American Politics during the Obama Presidency

This discussion over taxes is clarifying the liberal and conservative points of view. Liberals would rather increase taxes on people willing to work and redistribute that tax money to those unwilling to work or to fund make believe government jobs.

Conservatives prefer to reduce government spending and to reduce taxes so that those willing to work will have more disposable income.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain that those unwilling to work and those dependent on government jobs lean liberal while those working at real jobs in the private sector lean conservative.

Well put El Alamo, perhaps this is whay the Liberals are foming at the mouth to get the "Dream" bill passed making more people beholding to them.

Liberals belive we have a REVENUE problem and should tax more.

Conseratives believe we have a SPENDING problem and should reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

There are several cases coming before the Supreme Court this term that should settle many of the federal over reachs that have occured dealing with the Fed's role in many areas and the defination of interstate commerce.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 414412]WW-

I knew about the law and what it said; the "who knew?" remark was irony that would likely only be understood by Jackson, Exon, and maybe a few others on the board who know me personally. The way around the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is to hire an intermediary to engage in the shady practices that are sometimes necessary in order to compete overseas. I am pretty sure the FCPA only applies to public companies.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]I know you're no babe in the woods. I was trying to quickly throw out the salient points on FCPA.

It does not only apply to public companies nor does it just apply to US citizens (in some cases it can apply to non-citizens, including resident aliens). It is a pretty broad net and using intermediaries will not provide adequate insulation from prosecution should the stuff hit the fan. If your nuts are in the vice of federal prosecutors, you'll want to be certain that all those payments to the former president's third cousin, twice removed can be defended somehow.

If it turns out you gave out "no-show" positions or had lots of local consultants, and the sums included are high enough, you run the risk of drawing greater attention to oneself.

In some places where I ply my trade, the FCPA can create a real dilemma. The local culture may be one where corruption is like breathing and the non-US companies there play by the local rules. Here comes Mr. Gringo with the "I can't pay you off to get what I need" tattoo on his forehead. Who's going to get the deal? In order to overcome the home field advantage, you have to spin a pretty good yarn and do some lively tap dancing. If one decides to play by the local rules, potential enforcement action can hang over one's head for a long time and can emerge by itself or via other unforeseen circumstances. Going through a pre-financing audit (public or private offerings) can bring to the surface things better left buried. Disgruntled former employees or pissed off investors can land you in hot water as well.

It will come to you as no surprise that Argentina is a country where on more than one occasion, influence has been for sale and purchased. In addition to worrying about getting in trouble there is the potential for a different administration with a whole new set of protected friends could derail whatever it is one thought he had going with the current administration. Also, with the way things work here (lots of consultants) being pretty well known around the world and especially in Washington (despite seaming to be more interested in what kind of wrinkle cream Christina uses) and some big-names getting caught up in relatively recent pay-off schemes in Argentina, there is higher level of suspicion pointed at US companies doing business in Argentina.

[QUOTE=Esten;414413]The Citi news is good news indeed. Although I'm wondering if Treasury could not have made an even greater profit holding longer, sale was priced at 4.35 and the stock is now at 4.62, still below book.[/quote]Prices go up and prices go down. The Treasury isn't a mutual fund manager and shouldn't be in this business for a myriad of excellent reasons from both the taxpayer and the Citi side. Having a large shareholder that every knows wants to sell will create an 'overhang' in the stock (depressing the price in expectation of the greater availability of the stock (increase supply with somewhat constant demand, price falls) when the larger holder eventually sells) that will persist until the holder either sells or otherwise removes the likelihood of massive sales. Also, trying to judge actual value in terms of book value, particularly in this industry (who knows what these assets are worth) is not the best valuation methodology, IMO.

The fact that the govt 'made' a profit on this gamble should in no way be seen as validation of what the government did. Through this logic, we should be pissed that the government didn't bail out Lehman Brothers because we could have picked up another US$10B and offset. 00010% of the impending cost of Obamacare.

Also, as we have seen in the trickle of information about who actually received (directly and via counter parties) TARP and other bailout funds, it will many years before we have an accurate picture of how much benefit anyone institution received.

[quote=]We'll see what happens with AIG. Anyhow, both Bush and Obama are to be credited for the necessary but highly successful TARP program.[/quote]It must be lonely being the Man on the Moon.

[quote=]Not thrilled with this tax compromise with Repubs, but there are other advantages. Since the midterms it has been clear that Obama needs to be seen to move to the middle to work with both sides. Keeping Pelosi as minority leader ensures a continued strong liberal presence in the House to counter the new conservative majority.[/quote]The tax compromise is a piss poor substitute for what the country needs. The new congress will have a Republican majority, not a conservative majority. It would be interesting to see this tax compromise fail in this congress, seeing as the Dems still have a large majority and would not need any Republican votes to pass it. Therefore, failure to get what the president wants would be at the hands of Dems.

