What do you think of the Boehner retirement notice?
What do you think will happen this Fall in Congress?
MinnPost Boehner and Hard Liners
MinnPost Boehner and Barn Burners
What do you think will happen this Fall in Congress?
MinnPost Boehner and Hard Liners
MinnPost Boehner and Barn Burners
57 comments:
the democrats will not cause a govt shutdown. If the GOP does I think it will be later this fall, depending on who becomes the new speaker.
I wonder if there is any time you would see a shutdown as being caused by the Democrats unwillingness to negotiate? I am thinking not.
President Veto Threat
Your link says Republicans are the ones who are demanding that the President sign their bill that restores the defense sequester cuts while further slashing domestic spending and defunds Planned Parenthood. And it says Democrats are looking to craft a larger deal.
And it says...
"That deal expires this year, and Democrats – backed by the promise of a presidential veto – have so far refused to allow Republicans to pass their spending bills, which feature deep cuts in domestic spending but use a workaround to raise funding for defense."
The words "refuse" and "veto" indicate to me that the Democrats are also drawing lines in the sand and threatening a shutdown. Please remember, I believe that it takes 2 sides to cause a shutdown...
WE Obama Veto Threat
Sure, both sides are drawing lines in the sand. Democrats, though, are asking for negotiation while Republicans are saying "sign our bills or else".
By the way, where's your criticism for Republicans seeking to undo the sequester deal? You had lots of it for Obama when he proposed to do it...
The words "refuse" and "veto" indicate to me that the Democrats are also drawing lines in the sand and threatening a shutdown.
They are stating positions, but I don't see a lot of ultimata from us. We are the party of government, we don't shut it down. That fact, and the fact that who we are is so well understood by Republicans is what gives their threats to shut down the government, their power.
Republicans are putting non negotiable demands on the table. And it's not as if Planned Parenthood itself is non negotiable. Republicans want to shift PP's responsibilities to Community Health Organizations. I don't rule that out myself, but I don't know what CHO's are or what they do? Will they offer health care screening? Will they offer contraceptive advice? How much will all of this cost? If Republicans really want a deal, they would have answers to these and many more questions. But they don't. They don't even want to do the simplest form of legislating. And because of that, a shutdown is the foreseeable result of their actions.
--Hiram
Exactly, Hiram. Texas, for instance, cut off funding for PP a few years ago, and it's been a disaster for women's health there because the decision was about ideology instead of health.
My first response over at MP did not make it past the moderators. So I figured I would put it here also on try 2...
"I thought we met the GOP halfway when we agreed that government funds were not to spent on abortion. If we reopen deals, we reopen deals in all of their aspects.
Personally, I am waiting for a substantive offer from Republicans. If they defund Planned Parenthood, how are they going to replace the services Planned Parenthood provides?" Hiram
"I think PP personnel talking openly about the fiscal compensation received for handling fetal body parts reopened the negotiations for many Americans. Accepting that 1+ million fetuses are aborted/killed each year is challenging enough for many citizens. Hearing people talking about their disposal in such a cold business like manner may have been too much.
Since I am sure PP has many shared multi-purpose facilities and personnel, I am not sure how they ensure $0 go to supporting ot enabling abortions?" G2A
I am not sure if I call this statement a "starting point". Seems like an ultimatum to me.
"If Congress wants to support working Americans and strengthen our middle class, they can pass a budget that invests in, not makes cuts to, the middle class. If they pass a budget with shortsighted sequester cuts that harm our military and our economy, I'll veto it. " Obama
Looks like he is saying spend more or I will shut down the government.
I think PP personnel talking openly about the fiscal compensation received for handling fetal body parts reopened the negotiations for many Americans.
So what's the offer those Americans are putting on the table. And of course, we will certainly be asking for things to. When deals are opened, they are opened for everyone.
"Accepting that 1+ million fetuses are aborted/killed each year is challenging enough for many citizens. Hearing people talking about their disposal in such a cold business like manner may have been too much."
I certainly understand there are strongly held views on all sides. So what's the offer?
--Hiram
"I am not sure if I call this statement a "starting point"."
Yawn. You think I can't go to Google right now and pull up dozens of inflammatory quotes from Republicans?
