U.S. Congress considering tax cuts averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Aug 23, 2010 5:06 PM GMT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 5:32 PM GMT
    tokugawa saidhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general


    Well, that makes sense!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 7:12 PM GMT
    A plan to fix a budget deficit and shortfalls should not involve trying to figure out ways to extract money from people to fix irresponsible spending mistakes made by politicians who racked up debt by spending on things that they shouldn't have to begin with. The way you fix budget problems is by simply not spending and cutting things that require spending.

    If a person is living on a limited budget but they want to buy more things and help out friends in need, should they borrow money and go into debt to keep living the way that they want? The answer is :nope. But the democrats say: YEP!

    If a homeless person steals something from a millionaire it's still considered an offense in society, if a democrat steals money from the millionaire it's considered "doing the right thing".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 7:37 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    mocktwinkie saidIf a person is living on a limited budget but they want to buy more things and help out friends in need, should they borrow money and go into debt to keep living the way that they want? The answer is :nope. But the democrats say: YEP!

    This is evidence that you don't understand macroeconomics. I mean, not even sliightly. And yet you blather along. The current crisis is a failure of demand. Demand has collapsed from the consumer, from the business sector. There is no one to stimulate demand except the government. Deficits will naturally reduce themselves when there is economic growth. The paradox of macro vs micro-economics is that what is sensible for a family----cutting spending, being frugal---is precisely wrong for the government in deflationary times.

    If a homeless person steals something from a millionaire it's still considered an offense in society, if a democrat steals money from the millionaire it's considered "doing the right thing".

    This is why it's hardly worth talking to you. You seem to have no problem shrieking "Taxation = theft", but if someone said "Property = theft" you'd be calling them crazy and radical. And yet that was once a proud Anarchist slogan.


    Demand comes and goes and a lot of it is based on whether or not people think that they can afford more -- and they sure don't think they can right now! Debt is acquired by constantly growing the size of government programs which directly depends on leveraging money from taxpayers to supposedly do society "good". When spending keeps growing without the revenue to back it up then you have DEBT. It's not like we have a small government taking care of the basics with taxpayer dollars like roads, police, public schooling etc --- no, things are out of control and there's no end to democrats justifying how they can do "more" good for society by increasing spending.

    Acquiring property did used to be theft at one point in time and it was all a matter of who had the power -- but we are a developed society now and we work on the basis of order. So answer me this, is it better for one government or person to have jurisdiction over all the land or for thousands or even millions to have jurisdiction over small or large pieces of land?

    Why is it that everyone I know who speaks in terms of macroeconomics leans left and everyone speaking of microeconomics leans right?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 23, 2010 8:58 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidA plan to fix a budget deficit and shortfalls should not involve trying to figure out ways to extract money from people to fix irresponsible spending mistakes made by politicians who racked up debt by spending on things that they shouldn't have to begin with. The way you fix budget problems is by simply not spending and cutting things that require spending.

    If a person is living on a limited budget but they want to buy more things and help out friends in need, should they borrow money and go into debt to keep living the way that they want? The answer is :nope. But the democrats say: YEP!

    If a homeless person steals something from a millionaire it's still considered an offense in society, if a democrat steals money from the millionaire it's considered "doing the right thing".





    Nobody's "stealing money" from any millionaires.
    The proposal is to make the millionaires pay taxes at the SAME RATE they used to pay.

    ___________________________________________________

    What’s at stake here?
    According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

    And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

    How can this kind of giveaway be justified at a time when politicians claim to care about budget deficits? Well, history is repeating itself. The original campaign for the Bush tax cuts relied on deception and dishonesty. In fact, my first suspicions that we were being misled into invading Iraq were based on the resemblance between the campaign for war and the campaign for tax cuts the previous year. And sure enough, that same trademark deception and dishonesty is being deployed on behalf of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

    So, for example, we’re told that it’s all about helping small business; but only a tiny fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all. And how many small-business owners do you know making several million a year?

    Or we’re told that it’s about helping the economy recover. But it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall.

    No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

    So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let’s hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America’s future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 9:07 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    mocktwinkie saidWhy is it that everyone I know who speaks in terms of macroeconomics leans left and everyone speaking of microeconomics leans right?

    I don't know the answer to that, but my observation is that people on the right deny the existence of macroeconomics pretty much the same way they deny climate change----it's inconvenient because it points in a direction away from the social and taxation policies they prefer.

