President Obama gave a speech at Florida Atlantic University yesterday to a crowd of 4,500. This isn't going to be a nit-picky analysis of his speech, but a quick, surface inspection. Before I get in to it, as always, (I hate to sound redundant here), I must state that republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, this blog stands for truth above all things. We take positions, and we use facts, cited, and citable data to back those positions.
I wanted to hit on just a major issue I took exception to, and I hope others go deeper with this speech. This open forum is for any and all people to share their views about his speech, Obama, the economy, etc.
With that, please see the transcript of Obama's FAU speech here: http://www.shallownation.com/2012/04/09/president-obama-florida-atlantic-univ-speech-video-april-10-2012-in-boca-raton-fl/
If you've read through this blog, you know that nothing bothers me more than the misinformation being spread regarding Obama's "tax the rich" strategy and his beloved "Buffett Rule."
Some (of many) previous posts:
- http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2011/12/media-and-half-truths-obamas-biggest.html
- http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/03/tax-rich-obama-class-warfarecampaign.html
Obama's speech was loaded with "tax the rich" propaganda. Yes, it's propaganda. Merriam-Webster's second online definition of propaganda states, "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person." You will see why this applies.
Case in point: Check out this paragraph from about halfway through the speech: "Now, here’s the other thing that the Republicans will tell you. They’ll
say, well, we’ve got to make all these drastic cuts because our deficit
is too high. Our deficit is too high. And their argument might
actually have a shred of credibility to it if you didn’t find out that
they wanted to spend $4.6 trillion on lower tax rates. I don’t know how
many of you are math majors, business majors — you can’t pay down a
deficit by taking in $4.6 trillion of less money, especially when you’re
denying that you’re going to be making all these cuts. It doesn’t add
up. It doesn’t make sense."
"Doesn't add up?!" What?! Wait a second... rewind, please. Republicans wanted to spend $4.6 trillion on lower tax rates? When? Where? How? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume he is talking about the oft-discussed, rarely understood Bush-era tax cuts. These have come up for a possible extension with the proposed "Ryan Budget." It's interesting that though no analysis shows these tax cuts would add much to the debt/deficit (you will see below), Obama draws some sketchy conclusions about this tax policy. Let's say for discussion's sake (the $4.6 trillion claim Obama came up with is an an incorrect mixing/misunderstanding of ideas) that this was the case, and the Obama claim of $4.6 trillion over ten years was true. Even if extending the BETCs did create that much additional debt by 2022 (which would be $460 billion per year), it's far less than the value of debt added per year using Obama's proposed budget (which averages $680 billion per year until 2022). Over all, with that,.. um... I think the President is fibbing/bending the truth a little here.
What are we talking about? Check out this article on CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm
It states, "treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years." It continues, "of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the
vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining
$700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the
high-income earners."
Did you catch that? The treasury estimates that extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy would cost $700 billion over 10 years. That's $70 billion per year.
Let's go to the slightly (lol) left leaning Huffington Post about this issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/18/tax-cuts-rich_n_848933.html
It states, "as part of a law passed late last year, the Bush-era tax cuts for the
richest Americans were extended for two years. The estimated cost to the
government of that portion of the tax deal, $42 billion this fiscal
year, exceeds the stated $38 billion value of the savings from the
federal budget cuts lawmakers approved last week."
A yearly revenue loss of $42 billion, huh? That's a little more than half of yearly lost revenue estimate described in the CNN Money analysis. Either way, whether it's $42 billion yearly, or $70 billion yearly, we have established a range.
Let's do a little math to help Mr. Obama out.
First, we will look at the lost revenue of extending the Bush-era tax cuts for everyone (from the CNN Money article). Then we will look at the lost revenue of extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy (from the CNN Money article). Lastly, we will look at this aspect using the Huffington Post's data.
Extending the Bush-era tax cuts for everyone:
As stated above, extending the BETCs for everyone would cost the government $3.7 trillion over 10 years. If this is the case, if the government doesn't alter the BETCs over this time period, it would take 12.4 years of BETCs to create an overall cumulative revenue loss of $4.6 trillion. Was this what the President was referring to? A 12.4 year tax plan in his accusation? Hmmm?
Extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy (from CNN Money):
As stated above, extending the BETCs
for the wealthy would cost the government $700 billion over 10 years. That's $70 billion per year. If
this is the case, if the government doesn't alter the BETCs over this
time period, it would take 65.7 years of BETCs to create an overall
cumulative revenue loss of $4.6 trillion. Was this what the President
was referring to? A 65.7 year tax plan in his accusation? Hmmm?
Extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy (from the Huffington Post):
As stated above, extending the BETCs
for the wealthy would cost the government $42 billion per year. If
this is the case, if the government doesn't alter the BETCs over this
time period, it would take 109.5 years of BETCs to create an overall
cumulative revenue loss of $4.6 trillion. Was this what the President
was referring to? A 109.5 year tax plan in his accusation? Hmmm?
Getting the point?
