News Obama's Speech: Dysfunctional Three Ring Circus

[dlgoff]

Unfortunately.

You know what I do when I hear this crap? Head for the fridge for another beer.

I had a slight hangover this morning.

I think I'm going to block the Fox News channel as it's costing me plenty to finance my beer drinking. Don't they ever quite complaining /bashing? I want the news not their BS.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Cheers for clearing that up someone everyone

 

[Astronuc]

Start from the bottom and cut.
http://www.federalbudget.com/

It is not enough to reduce the deficit. The deficit must be eliminated, and the debt reduced.


This doesn't help either - http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

 

[BobG]

Potentially dangerous question but what is the rational behind tax breaks for the rich in the US? I can't figure it out at all

The rationale behind tax breaks is to encourage money to be invested into something that benefits the nation. For example, you want cleaner energy, so give tax breaks to those that invest in clean energy technology. Or you give tax breaks for sending yourself or your kids through college, since a college education should increase the quality of the nation's workforce.

In practice, Congressmen sell tax breaks for votes. They vote in tax breaks that will help the industries in their local area, which raises employment, makes the area more prosperous, etc. So if you're a Congressman from a district that has coal mines, you try to convince the rest of the nation's Congressmen to give tax breaks to people that invest in coal powered plants.

So, regardless of the intended rationale, the tax breaks can often go off on tangents and serve no purpose other than to increase the chances of re-election of a few key Congressmen with enough seniority and power to wind up on key committees.

Or, tax breaks can go to people that can offer the most help in re-electing the Congressman, which would be people willing to donate large amounts of money to election campaigns, or at least to political action committees since there's limits to how much money a person can donate to a single candidate.

Or, as WhooWee mentioned, rich people are taxed so much that Joe Six Pack feels sorry for their misery and will only vote for Congressmen that will make a life a little more bearable for the nation's suffering rich. And when people earning 87% of the nation's income have to pay 97% of the nation's taxes, then they're definitely suffering.

That's at least a partly facetious answer. While I couldn't care less about people earning several hundred thousand dollars a year, you don't actually have to earn all that much before you're paying enough taxes per year that you could buy a new car with that amount of money. But I, like every other American, am not rich. Rich people make more than I do, lazy people make less than I do, while I'm just one of those poor, but honest folk that work hard for a living only to see the government take huge chunks of my hard earned money.

 

[WhoWee]

The rationale behind tax breaks is to encourage money to be invested into something that benefits the nation. For example, you want cleaner energy, so give tax breaks to those that invest in clean energy technology. Or you give tax breaks for sending yourself or your kids through college, since a college education should increase the quality of the nation's workforce.

In practice, Congressmen sell tax breaks for votes. They vote in tax breaks that will help the industries in their local area, which raises employment, makes the area more prosperous, etc. So if you're a Congressman from a district that has coal mines, you try to convince the rest of the nation's Congressmen to give tax breaks to people that invest in coal powered plants.

So, regardless of the intended rationale, the tax breaks can often go off on tangents and serve no purpose other than to increase the chances of re-election of a few key Congressmen with enough seniority and power to wind up on key committees.

Or, tax breaks can go to people that can offer the most help in re-electing the Congressman, which would be people willing to donate large amounts of money to election campaigns, or at least to political action committees since there's limits to how much money a person can donate to a single candidate.

Or, as WhooWee mentioned, rich people are taxed so much that Joe Six Pack feels sorry for their misery and will only vote for Congressmen that will make a life a little more bearable for the nation's suffering rich. And when people earning 87% of the nation's income have to pay 97% of the nation's taxes, then they're definitely suffering.

That's at least a partly facetious answer. While I couldn't care less about people earning several hundred thousand dollars a year, you don't actually have to earn all that much before you're paying enough taxes per year that you could buy a new car with that amount of money. But I, like every other American, am not rich. Rich people make more than I do, lazy people make less than I do, while I'm just one of those poor, but honest folk that work hard for a living only to see the government take huge chunks of my hard earned money.

nice.

The truth of the matter is that if you don't have any money to spend - you won't be able to take advantage of tax incentives for spending. To compensate for the "unfairness?" of this - politicians started tinking up things like EITC to redistribute tax revenues to people who don't pay federal income taxes.

