Politics

[grovester]

[quote="beautyfromashesWho should pay more in taxes?

Person1:Entrepenuer business owner took out $500K from their IRA with a 20% penalty to start a business in New York City.
yr1- $60K
yr2- $60K
yr3- $300K

Person2: Upper level accountant in Dallas.
yr 1- $160k
yr 2- $160k
yr 3- $160K[/quote]

I know which one needs a better accountant.

[grovester]

Here's what should happen:
Republicans agree to the Presidents tax increase plan in exchange for a balanced budget amendment.

Hello Recession! And 2008 would have been a Depression.

Balanced budgets are not needed at the federal level, sustainable budgets are.

[beautyfromashes]

Here's what should happen:
Republicans agree to the Presidents tax increase plan in exchange for a balanced budget amendment.

Balanced budgets are not needed at the federal level, sustainable budgets are.

We don't have a sustainable budget...and that is why we are having a recession.

[grovester]

Here's what should happen:
Republicans agree to the Presidents tax increase plan in exchange for a balanced budget amendment.

Balanced budgets are not needed at the federal level, sustainable budgets are.

We don't have a sustainable budget...and that is why we are having a recession.

Right on the first point, wrong on the second.

[earthling]

Despite stubbornness of GOP, I kinda hope a deal is not made. The fiscal 'cliff' impact seems to be overblown. I'd like to see some panic and let the market tank for a bit as it's an opportunity to take advantage of a down market. Am waiting for it to tank and make a move. Adjustments in other areas can and will be made eventually.

http://slant.investorplace.com/2012/11/ ... l-be-fine/

Learning how to survive is not about keeping things constantly great, it's about knowing when to take advantage of shit hitting fan when others panic. Let the panic begin, I'm ready and waiting to exploit it.

[beautyfromashes]

I think there is enough consensus in the middle to get a deal done. The problem is the President has no desire to be in the middle. Increase taxes over $400K, substantial entitlement cuts that take place immediately and a raising of the debt limit. I think you get all the Boehner Republicans and a lot of the Democrats to approve.

[chaglang]

I think there is enough consensus in the middle to get a deal done. The problem is the President has no desire to be in the middle. Increase taxes over $400K, substantial entitlement cuts that take place immediately and a raising of the debt limit. I think you get all the Boehner Republicans and a lot of the Democrats to approve.

You probably won't get the Huelskamps of the Congress to go along with it if it involves increased revenue. My impression is that they will only accept entitlenment cuts and restored military spending. Boehner and the President seemed fairly close to a deal before the GOP leadership melted down right before Christmas.

Either way, the President campaigned and won on the stated promise to raise taxes of those over $250k. Recent polling indicates a solid majority of Americans like the idea. If you're looking for the middle, I'd say it's right about there.

[beautyfromashes]

Either way, the President campaigned and won on the stated promise to raise taxes of those over $250k. Recent polling indicates a solid majority of Americans like the idea. If you're looking for the middle, I'd say it's right about there.

If the President wants to dig in his heels and not give on the $250K, or entitlement reform then we're going over the cliff. House Republicans wouldn't even vote for Boehners plan, what makes you think they will go even further towards Obama? Someone needs to be a leader here. It seems that Boehner is at least trying to get something done. He stuck his neck out trying to get a compromise through and it got chopped off by the extreme right, absolutely no tax increase Republicans.

[grovester]

Either way, the President campaigned and won on the stated promise to raise taxes of those over $250k. Recent polling indicates a solid majority of Americans like the idea. If you're looking for the middle, I'd say it's right about there.

If the President wants to dig in his heels and not give on the $250K, or entitlement reform then we're going over the cliff. House Republicans wouldn't even vote for Boehners plan, what makes you think they will go even further towards Obama? Someone needs to be a leader here. It seems that Boehner is at least trying to get something done. He stuck his neck out trying to get a compromise through and it got chopped off by the extreme right, absolutely no tax increase Republicans.

Obama already offered 400k and revising the COLA on entitlements. Not sure what else the GOP could hope to get. Do they really think they're going to get vouchers after the last election?

[chaglang]

Either way, the President campaigned and won on the stated promise to raise taxes of those over $250k. Recent polling indicates a solid majority of Americans like the idea. If you're looking for the middle, I'd say it's right about there.

If the President wants to dig in his heels and not give on the $250K, or entitlement reform then we're going over the cliff. House Republicans wouldn't even vote for Boehners plan, what makes you think they will go even further towards Obama? Someone needs to be a leader here. It seems that Boehner is at least trying to get something done. He stuck his neck out trying to get a compromise through and it got chopped off by the extreme right, absolutely no tax increase Republicans.

I think you hit it on the head there are the end. There are a bunch of Congressmen on the fringe of the GOP who won't be led by their own Speaker, and who are willing to likely end their Speaker's tenure over this, so I highly doubt that anything short of total capitulation by the President would get their vote. It did seem like the President and Boehner were making progress before the Plan B fiasco, and Obama has probably already given more than he needed to. Instead of focusing on the failure of leadership, we should be looking at the outright intransigence of some of the GOP House members.

