New Reason to Raise Taxes on the Rich: ‘Patriotism’

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.

Almost correct.

Only one part has been controlled by the Democrats.

The Democrats have a 53% majority in the House of Representatives.

The Senate is tied at 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and two independents.

For the purposes of determining the majority party for the purpose of assigning majority and minority positions, the rules of the Senate allow an independent to side with one side or another if they agree to caucus with the party. In this case it is Senator Lieberman.

However, this procedure of allowing an independent to caucus is not the same as a party having a majority in the Senate.

For all practical legislative purposes the Senate is tied 49-49-2

If the two independents would not agree to caucus with one of the parties, the rules of the Senate would then consider the Vice President (as the President of the Senate) and count the President of the Senate for the purposes of determining the majority party for selecting Senatorial offices. In this case, since Vice President Cheney is a Republican, the Senate would be considered to have a Republican majority.

However it is most important to know the difference between a majority party and a party with a majority. In the Senate the difference is important. This current Senate is one of the uncommon ones where one party is the majority party but does not have a majority.

This could only happen in the US.

There are many things that can be blamed on the Democratic Senators but being in the Majority for the past two years aint one of them.

[Skybird]

Today the biggest aid package for the markets had been announced by the US government, several "hundreds of billions" of tax-dollars will be pumped into the system over the coming weeks and months.

I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Today the biggest aid package for the markets had been announced by the US government, several "hundreds of billions" of tax-dollars will be pumped into the system over the coming weeks and months.

I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.

That was part of my point. SOMEONE has to raise taxes to pay for this huge bill.

They were just showing on NBC Nightly News the other day the Fed having to print more dollars just to cover this huge deficit. Just print more.

As a taxpayer myself, it would have been nice if someone had at least asked "Hey, you guys wanna foot this bill?"

Originally Posted by Platapus

There are many things that can be blamed on the Democratic Senators but being in the Majority for the past two years aint one of them.

That, along with the fact that both houses have been essentially rubber-stamping 'YES' on to everything that the Republican-held White House has requested means that I hold (1) Republicans to blame for not providing the correct amount of control rods in the reactor, making it go into a melt-down situation and (2) Democracts to blame for going along with it.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

T
I wonder where this money is coming from. If it all just gets newly printed, you can expect a huge jump in inflation. If it is being taken from other parts of the budget, it is missing somewhere else. And if the money is raised by lending, it means that america accept even more debts and a deficitary budget. This money needs to be payed back then - I wonder how they do it without making cuts to other parts of the budget, the military budget - or raising taxes.

Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.

Originally Posted by Platapus

Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.

Yup, see my earlier point:

My opinion on who does what:
1. Democracts = Tax and Spend.
2. Republicans = Borrow and Spend.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Zayphod

1. Democracts = Tax and Spend.
2. Republicans = Borrow and Spend.

Hence the term "Credit Card Conservative"

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.

Sometimes I get the impression that some people are wondering why they should ever pay back at all.

The decision today gives short relief for the imminent future. But it holds great risks and unpredictables for the medium and longterm future. It is not the great miracle solution that makes the issue a thing of the past.

I would predict that the effect lasts a while - and then has been eaten up, and new major falls threaten the market - and more state aide will be demanded. However, I estimate the Fed already has consummed the better part of its reserves and potential influence. After this crisis has digested both Wall street and the Fed, both will no longer remain to be the onces they had been before.

[Blacklight]

Those greedy fat-cats that we all love to hate are also major investors.

But unfortunately, those investors are investing mostly overseas now because doing business is so much cheaper over there. And they're keeping their money and re-investing it overseas so they aren't trickleing it down like the Republican Trickle Down theory says it should work. So while they're making the cash, they arent growing anything in the US so the lower classes are losing jobs and getting paid less. In my state, jobs are almost impossible to find now unless you have a masters degree and even positions that require those are pretty full and new businesses just don't like starting up here (and those that are here are trying to move overseas and are laying people off on a constant basis).