The same Dem congress that isn't shutting down Gitmo.

[quote=]Obama is now going to be the guy in the middle of the two polarized parties. This will work well for him in 2012.[/quote]Obama will never be in the middle. He doesn't know where it is, can't and won't find it because he is an ideologue.

[quote=]The tax compromise is probably good for Dems in 2012 as well.[/quote]Attacking the productive sector of society didn't seem to work out all that well for the Dems in the recent mid term elections. What makes you think that the same approach will work in two years?

[quote=]The deficit issue is going to be front and center.[/quote]I am certain that Obama will continue his laser-like focus on jobs and the deficit just as he promised two years ago and repeatedly since then. In fact, his record on increasing both the deficit and unemployment is unimpeachable.

[quote=]I was never a big fan of making the current tax rates permanent for those earning under 250K. The unrealized tax revenue of not letting those rates increase requires a huge spending cut offset.[/quote]But those potential future tax revenues were not all going to be there because with the tax increase, more jobs would be lost and few jobs would be created. I am not certain as to the empirical impact of tax hikes on jobs 'saved or imagined. '

[quote=]What's important is shifting more of the burden on the wealthy.[/quote]Where do you think that burden lies today?

[quote=]So here's the scenario I hope (not necessarily predict) plays out:

I. Over the next two years Americans realize they don't want all the spending cuts needed to balance the budget.

Ii. Unemployment drops below 9% and Americans warm up to the idea of some tax increase in 2012.

Iii. The budget gets balanced in Obama's second term with a small tax increase for middle income earners, a larger increase for high income earners, and some but fewer spending cuts than would have been required without any tax increases. [/QUOTE]Well, at least we have something to talk about.

How about balancing the budget today based on tax receipts today, no questions asked? Do really think that there are no federal expenditures that are unnecessary?

Judging from the mid-terms, I do not expect the American public to do an about-face on their desire for smaller government, lower taxes and just one term for BHO.

Any improvement in unemployment, over the next two years, will be in spite of Obama's policies not a result of them.

I do believe that the economy will improve modestly over the next two years which is good for all of us and bad for all of us. As things improve, the national disappointment with Obama will likely lessen. There is no more important objective for the recovery of the American economy, the restoration of the Constitution and the continuation of America's global leadership than voting Obama out of office in two years.

El Alamo and Dopple stated the crux of the matter (with out rat-a-tat-tat machine gunning) and in many fewer words than I would use.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;414419]Well put El Alamo, perhaps this is whay the Liberals are foming at the mouth to get the "Dream" bill passed making more people beholding to them.[/quote]Yep. Dream Bill and Amnesty are just attempts to bestow voting rights on Undocumented Democrats.

[quote=]Liberals belive we have a REVENUE problem and should tax more.

Conseratives believe we have a SPENDING problem and should reduce the size and scope of the federal government. [/quote]Cut all government spending by 10-20% , lower tax rates and the '10s will make the '90s look like the '70s.

Of Washington's business as usual.

Well it didn't take long for Harry Reid to say FU to the nation. After narrowly surviving his reelection bid two months ago, Reid is abusing the American taxpayers to repay the special interests that tipped the electoral scale in his favor.

[url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46095.html[/url]

Reid is trying to insert language legalizing online poker into the tax cut legislation. Regardless of the merit of either piece of legislation this is part and parcel the type of behavior that moved America to boot so many of these scumbags from congress.

With Dems bleating all over the airwaves about extending unemployment benefits and waging class warfare against the productive portion of society, one would think legalizing online poker (a job-killer for Nevada) would be a nonstarter. Who benefits most from this? US Casino owners (massive poker profits with virtually no overhead expenses). Who loses the most? US casino workers (if I can play poker from home without buying drinks and rooms from the casino, why go?). I guess maybe they should have thought twice about following their unions' advice to turn out to support Reid in the election.

Now that Reid is comfortably ensconced in a new 6-year term with very little time left in a Democrat controlled congress, it is back to business as usual. I suspect that the majority in the senate will change with the next election cycle and this loser will be limited as to the further harm he can do to the country.

Whenever I hear about another birdbrain spending program advocated by the looney lefties I harken back to what Gerorge Washington aka Exon said many years ago.

`It doesn't take any brains to spend money´

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am pretty well disgusted how Obama caved in to the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers. Forget the fact that these 2% of taxpayers already fund 80% of our bloated government expenditures. Why not up to 90% or, just for good measure, fund 100% of our wasteful spending.

The irony of this is that the most strident advocates of wasteful spending are the perople who are not funding these birdbrain expenditures I. E. The looney lefties. Why. Because they don't pay taxes. The looney lefties order pretty big when someone else is picking up the tab.