So, Mr. Obama. Would you like to explain yourself? Is this true... somehow? Is this simple fear-mongering? Is this pandering? Is this an intentional misstating of the facts? Frankly, I think this is nothing more than propaganda. I think the President is a smart man. I really do. I think he is smart enough to know that regardless of how much press coverage he gets, and regardless of how much he makes his claims, no one will fact-check what he says. Numbers don't lie, but presidents do. In this case, yes, I believe President Obama is flat lying.
APPENDIX and ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
In addition to the lies from his speech, the president keeps making the case for the Buffett rule as if the situation of millionaires paying lower tax rates than the middle class is the norm. As this analysis shows, it's not. 25% of a 378,000 member group paying lower tax rates than 10% of a 104,000,000 member group is not the norm; it's a statistical anomaly. President Obama paints this picture and preaches it as if it is commonplace. It's not. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but for the amount of time, resources, speeches, false analysis he is putting in to it, he seems to claim that this is the way it is for the entire country as a whole. It's not. End of story.
Lastly, some people say, "well, the president doesn't claim the Buffett Rule will reduce the deficit." Yes he does. He has made that claim. He makes this claim in the speech paragraph above. In case you haven't seen an analysis on this, how much revenue would be collected if taxes were raised on millionaires? Well, if we increased millionaire's tax rates 10% (to a final effective tax rate of 31.3% - in case you don't know, that's fine... explained: they will be paying a 31.3% tax rate on every dollar they make, or 1.3 percentage points MORE than the Buffett Rule), the U.S. government would raise about $17.7 billion more in revenue each year. A chart conveniently shows this in the analysis linked in this paragraph. Feel free to check the numbers. All data is linked to its original IRS source.
Share your thoughts, analysis, feelings, etc. below. Thank you.
Wow. Never heard something this strong from this blog yet. Usually u r pretty calm with your posts. This is the first time you have called 0bummer a liar. But you do make the case for it.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait for the fact checks on Romney speeches im so excited!
ReplyDeleteSo the article says he exaggerated the facts sounds like every politician iv witnessed since birth.
Also, I love how you use the excuse statistical anomaly as if that's an excuse for fraud and abuse of the system.....
Good morning, Loyal Watcher - Thanks for the comment.
DeleteAs far as fact checks on Romney, I'm sure the press will do plenty. Don't worry, we will fact check the fact checks.
It's interesting... you say we use the "excuse [of] statistical anomaly" as "an excuse for fraud and abuse of the system..." but aren't you using the excuse of "every politician exaggerates and lies" to give this speech a free pass?
When you make comments on here, you're more than welcomed to do so, but I'm not sure I understand the "why" part...
First, please tell me where millionaires (the few that do) paying lower tax rates than the middle class is "fraud." If you have a problem with the law... that's fine and understandable. But fraud is an intentional sidestep of current law. When millionaires use the current tax code, again, the few that do, to reduce their tax rates, the vast majority of them are doing nothing illegal. They don't have to. They use the current, legal tax code to do so. By implicating "fraud" as you do, you imply they are doing something intentionally illegal. That is simply not the case. They are following the current US tax laws. Don't be upset at millionaires... be upset at the laws. Additionally, there is no law preventing you from 1... becoming a millionaire yourself, and 2... using a series of tax laws to reduce your tax burden.
Secondly, I never equated the statistically small sample size of millionaires paying lower tax rates than the middle class to an excuse for anything. Please show me where I did. In fact, I never even come close to that. What I DID say was that by the way Obama is talking about it and giving speeches out it, he is implying that it is the "norm" or it is "commonplace" when it simply is not. I said, "As this analysis shows, it's not. 25% of a 378,000 member group paying lower tax rates than 10% of a 104,000,000 member group is not the norm; it's a statistical anomaly. President Obama paints this picture and preaches it as if it is commonplace. It's not. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but for the amount of time, resources, speeches, false analysis he is putting in to it, he seems to claim that this is the way it is for the entire country as a whole. It's not. End of story."
I'm not sure how you misconstrue this as an excuse. I'm not even discussing the issue of the tax law itself; I'm discussing that Obama is constantly talking about something that is so significantly small.
good points, i just think its interesting you spent so much time writing this article as if this is a big surprise he is exaggerating facts. I agree he exaggerated the facts. It almost seems as if this is becoming the normal on both sides, from death panels to every millionaire not paying any taxes. Its sad...... the same thing is taking place with "news" outlets blowing everything out of proportion while at the same time not covering important topics all together (IE) NDAA at the beginning of the year.
DeleteLoyal Watcher - Thank you for writing back.
DeleteYou're totally right. All sides do exaggerate. News outlets do blow things out of proportion, and they quite frankly, broadcast crap.
I spend a lot of time on it because I believe we should hold politicians accountable. I think the press... the spreader of information, leans left, and won't focus on truth or calling out exaggerations if I don't. I think Obama gets away with a LOT of this stuff, and the listener, the news watcher, etc. just swallow it and say, "yes, sir."
