Butch Femme Planet - Obama and the tax cut issue

Butch Femme Planet (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/index.php)

- Politics And Law (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=105)

- - Obama and the tax cut issue (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2480)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow (Post 392154)

Kobi,

I understand that the other countries, including mine (Canada), provide universal health care and equitable education and a host of other services that the USA -- all of which is possible through our higher tax rates.

However, the frustration I feel with your country is that these services/rights will NEVER come to fruition b/c citizens already complain about the relatively low taxes that you do pay. Also, the wealthy/and corporations are certainly not paying their fair share (as the article points out) and the burden, therefore, is felt largely by those making under 200 000.

Our tax rates DO afford us a lifestyle that most of us would not give up for a lower tax base. Largely, we understand that taxes are needed to afford to NEVEr care about a hospital bill/surgery, have equal funding for education, and our regulations helped us avoid a collapsed economy. However, the way that Canada and other countries operate is decried as (dirty!) socialism and, therefore, somehow antithetical to certain American *values*.

What was striking to me is how do people think an increase in services (including military spending) can be managed without increasing taxes? Something Reagan even did (who is lauded by The Teabaggers) too offset the federal deficit (he also raised them in the state of Calif. when he was gov. (largest tax hike that state had seen since then).

The USA will never have the standard of living as other industrial countries b/c people seem unwilling to admit that services must be paid by the people of that country and that includes proper taxation.

The USA has the lowest tax rate now since pre-1965 and spending has increased dramatically. Yet, tax hikes (on corporations and the wealthy esp!) is denounced by the GOP. (when they spent more in the last eight years before Obama)

*off for a massage...need it now after reading the article again! ;)

How Soon,

I actually agree with you.

From my perspective, we Americans have a very strange relationship with our values and our economics and our political system. And we have wonkie ideas about accounting too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The cute widdle wesbian (Post 392093)

Here's something else little to think about. I'm a well-earning person, I have a pretty big paycheck, so to speak. But I'm working class, just like the whole of my family. Our hard-earned money is being taken away from us in order to pay (in a lot of cases) people who simply don't want to work. I understand that there are people on wellfare who honestly can't work and need help. I'm all about helping the poor and people in need, but don't deny that there are plenty of people out there who gladly take mine and your tax dollars to sit on the couch and smoke weed all day. I'm in tough times to, why the hell do I want to pay for them? The way my mind works, I have to think of myself and my family first. But here's the other side of that: There are rich people who, like someone else said, barely pay a fraction of us working class people's taxes because they can. So the government wants to take a bit of money from the people earning 1 million bucks a year to help the starved. I could easily live off of 75 hundred bucks a year, trust me. We're in a tough spot. My only question is, why in hell are we arguing? Why are we making such a big deal out of the right and the left? Right now no one has jobs, no one has money, many don't even have food to put in their children's mouths. Why are we worried about the rich or the poor in particular, why aren't we worried about the honorary citizens of this country. We need to balance each other out.

See, I can't live on $7,500 a year. Keeping a roof over my head--no food, no clothing, no utilities, just the roof over my head--runs me around $14,000 a year. My utilities run another 6K a year, or so only one of those (the cable TV) is optional. Fuel for my car runs me about ~$2400 a year if ALL I do is drive to and from work and shopping trips.

The reason we are making a big deal out of the right and left is that these are meaningful distinctions. Having a right-leaning government or a left-leaning government makes a world of difference! It's the difference between public schools and libraries (favored by left-leaning government) or a gutted public education system and no public libraries (favored by right-leaning government).

Quote:

How about dumping all that money into all those countries who've never done a damn thing to help us?

What is a better return on investment, one-half of 1% of our GDP going to foreign aid or a several hundred billions of dollars to clean up after a terrorist attack? I'm going to argue that the former is a better investment. Btw. of the G-8, we spend the least amount on foreign aid. Japan, which has a population only slightly larger than the state of California, spends every year what we spend in five in foreign aid. Japan. Which has ten percent of the population of the United States.

Quote:

Again, I may sound terribly unamerican when I say this, but we need to think of ourselves and ours first. Feed your people, not theirs. When we can aford to dump billions of bucks into the sea, let's do it. But we need to quit the spending as well as quit the rich people money hogging. So the democrats want to dump all the money at the poor, and the republicans want to dump it at the rich (basically speaking). So what goes to us?

The Democratic party is trying to preserve the middle class, the Republican party is trying to dismantle the middle class. What's more, modern American conservatives are not conservative. The more I read conservative thinkers (not Limbaugh et. al. but real thinkers like Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, etc.) the more I realize that *I* am a conservative and that what passes as conservative is actually more along the line of libertarian-theocratic. The Democratic party are the real conservatives in American politics. The Republican party is the party of right-wing radicals.

