The political knifes are drawn
And President Obama has gone to Afghanistan for a 3 hr visit !
It seems that once again he is obvious to the political shenanigans going on in DC,
as they did at the start of his presidency when the town hall meetings were rioting and he went on vacation.
The top news event is the Republicans xxxx-ing (you insert verb) the political process by declaring their intention
to filibuster all legislation until their demand for the Bush tax cuts to be extended to the wealthy is met,
and denying extension of the unemployment benefits, etc.
Nothing else flows in this sewer.
As long as the highest priority for the Republican leadership is to defeat Obama in 2012, he can not afford to leave town.
He needs to understand that they don't really like him, and will do or say anything to regain power.
And yes, I voted for Obama and still support his programs.
I'm just disgusted with the tactics of the Republican leadership
and the lemming-like behavior of the rest of that party.
knives
it's knives
it IS knives isn't it?
Yes, you're right... excess emotion leads to brain farts.
It's knives and it's oblivious, not obvious. I think the post had something to do with Obama too.
I hate this administration only a little less than the Bush administration. (only by a hair's- breadth )
Different puppet, same puppetmaster, same plotline, new characters, same archetypes.
Same puppet master? Who would have the misfortune of being like Cheney?
or, rather, how could we have the misfortune of having another puppet master as evil as Cheney?
Tell me we don't.
There's a lot to hate in this administration:
If your individual income is $250K or less
Republican shenanigans cause tax cuts to expire: your taxes go up
Republican shenanigans get tax cuts for wealthy: federal debt go up
This administration's tax plan: you pay no federal income taxes
--------------
Your individual income is more than $250K
Republican shenanigans cause tax cuts to expire: your taxes go up
Republican shenanigans get tax cuts for wealthy: federal debt go up
This administration's tax plan: you pay more federal income taxes
If they're going to filibuster, they should have to do it the right way. Stand up there and talk the entire time, with no bathroom breaks!
Same puppet master? Who would have the misfortune of being like Cheney?
or, rather, how could we have the misfortune of having another puppet master as evil as Cheney?
Tell me we don't.
Cheney was another puppet, merely a foreman with a bit of skin in the game, far from the inner circle of the star chamber, I'm sure.
Cheney was another puppet, merely a foreman with a bit of skin in the game, far from the inner circle of the star chamber, I'm sure.
How much closer can one person have been to Bush? Not Mom-Bush.:eek:
hehehe j/k
Really, wasn't Cheney all over Bush? Maybe I watch too many Front-line reports.
I'm saying that while Cheney might have been Bush's foreman, he wasn't the General Contractor, the Architect, or the Client.
Yes, I got that. Drop a name, would you? :p:
The great Oz? The men behind the curtain? I doubt either of us would recognize the name or the face of the puppet master(s)
If they're going to filibuster, they should have to do it the right way. Stand up there and talk the entire time, with no bathroom breaks!
I thought the original tax cuts were passed using reconciliation to avoid a filibuster. The reason for the 10 year limit was that even some Republicans realized that it was a debt bomb.
Why not just use reconciliation again to extend the legislation or just write new legislation?
Voice of America
Dec 4, 2010
President Obama Returns Home After Afghanistan Visit
The president landed unannounced in Afghanistan Friday for an almost four hour visit,
days before the White House is set to release a much anticipated review of the increasingly unpopular war.
Bad weather forced the White House to cancel plansfor the president to meet
face-to-face with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul.
He instead held a phone conversation with Mr. Karzai from the air base.
Yeah sure... damn Kabul weather
----------
Politico
Dec 4, 2010
Senate takes up tax cut extension
The Senate opened a rare weekend session Saturday to cast test votes on two
Democratic tax-cut measures that were widely expected to fail.
But Senate Democrats, who are eager to create a contrast with Republicans over the Bush-era tax cuts,
pushed for the doomed votes as it became clear that they would ultimately need to accept a deal
that ran contrary to their campaign promises over the last 10 years.
Obama negotiating strategy:
Give away, Compromise away, Run away... far away
He still seems to think that if he can work with the Republicans, he will be re-elected in 2012.
The only way Obama can now regain credibility on this is to veto the Republican bill.
I may end up changing my signature line to "Elections don't matter"
Really, wasn't Cheney all over Bush?
Not really an issue since "Don't ask, don't tell" doesn't apply to the executive branch.:cool:
Dec 4, 2010 10: 55 EST
The Obama tax plan to eliminate taxes on families earning $250K or less was defeated
by a Senate "cloture" vote on the Baucus Amendment of: YES: 53 NO 36.
In effect, 60 votes were needed to avoid fillibuster.
The next vote on taxes (today) will be on the Schumer Amendment that eliminates taxes on families earning $1M or less.
Dec 4, 2010 11: 19 EST
The Obama tax plan to permanently eliminate taxes on families earning $1million or less
AND extend unemployment benefits for 1 year was defeated
by a Senate "cloture" vote on the Schumer Amendment of: YES: 53 NO 37.
In effect, 60 votes were needed to avoid filibuster.
Right after the vote, Sen McConnell addressed the Senate saying 100% of the Republicans
and Obama
voted NO on the Schumer Amendment ???? :3_eyes:
And here I thought Obama's top news for today was this:
Reuters News
Obama lauds U.S., South Korean trade deal
Dec 4 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Saturday a new trade deal with South Korea
will boost U.S. annual exports of automobile, agricultural products and other goods and services by $11 billion.
Sorry, I've got to learn to keep my priorities straight.
I'm saying that while Cheney might have been Bush's foreman, he wasn't the General Contractor, the Architect, or the Client.
Or one of the owners...
[YOUTUBE]acLW1vFO-2Q[/YOUTUBE]
It is a shame he died so young.
That's why it's called "The American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it.
Voice of America reported:
Bad weather forced the White House to cancel plans for the president to meet face-to-face with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul.
It's not the heat, it's the humidity.
So the best you so-prideful "liberals" -- when you aren't very -- can come up with is a cloudy maundering about conspiracies, page 1 of the thread?
Good Christ, you people could all benefit from a year's subscription to National Review.
You may either continue mental masturbation, or you might just learn how and why I sound like I do.
_______________
"Come, my songs, let us speak of perfection;
We shall get ourselves rather disliked."
You may either continue mental masturbation, or you might just learn how and why I sound like I do.
I think I just figured it out...
Last time I checked the dems still had the majority and
could have swayed the vote with 100% votes by dems. So the blame still
is with the dems on this one too. They didn't defeat the bill only the
vote to limit debate and bring it to the floor through an open and
transparent process, something the Dems have done over and over in
Congress. Their attempts to Rham things down the throats of the American
people through cloture are over. Bring the bill to the floor and let
them debate on it, so that was what they really prevented, an all or
none up or down vote on an otherwise potentially useful solution. As
evidenced in the article, both dems and repubs voted against the bill.
(pg 2). Everyone knows that any revenue raised by these taxes on the
"rich" will not go to reduce the deficit, because nothing in the bills
states that the income gathered from the bill will go only to deficit
reduction, it will be spent on more programs and continues the progress
ideals of "tax and spend", the very thing that lead to a loss of the
election in Nov, the rest of the voters get it.
