Can you please elaborate? Are you predicting a Democratic House after the November elections? Or something happening to Boehner?Originally Posted by Eric the Green
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Arlington, VA 1956
- Posts
- 9,209
Can you please elaborate? Are you predicting a Democratic House after the November elections? Or something happening to Boehner?
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Besides the lower current rates for capital gains, I think that applies mainly to corporate taxes. Most deductions were eliminated from personal income taxes in 1986. Home mortgage deductions should be for first homes only. Tax deductions for charity are a good thing and should be kept. Personal income tax rates need to be returned to where they were under Clinton, as Obama originally promised. Inflation indexing for long-term capital gains seems fair, especially for real estate.
It seems so. And politicians. Even in the State of the Union we heard Obama promising more "tax breaks" to encourage this and that. Instead of paying for what we want, it's always easier (especially with a Republican congress) to promise a tax cut for the "right" activity we want to encourage. It always makes me nervous. How much revenue can the government afford to keep giving away?
Excellent point. Who is really getting all this food stamp welfare? The bosses who won't pay their employees what they are worth, leaving the gov'mint (all of us taxpayers) to pick up the tab.
High time, I say!
There's little doubt what Sheldon and his wife have been promised: a war with Iran, and more oppression of Palestine.
It's pretty clear. It was not a prediction, but a reply, saying the only positive outcome is that Boehner will not be speaker. That would happen if Democrats retake the majority.
I'm not too sure of any prediction I would make about that, astrologically that is.
I don't like that Rodger picks on Krugman, but I believe Rodger is generally right about this (see below).
I think Krugman, at best, sees the politcal calculation that we are not going to get the Federal spending we need unless there is a sense that it "is being paid for" by raising someone's taxes. Further, since the amount of any proposed increase on the wealthy would have absolutely no impact on their actual spending (it may put a small dent in their off-shore tax haven savings because that is where most of their money goes), there would be a net positive on aggregate demand (whereas Rodger nets out the spending with the tax increases and rails against that). On the other hand, Krugman, like the vast majority of folks whether conservatives or progressives, may simply just not get "it" - "it" being not taxes or equity or whatever; "it" simply being that SPENDING is what is needed!
Any way here is Rodger's latest blast -
The Art of Misdirection: How to keep the 99% in bondage, by seeming to punish the 1%.
The wealthiest 1% domination over the other 99% is based, in part, on misdirection. Never allow the 99% to understand the real reasons they are dominated. Make them think their situation is natural, even inevitable, and that some other, unrelated situation should be the focus of their anger. Example:
Mr. Paul Krugman, noted Nobel winner, wrote about the federal tax code, specifically that the wealthy 1% paid the lowest rates – and how unfair this is.
Writing about the “unfairness” of the tax code is classic magician’s misdirection. Get people talking about raising taxes on the rich and they’ll miss the whole point. Federal taxes on the rich are not too low. It’s the federal taxes an the non-rich that are too high. When people fret about rich people’s taxes, they forget about their own taxes.
Here are a few excerpts from Krugman’s article:
Taxes at the Top
By Paul Krugman, Published: January 19, 2012
Although disclosure of tax returns is standard practice for political candidates, Mitt Romney has never done so, and, at first, he tried to stonewall the issue. Then he said that he probably pays only about 15 percent of his income in taxes, and he hinted that he might release his 2011 return.
But the larger question isn’t what Mitt Romney’s tax returns have to say about Mitt Romney; it’s what they have to say about U.S. tax policy. Is there a good reason why the rich should bear a startlingly light tax burden?
In 2008, the most recent year available, the 400 highest-income filers paid only 18.1 percent of their income in federal income taxes; in 2007, they paid only 16.6 percent. The rich pay little either in payroll taxes or in state and local taxes, implying that they faced lower taxes than many ordinary workers.
Most of their income takes the form of capital gains, which are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent, far below the maximum on wages and salaries. Mr. Romney’s tax dance is doing us all a service by highlighting the unwise, unjust and expensive favors being showered on the upper-upper class.