I chuckle to myself every time I hear someone ignorant of business expenses and tax codes say something approximating - "they just write it off" - as if the company didn't have to actually pay the bill first and the great privilege is something more than not paying tax on their expense - that is the "write-off" is actually nothing more than the accounting for the expense for tax purposes. In order to "write-off" an expense - you need to pay for the item - being allowed to account for an expense is certainly not a windfall.

 

[mheslep]

Start from the bottom and cut.
http://www.federalbudget.com/

It is not enough to reduce the deficit. The deficit must be eliminated, and the debt reduced.This doesn't help either - http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

Ok, why not give it a go in your field. NRC budget for 2012 is ~$1B. How much would you cut it? For my part I'd begin by zeroing out NRC Chairman Jaczko's salary.

BTW, with regards to budget talks on the table so far, it has been mentioned in this thread that there would be such and such a cut to the debt. The cuts mentioned are actually to spending; none of them are anywhere close to being sufficient to reduce the debt.

 

[Char. Limit]

This won't change much budget-wise, but a nice symbolic gesture would be for every Congressman and Congresswoman (and the Prez) to forgo their salary this year.

Ah, who am I kidding? That would never happen.

 

[WhoWee]

This won't change much budget-wise, but a nice symbolic gesture would be for every Congressman and Congresswoman (and the Prez) to forgo their salary this year.

Ah, who am I kidding? That would never happen.

Welcome back - new laptop?

 

[Char. Limit]

Welcome back - new laptop?

Thanks! Actually, it's my iPod. Turns out my Internet still works on this thing after all... so I decided to throw myself into P&WA again.

 

[Evo]

What about celebrities? They're filthy rich, do nothing, unless you consider lip synching, reality tv, and standing before a camera doing something for the public good. Yet their tax accountants find them tax shelters & loopholes to protect their money.

 

[drankin]

What about celebrities? They're filthy rich, do nothing, unless you consider lip synching, reality tv, and standing before a camera doing something for the public good. Yet their tax accountants find them tax shelters & loopholes to protect their money.

Can you provide an example?

 

[Evo]

Can you provide an example?

Celebrity royalties flow into Dutch tax shelters - Business - International Herald Tribune

The rock powerhouse U2 has transferred lucrative assets to Amsterdam, as have other pop singers and well-known athletes, all of whom have used or continue to take advantage of the Netherlands' tax shelters, according to a Dutch tax lawyer who requested anonymity because of client confidentiality agreements.

Entertainment companies and others that benefit handsomely from Dutch shelters include EMI, the record label, and CKX, the entertainment company that owns stakes in "American Idol," the Elvis Presley estate

continued...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-taxhaven.4461776.html

 

[WhoWee]

What about celebrities? They're filthy rich, do nothing, unless you consider lip synching, reality tv, and standing before a camera doing something for the public good. Yet their tax accountants find them tax shelters & loopholes to protect their money.

Aren't the celebrities in CA the only ones propping up inflated real estate prices, keeping the doors open on Rodeo, as well as the big restaurants? My guess is their agents, attorneys, accountants, and managers take a healthy share pre-tax as well.

 

[Evo]

Aren't the celebrities in CA the only ones propping up inflated real estate prices, keeping the doors open on Rodeo, as well as the big restaurants? My guess is their agents, attorneys, accountants, and managers take a healthy share pre-tax as well.

I don't know that celebrities are mainly in CA, they're all over the country, athletes, reality tv stars, music stars, etc... we're not talking Hollywood of the 30's-40's.

 

[WhoWee]

continued...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-taxhaven.4461776.html

Opps - you're talking about U2 and the Stones. They are global citizens - unrestricted by the rules of anyone country. Wasn't the top tax rate 90% in the UK in the late 1960's - just before the "British Invasion"?

 

[Evo]

Opps - you're talking about U2 and the Stones. They are global citizens - unrestricted by the rules of anyone country. Wasn't the top tax rate 90% in the UK in the late 1960's - just before the "British Invasion"?

No, those are just 2 rock groups mentioned. Read about the American celebrities.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know that celebrities are mainly in CA, they're all over the country, athletes, reality tv stars, music stars, etc... we're not talking Hollywood of the 30's-40's.

Still, I don't think they keep as much as they'd like us to believe and as a group - they spend.

 

[daveb]

Ok, why not give it a go in your field. NRC budget for 2012 is ~$1B. How much would you cut it? For my part I'd begin by zeroing out NRC Chairman Jaczko's salary.

Oddly. most of the NRC's budget is recovered through licensing fees.http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/plans-performance.html"

 

[Evo]

Still, I don't think they keep as much as they'd like us to believe and as a group - they spend.

