Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

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.

But you oppose government spending, which uncontroversially creates jobs. So you need to reconcile some things.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

Yeah but the article also said the following things......

Military spending, which accounts for about 20 percent of federal expenditures, is likely to be included as well.

but the depth of the cuts depends on whether Republicans are willing to accept any increases in tax revenues.

In return, Mr. Schumer said, Republicans should be willing to consider some additional revenue.

Now what ends up happening could be very different from what is stated above. But I hope the DEMs can argue hard enough to get tax increases in the bill also. If not it would be a shitty bill.

 

[PantherLotus]

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

you know i love ya skip

 

[GaimeGuy]

But you oppose government spending, which uncontroversially creates jobs. So you need to reconcile some things.

I know, let's have the states cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, balance budgets by reforming pensions, then pass legislation limiting collective bargaining rights and claim that it's necessary to balance the budget even though it isn't!

oh, and while we're at it, shut down state governments because we refuse to raise taxes on the top 1.9% in addition to cutting spending to fix a deficit that our party created when we ran the governorship!

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

Completely incorrect. It's just not the numerical reality when it comes to the Congress and their make up.

That's like saying the DEMs have no responsibility for us going to war in Iraq, because a GOP president and GOP lead Congress wanted it so bad.

 

[GaimeGuy]

haven't you heard?

Obama recession, bush recovery.
The unpopular obama tax cuts.
Obama is a tax and spend liberal (who has decreased taxes by $4.6T over 2 years and spending by over $4T over 10 years)

also, he hates gay people and is worse than bob barr for gay rights

 

[Kosmo]

I know, let's have the states cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, balance budgets by reforming pensions, then pass legislation limiting collective bargaining rights and claim that it's necessary to balance the budget even though it isn't!

oh, and while we're at it, shut down state governments because we refuse to raise taxes on the top 1.9% in addition to cutting spending to fix a deficit that our party created when we ran the governorship!

Hey, let's ramp up the military-industrial complex even more! Nothing like spending trillions to employ more Americans building bombs.

 

[empty vessel]

Hey, let's ramp up the military-industrial complex even more! Nothing like spending trillions to employ more Americans building bombs.

Let's build schools, hospitals, parks, rails, roads, and bridges! And houses!

 

[Kosmo]

Let's build schools, hospitals, parks, rails, roads, and bridges! And houses!

Hey, I'm not against that - we can start by using the money we are using to do the same thing with via foreign aid.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Completely incorrect. It's just not the numerical reality when it comes to the Congress and their make up.

That's like saying the DEMs have no responsibility for us going to war in Iraq, because a GOP president and GOP lead Congress wanted it so bad.

No, Empty Vessel is correct. Everyone involved in the negotiating process knows the debt limit will be raised. Everyone in the negotiating process has raised the limit in the past, usually with no riders or large demands/concessions. Democrats own the concessions for caving so easily on an issue that shouldn't require such extremism. Sure, offering cuts is fine. But they're offering the entire farm here. And republicans are still demanding more.

Obama wants to cut the deficit to appeal to independents, and he wants to cut it to appear bipartisan. But these things are meaningless if unemployment is high. This has nothing to do with policy, because if it did he'd be arguing draconian austerity cuts only hurt a recovering economy and bringing up Europe's various austerity failures.

The tax cuts will be small, if they get any; it'll probably be loophole shit. Maybe a small employer payroll tax cut. In exchange for a trillion in cuts - some of which will come from education and a host of other important things. How can you "win the future" by handicapping the present.

 

[Averon]

Was this posted on PoliGaf?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/education/02michigan.html?_r=1

Court Overturns Michigan Affirmative-Action Ban

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down Michigan’s 2006 ban on the consideration of race and gender in public-university admissions and government hiring in the latest round of the decade-long fight over the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies.

The 2-to-1 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said the voter-approved ban “unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.”

 

[PantherLotus]

Hey, I'm not against that - we can start by using the money we are using to do the same thing with via foreign aid.

Choose your own adventure! Do you:

a) get the response that points out your predictability?

or

b) get the response that snarkily points out that you'd only need to multiply that 100x to make it something worth doing?