    Economics contains in itself a paradox. You may have read about one variant of this recently, called the "paradox of thrift". Being thrifty in these times makes sense for individuals, for families, for small-scale economic units (small companies). But if everyone in society is thrifty all at the same time, economic activity comes to a screeching halt: no one is buying, so there is no need for production, so no need for workers, so no wages paid, so no ability to consume even if the desire were there. It's the dead trap of the deflationary spiral, and it's what Japan went through from 1990 until 2005 (though some say they haven't fully recovered from it yet).


    Much of the reliance put in macroeconomics ends up dealing with a lot of predictions, hopefuls and an overall idea of trends. I wouldn't go so far as to deny its place or usefulness, but some time breaking things down into more simple categories is advised when trying to establish why we are finding ourselves in the kind of economic situation currently experienced.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 9:08 PM GMT
    Why does everybody believe all the spin on everything? To put things into perspective- this is an article about extending the Bush tax cuts. Look at history- the middle class and poor have already been promised that any tax cut that Bush gave them will extend under Obama when he passed the budget.

    "We extend middle-class tax cuts in this budget," Obama said Monday at the White House, but "we will not continue costly tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it." (This is what he said concerning the Bush tax cuts when passing his budget.)

    So, the middle class keeps what the treasury has estimated will cost a 2.5 trillion dollar tax loss over 10 years. That was a given as too many people would be upset seeing their taxes go up. The original plan was to extend the Bush tax cut to the middle class but eliminate it for the wealthy- always a nice idea if you want to be popular. Now it looks like it will be extended to the wealthy as well and we see people upset because they want their tax break (which, granted does not amount to millions of dollars each but does add up to trillions spread out over the population) but would prefer to tax those who already have too much money..

    A final note before I end up with people getting too upset. I do realize that the gap between the wealthy and the poor has grown to unacceptable levels. I do not disagree with making the wealthy pay more in tax- but I do need to point out that this is not the big deal that it is made out to be in the article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 9:14 PM GMT
    Sorry- now for the math (oh, how I hate math) and setting the title straight. It is not 3 million a year for the 120 000 people- that is the estimated figure over 10 years.

    So... If the numbers quoted in the title are true the U.S will fail to collect 360 million dollars this decade. Since 2007 the US debt has grown by over 4 billion per day (official federal public debt- not unfunded liabilities etc) Does this put it in perspective?

    Overall, the 36 million that they now estimate they will loose in tax revenue this year would amount to .0000094% of the U. S budget this year (3.8 trillion) I know socially it may not be acceptable to give the rich a break in these times- but it is not as though a few million dollars will fix any problems or create these great social programs. Just for fun go to watch the debt clock on some website and see how fast the 36 million would be wasted (keeping in mind it is only the deficit and not the total spending.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 9:27 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWell, that's good.

    The Federal government should be cutting taxes... and cutting spending even more.

    Suggestion #1:

    Every employee of the Federal government takes a 15% pay cut.


    Suggestion #2:

    Over the course of the next 18 months, eliminate the workforce of Federal employees by 15%.


    Suggestion #3:

    All budgets (including military) are cut by 15%. That's a REAL cut, not a cut in the rate of spending increase.


    Suggestion #4 - 25% pay cut on all employees industries heavily reliant on federal oversight and management, including pilots.

    Suggestion #5 - 15% tax on all products sold over the Internet to pay for broadband extension .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 10:35 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    mocktwinkie said
    Much of the reliance put in macroeconomics ends up dealing with a lot of predictions, hopefuls and an overall idea of trends. I wouldn't go so far as to deny its place or usefulness, but some time breaking things down into more simple categories is advised when trying to establish why we are finding ourselves in the kind of economic situation currently experienced.

    There's one source of the confusion right there: micro-economics is not just macro-economics writ small. The labeling is part of the confusion, but in fact they are two independent operating systems, and spend much of their time repelling one another like magnets. What's good for one is very often bad for the other; the mistake made is to assume they are positively correlated. They are most often negatively correlated.


    You are right, but they are still connected in the sense that one tends to deal with how individual sections of the economy translate into supply and demand and the other looks at things from a large scale perspective, making predictions and proposing possible solutions for long-term problems.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 10:45 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Suggestion #4 - 25% pay cut on all employees industries heavily reliant on federal oversight and management, including pilots.


    Nope. The Federal government can't dictate pay for private sector employees. It is not within their Constitutional powers.



    Christian73 said
    Suggestion #5 - 15% tax on all products sold over the Internet to pay for broadband extension .


    Nope. The Federal government doesn't pay for the fiber or its maintenance.


    Nice try, though.


    Just making the point that while you're more than willing to foist pay cuts on some workers, you wouldn't want your own industry or jobs subject to same policies.