I find this true when I talk to people in my social circles and they recite the same, factless things they hear coming out of Obama's mouth. The truth should always be known above all things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood morning LME :) hope all is well.
ReplyDeleteMy two cents!
Regarding the Buffet Rule:
I don't see Obama's stampeding of the Buffet Rule, an admittedly small pebble cast into the ocean of our debt, any different from the Republican rhetoric demanding we cut things like Planned Parenthood, PBS, or reduce welfare/food stamp fraud/usage, or keeping oil subsidies. Both sides of the spectrum are little more than political rhetoric that, when it comes to truly meaningful reductions of our debt spending, mean next to nothing. Yet both sides will argue into the sunset about doing it for the deficit.
This doesn’t make it any less wrong or misleading, but I just don’t see it as something particular to any given candidate.
However, I still stand by the fact that a change being small doesn't make it not worth addressing. I still believe that welfare fraud should be eliminated, even if it only reduces our spending by (literally) less than 0.0001%. Likewise, I feel that even if the Buffet Rule doesn't help a great deal, I agree with the principle of a minimum tax rate.
Though honestly, I wish the rule applied to all tax brackets and not just the wealthy; as in, min tax for incomes <$10k is 3%, min tax for incomes <$35k is 8%, min tax for incomes <$50k is 12%, etc.
If you truly believe that the Buffet Rule doesn't affect many people beyond a "statistical anomaly", you should also be perfectly fine with passing it on that same basis of it 'not affecting many people at all', no? Can't fairly argue both points. :)
_____________________
Obama’s Speech:
This is tough, because Obama doesn’t specifically say what plan he’s addressing. So we can’t fairly accuse him of lying unless there is no such plan that exists with the “$4.6 trillion debt” figure.
I think it’s safe to assume though, that he is talking about the debt added over 10-years. As it is for many discussions on spending/taxes. It isn’t even possible for us to add $4.6 trillion to our debt in one year through tax cuts, even if we eliminated every tax we have.
That said, there is a tax plan projected to ‘add’ $4.6 trillion to our debt, which would be Santorum’s tax plan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/republican-tax-plans_n_1297018.html
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/economy/gop_candidates_deficits/index.htm
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/204991-analysis-santorum-tax-plan-adds-13-trillion-to-deficit
So in all fairness, it wasn’t a lie.
I will concede that it is misleading to not mention specifics of his figure, and to take the most outrageous spending proposal and label that as the "Republican Plan!", but that again isn't something unique to one side when it comes to politics (particularly these kinds of speeches).
Good morning, RKen! I hope all is going well for you, too!
DeleteYou know, I am supposed to be in a meeting soon, and I wrote out a response, but for some reason, it got deleted. I will try to write it again, but I still have to run to this blasted meeting :-P
As far as the broadcasting of the Buffett Rule, I definitely see your points about the GOP's rhetoric, too... but to me, Obama is spending WAY more time on this, and he is having way more speeches, etc. The fact that he seems to be making this the centerpiece of his campaign (again, since it is so small in significance), to me, shows this outweighs what the GOP is doing. I guess it comes down to subjective opinions about who is doing what more.
As far as the Buffett Rule's application, you know me: I want a flat, same rate, 0-deduction tax rate for all. If one person pays a 10% rate (and therefore works 6 minutes out of every hour worked for the gov't) I want everyone to do that. I think it puts WAY too much power into the hands of the gov't to selectively choose who pays it what. But that's me. :-)
As far as the speech, he was referring to the Ryan Budget... there have been claims about it adding $4.6 T to the debt, but I think these are misinterpreted by Obama. The main point of it is that the RB does include extending the Bush-era tax cuts. I'm not sure how Obama or anyone claims it would add $4.6T in debt over ten years when previous analyses show this simply isn't the case. That's a big jump to make, and I think it's a scare tactic. Not trying to be snippy here, but I wanted to make sure it is known that is what he was referring to :-) I do firmly believe we shouldn't be raising taxes on anyone. We should shrink the gov't to the spending level, not increase the taxes to accommodate gov't spending, but that's for a different day. I'm not comfortable with the gov't spending $122k per second (nearly 4x the average American salary - based on our $3.818 T budget)... and I think going after (discriminatly) one part of the population (the rich) to pay for it is very unfair and disingenuous.
I'd love to be able to write more, but I will probably be in meetings until 3:15 today :-( Joy... if you or anyone does write more, I will be happy to do my best to write back! Always good discussing the issues with you, sir!
A full day of meetings!? Those are never fun. :( My sympathies!
Delete- Buffet Rule:
I'll definitely agree with you as well in that Obama is spending way too much time on this issue, and certainly more than the Republicans are spending on their own versions of 'non-deficit-relevant' issues. I'm heavily against the idea any side making an issue like that a center-piece of their campaign, but like you said that does indeed seem to be what's happening.
Either way, I don’t disagree with Obama losing points in this tactic.
