-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Eh. I don't think thats a big deal, they would have blown up any cut proposed.
The GOP still backs the ryan budget which dismantles medicare. Its not like they have they're free from proposing cuts. They have votes on record.
When this doesn't come for a vote the dems can still say they don't support it. There are 3 budgets floating around (the CPC isn't a budget that matters unfortunently for 2014) candidates can pick and choose.
The GOP still backs the ryan budget which dismantles medicare. Its not like they have they're free from proposing cuts. They have votes on record.
When this doesn't come for a vote the dems can still say they don't support it. There are 3 budgets floating around (the CPC isn't a budget that matters unfortunently for 2014) candidates can pick and choose.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
GOP never named the cuts they wanted. Obama has.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Ryan budget cuts medicare and obamacare. They've voted on it.
Also the senior voting bloc was smaller than the younger vote in 2012, yeah I know midterm but I do have faith OFA will push a lot more than in 2010. Other things matter and obama's budget protects them while the ryan budget doesnt.
how can one man be so dumb
Difference is, GOP have their propaganda machine behind them.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Who didn't see this coming, outside of Obama.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Obama is such a dumbass
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Was this much fear mongering in 2011 when obama proposed raising the retirement age, when the GOP was going to win on the 700 billion dollar cut to medicare?
The propaganda machine didn't work in 2012, in the Fiscal cliff, debt ceiling, etc. Its overblown. If the GOP's poll numbers rise for a few months after this I'd panic. Otherwise no.
There's a reason why the CPI cut is in the government's budget and not the senate budget.
Obama was on the offensive for 2012 though. For 2010 he was 'compromising' where the huge losses came from(of course alot of that was because of the gerrymandering). If he continues this shit, then the dems could have a very hard time in the upcoming election I believe.
Black Mamba
Member
No. I clearly did not argue this. higher rates cause people to save more, but what you seem to be missing is why the rates rise. You said if we want people to save more, why not just raise interest rates? You seem to not understand how the rates go up. If only it were so easy.
in inelastic what? You're missing a word or two in that sentence.
I didn't want to do it, but fine.
Can you read and understand this (from that study) -
I actually can, it's not even super complicated, but my guess is that you didn't exactly read it, you were looking for a study that would support you position, but I'm more than happy to talk about the issues that I have in their methodology, but if you're going to butt out and say "well, it's really about compliance complexity" then I'd rather not bother.
Also, before we start, can you tell me what claim from the study exactly do you want to argue about, it says numerous things.
p.s.
I lied, I'm not more than happy, that shit is boring as hell, I hope you say 'no', for both of us.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I can understand the math, but that isn't relevant (and I haven't read that paper in a long time). I merely posted it as a model that demonstrates, under certain conditions, what I've been saying (the paper looks into switching from one to the other which is a different issue to our conversation). And yes, it would be boring and I frankly don't want to get into that type of conversation.
I'm just at a loss about your argument. You are arguing that there is no benefit to a consumption tax over an income tax in any way, despite a huge consensus on the subject, without actually explaining why and simply outright rejecting almost argument to the contrary. When I bring up one benefit you seem at least willing to accept it does (increase saving and investment) you claim this is not a benefit. You're arguing Americans shouldn't have saved more in the past, which to me is a ludicrous position. Just the fact that you think the compliance costs of a sales tax is the same as the income tax is strange. I mean, it should be self-evidently not.
As I said, we're not getting anywhere. You asked someone to explain the benefits, you don't like the answers given, and I am failing to see the benefit of going on.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I hope Obama has some plan to deal with this. He couldn't have not anticipated it.
Though it does seem like every time it appears he's screwing up, he ends up causing the gop to self destruct. We'll see.
Though it does seem like every time it appears he's screwing up, he ends up causing the gop to self destruct. We'll see.
Doubtful, he won't be pressing the Senate to go along with his plan once the opposition starts up their nonsense. It's looking more like a proposal to propose and then letting the Senate do their usual negotiations. Added benefit of making the GOP look more unserious if they don't want spending cuts *OR* tax increases.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The thing that makes it worse is that it doesn't even save much money over 10 years. This is like Dukakis riding around in a tank to show he's strong on defense: it doesn't mean anything and projects an image that isn't authentic or likable. Except while riding around in a tank pretending like you're strong is harmless, cutting social security actually hurts people. And the only reason it's being proposed is so Obama can look Serious for the Serious People. A democrat president, offering to cut social security in exchange for eliminating a few tax loopholes for rich people. The end result would be poor people being poorer and rich people being...slightly less rich.
