the policies of the current administration have delayed and made more likely an Iranian war rather than avoided one outright. I hope I'm wrong on that.

"Ds ended "don't ask don't tell". Obama said he was in favor of gAy marriage. Then black religious leaders were forced to do the same."

One and two are true enough, three is less so.

"Obama Care reduced the deficit from Medicare prescription which was another huge part of the deficit."

What?

"The Ds are pushing the "Buffet Rule" which would tax at 30% income over $250K - restore a bit of fairness. And eliminating the "Bush tax cuts" for over $250K. And other attempts to restore fairness. This is another part of ending deficit."

Tax on AGI over $250k is already taxed at over 30%. Are you talking about recategorizing carried interest as income? If so, you and I might agree on that; need to see the details. I'm very curious - the dems had TOTAL control for two years, that would have been a great time to pass a "fair" tax increase. Why didn't that happen?

I'd have to agree that if Romney is using his financial success as his reason as to why he should be qualified, then he should be open about it. Own the success. Even show you want to help fellow Americans by sharing the what and how of your success. Everyone knows he's filthy rich. Refusing to disclose some assets, even if purely offshore, is much worse than letting people know just how much wealth there is. That is, unless there really is something hidden that would confirm that he moved jobs offshore, abused offshore investments, continued to run his business, etc.

There are some sobering issues that will need to be dealt with:

1) The United States currently spends approximately 18 percent of its GDP on health care. That is far and away more than any other industrialized nation. One could argue that we get a fairly poor return on our investment, given several barometers of success. Have certain types of cancer? You want to be treated in the United States, best cancer care hands down. Have anything else? Other countries are just as effective and a lot less expensive.

If you would like some interesting statistical takes on United Sates health care, I suggest looking here and here.

2) The United States military spending is enormous - so large that our military spending equals the spending of the next 19 largest military spenders combined. And when you get to 19th place, you are talking about countries like Spain. We cannot continue to spend at these levels - it isn't feasible. And before you think that foreign aid reductions can somehow level this off, consider for a moment that for every dollar the U.S. spends on its military, the country chips in a nickel for on foreign aid, international development aid humanitarian assistance.

3) On military and health care - With all due respect to our active and retired military members, the one issue that will need to be addressed is the
escalating costs associated with military health care. The government almost certainly will need to reduce funding spent on care of military personnel and their families- costs are escalating at an unsustainable rate.

Edited by dirk9827 on 08/13/2012 04:32:10 MDT.

If there are more Ds in office, would you expect more or less/longer or shorter wars?

Carried interest should be taxed the same as ordinary income. Any R that votes for this will be primaried by Grover Norquist. He gets his money from anonymous sources.

More than this, capital gain and dividends should be taxed the same as ordinary income. Also social security and medicare tax. Why do capital gains get preference? Because super rich people have bought off the government.

"Sorry, can't help chuckling at the last two responses!

What's great here are not the individual arguments. What's great is that, at least so far, we've pretty well managed to disagree without flying off the handle or attacking each other. I hope we can stay that way!"

I agree on both, Mary

"People can disagree without being disagreeable"

Extremists on both sides would rather we just scream at each other.

1. Not talking about the Tax Supercommitte. I'm talking about the Debt Commission committee. They did approve an approach and Obama tabled it. In fact during the process he was threatening to veto portions if they were included. I'm sure the plan wasn't perfect and neither side got their way. However it was a great place to start and he just ignored it.

2. We can't continue to support SS, Medicare, Medicaid, federal pensions, etc in their current form. This is the big elephant in the room that both sides just want to ignore it. Social Security, Medicare, Medcaid, welfare and other entitlements make up 62% of the budget. Both parties lack the will to address. You can also say that the SS has no deficit, but the federal govt has borrowed 2.7 trillion from the surpluses over the years.

3. Didn't say it was all his fault. However good leaders are able to get some things accomplished. Can't always blame other side for bad news and take credit for all the good news.


5. I meet with new prospects and customers every week and 90% are concerned about the future (ie Bush tax cuts, automatic tax cuts, more regulatory requirements, more government involvement, etc). Most are being cautious with capital spending. This means they are delaying projects, etc. However I'm finding companies more willing to invest in IT projects than hire people. Nobody wants to hire people given the uncertainty. I'm also doing more global projects because operations are moving out of the US. Some is based on regulations and some on getting closer to the customer. I don't think many business owners would consider the current administration pro business. If you would spend some time talking with the small business community you would find out we are mad as hell with comments like you didn't build that.