___________________
- Speech:
I can't agree with the conclusion that Obama was definitely talking about the Ryan budget. Unless there are other parts of the speech that paint a different picture, by your direct quote he only mentions a 'Republican tax plan', which is far too ambiguous to factually state as addressing any specific one.
As seen in this exert:
"And their argument might actually have a shred of credibility too it if you didn’t find out that they wanted to spend $4.6 trillion on lower tax rates."
No doubt his words were very carefully chosen, as it's tough to pinpoint exactly what he was addressing. Which makes him clever, careful, and misleading all at once. But again, as such are politics.
But the point still stands that there is no absolute certainty to what specific plan he was referencing, and I still stand behind what IMO would be the higher likelihood of him talking about the Santorum tax plan Which would be fair and likely, both because he is (or was) a possible Republican presidential candidate and his ‘added debt projection of $4.6 trillion’ matches it.
___________________
- Government:
While yeah, this is probably a discussion for a different day, I do agree that we should be addressing our deficit primarily through spending cuts as opposed to tax increases.
That said though, I’d still ultimately like to see both (major tax reform & spending/entitlement reform).
On another note.... I think the rights attempts to demonize anyone who brings up the FACTS that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer will loose them the election. The wealthy had it good for a while but i think they have finally widen the income gap so far and have sucked up so much money from the lower and middle class that a majority of the population has realized class warfare has been going on for a while, the wealthy have continually increased there profits while keeping wages stagnant.
ReplyDeleteThe weird thing is obama does not even need to exaggerate the facts. The facts speak for themselves and don't need to be exaggerated. I'm not sure why he is taking that angle.
http://money.msn.com/family-money/fast-growing-income-gap-in-us-wuorio.aspx
"According to the Internal Revenue Service, the average U.S. income, when adjusted for inflation, declined 1% between 1988 and 2008, while Americans making $380,000 or more saw their incomes grow 33%"
It seems like I'm the only one that pays attention to you. (I'm joking)
DeleteI just find your comments intriguing.
Why do you think the "income gap" is a bad thing?
What do you think the "income gap" is a product of? Is it something illegal, something fraudulent? Or is it a product of some people's decisions to work hard versus those who do not? Is it a product of some people's decisions to get educations versus those who do not?
How do you propose we "fix" this "income gap?" Should we simply reduce freedoms, increase regulations on business, the wealthy? Should the government chose this freedom limiting path? What do you propose?
I also believe the growing wealth gap can be a serious problem.
DeleteBut it is an extremely difficult subject to talk about, much less try to solve, and typically results in both sides becoming inflamed with ad hominem & reductio ad absurdum to the point of never getting anywhere.
For the record, I do not believe in:
- Punishing success.
- Rewarding laziness.
- Blaming or ‘villianizing’ the wealthy and/or successful.
- Holding everyone’s hand.
But I do believe:
- Luck plays a significant factor in success.
- Hard word does not guarantee success.
- A healthy middle class is the key to a strong, healthy, prosperous and successful country.
- The middle class has been shrinking.
That being the case, I do take issue with the idea that 'anyone who isn't rich/successful just didn't work hard enough.' I do not believe that, at all, nor do I support a system that would be based around that.
That said, we do have a system that makes room to help many of those that are less fortunate and fall on hard times. And that's great. But I also agree this system could be greatly improved, so it was more of a temporary plan, rather than a potential way of life. Though I also believe the frequency of that kind of abuse is often exaggerated (another topic).
As far as the importance of the middle class, I think that is overwhelmingly obvious through not just common sense but also any kind of historical, economical, or statistical analysis of a society where the figurative 1% control 99% of the wealth while the 99% fight over 1%. It’s back to the monarchal, peasant, and slave-ridden principles of the past that don’t foster anything positive.
And evidence has shown that the middle class is indeed shrinking.
So, all of that said:
I believe that it is a very fair concern to have. I don’t think that many people would feel any of my above points are outlandish, ridiculous, or obscene?
The issue though, comes to, how do we solve this problem? That’s the next step, which is admittedly far more difficult, but right now I’m just focusing on people recognizing that it is and could be a very real problem.
I don't think i said the income gap was a bad thing. There will always be an income gap. The problem is when it widens to level's that are not healthy.
DeleteI think the income gap is a product of greed if workers were paid more shareholders and execs would make less (they would still be millionaires)
When u have corporations not paying taxes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/major-corporations-tax-subsidies_n_1073548.html
You have 1% of the population controlling 30% of the wealth, the top 10% controls 70% of the wealth
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1
Corporate welfare SOARING
http://ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
Wages staying stagnant for a majority of the population:
http://money.msn.com/family-money/fast-growing-income-gap-in-us-wuorio.aspx
Corporations are using the system FAR beyond what the people are.