Sean,
The difference is that I am accepting that the GOP is one of 2 parties that may force a shutdown. Whereas the Liberals continue blame the GOP year after year, instead of accepting that the Democrats are equally responsible.
Hiram,
Apparently the offer is to defund PP and transfer the funds elsewhere. Likely to organizations that stress abstinence and adoption as better options than birth control and abortion.
"Whereas the Liberals continue blame the GOP year after year, instead of accepting that the Democrats are equally responsible. "
Democrats (particularly Obama) have a long record of negotiation and compromise on these issues. Recall it was the GOP that walked away from the "Grand Bargain", not Obama. What is the GOP offering as compromise. Heck, Obama has agreed to the GOP plan to allow the military sequester cuts to be reinstated, something many in his caucus oppose. What are Republicans willing to compromise on?
"Apparently the offer is to defund PP and transfer the funds elsewhere. Likely to organizations that stress abstinence and adoption as better options than birth control and abortion."
Not this, apparently.
My understanding was that people want to defund Planned Parenthood because PP sells body parts. But am I wrong about that? Is it really because Planned Parenthood doesn't stress abstinence and adoption to the extent some would like? Will those entities to which Planned Parenthood funds will shift, after their little speeches about abstinence and what not, still provide the services Planned Parenthood currently provides?
--Hiram
It's fascinating, of course, to note that the bill that allows PP to be reimbursed for handling donated tissue received a whole lot of Republican votes. And the consensus #2 for the GOP nomination engaged in research using such tissue. If the issue is that folks are squeamish about what has to happen in order to get tissue samples, then prohibit tissue donation. It's pretty simple. Instead, the GOP has chosen to try and litigate this through the lens of abortion/contraception/women's health -- a playing field they will get killed on electorally but one that has real risk to women if they get their way.
All this reminds me of the bad old days when pro life people tried to restrict access to the HPV vaccine on the theory that if kids stood a greater chance of getting cancer from sex, they would be less likely to do it. The logic of that argument takes my breath away even today, but in fairness to pro lifers, i haven't heard that argument in a good long while.
--Hiram
from your US news link:
"Democrats have repeatedly called for a budget deal like Ryan-Murray in 2013. Republicans have insisted Democrats pass their appropriations bills as-is."
seems pretty clear to me which side wants to negotiate and which side wants to get thier way or shut the govt down.
and then there is this:
"But in their budget, the Republicans essentially put an extra $38 billion into the OCO category, which allowed them to undo all of the cuts in defense spending under sequestration without undoing domestic spending [cuts]."
seems like the GOP is not sticking to the sequestration agreement reached previously, the one in which both defense and dometic spending would be cut.
I noticed that this journalist also predicts that the real shut down fight is likely to be later this fall.
One side insists on increases and the other insists on flat/decreases.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that it takes 2 to argue?
Please note that I am not blaming one side or the other for the challenges that are being faced. I acknowledge that it takes 2 opposing parties to enable gridlock and a shutdown. (ie no heroes or villains) Just folks trying to do their best for America.
why is it so hard for you to see the parties are not equally responsible to gridlock and occasional shutdowns. Should one side capitualte to the others demands to avoid arguing?
"Republicans have insisted Democrats pass their appropriations bills as-is."
this sounds like negotiation to you?
btw, the last few shutdowns the public has agreed with me that the GOP was primarily responsible.
Does "if it does not... , I will veto it" sound like a negotiation to you?
"Does "if it does not... , I will veto it" sound like a negotiation to you?"
Do you want me to post a bunch of quotes from Republicans who are willing to shut down the government? Because I can if it will stop this lame point.
"One side insists on increases and the other insists on flat/decreases."
You should check your numbers, because Republicans are merely proposing a lower increase in spending than Democrats.
"Please note that I am not blaming one side or the other for the challenges that are being faced. "
Sure you are. You'e convince yourself that you're some kind of faux-centrist, when in fact you only criticize GOP behavior after someone points out your hypocrisy. In July, you started a thread to kvetch about Obama going back on the sequester, but you have consistently failed to mention the fact that Republicans want to blow up the sequester, too. No criticism from John for Republicans on that point.