6. I wouldn't privatize everything. When businesses screw up the shareholder pays and not the taxpayer. Look at the whole alternative energy issue and the lost taxpayer dollars. Sure the government can be effective at some things, but they are rarely efficient at it. Remember inefficiency equals wasted tax dollars. The government can run a national health care system, but the taxpayer pays a penalty because of how inefficient they run things.

7. So then you agree that he is pitting social classes against each other and making it seem bad to be successful?

Top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes. Bottom 50% of earners pay 2%. Almost half pay no taxes. So you want to add more to the top 10%. Doesn't really seem fair to me. I think we have a serious problem when you don't have everyone paying some taxes. If everyone feels the pain each time you increase taxes I think everyone would become vested in how we spend tax revenues. I would like some stewardship when it comes to spending tax dollars.

8. Why is using a tax loopholes of any interest? If it's not illegal then what is the purpose? I'm sure when the CPAs prepare Obama's tax return they look for all the legal writeoffs. If Rommey's CPAs didn't do the same I would question his intelligence.

At least he has business experience to help him understand the economy and businesses. Obama is a lawyer and career politician that doesn't have a clue how things work in the real world. And he has plenty of company from both parties in Washington. That my friend is the biggest problem. I equate it to when I was working on my MBA. It was very easy to pick out the professors who had real world experience and those that were career educators. The career bunch didn't have any problem with the theory, but they didn't really understand what was happening in the real world.

Obama's campaign strategy is about Rommey's tax returns, looking for Bain dirt, trying to tie in a woman's death to Bain, etc. How about he tell us what his budget looks like, how he is going to reduce debt, plan to grow the economy. Maybe tell us why what he has tried to date hasn't worked and what he is going to do different. Instead he is looking for dirt and attacking. If his answer is to just blame the other party, then we need a new leader.

I'm equally disappointed when the other party takes the dirt approach. The comments you pointed out are disgraceful and not appropriate. However why don't you acknowledge that your party is just as bad? I started the whole thread by being critical of both parties and stated why I picked the least worst in my opinion. You continue to defend your party as if they have the answers and do no wrong.

The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expect a different result. He hasn't showed me where he is going to change, so why would I vote for 4 more years of this. Obama agrees. That is why he is not campaigning on the last 4 years, but trying to trash his opponent.

Brad

Responses to Brad:

1. You're right that Obama tabled the Debt Commission. So did all of Congress. The only ones interested in the conclusions of that committee were the committee members themselves. Shame on most of them for not taking this seriously.

However, the U.S. is experiencing historically low borrowing rates. A severe recession/stalled recovery is not the time to move to austerity on debt. That is a mid-term or long-term goal once short-term growth is stabilized. The U.S. should be borrowing money to stimulate the economy in the short term while making plans for long-term deficit reduction. Unfortunately, with 2, 4, and 6 year terms, no one is interested in the long-term, just scoring political points.

2. Entitlements are an issue--one that has been exacerbated by poor financial planning by Congress (and the presidents who propose budgets). You're right, it's a bipartisan thing. It doesn't help that Congress has been borrowing from SS surpluses for some time while investing in the upper classes, thus leaving more to fall into the lower classes and in need of a safety net. Of course, during a recession, spending in these areas will rise. It's cyclical.

As for state pensions, most states underfunded their pension systems despite their legal obligation to pay. This was contracted labor and you can't blame police and teachers for wanting what is contractually owed to them, especially given that this was supposed to be part of the contract for public service--lower short-term wages but good pensions. If you compare pensions to private sector ones from twenty years back, they weren't that much better either. The private sector has used this as a way to cut costs and increase profits.

3. Somewhat agreed. Except to say that Mitch McConnell held a meeting for Senate Rs in which he laid out his plan to oppose every piece of D legislation and to make Obama a one-term president. Also, racism. I grew up in the Deep South, returned there after college/graduate school, and the racism was far more open than in any other period of my life.

5. Come on--you know that "you didn't build that" was talking about roads and bridges. I won't challenge you on your feelings of Obama not being pro-business, but that's a cheap shot.

6. Mostly agreed. But I think the healthcare industry demonstrates that the private sector can be very inefficient as well. Especially when it is concerned with enriching its stockholders/executives. Having to choose between a government bureaucrat and a capitalist making decisions about my healthcare is an impossible choice. We can do better than single-payer. Our nation is too large and diverse to make that efficient. It can be done, but not in the current political climate. I don't see real solutions on the horizon.

7. The social classes have been pitted against one another since 1776. This is an even more powerful force in our nation's history than racism. In fact, it has been one of the driving factors behind racism (see Reconstruction and the way wealthy white men used Southern racism to pit poor whites against poor blacks and entrench their own power).