    In other words, you're a hypocrite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 11:20 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Suggestion #4 - 25% pay cut on all employees industries heavily reliant on federal oversight and management, including pilots.


    Nope. The Federal government can't dictate pay for private sector employees. It is not within their Constitutional powers.



    Christian73 said
    Suggestion #5 - 15% tax on all products sold over the Internet to pay for broadband extension .


    Nope. The Federal government doesn't pay for the fiber or its maintenance.


    Nice try, though.


    Just making the point that while you're more than willing to foist pay cuts on some workers, you wouldn't want your own industry or jobs subject to same policies.

    In other words, you're a hypocrite.


    Umm, the government has to make cuts wherever possible, so it is their responsibility to take those kinds of steps, even if it means less pay for government workers. But no, they want to have their cake and eat it too and have the american people bail out their mistakes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 11:39 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    Nice try, though.


    Just making the point that while you're more than willing to foist pay cuts on some workers, you wouldn't want your own industry or jobs subject to same policies.

    In other words, you're a hypocrite.

    Umm, the government has to make cuts wherever possible, so it is their responsibility to take those kinds of steps, even if it means less pay for government workers. But no, they want to have their cake and eat it too and have the american people bail out their mistakes.

    What mistakes? How are the American people bailing out the government?

    The bailouts of the banks was the American people bailing out finance, which may have preempted another great depression, but did not create jobs. That was a Republican policy.

    The auto bailout actually worked, saved jobs and retained a vital manufacturing base.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 23, 2010 11:50 PM GMT
    Micro .... Macro SH*T

    Did you read the article?

    Politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.
    You're gonna tell ME that doing THAT is gonna help in this economy
    After all the crap we've been handing the top 2% in this country over the last 30 years?????

    When is enuf enuf?
    Just like Mr Buffet said.... "We've had the class wars ... and we won"

    The Bush Tax cuts would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.In comparison the stimulus plan cost $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

    So you come to me cryin' that you need more tax cuts for the Rich
    Go peddlin' that crap somewhere else
    and go back and drink the kool aid
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2010 11:55 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    The auto bailout actually worked, saved jobs and retained a vital manufacturing base.

    That remains to be seen. Nothing fundamental has changed at GM and Chrysler.


    A differing viewpoint from the Economist on Obama's handling of GM:

    http://www.economist.com/node/16846494So was the auto bail-out a success? It is hard to be sure. Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk. Many observers think this unlikely, however. Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings last year, it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended. As for moral hazard, the expectation of future bail-outs may prompt managers and unions in other industries to behave rashly. But all the stakeholders suffered during GM’s bankruptcy, so this effect may be small.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 12:24 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said

    Nice try, though.


    Just making the point that while you're more than willing to foist pay cuts on some workers, you wouldn't want your own industry or jobs subject to same policies.

    In other words, you're a hypocrite.

    Umm, the government has to make cuts wherever possible, so it is their responsibility to take those kinds of steps, even if it means less pay for government workers. But no, they want to have their cake and eat it too and have the american people bail out their mistakes.

    What mistakes? How are the American people bailing out the government?

    The bailouts of the banks was the American people bailing out finance, which may have preempted another great depression, but did not create jobs. That was a Republican policy.

    The auto bailout actually worked, saved jobs and retained a vital manufacturing base.


    What mistakes? How about the fact that the government was the instigator behind the deregulation that took place among banks which then created the housing crisis? The bailout was paid for by taxpayers. The government uses taxpayer money to cover all of its mistakes.

    As much as I hate to admit this, bailing out the banks was a necessary evil, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

    The auto bailouts were useless. If those car companies had gone under they would have simply transferred owners and the same jobs would have been retained and the same names would have still been there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 1:22 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    Nice try, though.


    Just making the point that while you're more than willing to foist pay cuts on some workers, you wouldn't want your own industry or jobs subject to same policies.

    In other words, you're a hypocrite.

    Umm, the government has to make cuts wherever possible, so it is their responsibility to take those kinds of steps, even if it means less pay for government workers. But no, they want to have their cake and eat it too and have the american people bail out their mistakes.

    What mistakes? How are the American people bailing out the government?

    The bailouts of the banks was the American people bailing out finance, which may have preempted another great depression, but did not create jobs. That was a Republican policy.

    The auto bailout actually worked, saved jobs and retained a vital manufacturing base.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 24, 2010 2:34 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock said

    When is enuf enuf?


    Good question.

    How much more money does the Federal government need?

    What's all that additional money needed for?

    Can't the Federal government get by with 300,000 less employees?



