The politics of s'im-c'ity....
I think for the first time I have felt real confidence in President Obama and America as he was speaking of some sort of "buffet rule".
I think that high taxes is a much more responsible fiscal policy than indefinite debt and thus indefinite interest, but I think that debt is not an insurmountable problem for a government making essential investments in the long term economic stability of the country. Only when a country like Greece can't value their own currency AND can't ensure the long-term stability of their ability to continue paying their debts is there an issue - the U.S. faces neither of those issues.
not my field of expertise... I'm just a poet/painter but if I had money I would want my taxes to be used in a responsible manner. What I don't understand is that If America has the ability to keep printing more money, then why don't they just print money to pay the debt.
Sim City?
What is this fascination you have with misplaced apostrophes?
not my field of expertise... I'm just a poet/painter but if I had money I would want my taxes to be used in a responsible manner. What I don't understand is that If America has the ability to keep printing more money, then why don't they just print money to pay the debt.
I understand the world of international currency and its valuation only roughly enough to vaguely discuss it in the political realm, not enough to explain it in full, but the basics of the answer to that question, JBK, is: international valuations of currency - including ours - are based basically on betting, that is to say, based on odds valuation by investors. The dollar is worth money as long as people look at the American government and believe that the government has the financial power and authority to back its money. In America, there are a LOT of factors urging investors to believe that the debts the government owes them will be paid, and a LOT of factors urging them to believe the Dollar still buys things. The government can't technically print bills for itself to pay its debtors with directly - the money has to go through the bureaucracy, and has to be "sourced" from somewhere that gives the paper of the bill the same weight as every other piece of dollar-shaped paper out there. BUT, since the government can devalue its own currency in a crisis, the dollar can't collapse like Greece looks about to collapse, because the US could devalue the dollar, and Greece doesn't have authority over the Euro. Devaluing the dollar is kinda like "printing more money to pay the bills", and causes inflation a lot like "printing more money", but importantly, the bills themselves - printing paper - is irrelevant. Money nowadays MOSTLY isn't paper. It's all about faith.
Why is the buffett rule bs? by all means expand on that.
The Buffett Rule solves nothing. It significantly addresses no economic problem.
At best it'll cover the interest on the debt for a month. At worst, a couple days.
Ibs, what exactly do you think is so great about it?
I think people making millions of dollars should be paying more in taxes than working people, not less. That's just, something i believe makes fundamental economic, logical, and moral sense. I think closing loopholes and making the hyper-wealthy pay at least the already-low theoretical taxes for their bracket, and in fact raising the amount the highest bracket pays (possibly adding higher brackets).
click to enlarge
The Buffett Rule solves nothing. It significantly addresses no economic problem.
At best it'll cover the interest on the debt for a month. At worst, a couple days.
Ibs, what exactly do you think is so great about it?
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Just because we can't do one big thing that will solve the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't do many small things that will make the problem smaller. OF COURSE there isn't one thing, one magic wand wave that will make the deficit disappear. So the only positive choice is to take what steps we can, like a rule like this, and let them all add up.
***
On a related note, I think a far better solution would be to treat income from wages and income from capital gains the same. It still wouldn't solve the whole deficit problem, but it would be a step in the right direction, a GIANT STEP.
I think a far better solution would be to treat income from wages and income from capital gains the same. It still wouldn't solve the whole [strike]deficit[/strike] (debt) problem, but it would be a step in the right direction, a GIANT STEP.
I completely agree. In fact I believe I even said so in a discussion with you and Lamp, I think.
Of course, I can't find it...
ETA -
here is one thing sorta.
Regarding the Buffett BS - more and more people are stating that it is little more than divisionary politics with an aim at a soon to be candidate.
It simply doesn't do much of anything. Sad, but true.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Just because we can't do one big thing that will solve the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't do many small things that will make the problem smaller. OF COURSE there isn't one thing, one magic wand wave that will make the deficit disappear. So the only positive choice is to take what steps we can, like a rule like this, and let them all add up.