8. Agreed.

Dirty politics: Frankly, I don't see the calls for Romney's tax returns or questioning his business strategies or employment (that retroactive retirement is pretty shady, even though it didn't have to be if he had just told MA the truth in the first place) that dirty. Not yet, at least. He's running on his business record, and those are all fair game for that. He should just own it instead of playing to whatever he thinks the people he's talking to want to hear. He's clearly a very good businessman, but I don't see him making the case that his way of doing business will be good for a nation, just for a few.

Obama should talk about what has worked and hasn't worked. He's hiding behind Romney right now, but that will likely change once we get passed this phase of the election cycle. Presidential campaigns last so long these days that both sides have to fill up 24-hour cable news with something or be irrelevant. It's terrible, awful, and immoral, but that's how the system works. (We need serious campaign reform, more than just on the financing issue.)

Your definition of insanity doesn't hold water. It's an old cliché. However, I agree with it. The last four years haven't gone well. But we can't just look to the U.S. for causes. It's a globalized economy. Anything the U.S. has done to gain ground in the last two years has been undercut by the Eurozone and the slowing of China's development. Our recovery wouldn't have been strong without those things, but it wouldn't have been this weak. We should be thankful that we aren't suffering more, especially given how deep the hole was that we dug.

Ayn Rand and Jesus aren't compatible. Not sure what Teavangelicals are going to do.

The key issue that neither side is addressing is this: Now that economic growth is for all intents and purposes over (due primarily to rising liquid fuel prices), how are we going to divide a pie that is no longer growing. Instead, both sides pretend that we can fire up the engines of economic growth again. Aren't any voters worried about NDAA, drones, kill lists, etc.?
Jake Tapper vs. Jay Carney

Aren't any voters worried about NDAA, drones, kill lists, etc.?

Clayton, good response. Don't agree with all but like you open response. I added a few comments

1. You're right that Obama tabled the Debt Commission. So did all of Congress. The only ones interested in the conclusions of that committee were the committee members themselves. Shame on most of them for not taking this seriously.

However, the U.S. is experiencing historically low borrowing rates. A severe recession/stalled recovery is not the time to move to austerity on debt. That is a mid-term or long-term goal once short-term growth is stabilized. The U.S. should be borrowing money to stimulate the economy in the short term while making plans for long-term deficit reduction. Unfortunately, with 2, 4, and 6 year terms, no one is interested in the long-term, just scoring political points.

-- Didn't say drastic measures, but long term comprehensive plan needs to be developed but no one has the will power. Doesn't serve their purpose to get re-elected. Both parties. The borrowing to stimulate the economy doesn't work. If it did we should borrow 100 trillion because the return will be greater than the amount borrowed. We have been borrowing for 4 years and seen a stagnant economy. No proof that doing what we did saved us from worse. Just spin to justify more borrowing and spending.

2. Entitlements are an issue--one that has been exacerbated by poor financial planning by Congress (and the presidents who propose budgets). You're right, it's a bipartisan thing. It doesn't help that Congress has been borrowing from SS surpluses for some time while investing in the upper classes, thus leaving more to fall into the lower classes and in need of a safety net. Of course, during a recession, spending in these areas will rise. It's cyclical.

-- Investing in upper classes? Doesn't really make sense when 62% of all government spending is on entitlements. Agree that we should expect increase in recession and obviously we need to spend in this area. However can't act like we borrowed to give to the upper class.

As for state pensions, most states underfunded their pension systems despite their legal obligation to pay. This was contracted labor and you can't blame police and teachers for wanting what is contractually owed to them, especially given that this was supposed to be part of the contract for public service--lower short-term wages but good pensions. If you compare pensions to private sector ones from twenty years back, they weren't that much better either. The private sector has used this as a way to cut costs and increase profits.

-- Government entities are not required to report future liabilities and the unfunded portion. Public companies have been required too for years because it gives a better reporting of the future liabilities and the financial condition of a company. Gov't doesn't do it because they don't want the taxpayer to know the liability and rebel. All contracts have a life and are renegotiated periodically. Both parties need some protection because economic conditions change. Not sure why government employees think they are entitled to a different arrangement than the rest of us. Just doesn't make sense to me that we have government employees retiring in their late 40's and early 50s and receiving a pension for 30-40 years. The system wasn't designed to work that way and we surely can't afford to continue asking the taxpayer to fund these increases. Businesses found out that they couldn't afford to continue the pension plans, so they made a business design to move to 401k type plans. As a business you have taxes, insurance, benefits, etc increasing you have to cut cost somewhere if you want to survive. Remember the consumer/customer is buying from the cheapest provider (ie China, India, etc) and not US companies.