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Blacklight

But unfortunately, those investors are investing mostly overseas now because doing business is so much cheaper over there. And they're keeping their money and re-investing it overseas so they aren't trickleing it down like the Republican Trickle Down theory says it should work. So while they're making the cash, they arent growing anything in the US so the lower classes are losing jobs and getting paid less. In my state, jobs are almost impossible to find now unless you have a masters degree and even positions that require those are pretty full and new businesses just don't like starting up here (and those that are here are trying to move overseas and are laying people off on a constant basis).

Saw an interview with former Deutsche Bank director Endres an hour ago. He said that the american economy nowadays makes 60& of the gross national income with finance transactions exclsuively, and only 40% by producing goods. that is queer in itself, not only in america, but in pri8nciple. A barell oil, he added, was being turned at least eleven times before it reaches it's final customer. eleven levels earns money by trading it, woithiut procuzctively producing anyrthing, or assisting in anything non-material but valuable, like transportation.

That is madness in my opinion.

The "several hundred billion" dollars the government's aide package includes, meanwhile have been traslated. It could become as much as one trillion dollars - tax-dollars, that is.

Now compare: how much is the estimation for the dmaage done by hurricane Ike? I have 5 or 12 billion dollars on mind, but I might remember wrong. - that means that eventually the state will spend 20 times as much tax-dollars on buying foul credits (that'S what you get: foul credits!) on saving the banking system than Ike has caused in damages.

Anyone still saying that the market needs not a certain level of regulation? Compared to bankers, hurricanes seem to be amateurs.

A problem are the high numbers themselves. human mind is totall,y incapable to form a mental image, a mental representation of how much a billion or a trillion is. since bankers do not have any feeling or sensing of it, the also feel not the needed level or responsibility and sensibility. If you are living in a world made of billions and trillions, sinking a hundred milliosn here or a billion there necessarily means nothing to you and leaves you unimpressed. You lose ground under your feet, and you lose your sense of reality. It is the same in politics. I mean it serious when saying that such bankers and politicians must be removed from office and be put into psychiatric therapy. They are mentally ill, and I mean it exactly like that.

This could as well be one of Philip K. Dick's alternate reality worlds we live in where we get governed by aliens or simulacra dressed as humans and raising the image of a reality that is not real, but just an illusion to keep us happy.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Blacklight

But unfortunately, those investors are investing mostly overseas now because doing business is so much cheaper over there. And they're keeping their money and re-investing it overseas so they aren't trickleing it down like the Republican Trickle Down theory says it should work. So while they're making the cash, they arent growing anything in the US so the lower classes are losing jobs and getting paid less.

I get the feeling that you did not understand the argument I made. The reason the rich are investing overseas is because of state prevalence in the U.S. economy.

As you said, they do so because it is cheaper. And in many cases, that is not a bad thing. A lot of U.S. factory labor was exported in the past half-century, but the standard of living consistently risen. We transitioned into a service economy. Service jobs took the place of factory jobs. Corporations with significant multinational interests took the place of smaller businesses.

But, as we did all this, government grew as well. People trusted government to "fix" unequal outcomes created by the market. As a result, public debt grew and government became more involved with corporations. In some cases, that resulted in huge government bailouts of corporations that should have died. Do I need to cite examples? In other cases, it resulted in business suffering because of the costs associated with excessive regulation.

It is very expensive to start a business in America today. (not always, but I'm getting to that). The number of permits and licenses that must be obtained is staggering. All of those cost money. In the case of the EPA a business must file an environmental impact statement that can take years to get approved and cost thousands of dollars. In the meantime, the prospective business owner is sitting on the sidelines, losing money in the form of property tax for his building area and in potential profits. I'm sure you have heard the adage that "time is money". It is true, and the state makes it even more true, often with deleterious effects on competition and economic freedom.

Obviously, only people with a considerable amount of wealth can start a business. The rest of us would go bankrupt just waiting for government approval. That harms competition. But, many people choose another option. They get loans. Many of these loans are considered "high-risk". Large banks are willing to invest in these companies because they expect the government to bail them out if a large number of these loans are defaulted.
Should that happen, more public debt is incurred, taxes and inflation affect the common people more and the cycle continues. Result; recession. In the worst cases; depression. And even worse than that, the wealthy are in control. I'm sure that all champions of liberal economic policy would agree that that is a bad thing.