Here's on you ducked earlier in the thread: Democrats (particularly Obama) have a long record of negotiation and compromise on these issues. Recall it was the GOP that walked away from the "Grand Bargain", not Obama. What is the GOP offering as compromise? Heck, Obama has agreed to the GOP plan to allow the military sequester cuts to be reinstated, something many in his caucus oppose. What are Republicans willing to compromise on?
I am not defending either party. I am blaming both of them.
You never call out any specific behavior by Republicans. Like this guy who has agitating for a shutdown for months.
I agree whole heartedly with you that the far right tea partiers are a bunch of whackos, just like I think the far left CPC and Democratic Socialists are a bunch of whackos.
However I usually have no reason to bring up the short comings of the Tea Party since they are often obsessed over by others here and on MP.
I disagree with defunding Planned Parenthood, however that does not mean that I disagree with the right of politicians to try to defund PP in support of their constituents beliefs.
As for what is the GOP offering, as you noted they are willing to increase spending some rather than decrease it across the board. And the more moderate GOP members agreed to keep the government running instead of caving to the more extreme faction.
It always seems that folks like yourself want to judge the GOP by their most extreme members rather than accepting that they are a diverse community.
It would be like me obsessing over Ellison and Sanders...
"It always seems that folks like yourself want to judge the GOP by their most extreme members rather than accepting that they are a diverse community."
This coming from the guy who consistently tries to tie Democrats to the DSA?
I acknowledge that the far Right of the GOP is the Tea Party.
Why it is so hard for you to acknowledge that the far Left of the Democrat party is the DSA? Even Bernie Sanders acknowledges this.
I don't think I have ever said that all Democrats are Socialists... If I did, that is not what I intended to say.
I may have noted that many of the MP commenters are DSA folks, but many of them are far Left even for the typical Democrat.
"Why it is so hard for you to acknowledge that the far Left of the Democrat party is the DSA?"
The DSA has explicitly stayed out of internal Democratic politics, while the Tea Party has chosen to engage with the Republican hierarchy.
Do Democratic politicians court the DSA like Republicans do the Tea Party?
Has the DSA hosted a Democratic Presidential debate the way the Tea Party Express did in 2012?
But, yeah, they're totally alike...
I think the pseudo-DSA folks are entitled the Congressional Progressive Caucus within the Democrats... And they certainly like to twist arms and spout rhetoric.
CPC Link
"I think the pseudo-DSA folks are entitled the Congressional Progressive Caucus within the Democrats."
The CPC isn't calling for "social ownership" of private corporations, among other things. The DSA is much further left than where the CPC is.
Neither are Bernie or the DSA.
The DSA likes the Northern Europe model.
Actually, the DSA has called for exactly that. It says so on one of the very pages on their website that you linked to months ago.
Here is the source. There are a few words about governmental ownership but the vast majority is about the reining in the power of Global Corporations / Banks and giving it back to the worker / citizens / countries. Ideas that align closely with the comments of many Left side Democrats against "too big to fail", Wall Street, Banking regulations, minimum wages, etc.
DSA Where We Stand
And this statement reminds me of views that are stated here often. "Wealth is a social creation and should be controlled by society as a whole."
DSA Towards Freedom
I mean think of all the times Hiram says that America is a rich country and that we can afford programs, debt, etc. The obvious denial that the money is Private property, and the statement of a belief that it is in some kind of National piggy bank...
On MP, Bill made a LONG case for the tax rate changes causing the fall of the middle class. I posted this response.
"I really do not have the answer regarding what is the correct rate balance between work income and investment income, so I will avoid pretending that I do.
However I think your analysis is flawed in that it implies that tax rates caused the problems/benefits. And because you are ignoring the changes in deductions and other tax law that accompanied these rate changes. And I am pretty sure Reagan did nothing by himself. (ie Democrats helped)
The reality of the world had more to do with America's strong middle class than did taxes or unions... After WWII, pretty much all of America's competition was in disarray for decades. Therefore Americans and the rest of the world were buying American. And therefore our workers were paid much better than those in other countries.
In the 1960's and 70's those other countries with lower cost workers and more hunger to be better... recovered and the world noticed. And on top of that buying from global low cost high quality suppliers became easier than ever. And the US consumers voted with their check book. They wanted great low cost stuff, and were unwilling to pay more for "Made in America". Thus the jobs left and wages fell."