(see page 1 article)
Bottom line is that it was political grandstanding by the Dems as their last final attempt to frame the Repulickins as the party of the rich. More attempts to foster a class warfare between haves and have nots. Same ole BS. The Republickins now have the responsibility to make stuff happen, if they don't they will be out at the next election. The people have had enough of the BS. I know I have.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45953.htmlAfter a good rant and a good night's sleep, I'm in a much better mood.
Now the country knows the two primary addictions of the Republican leadership:
1) @ Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader:
Primary mission: Make Obama a one term president.
Rules of Engagement: Take no prisoners.
2) @ 100% of the Republican Senators concur :
Secondary mission: Full steam ahead on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires
Rules of Engagement: Do what you have to do, increased federal deficit be damned.
---
By the way, if you are unemployed and thought you were getting those unemployment benefits
you paid for while you were working, you are mistaken.
Republicans tell us those benefits just make you lazy.
Get your off your ass and get out there and take any work offered.
Minimum wage jobs are just fine.
If you're greedy and want more $ for your family, take two jobs.
Part time jobs are even better because it makes you more productive.
Medical benefits just entice to the doctor's office when you should be at work.
Obamacare will take care of you until Republicans can repeal it.
Maybe if you're a sexy waitress, you'll get tips to supplement your pay.
Oh, if you do have a job now, get busy brown-nosing because you will want to be the one chosen
to train your replacement when your job is shipped overseas.
Maybe you'll even get to use up all your vacation time,
and learn what the COBRA plan means for you.
------
UG reports that global warming is cooling down because there are fewer jobs generating all that human activity.
There now, see, the week is looking better already, and it's only Monday.
Have a nice day :right:
UG reports that global warming is cooling down because there are fewer jobs generating all that human activity.
:lol:
Good news that the deficit will continue to grow?
So they are extending everyone's tax cuts, the biggest cuts going to the richest.
And at the same time, they have this bipartisan commission talking about where they can tighten the old belt in other places, and one of the biggest places they are looking at is to tax employer provided benefits. So the poor working slob like me is going to continue to get my tax cut (Yay!) but they are talking about offsetting that by taxing my benefits. (Boo!) Now the rich dude is also going to have his benefits taxed, but his benefits are the same size as mine, so his increase in taxes are going to be tiny compared to the enormous tax cut he's getting.
Once again, it's playing out that rich dudes are getting all the breaks. I'm not surprised. The Republicans are back in town.
So they are extending everyone's tax cuts, the biggest cuts going to the richest.
And at the same time, they have this bipartisan commission talking about where they can tighten the old belt in other places, and one of the biggest places they are looking at is to tax employer provided benefits. So the poor working slob like me is going to continue to get my tax cut (Yay!) but they are talking about offsetting that by taxing my benefits. (Boo!) Now the rich dude is also going to have his benefits taxed, but his benefits are the same size as mine, so his increase in taxes are going to be tiny compared to the enormous tax cut he's getting.
Once again, it's playing out that rich dudes are getting all the breaks. I'm not surprised. The Republicans are back in town.
:thumb:
The Republicans are back in town.
You ain't seen anything yet if they take back the Senate in 2 years.
We'll see. The electorate is very unhappy with both parties. They gave the Dems 2 years of power to fix things before throwing them out. I can't see them giving the Republicans more time than that.
This bipartisan commission tasked with balancing the budget has me hopeful. But starting off with such a big spending item as this tax cut is pointing us in the wrong direction if balancing the budget is the goal.
Still, raising taxes in a recession isn't a very good idea either.
I agree, but the dems actually had controll for 4 years of both houses not 2. And they still control the Senate. What this does show for the first time is some form of limited compromise. I think it is foolish to think that any tax reform is really for buget balancing or deficit reduction because none of the money to be saved is directed at that and historically used for more spending. That is the problem with raising taxes at this point. It will not be used for what worries people the most, deficit reduction. I also agree with the bipartisan commission as well. It is a good start but until people in both groups recognize that hard and difficult choices will have to be made we will only dig ourselves in deeper.
:blush:<oops, sorry for the spelling errors>:p:
What a sad sight at the Press Conference on TV today...
A humiliated President trying to convince reporters that he had not been humiliated.
One question set the tone:
"Mr Present, just where do you draw a line in the sand ..."
President's answer: "The tax cuts for the wealthy are not permanent"
Thank you, Mr President.
It's a lot like the sale of Manhatten Island years ago, land traded for beads
Funnier yet is how the Left is describing the tax cut extensions as taking 250 billion out of the economy.... What a load of crap. Sort of like telling everyone that if you make between 250k and 999k you are a millionaire. :lol:
They are just keeping it out of the hands of the Robber Barron's who want to redistribute it to more failed programs.
Well if it fails, I guess the ball is now in their court to compromise or go down as sinking the deal. The time for deal making is now.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/132563-dems-fury-threatens-tax-cut-dealThe Young Turks is a very liberal website going under the guise of a news report.
Here is their take on the 3-year tax break for the wealthy
(~2 min)
[YOUTUBE]cUjl7zR1OKY[/YOUTUBE]
What a sad sight at the Press Conference on TV today...
A humiliated President trying to convince reporters that he had not been humiliated.
One question set the tone:
"Mr Present, just where do you draw a line in the sand ..."
President's answer: "The tax cuts for the wealthy are not permanent"
Thank you, Mr President.
It's a lot like the sale of Manhatten Island years ago, land traded for beads
I am a lot more charitably inclined toward Obama at this point. He made the mistake of letting Pelosi and friends get too much say and too much face-time making it very easy for the GOP to subvert his Presidency. If he can insert himself between these two factions he can actually do the peoples business.
I agree Griff. It seems to me that after all my disappointment in Obama that he is the only one stepping up the plate to get something concrete on the table that will be a perceived as a win for the majority of people. It is a short term solution anyway. But given the division in the Congress I am sure they will screw it up in the end.
Here is their take on the 3-year tax break for the wealthy
As is typical with such exercises, the idea that this money is actually already spent is not interesting, and so they go and spend it again as if it was candy.
UT, I posted this to give people an idea of the amounts of $ involved.
This action by Obama is major, as seen by the reaction of some Democrats,
but more importantly... Merc has now started defending Obama ;)
Did you feel that earthquake ?
I am a lot more charitably inclined toward Obama at this point. He made the mistake of letting Pelosi and friends get too much say ...
Pelosi got lots of good things passed in the House, but at what point was her say given more weight than that of conservative Democrats in the Senate?
She is an interesting mix of liberalism and old "boy" networking. Instead of honestly fighting for a true single payer system she chose the political expediency of a system that will eventually destroy employer-based private health insurance which imho will be much more painful in transition than an honestly planned change-over. She presided over a bank bailout without improved anti-monopoly rules. I know you have a bone to pick with conservative democrats and they had their part to play but she was the leader. Her tone has always been to placate the left with their unrealistic visions of how economies work so her face-time in front of the cameras always helps the GOP.
If Obama can show himself to be a middle way between the factions of true-believers, he could pull a Clinton and actually get some of America's work done.
The House versions of bills have almost invariably been better than the Senate versions. And then the House is pressured to just accept the Senate version instead of going through conference because of how awful Senate procedure would be if they had to vote on the conferenced version. She's only the leader of the House, which has been completely sidelined in this Congress.
She has been given hardly any say. I know that some people hate her so much that they don't want her to have any, but I'm not sure how anybody else could think that she's been given to much.