If government intervention in business was to be reduced to the absolute minimum
required to encourage competition and fair trade practices the economy would prosper. Who cares if crappy factory jobs or tech support jobs or whatever are exported? As long as the companies that create these jobs are based in the U.S., we benefit. Almost all the revenue that said jobs create is funneled back into the corporations that control them. We must ensure that these corporations are based in the U.S. White-collar jobs take the place of blue-collar jobs. Industrial jobs are replaced by service jobs. The general standard of living improves.

Generally speaking, this is what the U.S. has been doing for almost 200 years, despite a constant trend towards socialism. Even with some of the socialist domestic policies and interventionist foreign policies the U.S. has pursued in this century, we remain a major world power. This is only because of the U.S. Constitution and its' limitations over state control. (and these are gradually being overcome by the left and the neo-con right)

Need proof? China, Russia, India. All big nations, all rich in resources, and all poor.
The only thing that differentiates them from the U.S. is the level of economic freedom. It is no surprise that China's "Special Economic Zones" generate more income then the rest of the country. It is also no surprise that the Soviet Union failed. Economic freedom is the key.


I don't have a solution for the whole world. Competition over resources and political power will always leave many in poverty. But I do have a solution for the U.S., and it includes actually adhering to the priniciples the nation was founded upon.

Freedom in trade, thought, and practice must ever be the watchwords that we balance against the state.

Originally Posted by Blacklight

In my state, jobs are almost impossible to find now unless you have a masters degree and even positions that require those are pretty full and new businesses just don't like starting up here (and those that are here are trying to move overseas and are laying people off on a constant basis).

Even with the state of the economy today I doubt that. I think you mean to say that jobs which meet your standards are almost impossible to find.

Recession sucks. Keep the state from contributing to it.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Republicans don' worry about such trifling details. Spend now, let your kids pay off the debt.

I think it must be 'their' kids.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Fish

I think it must be 'their' kids.

No. They are banking on the 40 year rule and that is the real problem. It is so big and so out of control, yet the gov says no problem because of the 40 year rule.

That rule is - back in the 40's, congress set for the dollar to achieve 5 cents on the dollar in future worth. The idea is, any debt you owe today, the US Gov is planning to pay off at 5 cents on the dollar.

This is why its a bad idea to save money in a pillow - it will be worth half as much, or should I say, buy about half of what it used to, every 10 years.

The debt snowball though needs to stop soon.

-S

[August]

No matter how much the government increases their taxes the rich will still fix it so they don't have to pay hardly anything. That's what lawyers and accountants are for, and the current byzantine tax codes provide fertile ground for them.

A better, fairer plan imo are not graduated percentages, but rather a simple flat tax on gross earnings with no deductions at all. You earn a lot of money you pay a lot, you earn a little, and you pay a little but everyone pays the same percentage. From what I read to equal the current level of federal tax income this would be around 7%.

Now as a member of the much abused middle class I'd certainly prefer that over a minor reduction to the over 30% I currently pay if somehow the Dems actually kept their campaign promises, and living in Democrat controlled New England I know from hard experience how rare that is.

[Tchocky]

At the end of this particular week, I can't see a rosy tax regime for the next US President. The subprime mess and the crisis that we're currently have left a nasty present for either McCain or Obama. That's going to affect their tax plans in many ways. I still prefer Obama's plan, as it leaves more money for lower-income people who are more likely to return it to the economic cycle, as opposed to high-income investors, this being the least likely year for anyone to plunge into money markets.


Or possibly Barr. Who'll just cancel taxes. Cross that bridge when we get to it. But there won't be any bridges. So nevermind.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

There are many things that can be blamed on the Democratic Senators but being in the Majority for the past two years aint one of them.

You're forgetting the all important Speaker and Committee chairman gigs that go to the majority party, or in this case the party which the two independents have chosen to caucus with. They dictate which bills will even make it out of committee and control debate on the ones that do.