Support NeoGAF

[Jeels]

This quote scares me more than anything from Bachmann and Palin combined. No Herman, you don't need foreign policy experience to know who your friends are. You need pizza making experience.

We are seriously fucked if a candidate like this moves anywhere in the primaries. Herman Cain, Palin and Glenn Beck are anti-education, anti-thinking and anti-intellectual crusaders.

Hermann Cain is easily the worst of the Republican flock simply for being outright wrong, lacking in any substance or depth, there's nothing going on there. When I hear him talk I hear some random political word generating machine.

Also for what he says about Muslims.

 

[Ravidrath]

Regarding taxes, I really wish we'd start taxing all dollars the same. It's ridiculous that capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than "real" income.

By doing that, I think we could lower the overall rates and get rid of a lot of deductions.

Is anyone proposing or talking about anything like this?

 

[SomeDude]

Chris Hedges is calling for a second american revolution.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Hermann Cain is easily the worst of the Republican flock simply for being outright wrong, lacking in any substance or depth, there's nothing going on there. When I hear him talk I hear some random political word generating machine.

Also for what he says about Muslims.

Wow, you pretty much described EVERY Republican candidate

 

[Kosmo]

You still don't understand the difference between marginal and effective rates.

Actually, I do. I was referring to the top marginal rate, just as it was over 90% in the mid 40's. I'm talking marginal, while you think I'm talking effective, though I have no doubt EV would support a top effective tax rate of 90%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bra..._United_States

Take a class or something already.

When I'm wrong, I will. As stated, I was referring to raising that top marginal rate, exactly as stated in your link (say for income over $50M) from 35% to 90%.

 

[War Peaceman]

Wow, you pretty much described EVERY Republican candidate

Let's be fair here, Romney at least has some credibility. I'd question his integrity, but he isn't all bad - his health care bill was/is highly successful. (It is no substitute for proper national healthcare, but still)

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Did I miss something or were unemployment numbers supposed to be released already for June?

 

[eznark]

Chris Hedges is calling for a second american revolution.

Finally someone with real clout, whom all Americans love, adore and can rally behind is making a stand!!! Look out Washington, Chris Hedges will not take this shit any longer!!!!!

Spoiler

who?

 

[Averon]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/romney-says-obama-made-the-recession-worse/

Romney Says Obama Made the Recession Worse

AMHERST, N.H. — After disputing whether he had previously said President Obama made the recession worse last week former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts said on Monday that President Obama made the recession worse.

LOL. Oh Romney.

Edit: DNC already on the case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKNOJr-hyt8

 

[Kosmo]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/romney-says-obama-made-the-recession-worse/

Romney Says Obama Made the Recession Worse



LOL. Oh Romney.

Edit: DNC already on the case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKNOJr-hyt8

Nobody will ever be able to definitively prove anything one way or another. What we do know is that Obama's own economists have estimated that the stimulus cost us $278,000 per job "created or saved."

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm talking marginal, while you think I'm talking effective, though I have no doubt EV would support a top effective tax rate of 90%.

That's ridiculous.

 

[Kosmo]

That's ridiculous.

Is it? Why not redistribute that wealth? There is no reason people making $10M a year cannot live perfectly happy and acceptable lives on $1M a year, right?

 

[worldrunover]

Nobody will ever be able to definitively prove anything one way or another. What we do know is that Obama's own economists have estimated that the stimulus cost us $278,000 per job "created or saved."

Give a man a fish etc etc.

The real point is Obama didn't make the RECESSION worse. There's no measurement out there to suggest the recession was made worse by Obama's stimulus plan or any of his other policies. So Mitt Romney is just plain wrong.

 

[Kosmo]

Give a man a fish etc etc.

The real point is Obama didn't make the RECESSION worse. There's no measurement out there to suggest the recession was made worse by Obama's stimulus plan or any of his other policies. So Mitt Romney is just plain wrong.

Semantics - I'm guessing he was thinking Obama prolonged the recession, though saying he made it worse is not the same thing, per se.

 

[scorcho]

Is it? Why not redistribute that wealth? There is no reason people making $10M a year cannot live perfectly happy and acceptable lives on $1M a year, right?

You do realize that slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy, right?

Besides, the top effective rate should be 95%.

 

[worldrunover]

Semantics - I'm guessing he was thinking Obama prolonged the recession, though saying he made it worse is not the same thing, per se.