Like a stage magician, Mr. Krugman misdirects us. He points our eyes at the rich paying too little, rather than at the real issue – the less-than-rich pay far too much.
Raising tax rates that most affect the rich, will do nothing for the middle class and the poor. You could tax every millionaire at the 100% on all their income, and that would not improve the average American’s lifestyle or wealth by even $1.
Almost every tax you can name — FICA, payroll tax, income tax, sales tax — not only is unnecessary, but it hurts the economy and the lower classes far more than the wealthiest.
Visualize this analogy. Each day, the richest 1% buy and wear brand new wardrobes of opulent clothing, and each day throw away the old. The clothing is made by the 99% — that’s their source of income — who themselves wear old rags.
Mr. Krugman tells the 99%, this is unfair; he suggests the 1% change clothing every two days instead of one. The 99% are mollified, because something has been done to hurt the rich, so forgetting they still wear rags.
The moral: If you truly want to keep the 99% in bondage, turn their focus to increasing taxes on the 1%, and make them forget about their own, unnecessary taxes – just as Mr. Krugman has done.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Also, I would add student loans to the list of Rodger's taxes that are keeping the economy choking on the detritus of the last 30 years of markets neo-liberalism. Those loans are not only a problem for the next several years of a stagnant economy; they are killers of the future of this country.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
Crap, I didn't think about that angle, but upon hearing it, I now have little doubt of it.
Now I'm depressed. Time for a couple of shots.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
I've heard from a few people in the know say that Boehner could actually throw his hat into the presidential hopeful ring. If enough Republican candidates self implode, could that be a possibility?!?!
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Lol. Had to be the 70s.Boehner, very smug wall paper from the 70s.
Cheers.
Okay, I misread your post. My bad.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
I don't think so; he has about as much appeal as a lead balloon!
But I could look up his chart rating.... might not be too good, since his birthday is close to mine
But let's see... 10-6, not too bad actually, although his best aspect is quite weak (like Perry's). If Republicans really want someone who has accomplished absolutely nothing, I suppose he'd be no worse than the current crop....
I'm not too impressed with Rodgers. Spending is what we need, no doubt, whether that is deficit spending created through the Fed/Treasury and/or borrowing, or paid-for through taxation ("tax and spend liberalism"); and I'm sure Krugman GETS that (and has said so clearly and repeatedly); but ultimately it needs to be paid for, IMO. A stimulated economy would pay for it, but only if we raise taxes soon afterward.
It is interesting that, perhaps counter-intuitively, higher taxes on the wealthy really do lead to greater equality. The stats on that are clear and have been posted abundantly, by yourself too I believe.... The taxes trim the wealth and power of the wealthy, and the resulting government spending of the tax money boosts the other people in the economy in many ways. Taxes given to the government are spent, and this creates economic activity and equality. Tax money kept by the wealthy is not spent, except to boost their own wealth and power (through buyouts, gambling, hoarding, receiving interest on loans made, and dividends on stocks purchased, etc.). Trickle-down does not trickle. It's no wonder the wealthy hate taxes, and that through their power, they deceive regular folks into thinking that taxes hurt them too.
Too much national debt becomes a problem if interest rates go up, and this drains money to service the loans, although this gives some economic benefit through the money paid to loan holders-- at least if they are American. Creating still more money to pay the debt perpetuates this debt cycle. Printing money is only one potential cause of inflation; probably a minor one, but a problem nevertheless-- if and when inflation returns, largely because of higher prices for gas and other basic needs....
I don't think they are "taxes," but definitely these student loans choke the economy, and what's worse, they choke the students, and help keep the wealthy-few rich and everyone else poor.Also, I would add student loans to the list of Rodger's taxes that are keeping the economy choking on the detritus of the last 30 years of markets neo-liberalism. Those loans are not only a problem for the next several years of a stagnant economy; they are killers of the future of this country.
JPT has one thing right.