The only way this is comprehensible is if you accept the idea that Obama isn't serious about any of this, doesn't seem engaged in actually cutting the deficit, and ultimately just cares about the image of bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake. If you raise (or eliminate) the income cap on social security you fix the program forever, without touching benefit levels. Which solution do you think the public would support more?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
What traps? When has he "lost" besides sequestration?
this is an annoying cycle. Panic from the left that obama is giving in, republicans screw up and push themselves into a corner and we end up escaping from damage.
He lost 2010 not due to fiscal issues but because of health care.
Obama is going to be on the offensive in 2014. Look what he's doing with Guns, next will be immigration, etc.
Do you want me to seriously list all the times over the first term when this happened? I can't tell if you're being serious or not considering how often it happened. It's either from trying to bend over too far to accommodate Republicans in a show of good faith that is never returned, or it's from walking right into a trap that allows the narrative to shift away into craziness (say, the entire summer of the Health Care debate).
PhoenixDark
Banned
This tells me more about republican extremism than Obama. If republicans were smart, or half way interested in the extreme positions they claim to support, they would have fleeced Obama long ago. They could have gotten a raise in the Medicare eligibility age in 2011, and they could get social security cuts now in exchange for cutting tax loopholes they can simply reinstate to a defense appropriations bill or omnibus bill down the line.
Thank god McConnell is the senate minority leader and not the House majority leader. Every time Boehner struggles with his job I can just imagine McConnell shaking his head at the missed opportunities House republicans are piling up.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Maybe he just believes in this shit. It would explain a lot.
He believes in getting that Grand Bargain™ footnote for his chickenshit legacy.
Black Mamba
Member
It's impossible to know if Obama or the GOP stepped into a trap. Clearly the white house believes the GOP is stepping into a trap by demonstrating their completely unwillingness to compromise while the GOP feels it has Obama on record to attack him by.
fucking mess.
fucking mess.
I'm confuse by what you're saying, you're saying we can change the interest rates?
What do you think I'm talking about?
To interest rates.
Come on now, don't play stupid.
So now it's a consensus?
And you didn't explain shit, you linked to an article.
But fine, what argument for VAT do you think is supported by that article?
They're pretty much advocating a more regressive tax code (they don't say it in so many words but their equations do).
The Librarian
Banned
TacticalFox88
Banned
Is the man so obsessed with having a legacy of bipartisanship that he's failing to see that these people WILL NOT FUCKING NEGOTIATE?!
What's it going to take for him to wake the fuck up to reality?
What's it going to take for him to wake the fuck up to reality?
Well, he kinda has to do some negotiating, otherwise nothing will pass the house. He's not in a position to just state something and get it passed.
ElectricThunder
Member
There's a time when you are trying to give a person the shirt off your back....but there's a time when you are just damned eager to strip for somebody---this, the latest in a long series of these "strange mistakes/ridiculously deep strategies", portends the latter far more than the former.
Obama appears to be legacy-mad in the way that only a person who has lived to see the cult of Reagan could be in this modern age---the legacy of a sort that is only granted by the establishment proper in deference to whatever neo-x oppressive philosophical gambit they are running at the time. Considering his following directly in the wake of Bush's disaster of a presidency, he had every opportunity to course correct, dramatically, away from the lot of this austerity and otherwise addled nonsense with the reeling public primed to have his back outside of the crazies that would remain crazy regardless.
I'd have much rather he'd turned out to be a literal Carter-type---somebody that essentially put forth as much effort as they could and then continued to endeavor even moreso after the fact. Instead, he's essentially only been doing his level best only to not become the Phantom Carter that the right wing and whatnot have been conjuring out loud the entire while to close the loop on their 80's Reagan Melodrama that they've never been able to let go.
The notion that anybody, in this day and age, straight faced, would even suggest to proclaim that the Republicans are deserving of deference in their direction is pretty laughable though---in the most depressing of ways.