We have to wake up and connect the dots. This is not healthy and it can not continue
as far as solutions there are lots of options like a flat sales tax (the wealthy will never let that happen), ending corporate welfare, enforcing current laws on companies not cutting them deals and settles lawsuits out of court. CLOSE THESE COMPANIES DOWN. Letting corporations fail instead of using tax payers money to prop them up. Increasing individual liberty rights and enforcing contract laws. Making derivatives illegal. Limiting the size of companies so they do not put national security in threat by failing. Requiring every budget to be paid by raising taxes with the size of the budget (bet we wont have all these wars) Trimming away the military industrial complex (getting rid of mabee 50 of the 100+ bases around the world. Putting term limits on senators and judges. Allowing the whole country to vote major issues not just congress. Last but not lease ending the FED and backing our money buy some type of physical material.
Those are just a couple ideas.
I also like this article alot it is about this exact subject :
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/opinion/galbraith-buffett-rule/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Loyal:
Delete"The problem is when it widens to level's that are not healthy."
- What's "healthy?" And who determines what a healthy level is? Do you want that to be left to the government? Doesn't that scare you?
"I think the income gap is a product of greed if workers were paid more shareholders and execs would make less (they would still be millionaires)"
- This is an easy statement to make for those who do not stand the supply of and demand for labor. If a CEO has multiple degrees, 30 years of experience, etc., there won't be that many of him. If he can come in and lead a company to huge profits (which makes more jobs, more returns to stock holders, more benefits for all), AND he is rare (people with CEO qualities and experience usually are), companies must pay him a lot to attract and retain him. On the contrary, there are a LOT of high school dropouts and minimally educated people with minimal skills out there. I don't need to pay a janitor a lot because his job duties are simple, his skill set is limited and there are TONS of them around. Plus, if people don't like their pay, the don't have to agree to it. Bosses would have to raise salaries under a limited supply of workers. This is how the free market works. For a Ron Paul guy, I'm surprised you don't support this.
"You have 1% of the population controlling 30% of the wealth, the top 10% controls 70% of the wealth"
- How is this a bad thing, especially if it is earned, and everyone had their chances but just squandered the opportunities to be in that 1% themselves.
Solutions? A flat sales tax? Don't we have that already in states?
Corporate welfare? You need to elaborate on this. It sounds like you have no idea, but hit the buzz word button frequently.
YES! We do agree, bailouts are bad?
I'm just curious, do you have any formal education in economics? Not an insult, just curious.
"What's "healthy?" And who determines what a healthy level is? Do you want that to be left to the government? Doesn't that scare you?"
Delete- if you think the current level's represent a good and thriving economy that disperses wealth accordingly and rewards hard work then I really feel sad that you are so brain washed...... Are you really arguing that current income gaps are a good thing.........dont know what else to say about that
"This is an easy statement to make for those who do not stand the supply of and demand for labor. If a CEO has multiple degrees......."
LOL.... this is laughable, yea ur right... executives are worth 33% more today than in 1988 but all of us peons are worth -1 percent. They must be workin so much harder and we are a bunch of slackers.....
http://money.msn.com/family-money/fast-growing-income-gap-in-us-wuorio.aspx
"Corporate welfare? You need to elaborate on this. It sounds like you have no idea, but hit the buzz word button frequently"
Not trying to be rude but you are obviously a republican that is repeating spoon fed talking points.
I gave you a link with stats on corporate welfare, feel free to look further and do your own research, corporate welfare is not some secret confusing topic that needs elaborated on. If you dont understand it all i can say is i feel sorry for you. Not trying to be mean but its really strait forward.
I find it amusing when i post on here yall cry WE NEED FACTS, then i post facts and you say U JUST DONT UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS lol......
The sad fact is you are so blinded by your loyalty to your party that you can't see the obvious things infront of you. I provided you with enough links to keep you researching for weeks! have fun.
2 things that are really, really, sad.
Delete1. I never personally attacked you. You personally attacked me. I even joked and kept it light. Why personally attack someone? Is your argument that weak that you feel this is the only way you can get a "step up" on them?
2. You never really answered me. I asked relevant questions to help in my understanding of this subject. I asked, "What's "healthy?" And who determines what a healthy level is? Do you want that to be left to the government? Doesn't that scare you?"
You responded with no answer. Again, I ask "WHAT IS HEALTHY?"
You went into an answer of "well, it's so bad now, I can't give a good level of healthy income disparity, but if you think this level is okay, you're wrong... and I'm not going to prove how you're wrong, and I'm not even going to give an example of how I'm right. I'm going to simply restate my position, and that's it."
Dude, you couldn't have avoided my question in a worse way than that.
Until you answer that question, there is no reason to discuss things with you. An answer of "it's wrong, and I won't show you how it is, nor will I prove how I'm right" lends me to believe that you are not able to comprehend this discussion to a level of coherent debate.
And as far as a "you're obviously a republican."
Wait a minute. I see from your other posts that you're a Ron Paul guy. The "MOST CONSERVATIVE, MOST REPUBLICAN politician in the country" and now you're vilifying republicans. Are you that delusional? Or just uneducated?
RKen & LME, a full day of meetings, LME, that blows!
ReplyDeleteRKen, I think Obama was referring directly to the Ryan Budget. I found this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-04/republicans-see-no-rush-to-fill-4-6-trillion-blank-in-tax-plan.html
It is exactly $4.6 trillion. I do agree with LME that Obama is misquoting and drawing terrible conclusions from it (on purpose).