Here are some that messed up with bogus tax shelters or just refused to pay taxes at all and owe millions to the IRS.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/14/hollywood-uncle-sam-taxes/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Once again, our good Senator Merkley's [D] office is the first to respond in specific terms.

Thank you for contacting me with your support for raising our nation's debt limit in a responsible manner. Like many Oregonians, I also believe that Congress must immediately act to raise our nation's debt limit to avoid throwing our economy back into a recession.

I have been deeply frustrated by some proposals which would raise our nation's debt limit only after requiring draconian cuts to domestic spending, which could result in hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and dismantling programs like Medicare. Without a doubt, bringing our nation's annual deficits down is a priority. But we must do so in a balanced way that does not cost jobs now or damage our long-term economic competitiveness. Most importantly, Members of Congress should not be holding our nation's economy hostage by threatening to allow a default on obligations which we have already made.

Congress needs to act in a fiscally responsible manner when making policy decisions. Yet, it is important to recognize that our recent annual deficits are largely the result of massive tax cuts on the wealthiest among us, the cost of two long wars, and a new Medicare drug benefit, none of which was paid for. While our spending on non-defense programs is at the same level it was in 2001, defense spending has risen 74 percent, and spending on mandatory programs like unemployment insurance is up more than 30 percent due to the financial crisis and recession. At the same time, our revenue, reflected as a percentage of gross domestic product (the nation's total economic output), is at its lowest level since 1950, again as a result of the financial crisis and recession, as well as the Bush tax cuts. It is simply irresponsible for some in Congress to push for cuts in basic programs that middle class families and retirees rely on to educate our kids, protect our air and water, and provide a safety net for those in need – while continuing to hold special interest tax loopholes and tax cuts which benefit the very wealthy and well-connected off limits as a part of the deficit debate.

As the Senate continues to debate and work through budget issues, I will certainly take your views into consideration. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and please keep in touch.

All my best,

Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator

 

[WhoWee]

Once again, our good Senator Merkley's [D] office is the first to respond in specific terms.

Did he vote to extend the tax cuts (that were Bush's until they became Obama's and now they're Bush's again)?

 

[turbo]

Still, I don't think they keep as much as they'd like us to believe and as a group - they spend.

Entertainers are often taken advantage of by crooks, too. Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgewick were scammed by Bernie Madoff. Being famous doesn't equate to being sophisticated in finance.

 

[WhoWee]

Here are some that messed up with bogus tax shelters or just refused to pay taxes at all and owe millions to the IRS.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/14/hollywood-uncle-sam-taxes/

I wonder if any of these people in trouble for taxes have financially supported President Obama and the Dems - or have appeared on talk shows supporting the President and Dems or against the Tea Party?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did he vote to extend the tax cuts (that were Bush's until they became Obama's and now they're Bush's again)?

He was first elected to the Senate in 2008. He replaced Senator Smith [R], who I had always supported but abandoned in 2008 due to one vote [don't remember what it was now, but he was supporting Bush in something I couldn't tolerate].

 

[Evo]

I wonder if any of these people in trouble for taxes have financially supported President Obama and the Dems - or have appeared on talk shows supporting the President and Dems or against the Tea Party?

Why on Earth would that matter? Please do explain what your reasoning is. Are you insinuating that they were audited by the Republicans because they contributed to democratic political campaigns?

 

[mheslep]

Does anyone here actually believe "our spending on non-defense programs is at the same level it was in 2001"?

Does anyone here actually believe that most of the Bush tax cuts went "to wealthiest among us"?

 

[Evo]

Does anyone here actually believe that most of the Bush tax cuts went "to wealthiest among us"?

Apparently a study was done and it's true.

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

 

[talk2glenn]

Apparently a study was done and it's true.

Said what was true? That effective rates paid by the top 20% went down, or that they went down more than for the of the population?

The first sentence is true; the second is not. After passage of the so-called Bush tax cuts, the share of all federal income taxes paid by the top 20% of the population increased from 82% to 85% in 2004, while the share paid by the bottom 50% fell to basically zero.

Ergo, quite clearly, the benefit of the change in tax policy disproportionately benefited lower-income earners relative to higher earners. Whatever happened to rates, the tax incidence was shifted upward.