    Why should the Govt cut anything .... they are there to service ME and the rest of the country

    NO ... I want the rich vultures to stop sucking on the teet of whatever corrupt albeit govt we have left
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 2:46 AM GMT
    Well that was interesting; we looked up gov't bailouts etc of airlines and the results are eye-opening.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 2:53 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock said

    When is enuf enuf?


    Good question.

    How much more money does the Federal government need?

    What's all that additional money needed for?

    Can't the Federal government get by with 300,000 less employees?



    I touched on this on the "bad eggs" thread, but I'll touch on it here as well. The federal government has 330 million "customers" and by my calculations has 0..0009 employees per customer .What business do you know of that has that kind of ratio?

    You think business is God but then expect government to function on virtually no money and with no resources.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 2:56 AM GMT
    meninlove said Well that was interesting; we looked up gov't bailouts etc of airlines and the results are eye-opening.



    Yeah. SB doesn't want to talk about that. And guess what led to the airline bailouts? Deregulation! Do you see a theme here?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 4:29 AM GMT
    GQjock saidthey are there to service ME


    I would SO watch that.icon_wink.gificon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 5:51 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidA plan to fix a budget deficit and shortfalls should not involve trying to figure out ways to extract money from people to fix irresponsible spending mistakes made by politicians who racked up debt by spending on things that they shouldn't have to begin with. The way you fix budget problems is by simply not spending and cutting things that require spending.

    If a person is living on a limited budget but they want to buy more things and help out friends in need, should they borrow money and go into debt to keep living the way that they want? The answer is :nope. But the democrats say: YEP!

    If a homeless person steals something from a millionaire it's still considered an offense in society, if a democrat steals money from the millionaire it's considered "doing the right thing".



    The problem with your allegation that "the democrats say: YEP!" to borrowing money and adding debt is that the facts show that REPUBLICANS have borrowed more money and added more debt to the National Debt than the Democrats have.

    And they did it largely in order to give millionaires huge tax cuts.

    So - it's time for the American people to get some of their money back from the scum-sucking ultra rich.

    And thanks to the fact that we have a Democrat in the White House, even if the Congress did somehow send a bill extending the Bush tax cuts to the president's desk - it would get vetoed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 10:50 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    The problem with your allegation that "the democrats say: YEP!" to borrowing money and adding debt is that the facts show that REPUBLICANS have borrowed more money and added more debt to the National Debt than the Democrats have...


    You are half way there in that you have the Republicans nailed with your assessment that Republican presidents have added more to the debt (by quite a bit, actually.) The problem lies with failing to look at the process of the budget and who approved the presidents budgets.

    From 1949 until 1993 the house was controlled by the Democrats. The senate was controlled by them as well with the exception of '81-'85. Now, lets get down to it- what the president submits to congress is known as a "budget request." The house committee and senate committee on the budget then propose amendments and changes and it goes to vote.

    So- now you have Republican presidents racking up huge bills and debts with the blessing of the Democrat controlled house. Once again I would like to point out the reasons that blindly following either party and believing the other to be responsible for all evil in the world is absurd...



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 11:09 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    And thanks to the fact that we have a Democrat in the White House, even if the Congress did somehow send a bill extending the Bush tax cuts to the president's desk - it would get vetoed.

    It is true that the Bush cuts were passed by a republican president with a Republican house (and a split senate, I believe). It could be that the Democrat house will veto- but I believe that you give them far more credit for morals and principals than I do. The simple fact is that when it is time to run again (wait... isn't it almost time to campaign?) the people who fill their $1000 a plate dinners and pay for their ads are corporations controlled by the very wealthy and the people rolling in dough. The chances that they will risk their personal financial well being (and by extension risk loosing their livelihood when they don't come up with enough cash) is 0.1% (personal estimate.)

    I'm sorry- but when your courts ruled that corporations were people (in allowance of contributions to the campaigns for elections) they screwed any chance that the congressmen and senators will ever represent the people who elect them but do not pay for their campaigns. The campaigns are now, through funding, firmly controlled by the corporations which in turn are controlled by those with money.

    Let me ask point blank- If you were one of the super rich who contributed large sums to your local Democrat congressman and had a direct line to him at home would you be calling him and threatening to withhold your yearly contribution if he was going to vote to veto the tax reform and cost you $300 000 each year- 3 million over the coming decade? Do you not believe that 120 000 very rich Americans might make the same call to their local congressmen? Could this form of legal blackmail be a part of the reason the president turned from "We cannot afford to give (the super rich) these tax breaks" to "let's extend these tax breaks to all"?