Show me a statistic that suggests Obama slowed the recovery then? Spending money, in and of itself, does not slow a recovery. You're best argument against Obama's stimulus bill (in terms of not doing enough for the economy) is probably that he didn't spend enough. You or Mitt want to argue that?

 

[empty vessel]

Nobody will ever be able to definitively prove anything one way or another. What we do know is that Obama's own economists have estimated that the stimulus cost us $278,000 per job "created or saved."

Kosmo, instead of reading--and for god's sake quoting without attribution--the Weekly Standard (which has misled you in several respects), please do me a favor and read the actual underlying source: the report itself.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Nobody will ever be able to definitively prove anything one way or another. What we do know is that Obama's own economists have estimated that the stimulus cost us $278,000 per job "created or saved."

He did NOT make the recession worse. That is a Fact.

 

[Jackson50]

Herman Cain: "I don't need no stinkin book learnin!"

“You don’t need foreign policy experience to know who your friends are and who your enemies are. And you don’t need foreign policy experience to know that you don’t tell your enemy what your next move is.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-c...licy-experience-to-know-who-your-friends-are/

:usa

First, I am glad he was not president during the Cold War. Moreover, while FP experience may not be necessary to know whom your friends and enemies are, it is damn useful to understand the error in his second assertion.

Does anyone other than Huntsman actually have worthwhile foreign policy credentials?

Worthwhile? I am uncertain. Bachmann has sat on the House Intelligence Committee for an entire six months; she specifically requested the assignment. Thus, it was an obvious attempt to bolster her credentials. Ron Paul has sat on various committees/subcommittees pertaining to FP. Otherwise, no.

 

[aronnov reborn]

Wow, you pretty much described EVERY Republican candidate

I respectively disagree

 

[gcubed]

Regarding taxes, I really wish we'd start taxing all dollars the same. It's ridiculous that capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than "real" income.

By doing that, I think we could lower the overall rates and get rid of a lot of deductions.

Is anyone proposing or talking about anything like this?

the debt reduction committee that all politicians are ignoring

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama administration officials are offering to cut tens of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid in negotiations to reduce the federal budget deficit, but the depth of the cuts depends on whether Republicans are willing to accept any increases in tax revenues.

Administration officials and Republican negotiators say the money can be taken from health care providers like hospitals and nursing homes without directly imposing new costs on needy beneficiaries or radically restructuring either program. ...

As for Medicaid, administration officials have indicated that they could accept savings of $100 billion or more over 10 years, much to the dismay of many House Democrats. The lawmakers say the cuts would impair access to care for the poor and shift costs to the states, which are facing a huge expansion in Medicaid eligibility and enrollment, scheduled to start in 2014 under the new health care law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/us/05deficit.html?_r=1

yup

 

[Plinko]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/us/05deficit.html?_r=1

yup

It's almost as if nobody wants to be president in 2012.

 

[polyh3dron]

god dammit obama

stop trying to prove to the righties how conservative you are

it doesn't matter because you're still black

 

[Loudninja]

They are not going to accept it anyway.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

if he says he wants 100 billion in cuts, they'll want 200 billion

 

[Kosmo]

Kosmo, instead of reading--and for god's sake quoting without attribution--the Weekly Standard (which has misled you in several respects), please do me a favor and read the actual underlying source: the report itself.

The report states 2.4M-3.6M jobs were created or saved, $666B was spent. Simple math, using the data in the report, whether you like the Weekly Standard or not.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

The report states 2.4M-3.6M jobs were created or saved, $666B was spent. Simple math, using the data in the report, whether you like the Weekly Standard or not.

Obama is antichrist confirmed.

 

[RustyNails]

CNN Money is reporting that they have a tentative deal on raising the debt limit

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Huge spending cuts, and maybe some targeted tax hikes.

That's how the deal to raise the debt ceiling is shaping up. Details are thin, as negotiations have been carried out behind closed doors and involve only a few of Washington's heaviest hitters.

This much is known: Lawmakers must raise the nation's $14.3 trillion legal borrowing limit soon. The Treasury Department says that on Aug. 2 it will run out of money to pay the nation's bills in full and on time.

GOP is gonna get about a trillion in spending cuts that spans over a decade, and Democrats will get some symbolic tax hikes. Victory for GOP, unless this is added:

However, one additional proposal pushed by Democrats could add up to real money.

The White House wants to limit deductions taken by the wealthiest Americans. Depending on the details, that could quickly add up to increased revenue in the hundreds of billions.

Good luck with that.

 

[Plinko]

However, one additional proposal pushed by Democrats could add up to real money.