Won't Senate Majority Leader Reid be surprised if one or more of them pass ? :right:
In political gamble, Reid seeks votes that are sure to fail
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 3:22 PM
On Wednesday afternoon, the most powerful man in the U.S. Senate will do something that sounds odd:
He will set himself up to lose an important vote.
Then, if all goes as planned, he will do it again, on another key issue.
And then another. And then another.
Four times in about 90 minutes, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)
will hold votes where his favored bills are expected to fail.
For Reid, failure is actually the point.
He wants to put Republicans on record as blocking all four -
which deal with immigration rules, police and firefighters' unions,
health benefits for responders to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,
and seniors' benefits.
I don't know if this should be here or in the oxymoron thread.
Now while the Obama-Republican tax-cut Bill is being written up,
there is a lot of turmoil among the congressional members.
The TV talking heads are interviewing members on both the Dem and Rep sides.
One Republican said, We should be less polarized :D
Yeah, they tend to get all magnanimous and cutesy when they kind of get their way. Like children.
Fox News
12/09/10
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
House, Senate on Collision Course After Dems Reject Tax Cut Bill
The House and Senate appear to be on a collision course over President Obama's controversial tax plan,
after House Democrats voted to block the package from coming to the floor in its current form.
Though the vote was not binding, the House Democratic caucus on Thursday approved a measure
by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., effectively rejecting the GOP-negotiated deal
unless and until a majority of Democrats support it.
One Democratic leadership aide said the vote "shows how much the White House screwed this up."
Go Oregon ! :biggrin:
I've cited Fox News a couple of times... now comes The Young Turks:
[YOUTUBE]fgNQ3Ed_YzM[/YOUTUBE]
Fox News
12/09/10
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
House, Senate on Collision Course After Dems Reject Tax Cut Bill
Go Oregon ! :biggrin:
And if everyone's taxes go up 1 Jan 11 it will all be in the lap of the Dems. Another nail in the coffin.
David Brooks expresses a middle right view...
The fact is, Obama and the Democrats have had an excellent week. The White House negotiators did an outstanding job for their side. With little leverage, they got not only the unemployment insurance, but also an Earned Income Tax Credit provision, a college scholarship provision and other Democratic goodies. With little leverage, they got a package that could win grudging praise from big-name liberal groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for American Progress.
Moreover, Obama has put himself in a position to govern again. The package is popular. According to the most recent Gallup numbers, 67 percent of independents and 52 percent of Democrats support extending all the tax cuts. Higher numbers support extending the unemployment insurance. Obama is reminding independents why they liked him in the first place.
The US is in too fragile a place for partisan politics. Some politicians in both major parties get that. I also read that Obama is going to work on the tax code, which needs major revamping.
Heard Obama on the radio this morning saying he wanted to tackle the US Tax code next year. Of course the devil is in the details, but that's very interesting and encouraging.
Heard Obama on the radio this morning saying he wanted to tackle the US Tax code next year. Of course the devil is in the details, but that's very interesting and encouraging.
I heard this too, seems like a way to get the dems who want to extend unemployment but not tax cuts for the wealthy "hey, just vote it through and we'll fix it all properly next year"
Won't Senate Majority Leader Reid be surprised if one or more of them pass ? :right:
In political gamble, Reid seeks votes that are sure to fail
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 3:22 PM
NY Times
Republicans Block U.S. Health Aid for 9/11 Workers
Republican senators blocked Democratic legislation on Thursday
that sought to provide medical care to rescue workers and others who became ill as a result
of breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke at the site of the World Trade Center attack in 2001.
Fox News
12/09/10
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
House, Senate on Collision Course After Dems Reject Tax Cut Bill
Go Oregon ! :biggrin:
And if everyone's taxes go up 1 Jan 11 it will all be in the lap of the Dems. Another nail in the coffin.
Do we not have a president? Why doesn't the democratic party stand with their president?
That means EVERYONE'S taxes go up in January. So much for cutting off one's nose.
More taxes means less jobs and the middle class will be spending less. whoopee! Why are we rejoicing?
Sky, I think House Democrats (and others) are "not supporting the President"
because they have been jolted by Obama's tax cut deal for several reasons:
First he did not really consult with them, and actually negotiated the deal without them
Second, he gave up his own big tax issue... eliminate taxes on middle income families and businesses,
and return to all of the "pre-Bush tax rates" on the wealthy
Third, out of the blue
he gave away generous taxes breaks on wealthy estates
Fourth, he abandoned working-poor families by
eliminating the "Making Work Pay" tax credit.
And we still don't know what's going to happen with government subsidies of
alternative fuels (alcohol, wind, solar, etc)
I think there is also anger directed at the hypocrisy of the Republicans
for their complaining about the federal budget deficit and then
putting the tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of all other legislation.
Simply put... it's about a loss of fair play and good-faith negotiation.
The only way House Dem's can now show their objections is to do the same as the Repubs did... threaten filibuster
Here is the PBS TV news report
[YOUTUBE]9HQ-BRA-Ahc[/YOUTUBE]
I was being sarcastic Lamp.
The democrats want add-ons to the bill. The democrats want to add pork. The dems don't care about the tax breaks for the wealthy. They don't care about promises. They only care about their own constituents and I think we made it clear we want to be fiscally conservative. I think most Americans do?
This bill WAS about the economy and to keep taxes low. It looked as though this bill was going to be as streamlined as possible, but the democrats seem to just want to spend,spend,spend.
Oh did I mention the democrats want to add pork? More pork. Pork0mania.
Oh did I mention the democrats want to add pork? More pork. Pork0mania.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101211/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts
In the spirit of the holiday season, President Barack Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers.
More taxes means less jobs and the middle class will be spending less.
Do you have any evidence of this? As I recall, taxes were higher, unemployment was lower, and the deficit was being reduced during the Clinton years.
Heard Obama on the radio this morning saying he wanted to tackle the US Tax code next year. Of course the devil is in the details, but that's very interesting and encouraging.
From what I understand he wants to use the Deficit Reduction Committee recommendations as a starting place. Not a bad idea.
And on a lighter note..... :D
[youtube]foDWkJXDOIg[/youtube]
I was being sarcastic Lamp.
The democrats want add-ons to the bill. The democrats want to add pork. The dems don't care about the tax breaks for the wealthy. They don't care about promises. They only care about their own constituents and I think we made it clear we want to be fiscally conservative. I think most Americans do?
This bill WAS about the economy and to keep taxes low. It looked as though this bill was going to be as streamlined as possible, but the democrats seem to just want to spend,spend,spend.
Oh did I mention the democrats want to add pork? More pork. Pork0mania.
Oh did I mention the democrats want to add pork? More pork. Pork0mania.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101211/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts
No, in order to prevent the unemployed from starving and losing their houses, etc, the President had to pay off the repubicans.
By the way, did you notice how the deficit increased and the rich got richer while the middle class got poorer while the president, house and senate were contrilloed by the repubicans?
By the way, did you notice how the deficit increased and the rich got richer while the middle class got poorer while the president, house and senate were contrilloed by the repubicans?
By the way, did you notice how the deficit increased and the rich got richer while the middle class got poorer while the president, house and senate were contrilloed by the repubicans?
Sky, I think House Democrats (and others) are "not supporting the President"
because they have been jolted by Obama's tax cut deal for several reasons:
First he did not really consult with them, and actually negotiated the deal without them
Second, he gave up his own big tax issue... eliminate taxes on middle income families and businesses,
and return to all of the "pre-Bush tax rates" on the wealthy
Third, out of the blue he gave away generous taxes breaks on wealthy estates
Fourth, he abandoned working-poor families by eliminating the "Making Work Pay" tax credit.