~snip~
I agree with BigV. Steps in the right direction add up.
There is no fix-all. Baby steps? Fine. Better than backwards steps.
We had this discussion in early 2000s. Stated back then with numerous examples - a tax cut creates a short term economic boom followed by economic downturns. What happened? We got the usual and predictable recession since the rich got tax breaks.
All we need do is restore the fair and economically healthy taxes once paid in the 1990s. That is only difficult when a political agenda hype government welfare to the richest.
What happened when the rich stopped paying their fair share? We have the recession as predicted by history and predicted when tax cuts were being advocated in The Cellar in the early 2000s.
How to create jobs? Stop heavily taxing those who create jobs. Tax the people who do not create the jobs - the richest. We know that is when an economy is prosperous. We know from a decade of history that welfare to the rich only makes bigger deficits and economics downturns. As demonstrated by history. As predicted. And as it happened. Simply restore what works by ignoring the political agenda. An agenda that pays word games and Limbaugh logic by relabeling no welfare as a tax increase.
Regarding the Buffett BS - more and more people are stating that it is little more than divisionary politics with an aim at a soon to be candidate.
It simply doesn't do much of anything. Sad, but true.
more and more people are stating that there are problems with the "theory" of evolution too. But that doesn't make it so either.
Actually less and less are.
The Buffett deal simply doesn't do much of anything. Sad, but true.
define "much". Don't Ask Don't Tell wasn't "much" help to gay servicemembers but it let them attempt to serve. steps in the right direction beat the status quo. why does it have to do MUCH to be a good idea?
From WaPo:
Wonkbook real talk: Republicans have taken an amusingly Woody Allen-esque "the food is terrible and the portions are so small" approach to fighting back on the Buffett rule, they say. On the one hand, the proposal is "class warfare." A counterproductive tax hike on job creators. On the other, it would only raise $47 billion (though $160 billion against the more oft-used current policy baseline), and so it doesn't do enough. So: This terrible, dangerous policy is too small to even talk about.
A counterproductive tax hike on job creators.
That is where the lying begins. Those who pay lower or near zero taxes also do not create the jobs. In fact, their increased income often goes to things that only increase national trade deficits and enrich the least productive (luxury good providers).
As history proves, tax breaks to those who do not create the jobs only contributes to economic downturns. We have a decade of reality to prove it. Meanwhile "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is the political agenda behind those lies.
Proverbs 6:16-19
New International Version (NIV)
16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
I can't help but to think that if only America would do things the way God had intended for it to be done that the world would be a better place.
So, do you think the government should make it illegal to have a lying tongue or haughty eyes? Should rabble-rousing or stirring up conflict land you in prison?
define rich. define fair. . . . .
Actually, don't. It'll only make things worse.
From WaPo:
From Reuters
Either way, the revenue is far less than the $1 trillion or more that would be lost from scrapping the alternative minimum tax. The AMT also is meant to be a minimum tax on the wealthy. Democrats have said the Buffett tax could replace the AMT.
The Buffett tax proposal has little chance of passing with Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives and its prospects in the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate are murky.
From Wash Times
Congress's official tax scorekeepers said late Tuesday that a Buffett Rule tax like the one President Obama has called for would raise about $47 billion over the next decade —[I] less than 1 percent [/I]of the deficits Mr. Obama's spending plans would lead to.
or a more accurate and complicated assessment.
The big reason is that the estimate presumes the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of 2012 (as provided for under current law) and that a new 3.8% Medicare “surtax” on investment income (to help pay for the health insurance subsidies in Obamacare) takes effect as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2013. If both those things happen, the top tax rate on long term capital gains will go from 15% this year to 23.8% (20% plus 3.8%) while the top rate on ordinary dividends (the kind Apple Inc. announced this week it will start paying) will jump from 15% to 43.4% (39.6% plus 3.8%). And that’s even before the scheduled Jan. 1, 2013 return of a provision that shaves the itemized deductions of the better off, effectively adding another 1.2% points to their tax rate. If all those tax hikes take effect, as scheduled, the rich will be paying more anyway, reducing the potential haul from a new 30% minimum tax. According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, if the Bush tax cuts don’t expire, 36% of millionaire households will pay the new minimum tax; if they do expire, the tax will hit just 19% of those households.