Cheers
Aj

At this point, I am much more unsettled with how the US Congress is behaving than what upsets me about Obama (although, most likely I will support his re-election- just have to see who the GOP candidate ends up being). I'm registered as "decline to state," which in California, is "Independent."

Frankly, I was amazed that the GOP didn't want to even consider the initial debt-ceiling proposal that Obama said he was willing to support ($3 of cuts to every $1 of revenue via reform of tax loopholes). Although, I support social programs and the health care reform bill, we do need to pay down our debt. At this point, who and how we ended up with it, doesn't matter to me. Both major parties contributed to the mess the US is in.

There are some things that I bet I would be called conservative about- others, liberal or even progressive. Sometimes I feel like as I age, I am just more of a political moderate. Don't know. It pissed me off that Obama did not support the Simpson-Bowles comission findings last year. The fact is, some cuts in entitlement programs do have to be made- and can be without direct hits to beneficiaries. I support "means-testing" for example. There are many, many very, very wealthy retirees that do not need the level of benefits they now receive.

I was angry when Obama allowed the Bush tax credits to be extended and I don't want this to happen again. Yet, reform of the tax code (big time reform) is needed.

My main frustration right now is how much power a fringe group (the Tea Party) weilded during the debt-ceiling debate and Obama caving in on revenue. My guess is that he realized that the House TP members really are ignorant about what the extent a default would have caused. Yet, I think he should have invoked the 14th Amendment although we all know that he would have faced a legal fiasco and calls for impeachment via the GOP. BUT- the numbers to actually pull impeachment off are not there and I think his doing so would have gone a long way in establishing his leadership qualities during a crisis. Hell, he already is vulnerable in terms of re-election.

Honestly, I believe the GOP (the whole party) just wants our economy to tank more- even to the point of an actual depression so that a Republican is elected in 2012. This is what bothers me the most. This is just plain sick and evil because this is not just about Obama failing- it is about millions of us losing everything.

The only way I see as a way for real change in the US political system that can bring what is good and fair in democracy is public funding (only) of elections- federal, state, local- every election held in the US. Now, the chances of this happening anytime soon is pretty damn slim! The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision cemented the class divisions that decide who will hold office in the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLastHome (Post 392209)

Honestly, I believe the GOP (the whole party) just wants our economy to tank more- even to the point of an actual depression so that a Republican is elected in 2012. This is what bothers me the most. This is just plain sick and evil because this is not just about Obama failing- it is about millions of us losing everything.

I am a big believer in taking people at their word. If someone says, for instance, that they believe that we should lock up criminals and not worry overly much about legal niceties such as trial by jury (as a poster here suggested back in June) that what they *mean* is what they said. Well, the Republican party is on record as saying they want Obama to fail. Keep in mind that one of the chief ideologues of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, flat out said that his goal was to make certain that Obama's presidency failed. Let's presume he meant that. Let us also presume that all of those GOP elected officials who parroted Limbaugh meant it. Now, view their behavior through the lens of their words. They are trying to make certain that he cannot govern! If that means tanking the economy, so be it.

What better way to win the next election than to make certain that the economy is in the tank?

Quite honestly, this reminds me a lot--a LOT--of end-stage Weimar Germany. At the end-game, the right-wing in Germany (the Nazis, the Conservatives and the Junkers) simply made the Reichstag non-functional. The idea was to make the nation unstable so that the German people would vote for anyone who would bring about stability. Doesn't that sound familiar?

Cheers
Aj

Yep AJ; Then hardcore nationalism and then complete industrialization for the purpose of war...I don't think it will be as bad as Germany, but the focus will be more on waging war.

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrn...rticle=8909602

and

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrn...rticle=8914378

Very interesting pieces about how Obama fucked over the Republicans with the Debt Ceiling Bill that he negotiated and signed.....it seems the Tea Party crazy fucks lost big time in this deal.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toughy (Post 392304)

I think everyone lost big time in this deal. It's a shit sandwich if you ask me. This bill is going to slow the economic recovery and result in even higher unemployment.

Did you read the articles?

I don't really think it will truly affect the economy all that much....good or bad.

Congress now MUST deal with jobs. We need another much bigger stimulus to continue re-building the infrastructure of this country. I'm thinking Tennessee Valley Authority or Hoover Dam or all the Army Corps of Engineer projects kind of things. It will create tens of thousands jobs and the economy will take off again.