And we still don't know what's going to happen with government subsidies of
alternative fuels (alcohol, wind, solar, etc)
I think there is also anger directed at the hypocrisy of the Republicans
for their complaining about the federal budget deficit and then
putting the tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of all other legislation.
Simply put... it's about a loss of fair play and good-faith negotiation.
The only way House Dem's can now show their objections is to do the same as the Repubs did... threaten filibuster.
And he did a great job of it. Well done Obama. ;)
spex
Here is a simple google search. Take it for what it's worth. If you don't like what it says, maybe you can find something to the contrary.
http://libertyworks.com/will-a-tax-hike-on-the-rich-mean-fewer-jobs/
[COLOR=#0000ff]Fortunately, the IRS has data to answer these questions. As the charts show more than two million taxpayers who earned over $200,000 were small business owners, and they earned 63% of all small business profits. [/COLOR]
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/10/17/tax-increase-would-kill-economic-growth-jobs.html
The facts bear this out. According to the Treasury Department, 8 percent of small businesses earn enough to pay at the top two income-tax rates, but those businesses earn 72 percent of all small-business income. They also pay 82 percent of all income taxes paid by small businesses.
Also, I am a democrat. I voted for Clinton. The unemployment rate at the time was about half it is now. The country was able to afford higher taxes.
As far as individuals go. This is the tax burden people have to look forward to in a shaky economic climate.
According to calculations at mytaxburden.org, created by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C.:
n A single person making $50,000 will pay $605 more in taxes.
n A couple making $50,000 with two minor children will pay $2,143 more in taxes.
n A single person making $100,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.
n A couple making $100,000 with two minor children will pay $4,010 more in taxes.
n A single person making $250,000 will pay $7,484 more in taxes.
n A couple making $250,000 with two minor children will pay $6,254 more in taxes.
In January, If the person making 50,000 is paying $605 more in taxes, it isn't hard to assume they will be spending less.
What's striking is the couple who make $50,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.
They also pay 82 percent of all income taxes paid by small businesses.
And that frigging says it all... A minority pay it all. And when people don't contribute they instantly become Zero Liability Voters, because they don't care how much it costs someone else. Well done sky...
Merc, as I was typing my post I actually had the thought that you would enjoy it ! ;)
I think it was a great balance. He may not have negotiated it directly himself, but his minions did. He obviously took some clues from Clinton, since he let Clinton represent him for a 30 min press conference where he said next to nothing. I would rather see something happen, rather than 1)Having things Rhamed down the peoples throat by some group of pompous liberals who think they know better what is good for people than the people themselves and, 2)Negotiation over gridlock. It is a win-win.
My G-son just posted on FaceBook:
"Maybe Obama just isn't that into us..."
BTW, his car is still has the "Kitzhaber" sticker on the back.
His political sense of humor is developing nicely. ;)
Sounds like an inside joke. Is that an important statement of some kind? I don't get it....
Yes, it was for Sky's benefit. ;)
As far as individuals go. This is the tax burden people have to look forward to in a shaky economic climate.
Quote:
According to calculations at mytaxburden.org, created by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C.:
n A single person making $50,000 will pay $605 more in taxes.
n A couple making $50,000 with two minor children will pay $2,143 more in taxes.
n A single person making $100,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.
n A couple making $100,000 with two minor children will pay $4,010 more in taxes.
n A single person making $250,000 will pay $7,484 more in taxes.
n A couple making $250,000 with two minor children will pay $6,254 more in taxes.
In January, If the person making 50,000 is paying $605 more in taxes, it isn't hard to assume they will be spending less.
What's striking is the couple who make $50,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes
What? You have completely lost me, Sky. If mytaxburden.org is putting out propaganda like what you quoted, they're about as nonpartisan as an Ayn Rand novel. Where's John Galt when we need him? :rolleyes:
As far as your comment to Spex, I'll agree he was off base, but everyone here is bright enough to Google anything they damn well please. I bet if I searched enough I could find RavingMaoLovingHippyLiberals.org, a non-partisan group dedicated to disseminating honest to God pictures of homeless Moms and kids eating out of garbage cans.
In an attempt to verify your quote I did some Googling for myself (I got lost on mytaxburden.org). I came across my very own non partisan outfit, the taxpolicycenter.org. Here's a few of their jillion statistics, hot off the Internet as of 12/07/10:
Reported tax agreement between Administration and Congressional Republicans - percent change in after tax income:
Lowest quintile 3.7%
Second quintile 4.6 %
Middle quintile 4.4%
Fourth quintile 4.6%
Top quintile 5.2 %
Top 1% 6.3%
Top .1% 7.3%
http://tpcprod.urban.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2863&DocTypeID=2
All the above percentages are INCREASES in income. As a Liberal, I'll make note of the fact that, as usual, the upper income brackets fare better than the lower ones.
But that's not my point. I'm wondering where the hell everyone gets their data and should we believe any of it? I would like to think that we could trust an outfit that labels itself "non-partisan," but obviously we can't.
... an Ayn Rand novel. Where's John Galt when we need him?
I have a number of bumper stickers on the back of my truck that refer to that very thing. :D
As long as a minority of the electorate pays for everything those that pay little to nothing will have no problem asking them to give more as they spend more of that they don't have to pay for. Zero Liability Voters will always vote for someone or something that does not affect them financially. Always. Only when everyone has a stake in the costs and everyone one pays an equal share of the federal taxes as a percentage of our various incomes will we begin to tackle the problems that pain us as a nation....
Merc, in this land of equality where everyone will have the same stake,
do some citizens get tax deductions / credits / exemptions
based on the form of their income (e.g., investment vs hourly wages ),
or has all of that sort of tax-avoidance been eliminated ?
Or, is taxation not based on income at all, but instead equal taxation
applied at the time of expenditures (VAT) ?
Merc, in this land of equality where everyone will have the same stake,
do some citizens get tax deductions / credits / exemptions
based on the form of their income (e.g., investment vs hourly wages ),
or has all of that sort of tax-avoidance been eliminated ?
Or, is taxation not based on income at all, but instead equal taxation
applied at the time of expenditures (VAT) ?
We don't live in a land of economic equality and never have. Not everyone has the same stake in our economy, hence the phrase "Zero Liability Voter". Our progressive system is currently based only on income. I would welcome a VAT, if it replaced a huge decrease in the current tax basis for all income earners. That or a flat tax ala the Boortz plan, which contrary to it's critics would give us a lot more money than the current scheme.
We don't live in a land of economic equality and never have. Not everyone has the same stake in our economy, hence the phrase "Zero Liability Voter". Our progressive system is currently based only on taxable income. I would welcome a VAT, if it replaced a huge decrease in the current tax basis for all income earners. That or a flat tax ala the Boortz plan, which contrary to it's critics would give us a lot more money than the current scheme.
I added a word above...
But in your earlier post you spoke of
Only when everyone has a stake in the costs and everyone one pays an equal share of the federal taxes as a percentage of our various incomes...
So I'm curious how "equal share" is to be defined or determined.
ETA: I found this via Google search on Boortz and flat tax.
Is this what you mean ?