Its nothing more than political pandering. There are much better ways , as suggested above, to achieve the same end.
curious... you struck my use of "deficit" replacing it with debt. Then you used deficit yourself in a subsequent post. we have both, which do you think is more trouble?
shuddup you with your facts ;)
Should we, looking at projections, not assume the bush tax cuts will expire? Maybe I'm just too hopeful, rather than realistic, but I think they will. Whether or not the republicans win the presidency (which i still doubt), i think the bush tax cuts were dead when he suggested "hey lets not call them that" at his big shindig trying to support extending the cuts.
curious... you struck my use of "deficit" replacing it with debt. Then you used deficit yourself in a subsequent post.
shuddup you with your facts ;)
this is done.
Damn you - I took your word for it ... just looked. I didn't use "deficit." tw did and it was in a quote of mine, but not me.
which do you think is more trouble?
Hmm. Dunno. hadn't really thought about which was worse.
So, do you think the government should make it illegal to have a lying tongue or haughty eyes? Should rabble-rousing or stirring up conflict land you in prison?
no I just don't think that the government should take advice from people like this...
http://www.av1611.org/666/rock_666.htmlGreat! Cause the government doesn't. I promise you Britney Spears and Rob Halford and Marilyn Manson aren't giving the government advice. Maaaybe they vote. Should they not be allowed to vote, because they used a commonly referenced, usually tongue-in-cheek, three-digit number in a song or on their clothes or whatever?
plus... your source?
Welcome to Dial-the-Truth Ministries
I'd... REALLY REALLY rather my government be run by britney spears or big gay rob or marilyn manson than by THOSE people, dude.
JBK, I agree with the sentiment of Ibram's post. I would like to point out though, that our government is run by us, all of us. Some more than others to be sure. Run by us by our votes, but also by our communication with others. We are influenced by those around us, like Big Gay Rob and Dial-The Truth and countless others, so that matters too.
Welcome to Dial-the-Truth Ministries
I per-fer to call it 'truth for hire'
Whatever you call it, i find it disturbing and distasteful. to each their own i guess.
well the distasteful part I can fix.. the disturbing part is due to a flux in the force that I have created by resisting socialism.. the spirit is willing but the robot is stuck.. I have to imagine that the 'spirit of mars' is somewhat as you say 'disturbing' all I can do is live my life the way I see God wants me too. The Bible says work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. I believe I have worked out my salvation. I may have took the long way but I'm there. So now that I am in a situation that is stable all I can say is that I am here to help people not hurt them.
Hang on...whathas resisting socialism got to do with anything?
Jesus would have been a socialist. A lot of christians are socialists, particularly amongst the methodist kind. Lot of socialist catholics too, particularly amongst the clergy in some countries. Hardly surprising given they're often working the front lines of poverty.
The Buffett Rule solves nothing. It significantly addresses no economic problem.
At best it'll cover the interest on the debt for a month. At worst, a couple days.
Ibs, what exactly do you think is so great about it?
Regarding the Buffett BS - more and more people are stating that it is little more than divisionary politics with an aim at a soon to be candidate.
It simply doesn't do much of anything. Sad, but true.
From Reuters
From Wash Times
Its nothing more than political pandering. There are much better ways , as suggested above, to achieve the same end.
It's just the bookend to
this, but with more fairness behind it.
Sure, JB, but I'm a daoist/buddhist-leaning atheist, who thinks that organized, top-down, authoritarian religion is one of the most negative, destructive forces on earth, and my distaste for the organization you linked to has nothing to do with... socialism, or whatever. My problem is with the anti-humanistic, fundamentalist, bigoted, absolutist worldview the website in question espouses. I think worldviews like that cause a LOT of the problems in our country. I think the idea that your or anyone else's views on religion should be the basis for our system of government or social contract is worse than hooey - it's outright dangerous, and people like you, who want our government run on their theocratic ideals, are the BIGGEST threat to freedom in America.