3. Somewhat agreed. Except to say that Mitch McConnell held a meeting for Senate Rs in which he laid out his plan to oppose every piece of D legislation and to make Obama a one-term president. Also, racism. I grew up in the Deep South, returned there after college/graduate school, and the racism was far more open than in any other period of my life.

5. Come on--you know that "you didn't build that" was talking about roads and bridges. I won't challenge you on your feelings of Obama not being pro-business, but that's a cheap shot.

-- Nope, but that was his way out of the comment. Read the speech in full. He really lashes out at small businesses several times. In this economy why wouldn't you say things to lift us up and encourage us to do more (ie expand our business, hire people, etc). No he just wanted to talk about we didn't do anything on our own and should pay more taxes. Guy is just out of touch.

6. Mostly agreed. But I think the healthcare industry demonstrates that the private sector can be very inefficient as well. Especially when it is concerned with enriching its stockholders/executives. Having to choose between a government bureaucrat and a capitalist making decisions about my healthcare is an impossible choice. We can do better than single-payer. Our nation is too large and diverse to make that efficient. It can be done, but not in the current political climate. I don't see real solutions on the horizon.

-- You are dead on. I don't know if their is a solution.

7. The social classes have been pitted against one another since 1776. This is an even more powerful force in our nation's history than racism. In fact, it has been one of the driving factors behind racism (see Reconstruction and the way wealthy white men used Southern racism to pit poor whites against poor blacks and entrench their own power).

-- Agreed. As a successful small business owner I'm just tired of hearing on the negative comments from the current administration .


8. Agreed.

Dirty politics: Frankly, I don't see the calls for Romney's tax returns or questioning his business strategies or employment (that retroactive retirement is pretty shady, even though it didn't have to be if he had just told MA the truth in the first place) that dirty. Not yet, at least. He's running on his business record, and those are all fair game for that. He should just own it instead of playing to whatever he thinks the people he's talking to want to hear. He's clearly a very good businessman, but I don't see him making the case that his way of doing business will be good for a nation, just for a few.


-- Agree somewhat. However businesses being successful leads to hiring the unemployed, more payroll taxes being paid to shore up deficits, more tax dollars to pay down debt.

Obama should talk about what has worked and hasn't worked. He's hiding behind Romney right now, but that will likely change once we get passed this phase of the election cycle. Presidential campaigns last so long these days that both sides have to fill up 24-hour cable news with something or be irrelevant. It's terrible, awful, and immoral, but that's how the system works. (We need serious campaign reform, more than just on the financing issue.)

-- Agree 100%.

Your definition of insanity doesn't hold water. It's an old cliché. However, I agree with it. The last four years haven't gone well. But we can't just look to the U.S. for causes. It's a globalized economy. Anything the U.S. has done to gain ground in the last two years has been undercut by the Eurozone and the slowing of China's development. Our recovery wouldn't have been strong without those things, but it wouldn't have been this weak. We should be thankful that we aren't suffering more, especially given how deep the hole was that we dug.

-- My expectations where not for a quick recovery. However their is no proof that what we did had any positive impact on the economy. Again just spin to justify the excessive spending over the last 8 years for that matter. Yes both administrations. The real problem is we have no long term plan and I'm not sure either party has an interest in developing one.

Brad

"Why do capital gains get preference? Because super rich people have bought off the government."

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Ryan

Let's make sure we clarify that the super rich have bought off both the Rep and Dems. Well known fact that the dems do not want to change the capital gain rate. They had a chance in 2008 and 2009, but did nothing. They have been a big supporter of protecting the special treatment for private equity firms (ie carried interest is treated as capital gain instead of ordinary income). And let's not forgot that many of our congressmen benefit from the lower tax.

And yes it needs to change.

Brad

Edited by wufpackfn on 08/13/2012 13:34:20 MDT.

Everyone conveniently forgets that the Dems had majority control of the House and Senate for 4 years, and didn't act on any grand plans (including the last 2 Bush years). I'm going to vote for whoever I decide will bring the most jobs, union or not. Although it has been wonderful having transparency in the White House (insert sarcastic font here). I wil agree with a previous poster that it is all about money and power, regardless of party. And I agree with that more after have a US Representative for a father-in-law.

My favorite current quote is from Thomas Sowell - "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned, but not greed to want to take someone else's money".

"Top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes. Bottom 50% of earners pay 2%. Almost half pay no taxes. So you want to add more to the top 10%. Doesn't really seem fair to me. I think we have a serious problem when you don't have everyone paying some taxes. If everyone feels the pain each time you increase taxes I think everyone would become vested in how we spend tax revenues."