 

[Open Source]

Hey, let's ramp up the military-industrial complex even more! Nothing like spending trillions to employ more Americans building bombs.

We'll classify it as

1) "Protecting the Vulnerable (in Afghanistan)": If you're against it, you must hate poor people.
2) "Education and training": it may not be as practical a skill as cosmetology or therapeutic massage, but learning how to build bombs is still learning! And if you oppose this, you hate young people and want to deny them a future.
3) "Infrastructure and science": Military bases are shovel-ready jobs! and DARPA is cutting-edge scientific research.
4) "Energy": Nuclear powered carriers and subs.
5) "Health Care": Better health care for soldiers and their families (who are also "vulnerable")! If you don't support this, I question your patriotism!
6) "Tax Relief": We can get money to whoever we want via the tax code, by giving refunds to those who don't owe taxes. Let's put in a $5000 credit for anyone in our favored demographic. In this case: military personnel and defense contractors!

 

[Kosmo]

Was this posted on PoliGaf?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/education/02michigan.html?_r=1

Court Overturns Michigan Affirmative-Action Ban

This will be going to the SC and likely get overturned. Despite endorsing affirmative action, not even the Detroit Free Press endorsed the logic behind the decision.

 

[Hitokage]

Speaking of which, remember kids, neither a "tax credit" nor a "tax subsidy" is to be considered government spending in any way.

 

[Cyan]

and DARPA is cutting-edge scientific research.

Um.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Um.

Poster complains about funding DARPA on internet forum.

Nothing to see here, folks.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Some bad facts in this thread, looking at you Kosmo. As my dad use to say, "If you have bad facts, argue the law. If you have bad law, argue the facts." You seem to think the law was bad and are arguing the facts. Here is Jake Tapper on the stimulus:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/-278k-per-stimulus-job-white-house-says-no.htmlThe White House has long disputed the math of dividing the cost of the stimulus by the number of jobs created – we asked a similar question back in October 2009, when that computation resulted in the comparable bargain of $72,408 per stimulus job, as you can read at this blog post.

Then, as now, White House officials note that the spending didn't just fund salaries, it also went to the actual costs of building things -- construction materials, new factories, and such. So the math is flawed, White House officials say, since reporters are not including the permanent infrastructure in the computation, thus producing an inflated figure. White House officials also questioned why the Weekly Standard would use the lower figure from the projection of the number of jobs created, and noted that the temporary nature of the stimulus bill meant that its impact would diminish over time, when the private sector began hiring again. In other words, the number of jobs created at its peak – as many as 3.6 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s May 2011 report – would be more appropriate, White House officials say.

 

[Kosmo]

Some bad facts in this thread, looking at you Kosmo. As my dad use to say, "If you have bad facts, argue the law. If you have bad law, argue the facts." You seem to think the law was bad and are arguing the facts. Here is Jake Tapper on the stimulus:

White house officials arguing that only the rosiest figures should be used in supporting their arguments, convenient. Everybody has an agenda, from the Weekly Standard to the White House and will spin figures to their preference. For them to suggest this is almost comical, considering that no administration, given two figures, would ever pick the figure that does not put their programs in the best light.

They would have done best to say nothing because the next time they come out with a program with a range of values and pick the "best" value to promote their agenda, Jay Carney is going to be forced to look like an idiot when Tapper asks him: "In the Weekly Standard's reporting on the cost of jobs created or saved by the stimulus, the White House chided them for using the lest rosy figure, and yet given two options, you are doing the exact same thing - should you not practice what you preach?"

This is just more evidence of this administration's main problem - they are too thinned skinned.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Poster complains about funding DARPA on internet forum.

I know, right? WTF. Funniest thing I've read all day.

 

[Skiptastic]

you know i love ya skip

Tears of joy!

 

[mckmas8808]

No, Empty Vessel is correct. Everyone involved in the negotiating process knows the debt limit will be raised. Everyone in the negotiating process has raised the limit in the past, usually with no riders or large demands/concessions. Democrats own the concessions for caving so easily on an issue that shouldn't require such extremism. Sure, offering cuts is fine. But they're offering the entire farm here. And republicans are still demanding more.