I don't want an American Taliban. You seem to be asking for it, JBK.
your wrong, the country of USA was built on God.. lest God build the house your labor is in vain...
God didn't build my house. He did work on the furnace and he mowed my lawn once, though.
It wasn't built on God, JBK. It was built on the idea that the government can't abuse the rights of its citizens. You don't have to agree, but I think you need to study the history of the founders and their beliefs if you're going to make that argument.
If you don't believe me, the first amendment still says there shall be no establishment of religion. The government can NOT impose religious values for religion's sake upon the population. I'm a bisexual transgender anarchosocialist atheist. I would be literally dead if the government was built on Levitical law. I would be only slightly safer if it was built on New Testament law. Why should my lifestyle be illegal, JBK?
I'm not a smart man Ibram but I know who GOD is... the only thing evil people need to be victorious is for good people to do nothing.. If that's your lifestyle maybe we need an amendment that says freaks should be confined to titty bars..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
that means that Government can't Control religion not that religion can't control government.
We're done, JBK. I tried to be respectful, I really did, I tried to give you chance after chance.
You don't say that.
You don't.
get the fuck out of here, you sick fuck. stay the fuck away from any thread i'm liable to pick a fight with you in, or get the fuck out of here entirely, or you better goddamn well learn to keep your bigotry in check around here. learn some fucking respect. you dont have to like my lifestyle not to call me a freak.
I'm a bigger freak than you'll ever know but you don't see me trying to impose homo law on anyone.
It's just the bookend to this, but with more fairness behind it.
Perhaps a drop more, if any.
If they are serious, they'll adjust the Cap gains rates and remove about 10,000 pages of loopholes.
Some will pay a little, others will pay a little more and still others will pay a lot more.
They just aren't serious. Like it or not, both teams are full of shit.
I'm a bigger freak than you'll ever know but you don't see me trying to impose homo law on anyone.
"impose"? what am i trying to "impose" on your ass? You want it in the ass, you dont want it in the ass, it's all the same to me. There's no such thing as "homo law". what does that even mean? Nobody in the gay community is trying to legislate ANYTHING that would affect straight people, even bigots like you.
in (slightly) less infuriating issues:
[ATTACH]38294[/ATTACH]
The white house has just released a
buffet rule calculator. See how many millionaires paid a lower tax rate than YOU!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
ok.. I'll try not to do that
do you understand at all how you're being wildly offensive or are you just completely oblivious?
Here is a great article. Ibs, I'd like your takeaway on it.
that means that Government can't Control religion not that religion can't control government.
Now you are scaring the crap outa me. Truly, those words say "American Taliban" to most people who read them. You often talk about your fear and confusion about your relationship with God but you want to force others to live by a particular creed. That doesn't cut it.
Truly, those words say "American Taliban" to most people who read them. You often talk about your fear and confusion about your relationship with God but you want to force others to live by a particular creed.
What anyone believes about a god is only a relationship between that human brain and a concept called god. That relationship must never appear in economics (a relationship between people), how a man builds his house, how government works and makes laws, or even in a priest's 'love' of children.
Society must impose nothing on one man's relationship with his god. That religious relationship must not be imposed on any other part of society - despite a Catholic Church that demands Papal Doctrine be imposed on all Americans.
Relevant discussion is about how government welfare for the rich (ie George Jr's tax cuts) have so harmed this American economy. And why continuing those tax cuts (that encourages economic downturn) is somehow good or should continue.
Here is a great article. Ibs, I'd like your takeaway on it.
Well, I'd say, broadly, that I don't accept the argument that you should include his corporation's tax rate in his tax calculation, so that's irrelevant to me. When the article says
A question for any political candidate today is whether he or she agrees with the Bush tax ceiling. If not, how high above a third is he or she willing to go?
I think that one-third is too low of a ceiling. I think the argument that they're the "working rich" doesn't mitigate the fact that they're the rich, when it comes to taxation. And I think that the capital gains loophole, for example, should be closed.
