Pipe dream? Obamacare

[isobars]

[keycocker]

I do not think we differ with the libs on the role of gov in the sense ththeir are are two hardened views.
If you ask a lib if they support high taxes, lots of gov regs and control, giving a free ride to lazy bums, you will not find any who like those things.

The right media has assigned that opinion to the most diverse group of Americans in our history. Asians, white, brown,their agendas and needs are as diverse as their backgrounds. Many liberals among my friends detest government.
The biggest rise in the Food Stamp enrollments under Obama are in counties with the most Republican voters. This is consistent US wide.
Many southern GOP States are welfare states.
All those GOP on welfare, what is their view on the role of Government in their lives? It varies widely, just like with Dems.
Talk in particular is now taking the position that conservatives should not listen to the real ideas of Dems because that is a waste of time.
It also causes confusion when you can't find a Dem who believes in tbe BS talk radio ascribes to them. You could wind up turning off Talk Radio.
There could be no greater disaster among the lobbyists who pay these guys.

[feuser]

[pueno]

[mac]

I'm still waiting for the righties to adjust to the reality-based beat down they got at the beginning of the month. I’m still waiting for the righties to demonstrate some understanding of math, although I doubt they will ever identify three things about the ACA that should be changed, and why. Ayn Rand bullshit does not suffice. Instead we get techno trying to put made up words from the corrupt talk radio industry into our mouths. (If you don’t think that Murdoch and Beck are corrupt, you are not paying attention.) Those words are right wing fiction, they don’t correspond to anything that progressives are saying. But the claim is made here by techno that we don’t care about the deficit, we propose to tax the rich to death, the ACA is a significant part of the deficit, yada, yada, yada. Nonsense, all of it.

First of all, Chandler and I have both said that the Bush tax cuts should expire for all of us. They were sold as temporary tax cuts because there was a surplus (generated by Clinton increases and hated by Republicans.) There isn’t a surplus. For me the tax reduction was about $3000 and I increased my charitable giving about the same. It wasn’t a significant economic stimulus for me, and I said then, and I say now, that paying down the deficit is more important than going out to eat twice more a month in one of the Bay area’s fine restaurants. That’s what we are talking about.

Liberals care about the deficit—but we can do math and know that the ACA at $1 trillion of $16 trillion in debt is not “significant” in techno’s use of the term—particularly if it slows the rate of increase of medical costs. I’m betting that an inefficient Federal government will be not be so inept that it cannot provide some balance to the greedy medical industry.

Third, doing the math on the deficit shows that the sources of the deficit are 1) the Bush tax cuts, which didn’t generate the mythical overall economic boom that increased overall revenues; 2) two wars financed with credit cards, or more realistically, inflation for our kids; 3) the downturn in the economy which cut revenues at the Federal level by 30%, but is gradually passing by. Easy to research the actual costs of these—and all are more than the ACA. It's curious that the true believers on the deficit can't seem to find the actual sources of the problem they worry so much about. Of course, that is consistent with what they did when last in power and they threw away the Clinton surpluses that were actually paying down the debt. Magical thinking, with a religious fervor that says tax cuts and increasing military spending will generate more tax revenue and cut the deficit. And you think magical underpants and Israelites settling the deserts in America was crazy!

Fourth, let’s talk actual math in tax increases, and see if it is “taxed to death”. The proposal on the table, which I support but think should go further, is to return to the Clinton era tax rates for the two highest brackets. That would be an increase from 36% to 39.5% for the top bracket, which if indexed would be only income more than $400,000. The next highest bracket would be increased from 33% to 36%, but only for that income over $250,000. That’s right, for the first $250,000 they pay the same rate that you and I do—and way more than Mitt did (quite apart from his sheltering money overseas and apparently taking advantage of a tax amnesty to get relief from some questionable accounting practices—the reputed reason he wouldn’t release his returns.)

That doesn’t fix the deficit, but it is a good start, and is the symbol that you need to get Democrats to put benefit cuts for Medicare and Social Security on the table. That’s what compromise is about—taking care of the needs of more people in the society, and recognizing the importance of symbols in stimulating an adult discussion about benefits. In fact, the middle class (not to mention the red states) are getting more benefits than they pay for, and most politicians are unwilling to speak the truth about that. From government pensions to Social Security, they take out more than they have put in. In the latter case because the assumptions about life expectancy and medical costs were more optimistic (in terms of fiscal cost) than reality has turned out to be. So I think that we need to have that discussion with the middle class—they need to either accept fewer benefits or pay more. The rich cannot pick up the tab for the middle class. But the fixes are modest—eliminating the ceiling on the social security tax, currently about $110,000, would eliminate about 72% of the projected shortfall. A fairly modest increase in retirement age, a means test, or lower cost of living increases, would fix the rest. Any of those is equitable. But we are dealing with Norquististas, not adults.

Finally, we need to look at capital gains. As anyone paying attention knows, both Clinton and Bush cut corporate taxes and capital gains taxes beyond what was sustainable or equitable. This essentially created the gambling and computer algorithm investment plans to try to bet the short term market fluctuations. While short term dividends are taxed at a higher rate than long-term gains, it is not enough to discourage really bad behavior in the financial markets that is nearly certain to create—and collapse—another bubble. Especially with algorithm based trading—we’ve already seen at least one scary bubble and collapse. So it is pretty simple—most Americans think that Mitt Romney should pay higher taxes than his secretary, not lower, and not the reduction in his own rates that he and Ryan proposed—and the voters rejected.

But don’t turn around and say liberals want to tax investments to death. Rather, liberals (or more accurately progressives—because we’re interested in reform of institutions, both government and corporate) want a tax code that steers investments into 1) enterprises that create jobs outside of the financial and audit sectors; b) enterprises that create good paying jobs with good economic multipliers; and c) discourages high risk, short term investment than is more like gambling than investment. That means that effective taxes those activities that create jobs and are sustainable over a longer period of time would remain largely untaxed. Would this be fair? I think so. My return from the Bush tax cuts was about $3000/year, and I am solidly middle class. But 80% of the benefits from the capital gains cuts went to the “wealthiest 5% of taxpayers, while 50% of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1% of taxpayers.” Source: http://20somethingfinance.com/bush-tax-cuts-romney-vs-obama-2012-2013-capital-gains-tax-rate/ Do the math righties, hundreds of billions went to the takers, euphemistically and inaccurately known as the job takers.

[nw30]

We're still fucked

[pueno]

[boggsman1]

[isobars]

[isobars]