Obama wants to cut the deficit to appeal to independents, and he wants to cut it to appear bipartisan. But these things are meaningless if unemployment is high. This has nothing to do with policy, because if it did he'd be arguing draconian austerity cuts only hurt a recovering economy and bringing up Europe's various austerity failures.

The tax cuts will be small, if they get any; it'll probably be loophole shit. Maybe a small employer payroll tax cut. In exchange for a trillion in cuts - some of which will come from education and a host of other important things. How can you "win the future" by handicapping the present.

You can't "win the future" if the cuts are too big. I agree. But lets be honest here, Obama had already stated that he wanted to cut spending by $4 Trillion over 12 years before any of this debt ceiling talk ever started. It's not like cutting spending was never on the table.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

White house officials arguing that only the rosiest figures should be used in supporting their arguments, convenient. Everybody has an agenda, from the Weekly Standard to the White House and will spin figures to their preference. For them to suggest this is almost comical, considering that no administration, given two figures, would ever pick the figure that does not put their programs in the best light.

They would have done best to say nothing because the next time they come out with a program with a range of values and pick the "best" value to promote their agenda, Jay Carney is going to be forced to look like an idiot when Tapper asks him: "In the Weekly Standard's reporting on the cost of jobs created or saved by the stimulus, the White House chided them for using the lest rosy figure, and yet given two options, you are doing the exact same thing - should you not practice what you preach?"

This is just more evidence of this administration's main problem - they are too thinned skinned.

Different figures or would you say looking at them more complexly. Anyone can take two numbers and divide them. The stimulus did so much more than the Weekly Standard wants you to believe. A third of it was tax cuts which freed up money for other purchases, helping other business to retain employees. Same with the purchase of materials for construction. You can go with the simple I guess if you want to.

 

[Open Source]

Different figures or would you say looking at them more complexly. Anyone can take two numbers and divide them. The stimulus did so much more than the Weekly Standard wants you to believe. A third of it was tax cuts which freed up money for other purchases, helping other business to retain employees. Same with the purchase of materials for construction. You can go with the simple I guess if you want to.

If you want to claim that the stimulus did multiple things of value, creating infrastructure (for example) and temporarily reducing unemployment, then you should look at the combined cost vs. the combined benefit. If you're looking purely at salaries, there is no net benefit over time, and indeed there is a net loss because of the interest on borrowing, the sucking of capital from private enterprise and lower levels of government, etc. I'd be curious to see what the numbers are when the cost of materials and such are subtracted, but I don't think it's a particularly useful exercise.

And it should also be considered that the jobs that are being borrowed from the future could be ones that are less beneficial than the future jobs would have been, i.e., created something of more value than the public works projects and research that the 2009 stimulus bill funded. This seems likely given the rush to get the money out into the system.

 

[Jackson50]

John Dullahan, a former analyst for the DIA, may finally discover why he was fired and had his security clearance revoked. He was terminated and had his security clearance revoked in March 2009 for unspecified reasons. In an unprecedented move, the Defense Department invoked a clause allowing it to withhold the reason for its action.

Posted at 12:33 PM ET, 07/05/2011
Intelligence analyst Dullahan may learn why he was fired
By Jason Ukman

When we last left John Dullahan, a longtime government intelligence analyst, he had been stripped of his security clearance and fired from his job at the Defense Intelligence Agency. No one would tell him why.

At the time, the Pentagon had invoked a rarely if ever used national security provision that stated it would harm the interests of the United States to inform Dullahan of the accusations against him. Ever since, the Vietnam veteran has been left wondering what it was that got him effectively blacklisted from the federal workforce more than two years ago.

Now he could finally find out. Maybe.​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-he-was-fired/2011/07/05/gHQArjtBzH_blog.html

For a background on the situation:

U.S. strips intelligence analyst of security clearance and job but won't say why
By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2010; 10:52 AM

Eighteen months ago, John Dullahan was an intelligence analyst with a long and varied career in both the military and the classified world. Today, he is jobless and blacklisted from the federal workforce, his loyalty to the United States, he says, brought into question.

He just isn't sure why.