We are a nation founded on the concept of no taxation without representation. I say each person should have voting rights based on the amount of taxes they pay. People like Jackson and Exon, who pay a lot of taxes, would have hundreds of thousands of votes each election. Meanwhile, Freddy Freeloader, 3rd generation welfare recipient, would not be allowed to vote. Why. Freddy doesn't pay taxes.

A consequence of this policy would be that we could say good bye to pea brain Pelosi and her pathetic boyfriend Reid. An unexpected benefit might be that we could deport Obama back to Kenya - where he was born - to be a community organizer.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;414440]I don't know about the rest of you, but I am pretty well disgusted how Obama caved in to the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers. Forget the fact that these 2% of taxpayers already fund 80% of our bloated government expenditures. Why not up to 90% or, just for good measure, fund 100% of our wasteful spending.[/QUOTE]If we enslave the most productive 2% and cut 10% out of the federal budget by eviscerating our military, the other 98% can be exempted from paying taxes (55% can be exempted from even working) , thereby ensuring the perpetual socialist utopia that we all know is out there just waiting for us to embrace it.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;414444]If we enslave the most productive 2% and cut 10% out of the federal budget by eviscerating our military, the other 98% can be exempted from paying taxes (55% can be exempted from even working) , thereby ensuring the perpetual socialist utopia that we all know is out there just waiting for us to embrace it.[/QUOTE]

This discussion segues perfectly into me posing a question that no liberal has ever answered directly:

The top [b]1%[/b] of income earners in the USA pay [b]40%[/b] of all income taxes.

The top [b]5%[/b] of income earners in the USA pay [b]60%[/b] of all income taxes.

The top [b]10%[/b] of income earners in the USA pay [b]70%[/b] of all income taxes.

The bottom [b]50%[/b] of income earners in the USA pay [b]2.7%[/b] of all income taxes.

So here's my question to liberals: What percentage of all income taxes do you believe should be paid by the top 10% of income earners?

In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

Jackson

If the top 10% of income earners earn 90% of all income, my summation is that they should pay 90% of all income tax.

You see what I just did there?

[QUOTE=Jackson; 414447]This discussion segues perfectly into me posing a question that no liberal has ever answered directly:

The top [b]1%[/b] Of income earners in the USA pay [b]40%[/b] Of all income taxes.

The top [b]5%[/b] Of income earners in the USA pay [b]60%[/b] Of all income taxes.

The top [b]10%[/b] Of income earners in the USA pay [b]70%[/b] Of all income taxes.

The bottom [b]50%[/b] Of income earners in the USA pay [b]2. 7%[/b] Of all income taxes.

So here's my question to liberals: What percentage of all income taxes do you believe should be paid by the top 10% of income earners?

In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BadMan;414451]If the top 10% of income earners earn 90% of all income, my summation is that they should pay 90% of all income tax.[/QUOTE]Sounds good on first glance, but the data shows the top 10% earn about 46% (not 90%) of all income, while paying 70% of all income taxes. The upper income brackets all generally pay a larger % of all taxes than their % share of all income, which is what you would expect with a progressive tax system.

[url]http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html[/url]

However this doesn't mean the rich are paying more than their fair share, or even their fair share. Of course it all depends on how one defines fair.

IMO One needs to look at how much tax revenue is needed to meet the short and long term obligations and services / programs that society wants from their government. Then establish a taxation system linked to people's ability to pay. I think we can all agree there is far more room for the rich to pay more in taxes while preserving their quality of life, than there is for the middle class and poor.

I wasn't going to attempt an answer to Jackson's question at first because I thought it too simplistic. But enjoying a challenge I took a stab at it. It proved rather easy actually.

From 2008 IRS data, the top 10% had an average tax rate of 18.71%. It should be around 35%, but isn't because of lower taxes on investment income (remember Warren Buffett's secretary). Under Clinton the top tax rate was 39.6% and the economy did just fine. I would consider it fair for the top 10% tax rate paid to [i]double[/i] from it's current number of 18.71%, because top earners without investment income have been paying rates between 35 - 39.6% for nearly two decades. With this doubling you would obtain more tax revenue from the top 10% than is currently obtained from all taxpayers. Even an increase from 18.71% to just 27% (even fairer) would still match all current tax collections.

So to answer Jackson's question:

[i]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes. [/i]

[QUOTE=Esten;414458][i]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes. [/i][/QUOTE]Touché!

Well, at least I got a straight answer this time.

Thanks,

Jackson

Wow. It is worse than I thought. Margaret Thatcher is beginning to look like Nostradamus. Her prophetic observation was that

`the problem with liberals is that sooner or later they run out of other peoples money to spend'

There is a proposal to turn our tax code upside down. As income rises the tax rate on that income decreases.

The goal is to get liberals off their butts and give them an incentive to go to work and earn some money.