The White House wants to limit deductions taken by the wealthiest Americans. Depending on the details, that could quickly add up to increased revenue in the hundreds of billions.

Ha ha ha oh man.

Yeah, that's going to pass.

 

[empty vessel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/us/05deficit.html?_r=1

yup

More detail, according to the article:

While details have yet to be decided, lawmakers and administration officials said they were seriously considering these proposals:

¶ Gradually eliminate Medicare payments to hospitals for bad debts that result when beneficiaries fail to pay deductibles and co-payments. Medicare reimburses hospitals for 70 percent of such debts after the hospitals make reasonable efforts to collect the unpaid amounts.

This will reduce Medicare's costs but will cause health care costs to rise for others. In other words, it redistributes costs from Medicare (which we pay for) to the rest of us (which we also pay for). So it neither gains nor loses anything, since the cost is being paid by us one way or another. It just rearranges chairs. Nationalizing health insurance by using the single payer model would eliminate this random cost-shifting problem entirely. (Instead we could, if we chose, shift costs rationally through the tax code.)

¶ Reduce Medicare payments to teaching hospitals for the costs of training doctors, caring for sicker patients and providing specialized services like trauma care and organ transplants. Medicare spends $9.5 billion a year for its share of those costs.

This is a cut to teaching hospitals, which Medicare has subsidized since 1983. Of course, the rise in for-profit investor-owned hospital chains has meant that teaching hospitals, too, have come to be increasingly owned by for-profit, investor-owned hospital chains. So this 'education' subsidy has morphed also into a business subsidy. Without more information (that I haven't had the time to look into yet), I'm not sure how I feel about it.

¶ Reduce the federal share of payments to health care providers treating low-income people under Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The administration wants to establish a single “blended rate” for each state. The federal government now reimburses states at different rates for different groups of people and different services in the two programs.

As usual, the poor face the brunt of it. These cuts will likely reduce health services available to the working poor.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Actually, I do. I was referring to the top marginal rate, just as it was over 90% in the mid 40's. I'm talking marginal, while you think I'm talking effective, though I have no doubt EV would support a top effective tax rate of 90%.



When I'm wrong, I will. As stated, I was referring to raising that top marginal rate, exactly as stated in your link (say for income over $50M) from 35% to 90%.

A top marginal rate of 20% would imply that the theoretical upper bound for any individual's effective income tax rate would be 20%. Given the fact that you are eliminating deductions entirely, at best you're increasing the tax rate by 2-4% on people making 8 figures or more per year while cutting taxes drastically for everyone else, causing the debt to skyrocket due to a drastic reduciton in federal tax receits.. That's a best case scenario. At worst you end up increasing taxes dramatically for households making ~30k or less per year due to the elimination of low-income tax credits while failing to adjust the marginal rates appropriately, causing the living conditions of the poor and lower middle class to degenerate into slumlike conditions, while decreasing the tax rates for people making 6-7 figures a year due to the drastically lowered marginal rates.

Your proposal sounds very, very dangerous to me. Even though it is not very detailed, I can only see a surge in the debt, a minor tax increase on billionaires and 8/9 figure earners of little consequence to their lifestyles, the potential crippling of the lower and middle classes, and the lowering of taxes for individuals who make 6-7 figures a year.

I think we should keep in mind that the bottom 50% of individuals in this country collectively own less than 1% of the wealth, although by design, they pay far more than their share in taxes (the regressive social security tax and flat medicare, medicaid, and sales taxes guarantee this). This means that the revenue effects of tax code modifications for the lower and middle classes will be negligible, although because of the decreasing marginal utility of money as more is accumulated, the tax code modifications will greatly affect the living conditions of the lower and middle class taxpayers. On the other hand, the revenue effects from tax code modifications affecting the upper-middle class and the upper class will be large, while impacting the quality of living of these taxpayers negligibly.

Any tax code modifications should avoid increaisng the rates on the lower and middle classes and avoid decreasing the rates on the upper middle class and the upper class. The former would greatly hurt the quality of living for the vast majority of americans while having a limited effect on the overal budget. The latter would cause federal tax receipts to plummet and the deficit to skyrocket while having a limited effect on the quality of living for the majority of americans.



Eliminate tax deductions that benefit the wealthy exclusively, keep those which benefit the poor and middle classes the most (like child tax-credits), increase the capital gains tax rate, make payroll taxes progressive (or at the very least, flat instead of regressive by removing the Social Security Wage Base upper limit on social security contributions), try to maintain or lower sales tax rates.