One must approach with great caution the claims forwarded by the Times in that article. One has to admire their tact - it is quite possible that their statements are true; effective tax rates paid by top earners could have fallen more than rates paid by lower earners. This does not mean that the cuts favored the upper quintiles over the lower. To confirm the latter, all you have to do is look at the actual tax data published by the Treasury for '04, which I did for the analysis above. The Times conspicuously omits it.

 

[Proton Soup]

This.

Remember that this is the President whom renewed the tax cuts from 2003, but then now - for political reasons - wants congress to renig on part of them? This is entirely underhanded and gaming the system. Why wasn't the President and the leftist congress worried about how to pay for the increased spending when they were in control? What's different now that makes it OK to tax anyone more (let alone just the high earners)? You can take the boy out of Chicago...

It's also interesting that he's had 5(?) press conferences in 2 weeks regarding the debt-celing issues, but has given less in the previous several months - even with people asking about our country's position in Libya. Pure political gamesmanship - and I don't like it. President Obama is campaigning for 2012 early, that's for sure.

This game of hot potatoe with our country's financials needs to stop, but unfortunately I feel that any plan the President had supported just keeps the music playing.

ok, I've listened to it now.

oh yes, what a great speech. he starts off by telling us he's not going to bore us with details. yes, those pesky details, who wants anything as boring as an open government mr. president!?

and as for the rest of it... mostly a ramble attacking republicans and fearmongering the seniors with promises that their checks won't arrive. lots of talk of "default", but no talk at all of actually suspending debt payments. nope, as usually, he's a banker's president. lots of talk about taxing the rich, but where pray tell have you heard anyone suggest we go after rich democrats and their trust funds? can we get an amen for going after some of the wealth accumulated by the leisure class?

this is good old fashioned politics. and of course, it's obvious to me that what this is really about is the 2012 presidential election. it's not being treated like a dire emergency by anyone. no creative thinking is being applied, nothing out of the box. just plain old business as usual.

i am disappoint.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Beyond the fact that the rich have by far benefitted the most, we are talking about percentages. In terms of real dollars, the amount a multi-millionaire saved on taxes is more than some poor or middle-class people make each year, tax cuts included. [though it seems the middle class actually saw their taxes go up in 2004].

When it comes to the uber-rich, the disparity is just plain obscene.

What is nothing but a percentage point to the rich may mean food for a year for a stuggling family, or a year's rent for a single mom. Percentages mask the magnitude of the disparity in terms of real dollars. What we should be considering is the pecentage of income needed to survive in the modern context. In real terms, tax breaks for the lower end of the spectrum barely amount to more than pocket change for the individual.

 

[WhoWee]

Why on Earth would that matter? Please do explain what your reasoning is. Are you insinuating that they were audited by the Republicans because they contributed to democratic political campaigns?

No, no, no - nothing like that. The pro-Obama mania that swept through Hollywood was quite potent and might have pulled some of these folks into a "tax the rich" frenzy - which I would find ironic.

 

[Evo]

Said what was true? That effective rates paid by the top 20% went down, or that they went down more than for the of the population?

Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

 

[WhoWee]

Beyond the fact that the rich have by far benefitted the most, we are talking about percentages. In terms of real dollars, the amount a millionaire saved on taxes is more than some poor or middle-class people make each year, tax cuts included. [though it seems the middle class actually saw their taxes go up in 2004].

When it comes to the uber-rich, the disparity is just plain obscene.

What is nothing but a percentage point to the rich may mean food for a year for a stuggling family, or a year's rent for a single mom. Percentages mask the magnitude of the disparity in terms of real dollars.

What kind of tax "loop holes" are we talking about - President Obama cited depreciation on corporate aircraft - basically taking 2 additional years to write off the cost. I posted in another thread regarding GE's involvement in corporate jet finance - yet they didn't pay any taxes on $Billions of income last year - he might have a point?

 

[WhoWee]

Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

And President Obama's tax cuts benefited 95% of taxpayers - unfortunately he reduced the cash flow to Social Security (a program under assault by politicians - they raid the excess funds to spend elsewhere) by roughly 12.5% to accomplish the task.

 

[talk2glenn]

Again, Evo, why cite obscure news articles from half a decade ago referencing obscure studies but providing no direct link to the study or its basis, when the data is published and available from the Treasury department directly? I can't tell you anything specific about the study referenced by that article, because it wasn't linked or cited in any way that I could find. I can tell you that its conclusions, however derived, are just plain wrong.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

The Bush tax cuts were passed in 2003, and went into effect in 2004. All data for the top 25% of income earners.