I'd be all for simplifying the tax code, and I think loopholes and deductions that unfairly benefit the wealthy should be closed, but I think that the wealthy should pay a significantly higher tax burden than the rest of the population, because I firmly believe that without government investment and support, not a single one of them would be in the position they're in. We don't and never will live in a Randian capitalist society, where the wealthy make it on their own merit alone, and those who make it should give back at a higher rate than those that don't make it, to help promote the government infrastructure, institutions, and bureaucracy that is an integral part of what contributes to financial success in the market and help establish the next generation of "self"-made wealthy.
This is not to detract from the immense wealth, prestige, and success that the wealthy often deserve. I'm certainly not in a position to make that kind of money, and those that aren't born into wealth, who DO pull themselves up by their bootstraps, definitely deserve what they make. I'm not saying they'd be nothing without the government. I'm not saying it's the government that they owe their success to. But the roads, the regulations, the investments, the education, the infrastructure... the government helps. And so those that manage to get wealthy, should have to not only give back, but give back more.
more or less.
do you understand at all how you're being wildly offensive or are you just completely oblivious?
I see it more like Helen Keller except I'm an artist... I am a RAW and untapped source of emotion and will power.. I need to be molded into something that people can understand.. and until I find a better way I am going to keep my motor running and keep the waves comming.. then of coarse you could look at it from the other side of the spectrum which says I'm right and your wrong but that's a little rash seeings how I know that what it comes down to is a lack of education and I want to be taught only no-one cares to teach so I have developed a superior method of forceing my way into the mainstream. Either way for me it's about survival and I'm a freelancer, completely independent of everything except the federal government. Do you care to explain to me what the 'hell' a Taliban is I'll look it up hold on.
Being a freelancer doesn't give you a free pass JB.
Yup, JB. You sound like one of those scumbag fucks.
well I think I'll take my orders form Abraham not Ibram
What orders? Who's giving orders?
Yup, JB. You sound like one of those scumbag fucks.
Why does
Quotes from the The American Taliban have any relationship to government welfare for the rich? Tax cuts and religion (should) have nothing in common.
Why was religion even mentioned? Because Santorum says Papal Doctrine should be imposed on all Americans?
Worst thing anyone can do is apply their religious beliefs to any other topic. Putting god into any discussion is illogical. Resulting unnecessary replies will be (must be) nasty. Because religious beliefs apply only to one person – nobody else.
God has no place in a discussion of tax cuts. God (or Abraham) has no place in any discussion of human interrelations. Therefore so many replies are confrontational. As should be expected.
this is the politics of sim city dude check the headline.. we have been simulating a terrorist threat..
Pirates Playing Space Invader don't be a hater he created a monster and it ate her..
that's about as savage as it get..
he created a monster and it ate her..
that's about as savage as it get..
So god ate the girl? What kind of city are you Simming? And what kind of religion is that?
I'm just saying terrorist=savages..
I'm just saying terrorist=savages..
And some gods eat girls? That's why I rarely read books in the fiction section. Some fiction does not appeal to my biases.
Now stories in Playboy? They're always good reading. Especially when the black guy so appeases the blond. Love those stories - that pretend god does not exist. And address concepts more often found in reality.
Mike D created the Monster and It ate Chelsea Clinton.
Recently seen in a rerun.
Mork calling Orson. Mork calling Orson. Come in Orson...
Orson: What have you to report, Mork.
Mork: They have been reduced to tribal beings, clinging to the last throes of survival. But all is not lost for this humanity. This tribe has discovered the God of the new world. He shall lead their tribe out of the darkness. He shall bring humanity back to what it once was. Hey... wait... is that Abraham Lincoln they're worshipping?
Orson: Get on with it Mork.
Mork: They even have a religion that worships O.J. Simpson.
Orson: The Juice?
Mork: Yeah, and the gentiles too.