On St. Patrick's Day 2009, the government stripped the Irish-born Dullahan's security clearance and fired him from his job at the Defense Intelligence Agency in a manner that has no precedent at the Pentagon - invoking a national security clause that states that it would harm the interests of the United States to inform him of the accusations against him.

As a result, Dullahan, a Vietnam veteran who served at military posts around the world and as a U.N. weapons inspector in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, cannot appeal to a board of senior agency officials, as others in his position might. He is, in effect, stranded.

"This has been devastating for me," said Dullahan, 65, who became a U.S. citizen in 1973. "I am a loyal American."​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112605034.html

 

[Open Source]

Th conservative case for increasing taxes

I'm a libertarian, myself, but I agree that income taxes should be higher. I don't even have a quibble with a graduated (bracket) system. I just think that a) a greater percentage of people should be paying into the tax system so that they have something at stake, b) tax cuts and hikes should be directly tied to the size of the budget, with exceptions made for emergency legislation, so that Congress feels more pressure to act in the interests of taxpayers, and c) the tax code should be simplified.

One of my pet peeves is rabble-rousing politicians who say that "taxes are too high" or "taxes are too low" without actually specifying absolute numbers and sticking to them.

 

[mckmas8808]

Th conservative case for increasing taxes

I'm a libertarian, myself, but I agree that income taxes should be higher. I don't even have a quibble with a graduated (bracket) system. I just think that a) a greater percentage of people should be paying into the tax system so that they have something at stake, b) tax cuts and hikes should be directly tied to the size of the budget, with exceptions made for emergency legislation, so that Congress feels more pressure to act in the interests of taxpayers, and c) the tax code should be simplified.

One of my pet peeves is rabble-rousing politicians who say that "taxes are too high" or "taxes are too low" without actually specifying absolute numbers and sticking to them.

You understand that the people within the bolded don't pay more taxes, because they make less money right? How can you take something when people don't really make anything?

 

[Open Source]

You understand that the people within the bolded don't pay more taxes, because they make less money right? How can you take something when people don't really make anything?

The same way social security, medicare, and state/local govs (sales, property) take something. It doesn't need to be a lot, just enough to give people an incentive to inform themselves about where their taxes go.

Edit: By the way, I grew up in a household that made less then $20k a year (and with a parent who refused any gov't assistance), so I know what it's like to live at that level. But even middle class families with a few kids and a mortgage pay essentially nothing.

 

[Aaron Strife]

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.

If by some miracle this gets passed...

This and military cuts should account for a pretty significant chunk of the deal.

 

[empty vessel]

I just think that a) a greater percentage of people should be paying into the tax system so that they have something at stake,

A couple of things here. First is that everybody is paying into the system. Payroll taxes are the second largest source of government revenue, and that is a regressive flat tax with a cap that hits working poor people hardest. Second, I would be happy to see a greater percentage of people paying income taxes too, but the problem is that income distribution in this country is so skewed. You can't get money from people who don't have it, and more and more people don't have it due to increasing inequity in the distribution of income over the last several decades. The median household income in this country in 2009 (the latest census data) is $49,777, which means that half of all households make less than that. The tax code is also problematic, but not on the bottom end. Instead it is problematic on the top end, which severely under-taxes the nation's highest incomes and thus perpetuates and grows income inequality.

b) tax cuts and hikes should be directly tied to the size of the budget, with exceptions made for emergency legislation, so that Congress feels more pressure to act in the interests of taxpayers,

I don't think I have a problem with this, if I understand it.

and c) the tax code should be simplified.

Strongly agreed.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If by some miracle this gets passed...

This and military cuts should account for a pretty significant chunk of the deal.

Not going to happen, don't waste your time dreaming. Be happy with an end to some loophole few people take advantage of.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I just tuned into the stream hoping to catch Obama's statement on the debt negotiations, but all I see is Carney floundering about. Did I miss him?

Edit: seems I did. Beer summit on Thursday.

 

[mckmas8808]

The same way social security, medicare, and state/local govs (sales, property) take something. It doesn't need to be a lot, just enough to give people an incentive to inform themselves about where their taxes go.

