Obama--the grumblings

[Kaliayev]

Yes. Now, if Obama started actually declaring war on bankers, instead of throwing money at them to maintain the illusion of their independence, maybe he'd claw back a few points. Pfft, some crypto-Marxist this guy is. He hasn't even threatened to shoot a single member of the hated oppresser class, nor throw them into Bagram for a bit of slap and ticke with some Afghan security service members.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

Yes. Now, if Obama started actually declaring war on bankers, instead of throwing money at them to maintain the illusion of their independence, maybe he'd claw back a few points. Pfft, some crypto-Marxist this guy is. He hasn't even threatened to shoot a single member of the hated oppresser class, nor throw them into Bagram for a bit of slap and ticke with some Afghan security service members.

They don't make Manchurian Candidates the way they used to.

[classicman]

HA HA HA HA HA @ TGRR

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

HA HA HA HA HA @ TGRR

They also, it seems, do not make loudmouth republican rednecks the way they used to.

Are they outsourcing, or something?

[classicman]

The 2% Illusion
Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.

President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."

This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.

Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.

But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.

Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined. These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income.

The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.

Meanwhile, reality: the rich had so many exemptions as to pay equal or less taxes then the average American. Warren Buffet was quite blunt about this years ago when wackos were promoting tax cut myths and lies. Buffet was paying less in taxes than his receptionist. Such facts get lost when partisans promote their political agendas rather than first learn the facts.

Nobody who is honest can criticize Obama. Nobody has facts to justify all this criticism. The 36% ownership of Citigroup may have been necessary because wackos in Citigroup will not do what must happen. Citigroup probably must be broken up and sold off. Therefore no decent Americans lose jobs. Irresponsible top management and stock holders who failed to demand changes all lose.

Is that Obama's intent? Nobody knows which again demonstrates the foolishness of those partisan inspired criticisms. A person dealing in facts does not yet have sufficient facts to justify that hate and so much criticism.

We do know one fact. Tax cuts without spending reductions only create short term economic improvement followed by worse economic downturns. Eliminting those destructive tax cuts are necessary to restore actual productivity (and responsiblity) to the economy.

[Undertoad]

We'll know by second quarter next year.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We'll know by second quarter next year.

Shit, we'll be eating bankers and congressmen by then.

At least I will be, anyway.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Byrd: Obama in power grab

Quote:
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials...”

ummm, don't we need someone overseeing those things? they are going to be really big things to get passed, and very important (IMO) for the future of this country. I am really opposed to "czars" in general, but that is just a name. Someone needs to be heading those things, don't you think?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More

Isn't he just putting the taxes back to where they during the Clinton years? And you know, when Clinton raised taxes, there was all this whining by the right about how it would wreck the country. In fact, we had a pretty great economy under Clinton, and he even balanced the budget, even though, he too, inherited a deficit that, at that time, was the highest in history. One thing that did surprise me though, was the thing about charity write-offs.

And you know, if the richest people/corporations had not been so corrupt about trying not to pay ANY friggin' taxes, this might not be happening. They really only have themselves to blame. It is greed. "I have a hundred million dollars, but I don't want to pay taxes, I want to keep it all. Fuck the person making 30 grand a year and trying to live off of that. Why is he my responsibility? Even though I did make my money on the backs of people like that."

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

Yes. Now, if Obama started actually declaring war on bankers, instead of throwing money at them to maintain the illusion of their independence, maybe he'd claw back a few points. Pfft, some crypto-Marxist this guy is. He hasn't even threatened to shoot a single member of the hated oppresser class, nor throw them into Bagram for a bit of slap and ticke with some Afghan security service members.

I like what Bill Maher said.

"And, finally, New Rule: Stop pretending that other governments have nothing to teach us. From those socialists in Sweden, we can learn how to fix a banking crisis. And from our friends in China, we can learn how to punish the jerks who caused it.

You know, the ones who took bailout money and bought private jets made out of rubies and veal. This is Dick Fuld of Lehman Brothers. [slide of Fuld] What a "dick" Fuld. He personally made $500 million in sub-prime mortgages, and he gets to keep it while you and I pay off his bad bets. [slide of Madoff] This is Bernie Madoff. Bernie stole $50 billion, mostly from other Jews. For Jews, this was the worst pyramid scheme since the actual pyramids.

Which brings me back to China. Now, a couple months ago, some greedy businessmen in China were caught spiking the milk they sold to children with melamine, a plastic-derivative which boosted the protein levels and, thus, their profits. Well, you know what the Chinese are doing to the businessmen behind their milk scandal? They're putting them to death.

Talk about lactose intolerant.

Now, am I saying we should treat the bankers who poisoned our financial markets with tainted investments the way China treated its poisoners? Please, we're not China. We're just owned by China. So, no, I don't think we should put all the bankers to death.

Just two. I mean, maybe it's not technically legal, but, let's look at the upside. If we killed two random, rich, greedy pigs. I mean, killed. Like, blew them up at halftime at next year's Super Bowl. Or left them hanging on the big board at the New York Stock Exchange. You know, as a warning, with their balls in their mouth. I think it would really make everyone else sit up and take notice.

This crisis is rooted in greed. And if two deaths shocked a society of 300 million into acting decently enough to avoid this in the future, well, they'd die as heroes. And, you know, it's not like collateral damage isn't built into our assessment of things.

Cars kill almost 50,000 people a year, but we accept that as a fair price for being able to get around without riding on top of an animal.

So, two dead bankers really starts to look like a bargain. And isn't that what they love? Bargains?"

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

The 2% Illusion
Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.

Do you honestly think a lot of those people report all their income? They have it hidden offshore. It's not like they get a W2 like working people do.

[classicman]

Down girl - I just post links to articles that I thought would lead to some interesting conversations. Actually, I don't know what income the writer was referring to - do you?
If what he says is true, then a tax increase on the next group is all but guaranteed to happen.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Actually, I don't know what income the writer was referring to - do you?

The article says taxable income, which means reported income minus legal loopholes, deductions, and dodges, of which there are considerable if you don't need that money for awhile.

[classicman]

Well there you have it then. Thanks xoB.