I added the Boehner Barn Burner link for our convenience...
Reagan and the Democrats passed tax reform in 1986 that taxed capital gains and wage income at the same rate.
I don't think there's any question that changes in the tax code -- both in terms of rates as well as credits/deductions/other tax expenditures -- have been a factor (one of many) in what has happened to stall middle class wage growth.
We have a tax code that makes it easier to stay rich than to get rich. Which is fine, if a landed aristocracy is what we want this country to be.
I do not understand that logic since low and moderate income people are paying very little in federal taxes since the Bush tax cuts went into affect. (ie lower rates, more tax credits, etc) The upper middle class and wealthy are paying for most of the cost for our federal government.
How is what they pay or don't pay keeping others from getting ahead?
This is an interesting source of information.
Low and moderate income people pay a lot in taxes, they just don't pay a lot in federal income taxes. Low and moderate income people feel the burden of taxation to a far greater extent than the wealthy.
==Hiram
"How is what they pay or don't pay keeping others from getting ahead?"
It's pretty simple. A person living off of investment income paying a lower overall federal tax rate (including all federal taxes) than a person working a regular job. The implications of this are clear -- the person working is going to have less disposable income (as a percentage of their income). That limits their ability to invest, start their own business, etc. Some economists are starting to look at this.
Here's a paper from two economists at the Federal Reserve that shows that the impact of lower capital gains taxes and the various tax-deferral methods that can be used are actually working to increase inequality.
This is a plain-English description of the paper, which is rather wonky. Here's the critical paragraph:
"The result of an effective tax cut that favors those at the top is, unsurprisingly, a decreasing reduction in wealth inequality. One way Looney and Moore show this is by comparing the share of pre-tax wealth owned by different sections of the population to the share of post-tax wealth they own. For the top 1 percent, the after-tax share is lower than the pre-tax share from 1989 to 2007, but the difference is declining over this period of time. But by 2010, the post-tax share of the top 1 percent is actually larger than the pre-tax share.
In short, the federal income tax code seems to be increasing wealth inequality."
Which they go on to prove by showing the impact of taxing capital gains as ordinary income. It's a good read.
Sean, I'll look them over tonight if I get a chance.
Hiram, Low income people get more back in tax credits, healthcare, food stamps, welfare, etc than they pay in taxes. So in essence they either pay nothing for their living here or maybe even get some back. They certainly are not paying for the schools, fire fighters, police, roads, etc.
I agree that it would suck to be low income... But let's not belabor the burden the cost of government puts on them...
And just because the wealthy do not feel the burden as intensely, it does not mean that they are not carrying the majority of the load.
Low income people get more back in tax credits, healthcare, food stamps, welfare, etc than they pay in taxes
that simply has not been my experience. But as is the case with rich people, I get value for my tax dollar, things like schools, fire protection, roads and what not.
--Hiram
The poor get all that same valuable stuff plus cash, medicaid, etc.
I agree that the wealthier people need to pay for everything since the less wealthy have little money... However I will never understand why Liberals have to rationalize this... I wish they would just be happy that there are successful people who are paying the bills for themselves and many many less fortunate people.
Again, that's been my experience. Or the experience of a lot of low income people who will tell you how hard it is to come up with the property tax payment.
==Hiram
Sean,
I think some folks are playing with numbers / dates... And you forgot some important lines.
"One possible concern is how the timing of the Great Recession in 2007-2009" And for a paper published in June 2015, it is odd that that they did pick certain years to analyze like 2007 and 2010.
Also, "We find the reduction in the long-term capital gains rate is the primary reason for the muted effectiveness of the income tax system in reducing wealth inequality" seems a long way from "In short, the federal income tax code seems to be increasing wealth inequality."
I have know doubt that lowering the long term capital gains and dividend rates reward people who save and invest.
The numbers that shocked me are: "Across net worth percentile groups, roughly one-half of families in the bottom 90 percent owned some type of tax-deferred asset; nearly all families in the top 10 percent of the net worth distribution have tax-deferred assets."