Wealth gap stuff: I don't think it's a bad thing. I agree that we shouldn't reward failure and laziness and we shouldn't punish success. What IF, hypothetically, the "wealth gap" was a product mechanism that is the free market, exactly where people should be. Income earners, wealth earners and everyone in the country got exactly the wealth and income they deserved based on the decisions they made. My question is, would you still fight to shrink the wealth gap?
I can see your case for "luck" to I think it's a lot smaller than you think. As someone on this blog once said: there are very few accidental heart surgeons and very few accidental janitors in this country.
But, since I asked you to go along with my hypothetical, I will go along with yours. Say luck IS a part of it. My question is, how do we get around it? How do we make sure we remove the luck part of the equation to ensure people's income/wealth is what it should be relative to the supply of and demand for labor, skills, experience, etc? How can we do this?
Again, going along with your hypothetical, IF luck is in there, my biggest problem is using the government (power) to remove it, to balance it out.
I don't like the idea of the government doing this at all. If we want to balance incomes by removing luck, that is totally fine. But this should be done via charity, not the government. If the government does it, it creates a lot of bad situations.
1. Discrimination (LME champions this a lot and I whole-heartedly agree). The government should not be giving to some while not giving to others.
2. Higher than needed taxes to support SS, medicaid, etc.
3. Voting power. Vote for me, I will give you stuff. This is not what the founders intended. This is not democracy.
I sound like I'm stealing all of LME's points, but this blog preaches to the choir.
So, have it as charity, not as a government, dependency promoting, power shifting, vote altering program :-)
Hi Anna, thanks for the feedback and well-formed criticisms.
DeleteRegarding the Budget:
That link you provided is a bit confusing?
"U.S. House Republicans just passed a budget that would require eliminating $4.6 trillion in tax breaks over the next decade. They’re in no rush to show which benefits they would cut."
It would be eliminating tax breaks/benefits? Which essentially would be raising taxes?
Unless there’s a typo or I'm missing something, that's a completely different subject (exact opposite) from reducing our tax revenues by $4.6 trillion. Eliminating $4.6 trillion in tax breaks actually would increase our revenue by $4.6 trillion.
I still feel it more likely he was talking about the Santorum plan.
________________________
Wealth Gap:
"Wealth gap stuff: I don't think it's a bad thing. I agree that we shouldn't reward failure and laziness and we shouldn't punish success. What IF, hypothetically, the "wealth gap" was a product mechanism that is the free market, exactly where people should be. Income earners, wealth earners and everyone in the country got exactly the wealth and income they deserved based on the decisions they made. My question is, would you still fight to shrink the wealth gap?"
In a perfect world where effort was directly linear to success, I honestly can’t see this same wealth gap still ballooning as it is now. But for the sake of your hypothetical, if it really still did, then yes I’d be fine with it.
That said, I don’t quite understand the hypothetical? Because it doesn’t exist, which is part of why I believe it’s a problem.
________________________
“I can see your case for "luck" to I think it's a lot smaller than you think. As someone on this blog once said: there are very few accidental heart surgeons and very few accidental janitors in this country.”
I understand your point, but I think that a statement like that clouds and distracts from the issue by limiting it to extremes (aka, reduction ad absurdum).
How many ‘accidental’ unemployed/underemployed college graduates are there? Even with great resumes? Or ‘accidental’ people that smoke/are obese/etc but are still healthy? Or ‘accidental’ people fighting to live with serious condition despite avoiding unhealthy habits? Or ‘accidental’ people that lose everything to a weather event? Etc.
It’s far more common on a broad scope of how hard work can’t guarantee success in the many aspects of life, than the specific example of the ‘accidental janitor.’
________________________
Government:
I understand your point about falling on the government to solve the problem, and this is where as I admitted in the previous post it becomes incredibly difficult.
But, if you do agree and acknowledge that:
- Hard work doesn’t guarantee success.
- The middle class is important to a thriving society.
- The middle class is shrinking.
Don’t you also agree that this is a potential problem, at least on some level?
You don’t have to know how to solve it, or what it means we’d have to do, but I’d like for more people to at least see it as actual issue and not made-up or just some cry for hand-outs.
And one last part
DeleteSolutions:
I’m not quite comfortable enough to say what I believe is the best way to solve the solution. It’d need a lot more thought and discussion.
But I don’t necessarily believe in ‘government discrimination’ being an issue. The government can, has, and always will take from some while it gives nothing to others, and that’s just how it works. I don’t think that is necessarily as big of a deal as most play it up to be.
IE: I don’t have kids, but I still pay taxes for schools. I don’t have any interest (or really even added security) in us occupying foreign countries, but I still pay for it. People living in the middle of the country have no use for a ‘coast guard’, but still pay for it. I don’t use public transportation, but still pay for it. I’ve never committed or been accused of a crime, but I still pay for public defenders.
