The Hostage President
Barack Obama started last week playing golf with John Boehner a few days before going on TV to proclaim a foreseeable victory in the Middle East, hoping no one would notice he was wearing handcuffs all the time.
Now, with Republicans walking out on debt ceiling talks and the Afghan victory lap clearly a mirage, the President’s chains are inescapably visible. Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl have him as tied up in Washington as Hamid Karzai does in Kabul.
The White House may still be living in some dimly remembered Age of Reason, but intransigence is clearly the prevailing political climate. A New York Times editorial decries the GOP “temper tantrum,” pointing out that they “had no intention of actually negotiating. Negotiations require listening to those on the other side and giving them something they want in exchange for some of your goals.”
Meanwhile, post-bin Laden discoveries are showing how closely our Pakistani allies and clients have been working with Al Qaeda while taking billions of U.S. aid money
In all this, we are still debating our future at home and abroad based on a fantasy world that bears little relation to what pre-9/11 Americans would recognize as reality.
Ten years ago, this nation had a budget surplus, unemployment of 4.4 percent and no wars.
MORE.
29 Responses to “The Hostage President”
The Republicans refuse to negotiate because doing so would mean they might need to allow some tax increases on the wealthy. As long as Democrats proposed tax increases on the poor and the middle class to lessen the tax burden on the wealthy they might get somewhere. That would be a compromise they could live with. Just do not ask them to turn their backs on the wealthy. The wealthy are a small minority in our nation and their wealth is besieged by the clamoring hoards of poor and middle class citizens. Someone needs to represent them and if no-one else is willing to do so the Republican Party will take on the yoke. Their voice in government is bought and paid for, and the Republican Party is going to make sure they get their money’s worth.
Welcome to TMV David.
Can you define for me who “the wealthy” are?
I’m happy to refute your perspective with facts but I’d like to avoid the part where you move the goalposts…
By percentage or income, who are the wealthy?
Any Repubican who negotiates with Democrats is signing up for their own political extinction. Democrats do not believe that any rules apply to them and will renege of any deal in the future.
The Republicans should say what they want and see what the Democrats are will to do to give the Republicans what they want. Since the Democrats want much higher taxes, more government, more regulations (on others), more diversity (for others), and want to increase the percentage of the population that are parasites, there is no reason for Republicans to waste one minute negotiating with them.
LittleDavid is smack on the money. There is no mystery about the truth and no particular genius is required to grasp it, only a suspension of tribal reflex.
“The White House may still be living in some dimly remembered Age of Reason, but intransigence is clearly the prevailing political climate.” ~ RS
Yup. The oft observed axiom about republicans being good at campaigning but lousy at governing ignores thier talent for throwing wrenches in anyone elses work at governing.
Stevein CH,
How did I move the goalposts? The Wizard of Wall Street, Warren Buffett, stated he pays a lower rate of taxes on his earnings then does his secretary.
So your definition of rich is Warren Buffett?
Fine, take all his money and Bill Gates’ too. Still going to be facing a mighty large deficit.
The reason I asked you for a definition is so I can show you the relevant facts. Funny that you didn’t provide me with one. Care to try again?
What fact do you want to hear?
I will acknowledge that we can not confiscate all the wealth of the top 10% and expect to solve the debt problem. Is that the point you are driving at?
Nope, not at all. I’m waiting for your definition of rich. Once you provide it, I’ll happily show you that the tax rates of most of the people you call rich have increased since 1970 while the rates of almost everyone else have declined.
So if you would, define the rich or the wealthy. If you choose to admit that what is in the first paragraph is correct, feel free to just admit that instead.
Steve, since you love asking questions so much, maybe you would be willing to answer one:
What exactly in David’s comment do you disagree with? Please be specific and concise. No misquoting, no strawmen, and no assumptions. What exactly did he say that is untrue???
I think I see where you are going.
I am self employed and pay over 30% in top marginal income tax rates and self employment taxes on my earnings.
Someone who is wealthy earning up to $83k in long term capital gains profits pays zero federal taxes. Are you going to claim this is fair?
Still ducking are you? How interesting but let me take it at face value.
If you make $83K in long term capital gains, you pay about $12,5000 in income taxes, not zero. So let’s start with the fact that your example is just flat wrong.
Now let’s look at the average person who makes 83K in wages. We’ll use the 4th quintile average from the CBO for the rate although the income is a bit higher.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/AverageFedTaxRates2007.pdf
The combined effective rate for payroll and income taxes for such a person is 15.7%. Wow, almost exactly the same. How about that.