The rise of Gingrich is about anger.
Latest polls show Romney making a comeback and I am rooting for him.
One other note about G vs. R.
Rooting for Gingrich against Romney or vice versa is about like rooting for McDonalds vs. Goldman-Sachs or vice versa.
Two well greased machines. Either way your planet is doomed, doomed..
.
Last edited by herbal tee; 01-25-2012 at 08:03 PM.
We clearly don't agree on politics. For jobs , I would prefer Romney.One other note about G vs. R.
Rooting for Gingrich against Romney or vice versa is about like rooting for McDonalds vs. Goldman-Sachs or vice versa.
Two well greased machines. Either way your planet is doomed, doomed..
.
We agree on the data. I just think that Gingich's momentum has slowed:
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000003619 StartFragment:0000002475 EndFragment:0000003583 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/25/10236395-poll-romney-and-gingrich-neck-and-neck-in-florida
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads former House Speaker Newt Gingrich by two points in Florida, a margin well within a new poll's margin of error, reflecting a close race in the key primary.
Thirty-six percent of Republicans likely to vote in Florida's primary said they intend to vote for Romney; 34 percent would choose Gingrich, according to a CNN/TIME/ORC poll released
Polls have been all over the place. Considering that Romney had a huge lead a few weeks ago, Gingrich has clearly gotten a big bounce. But Romney has once again gone heavily negative on Gingrich, both in the last debate and in ads, which may have stalled Newt's momentum. These situations are why polling averages are so useful:
RCP Florida
The best guess is that it's a dead heat as of right now, both in FL and nationally.
Sorry if my post came off with a mixed message. I'm not berating Gingrich or any Republican for suggesting that Blacks have bad living conditions or little money, a lot of us do. I was trying to say that Gingrich comes across as saying,"All they have to do is get a decent job and food stamps won't be necessary." Easier said than done. A living wage job is the end-game for a lot of people. The battle is at home and making it through the educational system (i.e.. finishing high school & making it to higher education). After that point is where reasonable jobs make it into the equation. Did I interpret your post correctly? Or were you making a point (using sarcasm) that posts like mine are criticized for pointing out the situation of Black people? I'm a little rusty with Internet sarcasm. :P
Last edited by Cole94; 01-25-2012 at 09:46 PM.
No herbal tee is right. Romney and Gingrich have exactly the same plan for "jobs:" trickle-down economics. Endless trickle-down economics. Romney is not going to "create jobs." How many government jobs will he dole out?
Never take a politicians word at face value.Here's a very interesting question from last night's SOTU address.
Is President Obama Proposing That the Government Buy Out the Banks' Bad Mortgages?
Written by Dean Baker Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:49 That seems to be what the administration is proposing according to an article in the New York Times. The article says that the Obama administration wants to let people with underwater mortgages with private lenders refinance into government guaranteed mortgages.
As described in the article, this would effectively mean that the government will be giving banks 100 cents on the dollar for mortgages where they could have anticipated substantial losses. If this is true, it would mean that the banks and investors who hold stakes in mortgage backed securities would be getting far more money out of the deal than the homeowners who the policy is ostensibly designed to help.
To take a simply example, suppose a homeowner owes $250,000 on a home that is currently worth $200,000. It is likely that this homeowner will at some point default on the mortgage or need to make a short sale which could result in the bank losing $50,000 or more. (Foreclosures involve substantial legal expenses and require that the bank pay a realtor to resell the property.)
On the other hand, if the government guarantees a new loan, the bank gets it full $250,000 back. The government would now stand in the same position as the bank had formerly, possibly losing $50,000 or more if the homeowner defaults. On the other hand, the benefit to the homeowner is paying a lower interest rate. If this arrangement results in a 2 percentage point drop in the mortgage interest rate, the homeowner would save roughly $5,000 a year. In this story, the homeowner is almost certain to get much less out of the deal than the bank or investor.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
James, where on earth did you get the idea that universities contribute to campaigns? Please, I really want to hear this one.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