 

[Kosmo]

I am not opposed to modification of the tax code (or taxes in general) - starting with Social Security. We need to progressively increase the age at which benefits pay (say moving to 70 over the next 10 years) as well as increase the tax cap above the $106,800 (although I do love the increased paychecks at the end of the year) - assuming the system stays in place as-is, which I'm willing to "play ball" with, despite the fact that I'd rather just have the money myself and invest it rather than the government spending it on whatever the fuck they want and hoping there is money there when I retire.

 

[ElectricThunder]

Looking to be at least as shitty a bill as many suspected based off those damn Commissions and otherwise----like clockwork the Daily Show and such will have to wait to display their heads exploding until next week if they actually get this done this week.

Maher will lose his shit this week though, doubly so if Coulter is in fact doing the panel.

This bill is going to wind up a travesty, corporate welfare feasting on general welfare like a damned vampire. Short of some sort of incredible, unknown, dramatic something by the likes of Sanders/Kucinich/etc---not seeing how we're going to dodge this cannonball that so many seem to think is a damned BB pellet in the distance.

 

[empty vessel]

I am not opposed to modification of the tax code (or taxes in general) - starting with Social Security. We need to progressively increase the age at which benefits pay (say moving to 70 over the next 10 years) as well as increase the tax cap above the $106,800 (although I do love the increased paychecks at the end of the year) - assuming the system stays in place as-is, which I'm willing to "play ball" with, despite the fact that I'd rather just have the money myself and invest it rather than the government spending it on whatever the fuck they want and hoping there is money there when I retire.

(1) The social security program is fine. It needs a slight adjustment to account for the retirement of the baby boom generation (which temporarily removing the cap on taxed income will almost entirely cover), but the program is in no danger of bankruptcy.

(2) Moving the age at which benefits pay out is a benefits cut. No thanks; if anything, the age should be moving down. That's why we work: to improve our collective lot. Anytime our collective lot worsens, we have done something terribly wrong. (And we have, we've fucked up the distribution of our income, i.e., the aggregate product of our collective work is being distributed mostly to a tiny minority, leaving the rest of us worse off despite our work.)

(3) You may rather just have the money yourself, but it would be irresponsible of me to let you do that. I would prefer to force you to have retirement insurance, just like I would prefer to force people to have auto insurance. If you don't have retirement insurance, then when your dumb ass loses all your retirement savings in the stock market, the rest of us will have to shell out for you. No, forcing you be fiscally responsible by forcing you to contribute to retirement insurance is much preferable.

 

[PhoenixDark]

More detail, according to the article:

This will reduce Medicare's costs but will cause health care costs to rise for others. In other words, it redistributes costs from Medicare (which we pay for) to the rest of us (which we also pay for). So it neither gains nor loses anything, since the cost is being paid by us one way or another. It just rearranges chairs. Nationalizing health insurance by using the single payer model would eliminate this random cost-shifting problem entirely. (Instead we could, if we chose, shift costs rationally through the tax code.

As usual, the poor face the brunt of it. These cuts will likely reduce health services available to the working poor.

Ultimately it's just bad policy that makes no sense whatsoever. Hospitals will simply reduce services in certain areas with respect to Medicare, or pass the costs to the patient which of course increases health care costs/premiums. So costs will once again go up with the administration saying "oh well, wait until 2014." This is ridiculous.

You'd think a TRILLION in spending cuts would be enough of a concession. Maybe 1.5 trillion. And yet we'll get that and Medicare cuts that are bad policy and bad politics: costs rise and dems lose quite an effective talking point against republicans/Ryan plan.

In exchange democrats get what exactly? At the most, paltry revenue increases through populist nonsense; I'm all for cutting tax loopholes, but Obama's framing on the issue reminds me of republicans obsession with tort reform. A talking point that doesn't save much money.

Will anyone care Obama cut a trillion from the deficit when unemployment is still around 9% next year, and gas prices rise again in the spring/summer? This guy is a complete joke.

 

[mckmas8808]

Semantics - I'm guessing he was thinking Obama prolonged the recession, though saying he made it worse is not the same thing, per se.

You know the recession ended the year Obama became President right?

 

[Kosmo]

You know the recession ended the year Obama became President right?

Tell that to the 9.1% unemployed right now.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Tell that to the 9.1% unemployed right now.

The term 'recession' is not defined by high unemployment. We're really supposed to believe that you're in business school?