Now that’s not to say that I don’t favor increasing the cap gains rate. In point of fact I’m happy taking it back to 20, but your initial point comparison of 30% to zero is both inaccurate and the more accurate comparison 15% versus 15.7% is far less dramatic than you would make it out to be.
How about that? Now, I’m still waiting for your definition of rich or wealthy since the data will show exactly what I said it would. You are either ignorant of the data or choosing to deceive with your description of what has happened to tax rates in this country.
Well JS, since it’s just a pile of assertions, I guess I consider all of it unproven and unsubstantiated.
The inference I drew was that the bought and paid for politicians have been increasing taxes on the poor and the middle class to spare the wealthy. It seems a fair inference given the post.
If David wishes to stipulate he does not believe this, I’ll happily go away. As to his more recent post, I think I’ve been very specific as to my area of disagreement.
No, you are incorrect. If your top marginal rate is 15% and you make $83k in long term capital gains you pay ABSOLUTELY zero in federal income tax as long as that is your only source of income.
Such a person did not earn any wages, so the income is not subject to self employment taxes or any manifestation of the payroll tax.
They paid zero, let me repeat ZERO in federal income, self employment or payroll taxes.
So you seriously want to argue the person who has less than $35K in income and $83K in long term capital gains. By the way, the $83K is irrelevant. The only thing that’s relevant is whether the person is in the 15% bracket (which ends at $35K or so in income) or higher. All gains are taxed at 15% if you cross the income threshold.
For god sake, it’s like talking about Warren Buffett, it’s such an individual example, it doesn’t even matter. How many people do you think are consistently booking $80 LT cap gains and below the income cap? Talk about cherry picking nonrepresentative examples.
But to help me understand, is your preference that the capital gains tax apply regardless of income? I’m fine with that but it sure wouldn’t make the tax code more progressive.
Now, as to the original point, is it your contention that the rich have become relatively less taxed in terms of income and payroll taxes over time? If so, on what factual basis do you reach that conclusion?
Stevein CH,
You asked:
Now, as to the original point, is it your contention that the rich have become relatively less taxed in terms of income and payroll taxes over time?
Yes that is my contention.
I see you googled something you knew nothing about to come up with some figures to argue your point. Look at the figures you came up with as the results and factor in the average American family with a couple kids and allow for the standard deductions allowed when they file.
As America discusses revenues and taxes, there are others that examine the situation with a more open mind, such as this individual in Sweden.
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/04/does-united-states-have-revenue-problem.html
One very interesting fact in this article is the chart showing the revenues and deficits by Presidential terms. Take a look and make up your own mind about taxes, revenues, spending and deficits.
OK Little David
I also asked you to tell me how you know your contention to be true and you chose not to answer me. That’s because you don’t know it to be true, you simply believe it without facts.
Here are the facts. Average Federal income and payroll tax rates for 1970 and 2004
Average of all HHs: 18.3%/20.8%
P0-90 (the bottom 90%): 17.1%/16.9%
In other words, payroll and income taxes combined are at a lower rate than they were in 1970 despite the fact that for all Americans they are higher.
P90-95 (the next 5%):18.2%/23.1%
P95-99 (the next 4%):19.1%/24.5%
P99-99.5 (the next .5%):22.2%/26.0%
P99.5-P99.9 (the next .4%)26.7%/26.8%
So for the next 9.9% of the American population (many of whom most would refer to as “rich” or “wealthy”), tax rates are higher today than they were in 1970 for payroll and income taxes.
Now for the top 0.1% of HHs (about 140,000 in total), tax rates are lower than they were in 1970.
So we have three possible conclusions:
1. You define rich as the top .1% of HHs, earning more than $1.5 million or so a year. Totally fine with me but a very different definition than is in common usage.
2. You have an alternative source of data you are choosing to reference to back up your point. Haven’t seen one yet but maybe you have one…a source of data mind you not a leftist website simply stating the conclusion.
3. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Thanks for the link RP. Interesting and fact-based view there.
Ah Steve, you platy that game every time someone tries to cross your preconceptions. Corp rates were the last discussion we had about tax rates, and as remember, all i got from you was crickets when I pointed out that their share of taxes against the GDP of the nation was 1.2%
allow me to point out the problem as you would like to couch the argument”
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter4.08.1.03.png
taxpayers pay ten times more percentage of the GDP baseline than the corps.
lots of graphs for you to spin at this site.
ps
Welcome David, watch where you walk or you’ll get some on you. :- )
Hemm,
You and I have been round and round on the corporate tax rate before. I’m not headed there. David’s point which he confirmed wasn’t about that.
If you want to start a separate debate about it, I’m happy to have one.
The percentage paid is a bad place to start though Hemm because by that metric the rich pay so much more…a better place would be the effective tax rates, which are similar.
