PDA

View Full Version : Can Obamanomics break down the Reagan coalition?



DenButsu
02-26-2009, 03:03 AM
More Audaciousness

by publius

The good news is that it's pretty much official (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022502587.html?hpid=topnews) -- health care reform is ON this year. Obama is carving out a big chunk of money for it -- and we wouldn't be reading these stories if they weren't serious about it.

There will of course be many posts to come as that debate unfolds. But what's fascinating to me is how politically ambitious the proposed funding allocation is. He's not merely trying to pay for health care -- he's trying to drive a stake through the heart of the Reagan coalition by isolating the wealthy.

I first saw this argument in the excellent NYT Magazine article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all) by David Leonhardt (which I posted on (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/08/get-excited-aga.html) a few months ago). Essentially, Leonhardt argues that "Obamanomics" aims to break the Reagan coalition by severing the rich from the lower-income classes. To achieve this goal, Obama is cutting taxes for everyone but the top 5%, and then using those tax hikes to pay for ambitious progressive legislation. Here's Leonhardt:

Dating back to Reagan, Republicans have packaged tax cuts on high earners with more modest middle-class tax cuts and then maneuvered the Democrats into an unwinnable choice: are you for tax cuts or against them? Obama, however, argues that this is the moment when the politics of taxes can be changed.

To do this, he is proposing tax cuts for most families that are significantly larger than those McCain is offering, along with major tax increases for families making more than $250,000 a year. “That’s essentially a major part of our economic plan,” Obama said. “But it’s also a political message.” Economically, he is trying to use the tax code to spread the bounty from the market-based American economy to a far wider group of families. Politically, he is trying to drive a wedge through the great Reagan tax gambit.
And that's exactly what he's doing here with the proposed health care funding. Obama is pushing for national health care reform -- the crown jewel of the progressive legislative agenda -- while simultaneously trying to break down the modern political coalitions that Nixon and Reagan built.

This guy is swinging for the fences -- and swinging hard.
obsidianwings (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/02/more-audaciousness.html)

DodgersFan28
02-26-2009, 06:36 AM
He's Jimmy Carter post-Nixon/Ford all over again. Whatever he does to bring back the 1970s, a Republican will pull out Reagan's playbook, bring back the 1980s, and defeat Obama later on down the road. Obama, and the Democrat Party, are completely setting themselves up for total historical failure.

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 09:41 AM
Woah woah. That's not the attitude we need DF28. I mean yes we are thinking it's not going to work, but we better not sit on our feet. Once Obama gets UHC threw, we won't be able to get it out. We need to mobilize and stop him prior to us defeating him. Obama isn't like Carter, Obama is going out and doing things. Carter was pretty slow moving.

gcoll
02-26-2009, 11:36 AM
I don't have a huge problem with taxing the rich more...they can afford it. But when you tax the rich more, at the same time as cutting taxes for everyone else....I have a problem with it.

And if your plan for funding a lot of your programs is "screw everyone making over $250,000"...I don't like that either.

DenButsu
02-26-2009, 11:39 AM
Just to be clear as to what the point was (and wasn't) in this post, since people are starting to make presidential comparisons...

The point is NOT that Obama is Reagan, or Obama is Reagan-esque, or Obama will do what Reagan did (thus inviting comparison with other former presidents).

The point is that Obama is pursuing a policy agenda which could have the potential impact of dismantling a voting bloc that was assembled by Reagan, that detaches the super-rich from the middle class in terms of voting for self interest, where Reagan melded them together.

ari1013
02-26-2009, 11:58 AM
Woah woah. That's not the attitude we need DF28. I mean yes we are thinking it's not going to work, but we better not sit on our feet. Once Obama gets UHC threw, we won't be able to get it out. We need to mobilize and stop him prior to us defeating him. Obama isn't like Carter, Obama is going out and doing things. Carter was pretty slow moving.
Carter did have a certain style with those cardigan sweaters though :)

Raidaz4Life
02-26-2009, 11:59 AM
Just to be clear as to what the point was (and wasn't) in this post, since people are starting to make presidential comparisons...

The point is NOT that Obama is Reagan, or Obama is Reagan-esque, or Obama will do what Reagan did (thus inviting comparison with other former presidents).

The point is that Obama is pursuing a policy agenda which could have the potential impact of dismantling a voting bloc that was assembled by Reagan, that detaches the super-rich from the middle class in terms of voting for self interest, where Reagan melded them together.

Maybe its just me but I don't think anyone was mistaking Obama for Reagan:p

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 12:28 PM
Carter did have a certain style with those cardigan sweaters though :)

It still boggles my mind how we apply the theory you can do anything and be anybody to presidents. I mean peanut farmers JUST SHOULDN"T BE PRESIDENT!

ari1013
02-26-2009, 12:38 PM
It still boggles my mind how we apply the theory you can do anything and be anybody to presidents. I mean peanut farmers JUST SHOULDN"T BE PRESIDENT!
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't most of the early presidents technically farmers?