A 17 percent rate would apply to all taxable income, whether the taxpayer is Bill Gates, Steve Forbes or the mechanic who fixes their cars. Investment income would not be taxed at all under the individual tax, which by itself benefits predominantly higher-income taxpayers.
We don't live in a land of economic equality and never have. Not everyone has the same stake in our economy, hence the phrase "Zero Liability Voter". Our progressive system is currently based only on income. I would welcome a VAT, if it replaced a huge decrease in the current tax basis for all income earners. That or a flat tax ala the Boortz plan, which contrary to it's critics would give us a lot more money than the current scheme.
I'm coming in late here and don't feel like reading 6 screens of posts, so forgive me if you have already explained - what is a zero liability voter? It seems to me that even a guy who sleeps in the park and gets by on what he can panhandle would be effected by the economy and increases or decreases in average income. Heck, the amount of your spare change makes all the difference between a pint of vodka and 8 oz of Boone Farm!
PS Why did I know you would have bumper stickers? ;)
I'm coming in late here and don't feel like reading 6 screens of posts,...
The easy way to get around that is to change your set-up to show 60 posts per page. That way you would have less than one-and-a-half screens of posts to read.
It saves a lot of time.
The easy way to get around that is to change your set-up to show 60 posts per page. That way you would have less than one-and-a-half screens of posts to read.
It saves a lot of time.
Heh! Nice try.
About these Numbers
These calculations are based on the Tax Foundation's projected 2011 tax bracket levels, which are calculated by the IRS according to inflation statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). While the IRS has not officially released tax brackets for 2011 due to uncertainty about tax law changes, we use their formula to calculate bracket levels for many possible policy scenarios.
Note: To plug in your own example to see how a hypothetical family of your choosing, would fair under these alternative policy scenarios (as opposed to our three chosen examples above), visit the Tax Foundaton's MyTaxBurden.org calculator.
The Tax Policy Blog is the official weblog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Our economists welcome your feedback. If you would like to send an e-mail to the author of a blog post, please click on that person's name to locate his or her e-mail address or visit our staff page
Sky, The big difference between a Single $50K and a Couple $50K+2 minors
seems to be a (2 minors x $1K each) tax credit, not a tax deduction, in the Compromise plan.
I had not heard reports of such a major new tax break for parents of minor children.
But there is something else weird(?) in this web site.
For all the scenarios (except 1) I entered in the calculator,
there were NO differences between the Democratic plan and the Republican plan.
Somehow, I can't buy it yet that all is well in this calculator.
humm that's interesting lamp.
Well maybe someone else can try entering their information. Being an unemployed student, I am not paying much in taxes and I don't itemize anything, nor do I qualify for any credits.
There is a contact page. Maybe someone there can answer that question about the calculator. The page says they welcome feedback.
I was leery of those numbers too Sky. How did you get those figures...did you come up with them by using the calculator or did you quote them directly?
As I posted. These came from my tax burden.org which uses IRS tax tables.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/26320.htmlok. I put in my info and this is what it looks like.
My taxes will increase by $61 dollars if the tax cuts expire. For myself, 60 dollars is not that much of an increase, but if I were making some serious money, then I can plainly imagine having hundreds of dollars less to spend.
I am editing to say, I could use that extra 60 dollars though. To government coffers it isn't that much and doesn't hurt me TOO bad if I had to pay it.
Ok, Im feeling lost because I cant find this .....
Quote:
According to calculations at mytaxburden.org, created by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C.:
n A single person making $50,000 will pay $605 more in taxes.
n A couple making $50,000 with two minor children will pay $2,143 more in taxes.
n A single person making $100,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.
n A couple making $100,000 with two minor children will pay $4,010 more in taxes.
n A single person making $250,000 will pay $7,484 more in taxes.
n A couple making $250,000 with two minor children will pay $6,254 more in taxes.
ok. I put in my info and this is what it looks like.
My taxes will increase by $61 dollars if the tax cuts expire. For myself, 60 dollars is not that much of an increase, but if I were making some serious money, then I can plainly imagine having hundreds of dollars less to spend.
If you were making
serious money, hundreds less to spend doesn't amount to much. Say $700. Thats about $14 a week.
My taxes will increase by $61 dollars if the tax cuts expire. For myself, 60 dollars is not that much of an increase, but if I were making some serious money, then I can plainly imagine having hundreds of dollars less to spend.
You'd also have serious money.
Ok, Im feeling lost because I cant find this .....
geez, I know. I've been looking for that too. I'll find it. It's there someplace.
Keep clicking links
You'd also have serious money.
nod
spex
Here is a simple google search. Take it for what it's worth. If you don't like what it says, maybe you can find something to the contrary.
http://libertyworks.com/will-a-tax-hike-on-the-rich-mean-fewer-jobs/
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/10/17/tax-increase-would-kill-economic-growth-jobs.html
Also, I am a democrat. I voted for Clinton. The unemployment rate at the time was about half it is now. The country was able to afford higher taxes.
As far as individuals go. This is the tax burden people have to look forward to in a shaky economic climate.
In January, If the person making 50,000 is paying $605 more in taxes, it isn't hard to assume they will be spending less.
What's striking is the couple who make $50,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.
The dispute is about the taxes for the wealthy not the people making $50k. The Clinton era top bracket was 39.6%, Bush lowered it to 35%. Looking just at the effect of this change, if a small businessman nets $500k per year, and is married, his taxes will increase by $11,500. His net income for the amount above $250k would go from $162.5k to $151k. That's not counting his income from the first $250k he makes. Will he create jobs with this additional income? Who knows?
Looking at the big picture, this guy probably owns an investment property in Key West (tax protection). Every time he goes to check on his investment (vacation) it's a business expense, and the cost of his trip is not taxed. Wealthy people are able to hide income those sorts of ways.
The 1950s was a period of low unemployment and low inflation. From 1951 until 1963, income over $400k was taxed at
91% or 92%. I've heard the theory that because of this high tax, people reinvested in their business, through capital improvements and better standard of living for their employees. I don't believe that there is a causation of higher taxes on the wealthy and high unemployment. I believe that an increased disposable income for the middle class will increase jobs. Let's say the man in the example above owned a company that makes refridgerators. Instead of giving him the $11.5k, suppose that money is distributed to 23 middle class people, each of whom needs a refridgerator. That may increase the man's business enough that he would have to hire workers to keep up with the demand for his product.
No luck. Maybe they edited? I thought maybe I had been on the Taxfoundation site instead, but they have the same info.
The only chart I can find regarding the above tax brackets is this chart.
http://www.mytaxburden.org/taxbrackets.htm
and this one
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/26320.html
That site is enough to give a person a headache. Where's the Tylenol...
@ spex You have valid arguments. Perhaps I am having selective vision. I am just a{ hopeless optimist } sometimes.
From 1951 until 1963, income over $400k was taxed at 91% or 92%.
Those numbers are simply not interesting in isolation.
* No adjustment for inflation. $400k in 1951 would be $3,267,908 today.
* No adjustment for what is considered income. The definition has changed.
* No consideration of taxing capital gains which happened at vastly different rates and different rules over time.
* Different world conditions, changing whether rich people were immigrating or emigrating and much more.
While looking for information on Sweden's 101-percent tax, I found this interesting discussion on tax rates and the effect on employment:
Required reading: Robert Reich in today's NYT on ending the Great Recession: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09... For those in a hurry, Reich's main points:
--Since 1970 real wages of American workers have declined. To compensate working families adopted three stratagems: a second member of the household went to work, typically the wife/mother; work more hours per year; go into debt, esp. home equity loans.