I would like to point out that these statistics are a bit misleading without context. Most Americans feel tax hikes in one form or another - perhaps not on their income taxes but certainly at the sales register, gas pump or when paying the property bill.

As recently as 2007, 38 percent of the population didn't pay federal income tax. That number has increased in recent years - mainly because of the severe recession - to approximately 48 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But a lack of federal tax bill isn't the equivalent of not paying taxes. Just as any business owner would tell you that federal taxes are not the lone taxes they pay, wage earners pay payroll taxes. They are also likely to be subject to excise taxes, local taxes and sales tax. According to the Tax Policy Center determined that only 17 percent of all households did not pay any payroll or federal tax in 2009 - and this includes retirees and those unable to work because of medical conditions

Additionally, when you look at the lowest earning one-fifth of the population, they did pay an average of 4.0 percent (in 2007 when the latest CBO numbers were available)in federal taxes. When you are talking about an $18,000 income, 4.0 percent is fairly significant. It still is a low percentage as compared to many others - and c certainly a minuscule percentage of federal tax revues - but they are also in the category that have the least income to spend.

That the largest earners pay the majority of taxes collected speaks more to the disparity in incomes than it does to any disadvantage to being wealthy. Yes, top earners pay the most dollars in taxes, but it is because they far out-earn the average breadwinner. A high-income earner who makes $25 million a year will contribute far more in terms of dollars than a family making $40,000.

Which gets us to the tax exposure. The highest income federal tax bracket is currently 35 percent. However, the wealthiest individuals generally earn about a third of their income through long-term capital gains, which are taxed at a 15 percent rate (as they are for anyone in the 25 percent and above income brackets, I believe). This helps lower the tax exposure of the wealthiest individuals, for they are far more likely to make repeated use of capital gains than your average individual.

I could go on, but I think what I am trying to support is that any discussion regarding tax burden requires context and explanation. This is partially by design - our tax system is complex.


Dirk

Yes - super rich have bought off both Rs amd Ds

I don't even fault the politicians totally - if a politician doesn't get money, he won't get elected so won't be able to accomplish anything

We need an outrage from the people that we won't put up with this any more which will allow brave politicans to do something about it. I only half agree with the Paul family but they don't seem to be totally bought, but I'm not sure.


We haven't put enough money into public employee pension funds. Unreasonable investment returns were assumed. We have to renegotiate these. Reduce payments by 25% or whatever. Public employees can't complain because when they negotiated this they should have know the pensions were unreasonable. If you present the facts to the employees, I think they will agree.


Inflating medical expenses are screwing up everything - local and state governments, veterans, medicare, medicaid, private companies,... We spend more than other countries but get less results. It keeps getting worse. We need to quit doing ineffective treatments and do effective ones. The pharmacutical/health insurance/health care/... companies have bought off our government so it's difficult to find a solution. For example, when the Clintons tried to implement healthcare reform the health insurance companies ran commercials that influenced people so that it killed it.


We have exported many jobs to China and other countries. Now we can't reduce our unemployment rate. Duhhhh... Neither Rs and Ds are talking much about this. I think the Ds are talking about "Buy American" a little more than the Rs which is a step in the right direction. Obama has supported more "free trade" deals.


We have many problems. But China, for example, has many more, even though they seem to be doing better now. They have 1 billion+ poor people.


I say we all get "mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!". Rs and Ds - take control of your parties. Third parties won't work because the Rs and Ds have rigged the system. The teaparty has been taken over by the super-rich that finance it. All the "tea party" Rs just vote as they're told by the super-rich.


Sorry - off soap box now...

Dirk,

Good post and you are definitely right with the different taxes and complexity. Heck I'm a CPA, but pay a Big 4 accounting firm to prepare our company taxes. I would rather have a poke in the eye than do a tax return

My point is we need a single tax that everyone pays. Sure we need provisions to help the poor, but everyone needs some skin in the game. I think that when politicians ask for more revenue to spend, that all taxpayers should have to say yes I agree and support. Today we have a system where we reward and penalize different groups based on political power.

I know it's a fantasy. Back to reality.

Brad

Jerry,

That was a great post. I'll gladly get mad with you.

I think China/India etc job offshoring is for a few reasons:
1. Labor is cheaper and improves company performance. However quality is becoming more of an issue and some is coming back to the US.
2. Consumers are a big problem. If everyone continues to buy foreign made at Walmart, Target, etc companies have no choice but to get cheaper or go out of business.
3. We are a global market and often times it makes more sense to manufacturer the goods closer to the customer.

Really good comments.

Brad