Total Income Tax Paid (2003): $627,380M
Total Income Tax Paid (2004): $705,915M

Average Tax Rate (2003): 15.38%
Average Tax Rate (2004): 15.53%

Total Income Tax Share (2003): 83.88%
Total Income Tax Share (2004): 84.86%

Do your own research, when available. One doesn't need to "study" things that are given. Income tax incidence is published annually by the federal government.

 

[russ_watters]

Beyond the fact that the rich have by far benefitted the most, we are talking about percentages. In terms of real dollars, the amount a multi-millionaire saved on taxes is more than some poor or middle-class people make each year, tax cuts included. [though it seems the middle class actually saw their taxes go up in 2004].

Hypothetically:

1. If there was ever a time you wanted to cut taxes, would you cut taxes only to those not in the top 5%?
2. If there was ever a time you wanted to raise taxes, would you raise taxes only for the top 5%?

When it comes to the uber-rich, the disparity is just plain obscene.

What is nothing but a percentage point to the rich may mean food for a year for a stuggling family, or a year's rent for a single mom. Percentages mask the magnitude of the disparity in terms of real dollars. What we should be considering is the pecentage of income needed to survive in the modern context. In real terms, tax breaks for the lower end of the spectrum barely amount to more than pocket change for the individual.

That's more an argument about income equality than it is about tax rates.

 

[WhoWee]

The cnn political reporter Gloria Borger - commenting on the President's speech - said it's not idealogues - she said for the 87 House members voted into office last fall - it is theology.

 

[Evo]

Again, Evo, why cite obscure news articles from half a decade ago referencing obscure studies but providing no direct link to the study or its basis, when the data is published and available from the Treasury department directly? I can't tell you anything specific about the study referenced by that article, because it wasn't linked or cited in any way that I could find. I can tell you that its conclusions, however derived, are just plain wrong.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

The Bush tax cuts were passed in 2003, and went into effect in 2004. All data for the top 25% of income earners.

Total Income Tax Paid (2003): $627,380M
Total Income Tax Paid (2004): $705,915M

Average Tax Rate (2003): 15.38%
Average Tax Rate (2004): 15.53%

Total Income Tax Share (2003): 83.88%
Total Income Tax Share (2004): 84.86%

Do your own research, when available. One doesn't need to "study" things that are given. Income tax incidence is published annually by the federal government.

I don't know how to search the CBO, there are a number of papers I found that reference the tax cuts.

Since multiple sources say that the CBO study found the largest cuts applied to the wealthy, I will risk assuming their isn't some conspiracy amongst the various news organizations.

Also, do not forget that the wealthy are never going to pay the tax rates on as much of their income as middle and low income people. (unless they're insane)

This was actually shown in an older thread about taxes. While the wealthy might pay a higher percent of tax, they pay it on a smaller percent of income. This reduces the actual percent of taxes they pay compared to middle and low income tax payers.

 

[Char. Limit]

The cnn political reporter Gloria Borger - commenting on the President's speech - said it's not idealogues - she said for the 87 House members voted into office last fall - it is theology.

That reminds me... after 43 Christian presidents, I think it's time for an atheist.

 

[WhoWee]

Also, do not forget that the wealthy are never going to pay the tax rates on as much of their income as middle and low income people. (unless they're insane)

I guess some of the celebrities might fall into the latter category.

The non-insane folks attempt to hire competent accountants, lawyers, and money managers - which (professional fees) might cost more per year than the average tax payer remits in taxes. If the tax code was simplified - the tax experts will have years of audits to work on (don't worry about them) - and perhaps a tax increase might actually result is a cost savings. Something to consider.

 

[WhoWee]

That reminds me... after 43 Christian presidents, I think it's time for an atheist.

Surely someone was labeled as such - let's google - start with Truman?

 

[Char. Limit]

Surely someone was labeled as such - let's google - start with Truman?

Why not? But I'm reasonably certain that every President has been Christian (Allegations of Islam notwithstanding)

 

[talk2glenn]

Since multiple sources say that the CBO study found the largest cuts applied to the wealthy, I will risk assuming their isn't some conspiracy amongst the various news organizations.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. Let me try harder. It is almsot certainly true that, in raw dollar figures, top-earners will benefit more from any tax cut than lower income earners. This is not shocking or controversial - top earners have far more taxable income than lower earners.