All Hail The Great God Mickey. After the End, remnants of a past society are mistaken for a sign of the gods. This trope may also be found attached to Happy Days of Future Past. Yes your oneness. They worship a Magic Kingdom.
Orson: Well, mork. Just don't be reduced to eating any girls. Orson signing off.
Mork: Nanu Nanu.
Idolatry is a very wretched sin.. the bible predicts disaster because of it.. and that is apparently what American Pagans Do...
you two were made for each other.
Recently seen in a rerun.
Mork calling Orson. Mork calling Orson. Come in Orson...
Orson: What have you to report, Mork.
~snip~
Orson: Well, mork. Just don't be reduced to eating any girls. Orson signing off.
Mork: Nanu Nanu.
I lolled! I'm going to wear those tiny ponytails on each side of my head in honor of Mork and Mindy!
Played Sim City long before we came to the US. It made absolutely no fucking sense then. It's so scarily real now I don't want to play anymore......especially the way you can drop taxes all year to keep people happy then crank them up just before April and all is well with your budget :lol:
It's just the bookend to this... but with more fairness behind it.
Meh...
Obama argued “The notion that it doesn’t solve the entire problem doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it at all,” he explained.
That’s true, to a point. But Obama’s claim that the Buffett Rule “is something that will get us moving in the right direction toward fairness” would be more convincing if he took other steps in that direction, too.
Three years into his presidency, Obama has not introduced a plan for comprehensive tax reform — arguably the most important vehicle for fixing the nation’s finances and boosting long-term economic growth. His opponents haven’t done much better, but that doesn’t excuse the president’s failures: appointing the Simpson-Bowles commission and then disregarding its findings, offering a plan for business tax reform only, and issuing a series of platitudes. The Buffett Rule, rather than overhauling the tax code, would simply add another layer.
The pity is that Obama doesn’t use his unrivaled political skill to sell a tax plan of more consequence — and less gimmickry.
link“It’s simple,” the president said on Tuesday. “If you make more money — more than $1 million a year, not if you have $1 million, but if you make more than $1 million a year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do.”
And that is simple. But it’s not how the Buffett rule actually works.
me: We’ve adapted the bill to have a phase in between one and two million. So you pay a portion of the tax the Buffett rule adds as you go up the line between one and two million and it doesn’t kick in fully until you get to two million.
EK: So if it’s not 30 percent, what’s the minimum effective tax rate someone making $1,000,001 would pay?
SW: It’s hard to do the math on that because it would be highly specific to their situation. If they were paying 18 percent now, and if they only went over one million by one dollar, they would be 18 percent plus one one-millionth of the Buffett rule adjustment. And if they were one dollar short of two million, they would pay the full 30 percent minus one one-million of the full adjustment. So there’s a ramp.
Ezra KleinSo the rule is more reasonable, more sophisticated, more, dare I say, nuanced than it has been portrayed by the bumperstickers and soundbiters. I believe that's a good thing, don't you?
Also, further in the article, the difference between the $47 billion and $160 billion figures is explained. Which one do you think is more likely, given this additional information? I invite all of you to comment, not just classicman.
I dare say that those who would be most impacted by this are probably already prepared to lessen its impact upon them.
Knowing that politicians over/underestimate [strike]lie[/strike] to their benefit - the most reliable guess is somewhere in the middle.
Life Goes On... long after the THREAT of Living is Gone.
Life Goes On... long after the THREAT of Living is Gone.
That sounds like a suicide message. Is suicide an option in Sim City?
It's called a communications gap.. you'd think I had wax in my ears or something because when I listen/watch to movies, music, lectures, people on the net...I hear one thing but they are saying something totally different.. for instance when I first started listen to mettalica I used to say "don't call me master" when it's really saying "obey your master"...
It's supposed to say "life goes on long after the ""thrill"" living is gone..
FWIW, you are still wrong.
"Life goes on, long after the thrill of living has gone"
The Thrill is Gone
[YOUTUBE]_4GfRQSE-Ak[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]hG6oy46qKE4[/YOUTUBE]
![Image]("http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/331060/4-8-strip-print.jpg")