The system doesn’t work without some people paying for some things they may or will not (possibly ever) use or benefit from. I don’t see this as discrimination; it’s just very simply how a pooled tax system works.
I don’t necessarily believe or see how a solution would have to involve higher SS/Medicare taxes either? Nor does this issue have to be boiled down to ‘vote for the guy that gives you the most stuff.’
Obama hit one out of the park!
ReplyDeleteLook at everyone trying to pull it apart :)
Romney is TOAST !!
How did he? The opinion of this post is that he misled people, and wants people to believe his false Buffett Rule junk? Instead of offering a counter argument, you give 3 lines with no refutation?
DeleteCan you shoot down the position of this post? I doubt it.
As far as "Obama hit it out of the park," I can speak for the blog when I say that you should probably show how and why you think this, or you look like a zombie-minded blind follower.
Hubbubah .. I have a meeting to go to .... LOL
DeleteI like the part where you guys say "please express your opinions" then stomp all over them and call me names when I do
ReplyDeleteActually, I had meetings to go to. I was in meetings all day. Thanks for acknowledging that, though.
DeletePP, you totally beat me to it. I'd love to see comment droppers like this guy actually engage in civil debate. It's sad that this kind of stuff exists. Oh well.
As far as this, "I like the part where you guys say "please express your opinions" then stomp all over them and call me names when I do."
Here we are, back to square one. Please back what you say. Copy/paste where you were called names because you expressed your opinion.
You seem like the same poster that leaves x-rated comments on our blog repeatedly. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not... but both you and that person remain anonymous, and both you and that person do not engage in civil debate.
Zombie Minded Blind follower ????
ReplyDeleteThanks Lizard brained slave fucker ;)
Go cry some more. Where did anyone call you names and stomp all over your opinions.
DeleteI saw someone say, "or you look like a zombie-minded blind follower."
I take that as, "if you don't back what you say, you might appear as if you're just blindly following someone."
Stomping your opinions? No. The best part of this blog is that the admins and the participators all challenge any view. They all ask for backing. I love that. If you can't handle being challenged, maybe you shouldn't come in here with empty positions. Just a suggestion, kid.
We've seen the same worn out, boring and tiresome Obama 'millionaires and billionaires' speech what now... 15, 20 times? *yawn* It's really getting old. However, if the cheers from his 'base' in the audience are any indicator, he appears to be making points w/them.
ReplyDeleteI've heard it all before... the outright lies, the innuendos, the class warfare this 'leader' attempts to incite, all of which are provably WRONG should any of his 'sheeple' do their own homework...but a couple of other miscellaneous things that no one talks about - really, really bother me...
He calls this his 'Buffet Rule' Ha! Why don't we hear about Warren Buffet's company that is STILL fighting the payment of their UNPAID tax bill of almost one BILLION dollars... and considering that...WHY would Buffet support this 'Buffet Rule'?
Answer: Because Warren Buffet no longer earns a salary, so he's NOT required to pay income taxes. Because they are retired and drawing funds from their capital gains and NOT salaried - NOT ONE of Obama's PET BILLIONAIRES would be affected by his Buffet Rule.
The second point is his constant hammering and preaching for 'millionaires AND billionaires' to 'pay their fair share'... when there can really be no comparison between the two levels of income, monetarily speaking...
It takes twenty (20) regular guys making an average salary of $50,000 a year to build a Millionaire...
It takes ONE THOUSAND millionaires - or TWENTY THOUSAND regular guys - to build a Billionaire...
Among the legion of his other socialist flaws - Mr. Obama's math skills stink!
And...Psst! Please, just in case he DOES win a second term... don't let anyone tell him what comes after a Trillion!
Hi there Dara, hope all is well.
DeleteA few things I feel I have to comment on.
- The first of which: The Buffet rule would indeed affect Warren Buffet.
It institutes a minimum tax rate that includes all forms of income.
This is why when people speak in favor of the Buffet rule, they keep grandstanding the fact that the effective tax rates of millionaires can be lower than a middle class’s effective tax rate. Effective tax being, the TOTAL taxes paid over the TOTAL income made (including interest/investment-related).
Ex: If Bob makes $5 mil through salary, $5 mil through capital gains, and $5 mil through 'carried interest'... Then he will be taxed at a minimum of 30% of the entire $15 mil he made through the year. Likewise, if his tax bill was ~$5 mil, his effective tax rate would be ~30% (and not ~100%, even though his actual salary income was only $5mil).
- Warren Buffet has absolute control of Berkshire Hathaway and their decisions.
He doesn’t. He’s a major stakeholder and at one time did control it, but for a while now he has not held the majority of shares (thereby, voting power). It is a public company, not a private.
He has as much control over Berkshire Hathaway as Steve Jobs had over Apple. Steve Jobs could want to liquidate the entire company and invest it into buncakes, but he didn’t have that kind of power.
Both Steve and Warren could have been voted out of ownership of the company if the other shareholders felt they threatened the success of the entity. This has happened with many companies (like, Yahoo and HP).