Obama appears to be legacy-mad in the way that only a person who has lived to see the cult of Reagan could be in this modern age---the legacy of a sort that is only granted by the establishment proper in deference to whatever neo-x oppressive philosophical gambit they are running at the time. Considering his following directly in the wake of Bush's disaster of a presidency, he had every opportunity to course correct, dramatically, away from the lot of this austerity and otherwise addled nonsense with the reeling public primed to have his back outside of the crazies that would remain crazy regardless.
I'd have much rather he'd turned out to be a literal Carter-type---somebody that essentially put forth as much effort as they could and then continued to endeavor even moreso after the fact. Instead, he's essentially only been doing his level best only to not become the Phantom Carter that the right wing and whatnot have been conjuring out loud the entire while to close the loop on their 80's Reagan Melodrama that they've never been able to let go.
The notion that anybody, in this day and age, straight faced, would even suggest to proclaim that the Republicans are deserving of deference in their direction is pretty laughable though---in the most depressing of ways.
There's already a whole Plum Line leak about it. Basically, Obama believes that it's already too late to avoid getting attacked over chained CPI after discussing it during the fiscal cliff, and that the GOP is just not effective at attacking Democrats for cutting entitlements, compared to the effectiveness of framing the GOP as the party of the rich. I don't think it's intrinsically a crazy argument -- I remember this coming up last year. Attacking Dems for slashing entitlements cuts across the political narrative, which makes it harder to stick. At the same time, when Boehner and Cantor are calling for the SS cuts to be passed immediately, it kind of muddies the waters for people who want to pin it on Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rs-cut-social-security-but-dont-tax-the-rich/
People seem to be freaking out just based on the GOP's reaction here, which seems silly to me. We already knew what the Republicans were going to do. The real question is what the political consequences will be, and we haven't seen those yet. Just because somebody says it doesn't make it so.
TacticalFox88
Banned
The man is the first black President! His legacy, for better or worse, was cemented in World History the moment he was inaugurated!
UGH.
UGH.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I agree that he's walking into "traps" but they've never ended up being traps, he escapes we've never really instituted these horrible things besides sequestration
That's my point.
No doubt. But I do tend (maybe more actually hope) Obama is proposing this stuff with this stuff in mind.
Allowing a "health debate" among interested parties and bringing Republicans into the fold was one of Obama's very first - and most important - strategic choices during the Health Care debate, as was his decision to sit back and let Congress hash out the details. He did this in good faith.
The negative repercussions of that are still being felt with the dead even split country and the barely mediocre bill we ended up with.
Or how about the 2010 debt ceiling debate? Want to get into how many ways Obama failed on that one?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't see how he failed on the health bill. He didn't have 60 for the public option nor single payer.
And I said sequestration was a failure in 2011. But really the GOP held the country hostage (he needed the house) and there had not been an election to dissuade them from the madness. Looking back things look easy. At that time I don't think it was so simple. The GOP was different then, emboldened by their 2010 victories.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Greg Sargent is one of the biggest water boys in the blogosphere, it's not surprising that he's getting this info.
Republicans did a pretty damn good job of attacking democrats on Medicare in 2010, and won 56% of the senior vote in 2012. Mid term elections tend to be whiter and older than national elections: which argument will be more effective with that audience, more "party of the rich" rhetoric or Social Security scare tactics?
Black Mamba
Member
No, you are.
I honestly have no idea what you're saying.
Of course it's regressive, it's replacing the income tax completely (which I don't support). I said I'm fine with a small VAT with exemptions. The point is it shows how it affects the economy switching from income to sales. It hurts cuz of the regressiveness, however.
You are arguing that a tax on consumption vs a tax on income have no different affect on the aggregate economy. It's a strange position.
Eh...Obama lost the senior vote in 2012, and there was evidence that the Reps scaremongering on his medicare cuts had something to do with it.
The whole point is the regressivness though, they don't say that, but their equations do.
I mean, by their conclusions, the only reasons not to completely axe the the capital gains tax is a potentially problematic transition period (which I couldn't find reflected anywhere in their equations, I think they just aware of how bad that conclusion looks).
Black Mamba
Member
That's fine but it's a red herring.
All true. And for that matter, raising the income cap for the payroll tax was Obama's 2008 capaign pledge (though he left an arbitrary hole at from the current to the $250k income levels). Unlike his current proposal that would actually do something (raise revenue) and do it without lowering senior's living standard.