Edit: By the way, I grew up in a household that made less then $20k a year (and with a parent who refused any gov't assistance), so I know what it's like to live at that level. But even middle class families with a few kids and a mortgage pay essentially nothing.

Why does it even matter that your parent refused to take gov't assistance? Do you think you or your parent should be applauded for that? If a person has to feed 3 people in the family and only makes $20k a year why is it so bad that they accept food stamps?

I just tuned into the stream hoping to catch Obama's statement on the debt negotiations, but all I see is Carney floundering about. Did I miss him?

Yes. He said that the deficit deal has to be balanced and not something that one side only gets.

 

[Open Source]

First is that everybody is paying into the system. Payroll taxes are the second largest source of government revenue, and that is a regressive flat tax with a cap that hits working poor people hardest.

It's not a regressive tax - flat taxes are by definition neither regressive nor progressive - unless you take into consideration that income over a certain amount is not subject to the tax (true for social security, not for medicare). But of course, Social Security is not paying for the operation of government. The government borrows it, sure, but in theory, the government owes that money - and often more than you paid in, the way the numbers work now - back to you at retirement. It's supposed to be a kind of mandatory, guaranteed retirement fund, rather than redistribution of wealth via taxation - at least, that was how it was sold. But with studies showing that people starting to pay into the system now getting back less than what they put in, it doesn't appear to be the best way to save for retirement for those disciplined enough to save.

For some interesting history, check out the payroll tax rates since 1937: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html. I wonder how long we'll hold the line at 12.4%.

 

[Open Source]

Why does it even matter that your parent refused to take gov't assistance? Do you think you or your parent should be applauded for that? If a person has to feed 3 people in the family and only makes $20k a year why is it so bad that they accept food stamps?

I don't think it's wrong - in fact, I think people should take advantage of these programs if they need them - and even if they don't need them, I can't blame them for acting in their self-interest and responding to incentives. It's what we humans do. I was simply emphasizing the fact that I know what it is like to live in poverty and thus can comment knowledgeably about the potential impact of paying income tax.

But now that you mention it, yes, I think that my mother should be applauded for not burdening the system, thus allowing that money to be spent on other needy people. We could have had better clothes, food, residence, furniture, and appliances, but it wasn't a necessity - and I think that people who are willing to give up comfort so that other people can have necessities should be applauded. Do you disagree?

 

[mckmas8808]

But now that you mention it, yes, I think that my mother should be applauded for not burdening the system, thus allowing that money to be spent on other needy people. We could have had better clothes, food, residence, furniture, and appliances, but it wasn't a necessity - and I think that people who are willing to give up comfort so that other people can have necessities should be applauded. Do you disagree?

Yes I disagree. Your mother would not have been burdening the system that's the point. Because the system was made for people like your family. Now I'm not saying she's wrong either. As long as you guys were happy I don't care.

But the thought process should not be that anybody or family would be burdening the system if they have a family of 3 or 4 only making only $20k a year.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Tim Paw Iowa ad buy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfvAF2sLfmU&feature=player_embedded Trying to go after Bachmann with results not rhetoric line. Romney isn't even competing in this state. Tim Paw better watch out for Ron Paul though. I hear he might get second in the straw poll.

 

[RustyNails]

Tim Paw Iowa ad buy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfvAF2sLfmU&feature=player_embedded Trying to go after Bachmann with results not rhetoric line. Romney isn't even competing in this state. Tim Paw better watch out for Ron Paul though. I hear he might get second in the straw poll.

Romney has no chance in Iowa. He is focused on solidifying his base in New Hampshire. Bachmann and every other GOP candidate will be Romneyrolled there.

 

[mckmas8808]

President invites leaders to White House on Thursday
By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch

Obama called for a balanced agreement and said there’s “a unique opportunity to do something big.” He asked leaders of both parties in both chambers to come to the White House on Thursday.

He said that entitlements, defense spending and taxes need to be part of a deal and that both parties would have to compromise.
“I’m ready to do that,” Obama said in a brief statement at the White House.
Earlier Tuesday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell invited Obama to Capitol Hill to continue deficit talks, repeating an offer he made to the president last week.