We also need to create new revenue besides the Bush tax cuts which sunset out at the end of 2012. Close the checkbook on corporate welfare, raise taxes on those making more than a million bucks a year. Leave the frigging middle and working class alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toughy (Post 392418)

The roads and bridges could use an overhaul, some of them are a hundred years old, and older. Wonders on the lifespan of a steel bridge in humidity.(sarcasm) Yea we need to put people back to work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corkey (Post 392427)

The roads and bridges could use an overhaul, some of them are a hundred years old, and older. Wonders on the lifespan of a steel bridge in humidity.(sarcasm) Yea we need to put people back to work.

Some major work on the infrastructure would be good all the way around...creates jobs, enhances safety, speeds transit....and how about upgrading some schools and libraries and rural hospitals while we're at it? These are things that I would support my tax dollars going for...and would do a lot of good for all of us for years to come.

I need a new car. Can we do another cash for clunkers thing?

Oh I agree but make it based on rust factor instead of mpg..

Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa (Post 392292)

Yep AJ; Then hardcore nationalism and then complete industrialization for the purpose of war...I don't think it will be as bad as Germany, but the focus will be more on waging war.

Hmmmm...see, my reading of Germany is that the focus was on waging war. This might just be an artifact of the material I've read focusing on how the entire German economy and culture was pointed toward war but it seems to me that from January 1933 onward the entire nation was gearing up for war in Europe. I think what will be different is that Germany under National Socialism was far less theocratic than what I think is barreling towards us. My concern is that we are just this side of a theocratic takeover. Now, this theocracy won't look like Saudi Arabia but rather more a mash-up of Iran after the Islamic revolution and John Calvin's Geneva with a little of late-19th century Utah (Under Brigham Young) thrown in for good measure.

Cheers
Aj

As sad as this may sound I am so happy to be going to work Canada right now, I am so tired of worrying about what the government will or will not do with our future, I understand I am still affected but being away from all of it sure is a nice break.

Standard and Poor's downgraded the US credit rating

This from Bloomberg News website:

Quote:

The U.S. had its AAA credit rating downgraded for the first time by Standard & Poor’s on concern spending cuts agreed on by lawmakers to raise the nation’s borrowing limit won’t be enough to reduce record deficits.
S&P dropped the ranking one level to AA+, after warning on July 14 that it would reduce the rating in the absence of a “credible” plan to lower deficits even if the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit was lifted. The U.S. was awarded the top credit ranking by New York-based S&P in 1941. It kept the outlook at “negative.”
‘The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics,” S&P said in a statement today.
Demand for Treasuries has surged even with the specter of a downgrade as investors saw few alternatives to the traditional refuge during times of risk as concern increased global growth is slowing and Europe’s sovereign debt crisis is spreading. The action could still hurt the U.S. economy over time by increasing the cost of mortgages, auto loans and other types of lending tied to the interest rates paid on Treasuries. JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated that a downgrade would raise the nation’s borrowing costs by $100 billion a year.
Moody’s, Fitch
“It’s a reflection of the fact that we haven’t done enough to get our fiscal house in the order,” Anthony Valeri, market strategist in San Diego at LPL Financial, which oversees $340 billion, said in an interview before the downgrade. “Sovereign credit quality is going to remain under pressure for years to come.”
Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings affirmed their AAA credit ratings on Aug. 2, the day President Barack Obama signed a bill that ended the debt-ceiling impasse that pushed the Treasury to the edge of default. Moody’s and Fitch also said that downgrades were possible if lawmakers fail to enact debt reduction measures and the economy weakens.
The measure raised the nation’s debt ceiling until 2013 and threatens automatic spending cuts to enforce $2.4 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years.
S&P put the U.S. government on notice on April 18 that it risks losing its AAA rating unless lawmakers agree on a plan by 2013 to reduce budget deficits and the national debt. S&P indicated last month that anything less than $4 trillion in cuts would jeopardize the rating.
‘Grand Bargain’
“A grand bargain of that nature would signal the seriousness of policy makers to address the fiscal situation in the U.S.,” John Chambers, chairman of S&P’s sovereign rating committee, said in a video interview distributed by the ratings firm on July 28.
Obama has said a rating cut may hurt the broader economy by increasing consumer borrowing costs tied to Treasury rates. An increase in Treasury yields of 50 basis points would reduce U.S. economic growth by about 0.4 percentage points, JPMorgan said in a report, citing Federal Reserve research and data.
“The hope is that we could keep Treasuries pure, limited to interest rate risk,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive and co-chief investment officer at Pacific Investment Management Co., said in a Bloomberg Television interview before the announcement. “The minute you start downgrading away from AAA, you take small steps toward credit risk and that is something any country would like to avoid.”
Relative Yields
Treasury yields average about 0.70 percentage point less than the rest of the world’s sovereign debt markets, Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes show. The difference has expanded from 0.15 percentage point in January.
Investors from China to the U.K. are lending money to the U.S. government for a decade at the lowest rates of the year. For many of them, there are few alternatives outside the U.S., no matter what its credit rating.
“Yields are low in the face of a downgrade because there is nowhere else for people to go if they don’t buy Treasuries because they want to be in safe dollar assets,” Carl Lantz, head of interest-rate strategy at Credit Suisse Group AG, one of 20 primary dealers that trade directly with the Federal Reserve, said before the announcement.
Ten-year Treasury yields fell to as low as 2.33 percent in New York, the least since October.
Bond Dealers
The committee of bond dealers and investors that advises the U.S. Treasury said the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency “appears to be slipping” in quarterly feedback presented to the government on Aug. 3. The U.S. currency’s portion of global currency reserves dropped to 60.7 percent in the period ended March 31, from a peak of 72.7 percent in 2001, International Monetary Fund data show.
“The idea of a reserve currency is that it is built on strength, not typically that it is ‘best among poor choices’,” page 35 of the presentation made by one member of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from firms ranging from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to Pimco. “The fact that there are not currently viable alternatives to the U.S. dollar is a hollow victory and perhaps portends a deteriorating fate.”
Members of the TBAC, as the committee is known, which met Aug. 2 in Washington, also discussed the implications of a downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating. “None of the members thought that a downgrade was imminent,” according to minutes of the meeting released by the Treasury.
A U.S. credit-rating cut would likely raise the nation’s borrowing costs by increasing Treasury yields by 60 basis points to 70 basis points over the “medium term,” JPMorgan’s Terry Belton said on a July 26 conference call hosted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. The U.S. spent $414 billion on interest expense in fiscal 2010, or 2.7 percent of gross domestic product, according to Treasury Department data.
“That impact on Treasury rates is significant,” Belton, global head of fixed-income strategy at JPMorgan, said during the call. “That $100 billion a year is money being used for higher interest rates and that’s money being taken away from other goods and services.”
To contact the reporter on this story: John Detrixhe in New York at jdetrixhe1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dave Liedtka at dliedtka@bloomberg.net