Obama's such a weird guy. I don't understand how someone who pushed so hard for UHC would support cuts in entitlement programs. I mean, I suppose you can theoretically have both beliefs, but I'm finding it difficult to understand how he squares that circle.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I do tend to see things from the Democratic perspective more often, but I don't really see how Obama's gifted anything to Republicans by including chained CPI in his budget. It's always been a part of his White House deficit plan, all you had to do was go to whitehouse.gov and it was there. It was called superlative CPI but it was the same thing.
His approval rating might take a little hit but he'll regain ground the next time he pulls off something. It's par for the course.
How is that a red herring?
They're making the case for a more regressive tax code, VAT is one way to achieve a more regressive tax code, if you accept that we need a more regressive tax code because "inefficiency" then yes, I agree, we probably need to stop arguing about that, because i'm o-for in persuading supply siders to change their mind.
But if you don't, I think you're doing a really selective reading - accepting conclusions while rejecting the assumptions they're based on is not intellectually honest.
Black Mamba
Member
the regressiveness is a red herring. The piece is about replacing all income taxes, which I oppose. But that doesn't mean we can't look to other things there, specifically the effect on the economy. You seem to be stuck thinking one must accept everything to take anything away from what's written. That's not a good aprpoach.
You know we can have include a VAT to replace a part of income taxes and make it more progressive, right?
Eliminate all payroll taxes.
Institute 1% VAT on everything.
Tie capital gains and dividends taxes to income
Boom, I just made the overall tax code more progressive and reduced taxes on the lower and middle classes. I may have lowered revenues too, but that is besides the point.
point is: a VAT is commonly associated with a more regressive tax code, but it's not required. It is wholly possible to devise a combo income tax and VAT that brings in the same revenue, increases progressivity, and reduces tax burdens on the lower and middle classes while lowering compliance and enforcement costs and increasing economic efficiency. It's doable, maybe not politically, but doable. If you disagree, then fine. I won't convince you otherwise since you think how you tax is irrelevant in aggregate.
edit: Would I accept a VAT if it meant better health care options and retirement? Possibly. To date it sure hasn't happened through the income tax structure. Scandinavia seems to put its VAT alongside great social safety nets and welfare so maybe they've realized politically it's better to go with a VAT in some ways to achieve other goals. I'm sorry to say, but you seem to be very close minded to the whole concept from the get-go.
My point is that according to their equations, your plan is worse than the current plan.
Seriously man, look at the equations, forget meaning, forget right or wrong, forget it's about taxes, just pure math, mathematically, what's drive the increase in efficiency?
Black Mamba
Member
I get that, I suppose I was hoping you'd just look at one aspect instead of all of it. That's my fault I suppose.
I will reiterate what I said later in that post:
Just gonna drop this here:
http://gawker.com/5994272/republica...-he-isnt-racist-because-he-has-a-black-friend
http://gawker.com/5994272/republica...-he-isnt-racist-because-he-has-a-black-friend
speculawyer
Member
http://americablog.com/2013/04/joe-barton-climate-change-flood-noah.htmlJoe Barton said:
I don't even . . . I . . . ugh.
FFS, at least get your theology right. You can't blame rising oceans on god because he promised he wouldn't do it again.
Then again, maybe the far right will provide the world with the greatest disproof of Christianity ever. In 2300, there will be no Christians left when rising oceans swallowed up coastal cities thus disproving the Bible.
And best part . . . their grand-kids will all be Muslims. LOL.
My point is that even under those pretty hard to achieve conditions, I don't see why it would be preferable to a change in the income tax which is revenue neutral to your income + VAT system.
I want to be clear at what I'm saying here, it's definitely possible to design a system that includes VAT which would not only be pretty fair but vastly superior than what we have today.
But you can also do it with a small flat tax component.
I think a more useful way is to compare the individual ways we can collect taxation, and I just think that VAT has no advantage over income tax (and plenty of disadvantages).
Even ignoring the retarded Bible invocation, he seems to be arguing that he does believe in climate change, just not that it's being caused by things like hydrocarbons, which is precisely what the friggin climate change debate is about, and thus proving that he doesn't in fact believe in climate change.
- Status