“Republicans in Congress believe that finding a way to reduce the deficit and put Medicare on more secure footing is a conversation worth having,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. Last week Obama rejected McConnell‘s invitation, saying it wasn’t a conversation worth having if Republicans weren’t going to budge from their position.

The White House says the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling must be raised before Aug. 2 or the government won’t be able to pay Social Security, Medicare, or military benefits. It will also lose the ability to pay interest and principal payments on Treasury bonds and other securities, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned Congress.

Republicans insist that tax increases are non-starters for a deficit-reduction deal, but Obama and congressional Democrats have been pressing for ending breaks for oil companies and wealthy Americans to help close the deficit. The White House is reportedly 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 revenue, the New York Times reported.

Meanwhile, the idea of a short-term increase in the debt limit appears to be getting little traction among House Republicans after Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn suggested last weekend that such a “mini” deal may be needed. Obama’s spokesman also rejected a short-term increase on Tuesday, after the president finished speaking.

Obama doesn’t want a deal that only “kicks the can down the road,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said
​

#########################


So cable news will be on fire on Thursday. I wonder which one will they choose to cover? The Casey sentencing or this Thursday summit with the President and DEMs vs. the GOP!

 

[dramatis]

I don't think it's wrong - in fact, I think people should take advantage of these programs if they need them - and even if they don't need them, I can't blame them for acting in their self-interest and responding to incentives. It's what we humans do. I was simply emphasizing the fact that I know what it is like to live in poverty and thus can comment knowledgeably about the potential impact of paying income tax.

But now that you mention it, yes, I think that my mother should be applauded for not burdening the system, thus allowing that money to be spent on other needy people. We could have had better clothes, food, residence, furniture, and appliances, but it wasn't a necessity - and I think that people who are willing to give up comfort so that other people can have necessities should be applauded. Do you disagree?

I was in a family of three kids and a widow living off 8K and we don't ask for bloody applause. We got food stamps, we got Medicare (this entailed waiting three hours every time we went for a checkup, but that didn't matter because to my mom, when pretty much everybody on my dad's side got stricken with cancer or disease in some way, preventing her kids from dying from the same things is pretty important). My mom couldn't work because my dad croaked when my brother was five, and nobody was around to take care of him. We had to live off of rent for a while, but that's barely anything when property tax shaves off half of what you get from rent each year.

The point of burdening the system is to use it to get the opportunity to give back. In a sense, welfare and all those other social programs take care of the necessities of survival so we can search for a way upwards and eventually be able to sustain ourselves without those extra helpings. It's the same reason kids swallow thousands in loans to get through college, because they believe they can pay it back when they get out and get a job. It's not only a matter of self-interest—I can thank the government and its whimsies and still believe in the system because it gave me the chance to get out.

 

[Open Source]

Yes I disagree. Your mother would not have been burdening the system that's the point. Because the system was made for people like your family. Now I'm not saying she's wrong either. As long as you guys were happy I don't care.

But the thought process should not be that anybody or family would be burdening the system if they have a family of 3 or 4 only making only $20k a year.

I understand your point, but I think that the government's role should be limited to supplying necessities (and only in certain cases, such as when you aren't capable of supplying them yourself - either because you work and don't make enough money, you are willing to work but none is available, or you are not capable of working). If you want comfort/conveniences, you go out and earn it. If you can't earn it, you don't get to force other people to give it to you just because they can.

While that may seem cold-hearted, I think it's much more cold-hearted and short-sighted to engineer a society with perverse incentives. You want to create rules and incentives that maximize productivity and thus advance the society and increase quality of life for future generations. If you have a society that is content to be stagnant and dependent, you end up with a situation like Greece (or most of Europe, for that matter).

 

[Open Source]

I was in a family of three kids and a widow living off 8K and we don't ask for bloody applause. We got food stamps, we got Medicare (this entailed waiting three hours every time we went for a checkup, but that didn't matter because to my mom, when pretty much everybody on my dad's side got stricken with cancer or disease in some way, preventing her kids from dying from the same things is pretty important). My mom couldn't work because my dad croaked when my brother was five, and nobody was around to take care of him. We had to live off of rent for a while, but that's barely anything when property tax shaves off half of what you get from rent each year.