That’s a part of just how public companies work.
Rken,
DeleteYou have so much more patience than me ...... Im glad u are on this forum. Its crazy that we can have such a long discussion with so many facts and still get a comment at the end that is so off base it sounds like it came from a talk show radio host..... I don't think there is any hope to educate a majority of the people on either side of the isle so many people are lock step with there parties talking points its sad...
What exactly are you referring to with "from a talk show host?"
DeleteAdditionally... you talk about educating people here... but aren't you the one that contacted me and said you have no official education in economics, for example, but would like to learn? I'm just trying to make sure the facts are straight.
Im just saying the information that was presented in what dara said was so incorrect its mind boggling
DeleteLook... i make mistakes on here and have been proved wrong a couple times but dang...
The whole point of the buffet rule is that it effected buffet....
It just makes me wonder were are people getting this information? its crazy... I said "from a talk show host?" because it would have to be from an opinion not from actual news or reporting (news is bad but not that bad)
"I don't think there is any hope to educate a majority of the people on either side of the isle so many people are lock step with there parties talking points its sad..."
That statement was in response to how crazy the statement dara made was because that statement represents the amount of disinformation that is on both sides of the isle. Its just insane.
Its like we have gotten to a place were we don't even argue different facts or statistics, we argue completely made up things..
It's just discouraging because i know there are so many people who just repeat this stuff on both sides. It just makes you feel like there is no hope to actually educate people. We will still argue but at least we can argue about the actual facts not some crazy made up information.....
What about what Dara said was untrue?
DeleteAlso, please understand that when people/me challenge for proof and such here, it's not an attack or anything personal. For instance, I just asked for clarification about your talk show host comment. You gave it, I respectfully disagree (or at least am curious as to what is not fact) but that's the whole point. All is well.
Delete@ Loyalty Watcher and RKen - Warren Buffet NO LONGER draws a salary (income) from Hathaway. He (and other retired billionaires) draws CAPITAL GAINS from his investments which ARE NOT affected with the 'Buffet Rule' as they are NOT classified as income now - and ARE NOT classified as such in O's NEW proposed tax law.
ReplyDeleteThe almost ONE BILLION in back taxes that he STILL OWES the Federal Government that is NEVER mentioned by anyone, was my point.
And the bottom line - as I've said many times before - is this: You can tax the 'rich' at 100% of whatever monies they possess - and it would STILL NOT put a dent in our over-grown, bloated, out-of-control government outlay. And once you have ALL the money from those 'evil rich' - how do you propose to FUND this massive and if Obama gets his way - STILL growing nanny-state?
What on Earth makes you believe that we - in the USA - are any better equipped to create AND sustain a more effective entitlement society than Europe who's tried it - and FAILED miserably? Or - that the MAJORITY of our citizens WANT it - just because the lefties push their socialist agenda so vocally?
And you DO know - that historically, in the grand scheme of things - Socialism is merely a rest-stop on the road to full-blown Marxism...
As NO Congress has EVER followed through on their empty promises to cut spending - AFTER we agreed to tax increases...it's way past time to stop the insanity... The SPENDING must be addressed FIRST and THEN we can talk about taxes!
Perhaps then someone will take a close look at one sane (and totally FAIR for everyone) idea out there - a 'flat or fair tax'? : )
Sorry Dara, I'm not sure how familiar you are with our tax code, but you're not correct here. :(
DeleteFirst, and perhaps this was just a misunderstanding, but Berkshire Hathaway is what owes back taxes. Not Warren Buffet himself. That is why I brought up the fact that Warren doesn’t control Berkshire, and equating the two is inaccurate.
Second, our tax code counts EVERY form of a dollar increment to your wealth as income. The difference is that different types of income are taxed differently.
Capital gains, salary, cash prizes, property prizes, inheritance, social security income, estate, gifts, carried interest, etc. ALL of these ARE income, and ALL (above certain small $ amounts) have to (legally at least) be reported in your taxes and counted towards your tax bill.
The difference of course, is that every form of income is taxed in a different way. A pay check is taxed differently from interest as from cash prizes as from gifts, etc.
And it doesn’t matter whether you’re retired, working, or what.
And your effective tax rate, is the total taxes you paid towards all of those different forms of income over your total income taken in.
All of that in mind, the idea of the Buffet Rule, is to make it so that effective tax rate is a minimum of 30%. This is why the word minimum is used, as well as why Mitt Romney is brought up on tandem with this topic (despite his income being mostly capital gains/carried interest).
As far as flat tax/socialism/etc, that’s for another time. :)
Or, more simply with statements and sources:
DeleteBerkshire is what owes back taxes, not Warren Buffet:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html
People like to call Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway the same, but they are not. Berkshire Hathaway is a public owned company, and is owned by the shareholders (and Buffet is not a majority shareholder).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway
And more details about how the Buffet Rule is applied here, which as said is using the effective tax rate:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/04/13/obamas-2011-buffett-rule-tax-rate-was-27-9-less-than-30-minimum/