--Since 1970 the share of national income flowing to the top one per cent rose from 9% to 23.5%. In effect this siphoned off demand for goods and services produced by the larger work force that was working more hours.
--Increased production from abroad (China) put further downward pressure on real American wages.
(These are Facts, or what American Teahadists refer to as a "pack of lies." http://coloradopols.com/showCo... )
The rest is
here.
P.S. I noticed that the site's tag line is from the Alferd Packer trial:
"Stand up, Alferd Packer, you voracious, man-eating, son-of-a-bitch. There were seven Democrats in Hinsdale County, and you ate five of them."
I don't believe that there is a causation of higher taxes on the wealthy and high unemployment. I believe that an increased disposable income for the middle class will increase jobs. Let's say the man in the example above owned a company that makes refridgerators. Instead of giving him the $11.5k, suppose that money is distributed to 23 middle class people, each of whom needs a refridgerator. That may increase the man's business enough that he would have to hire workers to keep up with the demand for his product.
That's why it's silly to think that giving money to rich people makes jobs. To employers, jobs are expenses. They'll get by with as few as they can, no matter how good the economy is or how much cash they have on hand. The only way to get them to employ more people is to increase the money available to their customers, so a new hire is needed to handle enough business to offset the cost of their job.
That's why Ford paid his workers more than the prevailing wage - he figured he'd get his money back when they bought a car. It works on a national scale as well.
UG reports that global warming is cooling down because there are fewer jobs generating all that human activity.
Ah, what the hell -- I'll :lol: too!
That's why it's silly to think that giving money to rich people makes jobs.
Define "rich".
To employers, jobs are expenses. They'll get by with as few as they can, no matter how good the economy is or how much cash they have on hand.
Yea, that is how they make money. But the fact is that many would hire back people they let go if they had the capitol to do so.
The only way to get them to employ more people is to increase the money available to their customers, so a new hire is needed to handle enough business to offset the cost of their job.
Incresing money strickly on that basis in these times will not get people to spend more, they will save it or pay off bills, but I doubt they will spend it. Look at the boondogle infusions of cash in the last 12 years. There was no sudden splurge of economic activity.
That's why Ford paid his workers more than the prevailing wage - he figured he'd get his money back when they bought a car. It works on a national scale as well.
Wait... I thought you said you don't think "rich" people should have more money, and Ford was certainly among the rich of the time.
[QUOTE]--Since 1970 the share of national income flowing to the top one per cent rose from 9% to 23.5%. In effect this siphoned off demand for goods and services produced by the larger work force that was working more hours.
I wonder if they looked at the time of the Vanderbuilts and others in that period and could make the same statistical assessment. I believe that statistic is suspect, not to mention the author is well known in his bias of the current economic situation and how he thinks we should deal with it. Just an observation.
Yea, that is how they make money. But the fact is that many would hire back people they let go if they had the capitol to do so.
They have the capitol. US corporations are sitting on record amounts of capitol right now.
Incresing money strickly on that basis in these times will not get people to spend more, they will save it or pay off bills, but I doubt they will spend it. Look at the boondogle infusions of cash in the last 12 years. There was no sudden splurge of economic activity.
If you think the lack of activity resulting from those was impressive , it's nothing compared to the lack of activity from the Bush tax cuts. And even if people pay bills instead of spend, allowing people to pay off their bills reduces drag on the economy much better than letting corporations sit on even more capitol.
Wait... I thought you said you don't think "rich" people should have more money, and Ford was certainly among the rich of the time.
And giving money to Henry Ford would have been silly. But he understood that in his own mini-economy, the best way to stimulate it was to give money to its poor. If he'd given himself and his executives raises with that money, it wouldn't have grown the company nearly the same amount.
They have the capitol. US corporations are sitting on record amounts of capitol right now.If you think the lack of activity resulting from those was impressive , it's nothing compared to the lack of activity from the Bush tax cuts. And even if people pay bills instead of spend, allowing people to pay off their bills reduces drag on the economy much better than letting corporations sit on even more capitol.
SO, taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to the government is your solution? Because the government does such a great job spending our money better than we can?
And giving money to Henry Ford would have been silly. But he understood that in his own mini-economy, the best way to stimulate it was to give money to its poor. If he'd given himself and his executives raises with that money, it wouldn't have grown the company nearly the same amount.
And he did a lot of great stuff for the poor and he paid for it himself. He did not give it to the government and expect them to do it, he did it.
SO, taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to the government is your solution? Because the government does such a great job spending our money better than we can?
Hey, it works for China. Look at their economy! ;)
Yes, and China is merc's BFF!
I added a word above...
But in your earlier post you spoke of
So I'm curious how "equal share" is to be defined or determined.
As an equal percentage of income.
Hey, it works for China. Look at their economy! ;)
Yea, they are doing great! They have no poverty, no pollution, eveyone has access to public trasportation, and they all have The Little Red Book! :D
And he did a lot of great stuff for the poor and he paid for it himself. He did not give it to the government and expect them to do it, he did it.
So let's say... tax rates for every dollar over $250,000 per year went way up, but there was an option for charitable tax
credits, rather than just deductions. So you would be handing over the same amount of money either way, but you would have the option to give all of it to the charity of your choice instead of the government (with, perhaps, a few restrictions on not being allowed to fund a charity that you yourself have any personal employment or association with.) That would be a-okay with you?
So let's say... tax rates for every dollar over $250,000 per year went way up, but there was an option for charitable tax credits, rather than just deductions. So you would be handing over the same amount of money either way, but you would have the option to give all of it to the charity of your choice instead of the government (with, perhaps, a few restrictions on not being allowed to fund a charity that you yourself have any personal employment or association with.) That would be a-okay with you?
Only if I get to choose the charity. And it depends on the amount of the tax. And not to a general fund controlled by the government or some groups that I do not agree with. The military has had such a system for years, pretax dollars sent to a charity of your choice, it is called CFC. What many people did not understand about it was that there were over 300 groups signed up to receive funds from it, but they never knew they could direct the funds to specific organizations. For a while there was a lot of pressure to contribute. That went away over time. But it did not replace, as in your example, the tax you actually paid. I can't think of anyone on AD who who made over 250k, so not that it matters.
Another benefit for the wealthy: they only pay fica on the first $106,800 of their salary.
China and India are doing fairly well... but let's look at the details. [COLOR="White"]Danger, biased source.[/COLOR]
Hillary Clinton raised more than a few eyebrows last week, when she aired her own views (and not necessarily those of the Obama administration, she said) on federal tax policy, saying she feels the rich “are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [like the U.S.] – whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever the taxation forms are.” CNN reports Secretary Clinton pointed to Brazil, long known for its high taxes, as a model of successful economic policy. “Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate [35.3 percent] in the Western Hemisphere and guess what – they’re growing like crazy,” Clinton said. “And the rich are getting richer, but they’re pulling people out of poverty.”