It always floors me that folks do not put 3% into their company's 401K to get any match that is available. How can 50% of the lower 90% have no tax deferred savings, stock, property, etc ???
Maybe the rich get richer because they know the importance of saving and investing...
And before you start on "they can't save because they don't make enough..."
Salvation Army
College Gift
Vermont Man
I think I know what I did before... Lowering capital gains and dividend tax rates from 28% to 20% encourages people to buy and hold assets longer. And it reduces the amount of taxes they will pay when they sell the assets.
However we have not touched on if it is good for America to encourage people to buy and hold assets more than one year with lower rates. Or is better to raise the rate, get the money and encourage them to look at other investment options?
And please remember that the wealthy are still paying ~23% on those long term gains. Far more than most Americans pay on their income taxes.
"And for a paper published in June 2015, it is odd that that they did pick certain years to analyze like 2007 and 2010."
And 2013. And 2004. And every three years prior going back to 1989. Very suspicious indeed.
"Also, "We find the reduction in the long-term capital gains rate is the primary reason for the muted effectiveness of the income tax system in reducing wealth inequality" seems a long way from "In short, the federal income tax code seems to be increasing wealth inequality.""
No, actually, it's pretty similar.
It was just odd that they picked 1989 and 2013 for a mid-2015 paper. Just noting that sometimes dates are chosen to support a view of reality. Remember this one by Kevin Drum. Maybe there is nothing to it, however it is always worth considering. Remember that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were eliminated in 2012/2013. And did they account for the AMT effect?
Statement 1: Says that the code is not reducing inequality as well as it did previously. (ie muted effectiveness)
Statement 2: Says the code is increasing inequality.
That seems to be a huge difference to me. I think Statement 2 was written to excite the readers and could have been worded much better.
"It was just odd that they picked 1989 and 2013 for a mid-2015 paper. "
They took three-year intervals for 24 years. What is so unusual about that? Do you really think that 2008 vs 2011 would have been that different?
We'll have to agree to disagree on the semantics. The data is rather clear, though, that we've seen a shift over time in the before-tax and after-tax income trends.
It looks like dates matter greatly. Apparently the max rate was 7% in 1921, 25% in 1967 and 20% in 1981.Wiki Capital Gains History They kind of look like a yoyo going up and down.
"From 1913 to 1921, capital gains were taxed at ordinary rates, initially up to a maximum rate of 7 percent.[2] In 1921 the Revenue Act of 1921 was introduced, allowing a tax rate of 12.5 percent gain for assets held at least two years.[2] From 1934 to 1941, taxpayers could exclude percentages of gains that varied with the holding period: 20, 40, 60, and 70 percent of gains were excluded on assets held 1, 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively.[2] Beginning in 1942, taxpayers could exclude 50 percent of capital gains on assets held at least six months or elect a 25 percent alternative tax rate if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50 percent.[2] From 1954 to 1967 the maximum capital gains tax rate was 25 percent.[3] Capital gains tax rates were significantly increased in the 1969 and 1976 Tax Reform Acts.[2] In 1978, Congress reduced capital gains tax rates by eliminating the minimum tax on excluded gains and increasing the exclusion to 60 percent, thereby reducing the maximum rate to 28 percent.[2] The 1981 tax rate reductions further reduced capital gains rates to a maximum of 20 percent.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 repealed the exclusion of long-term gains, raising the maximum rate to 28 percent (33 percent for taxpayers subject to phaseouts).[2] When the top ordinary tax rates were increased by the 1990 and 1993 budget acts, an alternative tax rate of 28 percent was provided.[2] Effective tax rates exceeded 28 percent for many high-income taxpayers, however, because of interactions with other tax provisions.[2] The new lower rates for 18-month and five-year assets were adopted in 1997 with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.[2] In 2001, President George W. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, into law as part of a $1.35 trillion tax cut program."
It looks like a whole lot of change occurred over the past 26 years. Much of it while Clinton was President. Interesting...
Is there a point there?
The point is that the rates have been lower and higher, I am still unsure where the best rate would be.
Is preventing wealth inequity the goal? Or is it to encourage people to save and invest in America?
"Is preventing wealth inequity the goal? Or is it to encourage people to save and invest in America?"
Perhaps it might be possible to do both...
Post a Comment