Your actual issue is that corps pay taxes on income not revenue. When challenged of course, you can’t explain how a revenue tax would work. For example, a grocery store makes 3% in profit, if you taxed at revenue above 3% either all the grocery stores would lose money and close or they’d raise prices, far more likely the latter. And if they raised prices to cover the tax increase, guess who pays.
Corporate taxes are in large part pass through taxes. However, I know you either don’t understand that or don’t agree so we shouldn’t put the whole world through that discussion again ; )
And yes Hemm, I know you hate when we discuss the personal tax code without simultaneously discussing the corporate tax code but I hope you’ll get over it someday.
If you eat any products made with corn, regardless if you are Buffet, or not, you are chipping in with the corn tax. As mentioned above, ten years does make a difference. Take the price of a bushel of corn, 2001: $2.00, 2011: $7.31. 40% of corn is diverted from food to ethanol production and on top of that we give $5 billion a year in subsidies to an industry of dubious value. Congratulations, O, you just allowed an increase in taxes to those making $250,000/year. How about eliminating subsidies for oil, gas and ethanol.
Steve, I see you ducked my question. Not that I really expected you to address it forthrightly.
And here I thought I answered it pretty directly and my answer was confirmed in a subsequent post.
But JS, I never expect anything but baseless superiority from you so this is part of the course.
Dodging the greater point by trying to dismiss LD’s comment in it’s entirety hardly qualifies as an answer, although it might suffice for the choir (and yourself of course). I did get a kick out of seeing you use the phrase “cherry picking” though. Coming from you that was chuckle-worthy. Keep juggling those numbers Steve.
Steve, I don’t know why others refuse to defend their assertions when you question them, or why they’re irrationally defended.
* * *
As far as tax increases as part of a GOP-Dem fiscal agreement to secure an increase in the debt ceiling, I’ve properly noted already that the first thing that needs to be done is to resume the earlier FICA tax rates or even raise them more (perhaps with also lifting or abolishing the income “cap” currently in place — despite liberal nonsense, it won’t magically cure Social Security’s and Medicare’s problems, but certainly could help a little). Spending is the true problem with Washington (along with its size and scope to match), entitlements are the greatest and most crucial problem to solve, by far, and there’s no excuse for continuing to finance the program even more insufficiently than before, notably if liberals and Democrats ignore the desire to avoid being anti-stimulative, which tax increases are, that they profess to be and to want to be. (Spending is our problem and given the level we are at now for debt as well as spending, vast new spending is lunacy.)
Nobody has mentioned the more important part about reducing spending, which is the real problem with the federal government’s fiscal problems (as well as others stemming from its grossly excessive size, scope, degree of intervention in everything that’s conceivable, and expectations by many failed and failing people for this much or more from it). Entitlements are the Godzilla of spending and of the federal budget (everything is part of the true budget; “on-budget” and “off-budget” distinctions are political game-playing), and entitlement reform is the most important thing that needs to be done, not merely because of fiscal concerns now, but even more so later. Hence the obvious need to raise FICA taxes before anything else is done for tax increases.
Sadly, we’re going to see more of the usual disgusting games, with Democrats (liberal Democrats in particular) demanding large increases in the individual (and perhaps, in defiance of reality as well as propriety, corporate) income tax(es), and notably to seek substantial progressivity in this (these), in the typical dishonest name of “fairness” [sic]. Nice emotional appeal to the gullible and those susceptible to demagogy (a lib-Dem staple), so it’ll be sought.
JS
Cherry picking is using data points as representative of a population (e.g., Warren Buffett vs his secretary as representative of “the rich” versus the “middle class”). That’s what LD chose to do.
As for the rest of his comment, it’s nothing but an assertion.
Shocking of course that none of you want to engage on the data. It’s cherry picked from a pair of liberal Stanford economists. But it contradicts your point of view (and LD’s) so you don’t reply save in the snarky superior vein.
And the world turns….
SteveinCH
“The percentage paid is a bad place to start though Hemm because by that metric the rich pay so much more…a better place would be the effective tax rates, which are similar.”
Effective tax rate does not work from a common, stable, base. Measuring taxes paid as a percentage of GDP provides that stable divisor. The graph I showed was demonstrates the the percentage paid for scorp taxes and cap gains are minuscule compared with FICA and middle class contribution.
You know well as I that cap gains are largely the domain of those who make 250k plus a year, and that the more you make, the more likely you are of gaining income through this low rate tax. Choose your favorite color lipstick, but cap gain rates are still a pig.
Why should income be classified differently unless doing so makes a good deal for a select few?
good morning kind sir, btw