Clinton implies redistribution is necessary, or at least very useful, to poverty reduction. She is right that Brazil has substantially reduced poverty in the past decades: a study by Martin Ravallion of the World Bank’s Development Research Group notes a decline of the proportion of Brazilians living in extreme poverty – less than US $1.25 a day – from 17 percent to 8 percent during the period 1981-2005. But redistribution is not the only or best way of reducing poverty. China and India substantially reduced extreme poverty over the same period: China from 84 to 16 percent, and India from 60 to 42. Their tax-to-GDP ratios are only 18.3 and 18.8. China and India managed to reduce poverty while generating much greater economic growth than Brazil. Whereas Brazil’s GDP per capita increased an average of 0.8 percent a year from 1981 to 2005, China’s increased an average of 8.8 percent, and India’s an average of 3.9 percent over the same period.
Ravallion's World Bank study found that Brazil could have completely eliminated poverty in 2005 by taxing 0.7 percent of individual income in excess of the poverty line. In other words, if the Brazilian government had taxed each citizen’s income minus $1.25 per day at a rate of 0.7 percent, it should have had enough to guarantee every citizen a daily income of $1.25. Brazilians were and are taxed far in excess of this rate, yet extreme poverty persists despite the effects of cash transfers to the poor.
Clinton may be right that redistribution is in some cases an effective means of lifting people out of poverty, but the Brazilian example in and of itself is not compelling.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-clinton-poverty-and-taxesThis is the trouble with getting information from blogs - it is usually biased and often incomplete. Brazil does NOT use the redistribution of wealth in any real way to combat poverty.
According to the Brown Journal of World Affairs, Brazilian social spending is characterized by disparate targeting performances with few programs succeeding in reaching the poor, while substantial expenditures in all “social” areas disproportionately benefit the middle class and the rich.
Just two examples:
1) The zero percent enrollment of the bottom 40% in income at Brazil's universities is scandalous. Any pretense of equal, or even mildly unequal, access to university in Brazil is a sorry fiction.
2) Over 50 percent of Brazil's unemployment insurance expenditures go to the top 40 percent in income, while the poorest Brazilians, those in indigence, receive a paltry 3 percent of the program’s
resources.
Brazil is an example of the "good old boy system" where those who have the wealth ensure they keep all of it for themselves - not of the benefits of cash transfers to the poor.
This is the trouble with getting information from blogs - it is usually biased and often incomplete. Brazil does NOT use the redistribution of wealth in any real way to combat poverty.
According to the Brown Journal of World Affairs, Brazilian social spending is characterized by disparate targeting performances with few programs succeeding in reaching the poor, while substantial expenditures in all “social” areas disproportionately benefit the middle class and the rich.
Just two examples:
1) The zero percent enrollment of the bottom 40% in income at Brazil's universities is scandalous. Any pretense of equal, or even mildly unequal, access to university in Brazil is a sorry fiction.
2) Over 50 percent of Brazil's unemployment insurance expenditures go to the top 40 percent in income, while the poorest Brazilians, those in indigence, receive a paltry 3 percent of the program’s
resources.
Brazil is an example of the "good old boy system" where those who have the wealth ensure they keep all of it for themselves - not of the benefits of cash transfers to the poor.
So is that how you see our system, nothing more than a "good Ole Boy" system? IS that why all the unions are getting such great breaks by the Obama Administration?
And please tell me which parts of the "Blog" are not factual? or is it you just don't like the source? Sort of like when people jump on Fox News for what is otherwise factual information, but because you want to demonize the source it suddenly becomes false?
So is that how you see our system, nothing more than a "good Ole Boy" system?
Actually, yes. I don't think people like you and me, regardless of our political persuations, have much say at all in how the country is being governed. Unions, international mega-conglomerates and Bill Gates all have more power over Congress than we do. The US situation is not as bad as that of Brazil, but give it time.
And please tell me which parts of the "Blog" are not factual? or is it you just don't like the source?
The part where it says "extreme poverty persists despite the effects of cash transfers to the poor." As I stated, "cash transfers" to the poor in Brazil are largely a polite fiction told by the Brazilian government. If you're really that interested, I'll pm you with the economic studies.
I never have much faith in sources that derive from someone's opinion - this includes blogs. Think tanks and foundations funded by true believers of any persuation are also suspect. :eyebrow:
What are your sources for these economic studies? Why not post them here, since you are on the subject.
Does this interview with Maria Lopez include some of the polite lies from the government? I am curious. If the government is lying and foundations are biased, how is it that you can find the truth? What economic studies?
http://www.mediaglobal.org/article/2010-09-29/the_activist_that_would_be_minister
Here is the same interview from the UNEP.
http://www.unep.org/south-south-cooperation/exchangeplatform/News/NewsfromMediaGlobal/MediaGlobalinterviews/tabid/5966/Default.aspx
MG: While your “Bolsa Famila” initiative, the largest income transfer program in the world, has helped reduce poverty, 45 million people in Brazil live in extreme poverty. Could you on comment on that? In addition, why do you think that despite international praise for the policy, it is actually really contentious and lacking in support within Brazil?
MML: This has changed. Up to 2006 we actually had a very strong opposition to Bolsa Familia, particularly in public opinion and the media. The situation is that we have social sectors in Brazil that believe we should have continued on with social policies where each person would just pursue their own path to improve their life. But these were very often paths of social exclusion, poverty, suffering, hunger, and death. Unfortunately, a lot of people felt these problems could be fixed on the basis of charity, aid, and volunteer work. There was also resistance in that President Lula and Bolsa Familia challenged the status quo. We have a problem with conservatives, but President Lula didn’t back down. He spoke of zero hunger, and he traveled throughout Brazil and saw what was happening in our country where so many; indigenous people, people in rural and inner city areas, were often dealing with hunger. Brazil could never have a level of balance, economic growth, and development without wealth redistribution.
Worth also considering that tax rates set and tax collected dont always match up. There are quite a few countries out there which appear to tax heavily in that they set tax rates at a high level; but if the ability of the state to enforce and collect is significantly less than in another country where tax is apparently lower, but more likely to be paid, the actual tax burden is very small in real terms.
What are your sources for these economic studies? Why not post them here, since you are on the subject.
No prob. I'm surprised someone else is interested. You can start with this schorlarly and well documented analysis:
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/archive/8.2/Brazil/Ferreira.pdf
Does this interview with Maria Lopez include some of the polite lies from the government? I am curious. If the government is lying and foundations are biased, how is it that you can find the truth? What economic studies?
No, the Lopez interview is shameless self-promotion of her role as Minister of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger. She is also doing some cheerleading for Brazilian president Luiz Ignacio Lula de Silva. Think WMD's and the start of the Iraq war for equivalent veracity. Politicians worldwide often lie. What? You believe every word of political rhetoric you hear or read? And I stated that foundations funded by TRUE BELIEVERS are suspect, not all foundations. For economic studies, see above.
great! but that PDF was dated 2002.
According to the link I posted, as well as the link that merc posted, the work to redistribute wealth happened after 2002. There is new data from 2003 to 2009.
True, you can call the weekly standard a blog, but the information's source was from the World Bank statistical study. It gives a percentage's as to the growth.
http://go.worldbank.org/OSLA6RP0G0
Notes a decline of the proportion of Brazilians living in extreme poverty – less than US $1.25 a day – from 17 percent to 8 percent during the period 1981-2005.
Here is a 2009 PDF from the World Bank statistical study site. Source sited by the blog merc posted.