As I said before, the bill is a shit sandwich. I can't believe our government created such a clusterfuck.

Interesting article atomic. Thanks for sharing it.

To me, it points out so many flaws in how we have and are disregarding basic accounting principles and defying basic market logistics yet somehow the mess still functions. It astounds me. It also makes me wonder what dastardly deeds are keeping this titantic afloat and when the right iceberg will come along to seal its fate.

On the brighter side, mortgage rates dropped again. Am pleased to have locked in a nifty low rate for my refinancing today.

And, I always thank those who came before me who taught some very valuable lessons:

1. always pay yourself first - i.e. savings before bills, bills before play
2. always keep a stash of actual cash in a safety deposit box
3. at all times, live within your means
4. credit cards are for emergencies only
5. never fully trust bankers, politicians, or lawyers

According to the Maddow show, the Administration is pushing back hard against S&P claiming their figures are off by trillions of dollars. In other words a math error. So the very people that we gave trillions of dollars to for a bail out and who created the problem, are now saying that we don't pay our bills.
There is a total lack of trust for any of the financial marketeers who received any monies in the TARP.

S & P is the only rating agency of the 3 that downgraded the US.

just remember all this come Nov 2012 and vote for Obama and give him a majority in the House and 60 Senators so we can get on with the business of the people and restoring the economy.

If we taxed Exxon and the top one or two percent of the wealthy at normal rates for a developed nation, our deficit would disappear. We don't need to cut anything. We are still a phenomenally wealthy nation. Our gdp is one fourth of the entire wealth generated on the planet. We have the money. We don't have the will to demand that the richest pay their share.

A flat tax is regressive, so i have never supported it. But damn, now it would be a good thing. It would solve this problem in about a second.

This is not a REAL problem. We are not out of money. We are not poor. The question is how badly are we going to damage our country and the global economy before we face the inevitable.

Just like the last time the government gave a tax holiday, business ran out of the country, they are talking about a tax on business of 5%. That in and of itself will have business run in, take the tax, and run right back out taking jobs and money with them to offshore. It didn't work the first time, and we are still paying for that in lost jobs, and it won't work again, but bless their pea picken' hearts the GOP tea traitors are trying to do it again.