 

[mckmas8808]

Ultimately it's just bad policy that makes no sense whatsoever. Hospitals will simply reduce services in certain areas with respect to Medicare, or pass the costs to the patient which of course increases health care costs/premiums. So costs will once again go up with the administration saying "oh well, wait until 2014." This is ridiculous.

You'd think a TRILLION in spending cuts would be enough of a concession. Maybe 1.5 trillion. And yet we'll get that and Medicare cuts that are bad policy and bad politics: costs rise and dems lose quite an effective talking point against republicans/Ryan plan.

In exchange democrats get what exactly? At the most, paltry revenue increases through populist nonsense; I'm all for cutting tax loopholes, but Obama's framing on the issue reminds me of republicans obsession with tort reform. A talking point that doesn't save much money.

Will anyone care Obama cut a trillion from the deficit when unemployment is still around 9% next year, and gas prices rise again in the spring/summer? This guy is a complete joke.

How are you so sure that the medicare cuts aren't included in that 1-1.5 Trillion in cuts? And how do you know that the revenue increases will be paltry and sucky?

Tell that to the 9.1% unemployed right now.

Da fuck man? Do you want to be taken more seriously here? You know unemployment is not the only market by which the recession is measured on.

 

[RustyNails]

I am not opposed to modification of the tax code (or taxes in general) - starting with Social Security. We need to progressively increase the age at which benefits pay (say moving to 70 over the next 10 years) as well as increase the tax cap above the $106,800 (although I do love the increased paychecks at the end of the year) - assuming the system stays in place as-is, which I'm willing to "play ball" with, despite the fact that I'd rather just have the money myself and invest it rather than the government spending it on whatever the fuck they want and hoping there is money there when I retire.

Moving the retirement age to 70 increases the general unemployment rate and drain more resources from the businesses. I would argue that the retirement age should be lowered to 60.

 

[PantherLotus]

Wait a sec, I think Kosmo is as silly as anyone that posts here, but "business school" has exactly ONE macro-economics course requirement in essentially every focus area other than economics.

And hey, I love piling on, but MBA students are not econ majors. Not at all.

 

[PhoenixDark]

How are you so sure that the medicare cuts aren't included in that 1-1.5 Trillion in cuts? And how do you know that the revenue increases will be paltry and sucky?

The story says they've already targeted a trillion in cuts, and now are discussing adding Medicare cuts. And you and I know Boehner cannot sell any real tax cuts to the house.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/giving-away-argument.html

Obama couldn't negotiate a proper bed time for his daughters. This is the final straw - at least until the 2012 budget comes up.

 

[empty vessel]

The story says they've already targeted a trillion in cuts, and now are discussing adding Medicare cuts. And you and I know Boehner cannot sell any real tax cuts to the house.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/giving-away-argument.html

Obama couldn't negotiate a proper bed time for his daughters. This is the final straw - at least until the 2012 budget comes up.

Sadly, no negotiation was required at all. Republican leverage was completely illusory, because the party would have raised the debt limit. I think the Democratic party should own whatever comes out of this, because the reality is that the final product is entirely up to them.

 

[Kosmo]

The term 'recession' is not defined by high unemployment. We're really supposed to believe that you're in business school?

Correct, but when we're talking about the troubles we are having, that's the main thing we should be focused on, not a jobless recovery.

 

[Skiptastic]

Wait a sec, I think Kosmo is as silly as anyone that posts here, but "business school" has exactly ONE macro-economics course requirement in essentially every focus area other than economics.

And hey, I love piling on, but MBA students are not econ majors. Not at all.

I am an MBA student (2 out of 3 years done) and an econ major. Bow to me as your economics god!

 

[TacticalFox88]

Correct, but when we're talking about the troubles we are having, that's the main thing we should be focused on, not a jobless recovery.

Funny how profits are at a record high, and yet business aren't hiring like they could be.

 

[polyh3dron]

Correct, but when we're talking about the troubles we are having, that's the main thing we should be focused on, not a jobless recovery.

Exactly, so let's lower taxes on corporations and on the rich, make cuts to Medicare, get rid of NPR and Planned Parenthood! That'll create the jobs we need!

 

[GaimeGuy]

Funny how profits are at a record high, and yet business aren't hiring like they could be.

they're just doing what they're supposed to do! Why do you hate businesses? Why do you hate freedom? Are you a commie?

 

[Particle Physicist]

I am an MBA student (2 out of 3 years done) and an econ major. Bow to me as your economics god!