The point of burdening the system is to use it to get the opportunity to give back. In a sense, welfare and all those other social programs take care of the necessities of survival so we can search for a way upwards and eventually be able to sustain ourselves without those extra helpings. It's the same reason kids swallow thousands in loans to get through college, because they believe they can pay it back when they get out and get a job. It's not only a matter of self-interest—I can thank the government and its whimsies and still believe in the system because it gave me the chance to get out.

I think anyone who can make it through a tough situation and succeed should be applauded. Like I said, if you need to use government programs, then use them until you don't. The original point I made was that a larger percentage of earners should pay income tax, not that government programs should be abolished.

And by the way, I think residential property taxes are awful.

 

[mckmas8808]

I understand your point, but I think that the government's role should be limited to supplying necessities (and only in certain cases, such as when you aren't capable of supplying them yourself - either because you work and don't make enough money, you are willing to work but none is available, or you are not capable of working). If you want comfort/conveniences, you go out and earn it. If you can't earn it, you don't get to force other people to give it to you just because they can.

While that may seem cold-hearted, I think it's much more cold-hearted and short-sighted to engineer a society with perverse incentives. You want to create rules and incentives that maximize productivity and thus advance the society and increase quality of life for future generations. If you have a society that is content to be stagnant and dependent, you end up with a situation like Greece (or most of Europe, for that matter).

Dude seriously logistically how would the gov't be able to discern the difference a family that is getting money from the gov't for comfort and one that's doing it for necessities if both have a family of 4 and only have $20k coming in a year?

 

[RustyNails]

And by the way, I think residential property taxes are awful.

Awful in the way they are collected or awful in their entire concept?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yes. He said that the deficit deal has to be balanced and not something that one side only gets.

Which is an odd thing to say, given that the current position the President holds is 83% spending cuts and 17% tax revenue increases. That's a very odd definition of 'balanced'.

 

[Escape Goat]

GOP says "No compromise. Give no quarter!"

Obama counters "I'm ready to compromise."


Lets see who can spin this with the public come election.


Your move, Tea party.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Which is an odd thing to say, given that the current position the President holds is 83% spending cuts and 17% tax revenue increases. That's a very odd definition of 'balanced'.

What exactly is he proposing to "cut"? Different sources keep saying different things. One says defense is on the table for cut (Which I wholeheartedly agree with) and others medicaid? What the hell is going on?

 

[mckmas8808]

What exactly is he proposing to "cut"? Different sources keep saying different things. One says defense is on the table for cut (Which I wholeheartedly agree with) and others medicaid? What the hell is going on?

The answer to your question is both. Medicaid and Defense. It's not just one or the other.

 

[Journeywalker]

I may have missed the discussion on securitization of term life insurance policies when Kramer v. Phoenix Life Insurance Co. was decided, but I feel like I need to share an email I recently sent to my Senators (Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand), if only because I have very little confidence that a human being will actually read it.

Dear Senator,

After reading the Kramer v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co. decision and Michael Lewis's The Big Short, I have become very concerned about the securitization of life insurance policies, especially term life insurance policies. There is an eerie resemblance to the subprime mortgage crisis that cost taxpayers hundreds of billion dollars and crippled the economy. I believe it is necessary to address this urgent problem legislatively. Bond markets based on these securities can develop very quickly (like the CDS and CDO market). The personnel and infrastructure to create Originate and Sell companies in response to the demands of such a market are already in place. In fact, advertisements for term life insurance (endorsed by AARP) sound ridiculously similar to advertisements for subprime loans ("Three Easy Questions!", "Anyone can get it!"). Moody's and S&P still have incentives to give misleading (positive) ratings to these bonds. The mechanics of tranches and repackaging are well-understood. As far as I know, there is nothing legally that would interrupt any of the links in this chain.

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope this gets past the auto-response filter.

-[My Name Here]

 

[Clevinger]

GOP says "No compromise. Give no quarter!"

Obama counters "I'm ready to compromise."


Lets see who can spin this with the public come election.


Your move, Tea party.

The party that asbolutely dominates radio and owns the most popular cable channel.