FWIW, Boehner's stripping people like Huelskamp of their leadership roles before the fiscal cliff was resolved seems like a huge blunder.

Before Christmas I heard an interesting interview with Rick Nolan of Ohio. He was very frank about the position of weakness the GOP was negotiating from, and admitted that their best strategy was to get as close to the cliff as possible. I don't know a lot about Nolan, but he seemed pretty reasonable in his assessment that the Democrats gain far more than the GOP by going over the cliff.

[beautyfromashes]

^^
Yeah, but you don't need the fringe Republicans to get a deal. You just need a coalition of Boehner Republicans who voted on Plan B and moderate Democrats who believe that we need to reduce the deficit and entitlement spending to meet in the middle. Let the fringes rot. America should be governed by the middle.

[grovester]

^^
Yeah, but you don't need the fringe Republicans to get a deal. You just need a coalition of Boehner Republicans who voted on Plan B and moderate Democrats who believe that we need to reduce the deficit and entitlement spending to meet in the middle. Let the fringes rot. America should be governed by the middle.

The problem is that Boehner is in absolute control about what bill is brought to the floor for a vote. He doesn't want to pass a bill that doesn't get a majority of his republicans. There are more fringes in the gop that you realize. If he would bring the bill you speak of, it would pass, but he won't because it would likely mean the end of his speakership.

[aknowledgeableperson]

income averaging needs to be incorporated into the tax code, not lower marginal rates.

There use to be such a thing in the tax code. Worked well for those who had variable income, such as salespeople on commissions. Done away by previous tax reforms.

The republicans hold a majority of the seats in the house, even though more people voted for a democratic house candadate than a republican candadate.

So. Let's say one candidate won by a margin of 90% to 10% and another from a different party won 51% to 49% with the same number of people voting in each election, by your argument one party should have both seats.


After this afternoon's meeting it is up to the Senate to cut a deal.

[chaglang]

So. Let's say one candidate won by a margin of 90% to 10% and another from a different party won 51% to 49% with the same number of people voting in each election, by your argument one party should have both seats.

Well, he might have been saying that the state level redistricting process has gerrymandered multiple Democrats into one district, while opening up other districts to Republicans in such a way that the GOP can lose the popular vote in House races by over a million votes and maintain a large advantage in seats, despite of a pro-Dem swing of up to 6% over the 2010 election. Or he might be saying that it's nuts that one party has to have a +6% swing in popular votes before it starts to register in actual House representation. Or he could have meant that the structural unfairness in the redistricting process undermines the principle of "one man, one vote". Take your pick.

After this afternoon's meeting it is up to the Senate to cut a deal.

If nothing else, the Senate Dems will bring a bill to the floor and dare the GOP to block a vote in either house. Which means, no, nothing is going to get passed. We're just posturing now.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Well, he might have been saying that the state level redistricting process has gerrymandered multiple Democrats into one district, while opening up other districts to Republicans in such a way that the GOP can lose the popular vote in House races by over a million votes and maintain a large advantage in seats, despite of a pro-Dem swing of up to 6% over the 2010 election. Or he might be saying that it's nuts that one party has to have a +6% swing in popular votes before it starts to register in actual House representation. Or he could have meant that the structural unfairness in the redistricting process undermines the principle of "one man, one vote". Take your pick.

What about BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

The problem with the above is equating a vote for an individual as a vote for a political party. Look at Missouri. It went GOP for Pres but Dem for Gov and Senator, GOP for Lt Gov, Dem for State Treasurer and Attorney General.

If, instead of voting for an individual, we voted for a party your points would make sense but we don't vote for a party.

[chaglang]

You're comparing congressional districts with statewide offices, which is a great example of what I'm talking about. It's impossible to gerrymander state boundaries. As a result, the state results reflect more closely the will of the voters. If Missouri had a 6% shift toward one party or the other, you would have seen every one of those races except Gov and AG flip. But thanks to redistricting, a 6% shift is largely meaningless in Congress.

[knucklehead]

The real point is GOP hyperpartisanship in all of its many forms has come back to harm the GOP.

They have so propagandized their base that a majority of their primary voters can reasonably be described as wackos.

Having Fox News and the Wall Street Journal be absurdly far right propaganda outlets probably sounded good to Karl Rove and his ilk 20 years ago, but it has actually backfired on the GOP. It is just driving the sane people out of the GOP.

The state gerrymandering is just another manifistation of the hyper partisanship. Gerrrymandering has both positive and negative consequences for a party. For the GOP, one negative consequencies is that it drives its candadates farther and farther out into wacko land. Which costs them votes in national and state wide election. Exhibit A is Todd Akin.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Gerrymandering is illegal in the grand old USA. If the other party doesn't like how the districts are drawn the party can always take the issue to court. Maybe the Dems don't because they can be guilty of the same thing and/or benefit by the protection some of their seats.

[chaglang]

I think this is the first national election after the 2010 Census redistricting. You might see some lawsuits in the next few months.

[bbqboy]

Gerrymandering is illegal in the grand old USA. If the other party doesn't like how the districts are drawn the party can always take the issue to court. Maybe the Dems don't because they can be guilty of the same thing and/or benefit by the protection some of their seats.

now that's funny.