The argument here seems to be that top earners not only netted larger real dollar gains, but larger incidental gains. That is, you seem to be arguing that the wealthy ended up paying less as a total share of all taxes as a result of the Bush tax cuts. This simply isn't true. I don't know how to be more clear than that.

Also, do not forget that the wealthy are never going to pay the tax rates on as much of their income as middle and low income people. (unless they're insane)

I'm not sure what you mean here. By definition, the wealthy pay much higher effective rates on taxable income than lower income earners. Do you mean that the wealthy have smaller taxable shares of total income relative to other earners? This is not true either. Per the CBO, the top 20% earn about 57% of all income, but pay about 70% of all taxes. The bottom 20% earn about 4% of all income, but pay less than 1% of all taxes. This is total tax burden, not just income taxes - the bottom 20% enjoy an effective negative income tax rate.

While the wealthy might pay a higher percent of tax, they pay it on a smaller percent of income. This reduces the actual percent of taxes they pay compared to middle and low income tax payers.

The Treasury data is on total income earned, not taxable income. The top 25% pay an effective 15.5% tax rate on all income earned (much higher rates on taxable income). The US average is about 8%.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why not? But I'm reasonably certain that every President has been Christian (Allegations of Islam notwithstanding)

Here's a list of the religious affiliations of the Presidents. Affiliation is different from belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States"

 

[russ_watters]

Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

Though it does depend a little on where one draws the line, typically, that would be very difficult to not be true, since a person who pays nothing can't possibly save anything from a reduction.

That's actually a little bit of an oversimplification: the reality is even a little worse, since for the people who pay negative taxes, a tax rate reduction doesn't affect them, it only affects those who pay positive taxes. People in the negative are in the negative due to fixed benefits which are unaffected by a tax rate change.

 

[BobG]

The cnn political reporter Gloria Borger - commenting on the President's speech - said it's not idealogues - she said for the 87 House members voted into office last fall - it is theology.

She's exaggerating. Only about 20 of the new House members are Tea Party members, at most, with maybe a few more that are Tea Party sympathizers that don't want to be painted with the Tea Party label.

I think there's a total of around 60 members of the House that identify themselves as Tea Party members. A small gang, but large enough to have a significant impact on what happens in the House. Republicans can't push through legislation with only non-Tea Party Republican votes. Either the Tea Party has to go along or the legislation has to pull in enough Democratic votes to replace those lost by Tea Party members. Then, setting up the legislation so that you get Dems to vote for it usually means you lose more than just the Tea Party vote, meaning you need lots of Democratic votes. Boehner winds up in a position where he's trying to lead a moderate coalition of Republicans/Democrats, having to fight for the Dems with Democratic leaders, or he goes to the right and the Tea Party has bigger influence than you'd think 60 (plus or minus) could have.

 

[russ_watters]

Lets try some logic applied in reverse to see if we get consistency on the issue of taxes:


By most people's estimation, "the rich" benefited more than "everyone else" due to the Bush tax cuts. In terms of $$ per person, as Ivan pointed out, it's clearly true. So needless to say, revoking all of the Bush tax cuts would harm "the rich" more. Right?

 

[WhoWee]

She's exaggerating. Only about 20 of the new House members are Tea Party members, at most, with maybe a few more that are Tea Party sympathizers that don't want to be painted with the Tea Party label.

IMO - even though she's the cnn political reporter - I don't think she cares to be accurate. Again - IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

What is nothing but a percentage point to the rich may mean food for a year for a stuggling family, or a year's rent for a single mom. Percentages mask the magnitude of the disparity in terms of real dollars. What we should be considering is the pecentage of income needed to survive in the modern context. In real terms, tax breaks for the lower end of the spectrum barely amount to more than pocket change for the individual.

Perhaps we should re-visit what "poor" means in America. For a family of 6 - parents and 4 kids - the poverty level is roughly $30,000 per year. This is the point eligibility for benefits begins - given tax re-distribution to the "poor". We might need to move this to one of the threads on poverty - but let's be precise in our descriptions - please!

To expand the point:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4349065...lions-middle-class-people-could-get-medicaid/

"" President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.
After initially downplaying any concern, the Obama administration said late Tuesday it would look for a fix.
Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility.
It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.

A percentage point for the 'uber-wealthy" is a lot of money - but where does welfare end?

 

[Evo]

No, no, no - nothing like that. The pro-Obama mania that swept through Hollywood was quite potent and might have pulled some of these folks into a "tax the rich" frenzy - which I would find ironic.

You're so cute.