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2009/11/30/000158349_20091130085835/Rendered/PDF/WPS5080.pdf
Summary
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black]Summary: Brazil, China and India have seen falling poverty in their reform periods, but to varying degrees and for different reasons. History left China with favorable initial conditions for rapid poverty reduction through market-led economic growth; at the outset of the reform process there were ample distortions to remove and relatively low inequality in access to the opportunities so created, though inequality has risen markedly since. By concentrating such opportunities in the hands of the better off, prior inequalities in various dimensions handicapped poverty reduction in both Brazil and India. Brazil's recent success in complementing market-oriented reforms with progressive social policies has helped it achieve more rapid poverty reduction than India, although Brazil has been less successful in terms of economic growth. In the wake of its steep rise in inequality, China might learn from Brazil's success with such policies. India needs to do more to assure that poor people are able to participate in both the country's growth process and its social policies; here there are lessons from both China and Brazil. All three countries have learned how important macroeconomic stability is to poverty reduction.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
Worth also considering that tax rates set and tax collected dont always match up. There are quite a few countries out there which appear to tax heavily in that they set tax rates at a high level; but if the ability of the state to enforce and collect is significantly less than in another country where tax is apparently lower, but more likely to be paid, the actual tax burden is very small in real terms.
That makes sense.
That's a fascinating looking article Sam: that said, if it isn't from a public domain/ commons site then it's possibly a tad risky posting the entire document.
That's a fascinating looking article Sam: that said, if it isn't from a public domain/ commons site then it's possibly a tad risky posting the entire document.
And that is my whole premise. Most information is in the public domain and a lot of it is credible. Like the IRS, the WORLD BANK.
Yes, thank you for posting that sam. I was wondering if you had inside information. ;)
great! but that PDF was dated 2002.
Yeah, I'll admit that a more recent analysis would be helpful. Things have improved since then, but the problems outlined by Ferreira still persist.
True, you can call the weekly standard a blog, but the information's source was from the World Bank statistical study.
The Weekly Standard itself appears to be some sort of newspaper/magazine. Like most other newspapers, its stories will be influenced by its editorial slant. Regardless, the site identifies itself as a
Blog of The Weekly Standard and Merc himself called it a "biased source."
I have some issues with the World Bank, but my argument was not so much against its statistics as it was the erroneous comments made by the blog writer.
Notes a decline of the proportion of Brazilians living in extreme poverty – less than US $1.25 a day – from 17 percent to 8 percent during the period 1981-2005.
But what would $1.25, or $2, or $5, buy in 1981 compared to 2005? People who appear to be gaining may actually be backsliding.
Isn't the $1.25 dollar a day the benchmark figure? I mean, when it defines those living in extreme poverty as 'less than US 1.25 a day' isn't it just giving the current definition? With the people in 1981 living at an equivalent level?
That's what I was wondering. The $1.25 is a benchmark, but I'm wondering if they adjust for inflation before a boasting a change in the % living in poverty?
It would certainly make all the difference to the results lol
I would at first glance say yes the cost of inflation overcame any gains in purchasing power. I tried to search for that Brazil's purchasing power parity, but I am not a number cruncher. I did find the 2009 GNP rank for countries and Brazil is ranked at 9 by the International Monetary fund and ranked 8 by World Bank and CIA Factbook. The US is number 1, The UK is ranked 6 and Mexico by comparison is 14.
The fact that Brazil is ranked nine in GDP would suggest their purchasing power is strengthening? This quote is from wikipedia. I know people do not like that source but it is all I could come up with this morning.
Its real per capita GDP has surpassed US$ 10,500 in 2008, due to the strong and continued appreciation of the real for the first time this decade. Its industrial sector accounts for three fifths of the Latin American economy's industrial production.[17] The country’s scientific and technological development is argued to be attractive to foreign direct investment, which has averaged US$ 30 billion per year the last years, compared to only US$ 2 billion per year last decade,[17] thus showing a remarkable growth. The agricultural sector, locally called the agronegócio (agrobusiness), has also been remarkably dynamic: for two decades this sector has kept Brazil amongst the most highly productive countries in areas related to the rural sector.[17] The agricultural sector and the mining sector also supported trade surpluses which allowed for massive currency gains (rebound) and external debt paydown. Due to downturn in Western economies Brazil found itself in 2010 trying to halt the appreciation of the real.[22]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil
Isn't the $1.25 dollar a day the benchmark figure? I mean, when it defines those living in extreme poverty as 'less than US 1.25 a day' isn't it just giving the current definition? With the people in 1981 living at an equivalent level?
That's what I was wondering. The $1.25 is a benchmark, but I'm wondering if they adjust for inflation before a boasting a change in the % living in poverty?
I am sure the answer to those questions could be found on a statistical data site like the World Factbook.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html
I don't know if that helps.
But what would $1.25, or $2, or $5, buy in 1981 compared to 2005? People who appear to be gaining may actually be backsliding.
When I lived in Brazil in '79, $1.25 US would barely buy a small bag of beans. I couldn't imagine poor Brazilians getting by on that amount, and they didn't, really. Brazil had been plagued by hyper-inflation, although that problem seems to be resolved.
One criticism economists make of Brazilian numbers is that the dollar amount which defines those living in extreme poverty has been set artificially low.
According to the International Cost of Living Index, in 2010 the cost of living in Brasilia was higher than that of Zurich!
http://www.articlesbase.com/international-business-articles/international-cost-of-living-index-rank-2010-1722667.htmlThe problem with, "real per capita GDP" is it measures to money but not where it goes. If the king takes 99%, the serfs are still screwed no matter how much there is.
And as Sam pointed out: it doesn't take into account what that money buys either. Pre-war Germans with their wheelbarrows full of money would look rich if they walked down my street, but that barrow load of cash would have barely fed their family for the week.
Isn't the $1.25 dollar a day the benchmark figure? I mean, when it defines those living in extreme poverty as 'less than US 1.25 a day' isn't it just giving the current definition? With the people in 1981 living at an equivalent level?
Statistics lies and statistics. The use of $1.25 a day is a meaningless benchmark.
The problem with, "real per capita GDP" is it measures to money but not where it goes. If the king takes 99%, the serfs are still screwed no matter how much there is.
On face value one would have to agree, but I was attempting to answer this question
But what would $1.25, or $2, or $5, buy in 1981 compared to 2005? People who appear to be gaining may actually be backsliding.
I was overreaching in post #129. I posted the link to the pdf but didn't explain why it answered that question. Because, it is a comparative report, I would need to cherry pick information. If I did that I am afraid I would somehow skew the information, so I didn't.
It is a report that spans a several years. The publishing date is October 2009. The authors are listed as well as some disclaimers and as the report goes along it is careful to mention any survey problems.
It outlines distributional change and answers your question as to whether or not there are any real gains.
It is a complicated report. I had to read it several times and I still can't get my head around the variables.
Has Brazil made gains in equality? Yes, I think the report says so. Is it harder for people who make less than $2 dollars a day. Yes, it says that too.
I am not pretending to know anything. I don't, but the opportunity to research and learn something is fascinating. I have a greater understanding of the situation. I am glad I read it. I am glad that Sam brought it up. I learned something today.
Maybe someone else can extract the relevant information from it.
Brazil, China, India reform period, comparative report.
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2009/11/30/000158349_20091130085835/Rendered/PDF/WPS5080.pdfYou said when you posted it, the data was sketchy and difficult. I at least, am not holding you responsible to clear up the questions, as it sounds like it would be thesis worthy research to do that.
Why thank you. I don't want to be responsible for it, although my brain doesn't seem to know how to deal with down time on my winter break.
It is a great thesis idea!