Carter was awful, peanuts or not.

DenButsu
02-26-2009, 12:45 PM
Maybe its just me but I don't think anyone was mistaking Obama for Reagan:p

Just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't comparing Obama to Reagan myself - I really wouldn't want to drag his name through the mud like that anyhow. :p




(just in case you didn't hear me: --> :p:p:p not trying to start a Reagan fight)

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 12:51 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't most of the early presidents technically farmers?

Carter was awful, peanuts or not.

That doesnt' count.

DenButsu
02-26-2009, 01:04 PM
Okay, not a single post has been on topic in this thread yet, so let me be the first.

I think this is actually an interesting question that goes well beyond Obama's presidency. Because the question at hand is whether a seismic shift in the electorate that really hasn't happened in decades is achievable or not. I mean, if there was ever an auspicious moment for such a shift, it's hard to imagine a riper time than right now, when the country has just voted for change, when we're facing crises of magnitudes that call for dramatic action, when we have a new leader who seems to possess the intention, the ambition of vision, and perhaps the political clout and ability to really forge a new dynamic. (In fact, I'd say he already has - or at least, he successfully finished the work that Howard Dean started by carrying forward the 50 state strategy to a successful conclusion).

For so many years, Democrats and Republicans have basically been holding their own ground while trying to pick up the scraps in the middle by chipping into the independent and undecided votes. But the balance has essentially held because, on the one hand, the Democrats have held strength in numbers (albeit tempered by poorer voter turnout), while the Republicans have held strength of message (successfully affixing the "tax and spend liberal" label to the Democratic party, and creating the dominant impression that Democrats are weak on national security). And the Republicans gained extra footing when they were able to coalesce the religious right voting bloc into near unanimous opposition to a (laughably stereotypical and downright mythical) left wing agenda that is designed to turn all of America's children into gay, drug using, abortion-having, Hollywood satanists.

But what if instead the Democrats got the upper hand on the message angle, and the Republican message is the one that gets marginalized? Not just in the short term soundbytes of election cycles, but more deeply woven (as "tax and spend" has been deeply woven) into the political consciousness of America? From where I sit, it's not sure thing by any means, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. And if it actually were to happen it really would have very long term implications.

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 01:15 PM
Okay, not a single post has been on topic in this thread yet, so let me be the first.

I think this is actually an interesting question that goes well beyond Obama's presidency. Because the question at hand is whether a seismic shift in the electorate that really hasn't happened in decades is achievable or not. I mean, if there was ever an auspicious moment for such a shift, it's hard to imagine a riper time than right now, when the country has just voted for change, when we're facing crises of magnitudes that call for dramatic action, when we have a new leader who seems to possess the intention, the ambition of vision, and perhaps the political clout and ability to really forge a new dynamic. (In fact, I'd say he already has - or at least, he successfully finished the work that Howard Dean started by carrying forward the 50 state strategy to a successful conclusion).

For so many years, Democrats and Republicans have basically been holding their own ground while trying to pick up the scraps in the middle by chipping into the independent and undecided votes. But the balance has essentially held because, on the one hand, the Democrats have held strength in numbers (albeit tempered by poorer voter turnout), while the Republicans have held strength of message (successfully affixing the "tax and spend liberal" label to the Democratic party, and creating the dominant impression that Democrats are weak on national security). And the Republicans gained extra footing when they were able to coalesce the religious right voting bloc into near unanimous opposition to a (laughably stereotypical and downright mythical) left wing agenda that is designed to turn all of America's children into gay, drug using, abortion-having, Hollywood satanists.

But what if instead the Democrats got the upper hand on the message angle, and the Republican message is the one that gets marginalized? Not just in the short term soundbytes of election cycles, but more deeply woven (as "tax and spend" has been deeply woven) into the political consciousness of America? From where I sit, it's not sure thing by any means, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. And if it actually were to happen it really would have very long term implications.

Yes if its' successful it have very long term implications. But it's much harder then just to have one president to do it. And when he raises taxes in 2010 or 2011, he'll wipe out his gains that he's made now.

PHX-SOXFAN
02-26-2009, 02:04 PM
I don't have a huge problem with taxing the rich more...they can afford it. But when you tax the rich more, at the same time as cutting taxes for everyone else....I have a problem with it.

And if your plan for funding a lot of your programs is "screw everyone making over $250,000"...I don't like that either.

you do realize the main reason he is raising taxes for 5% and lowering it for everyone else is purely to have the facts on his side when diffusing a talking point that is surely to come?

PHX-SOXFAN
02-26-2009, 02:06 PM
Yes if its' successful it have very long term implications. But it's much harder then just to have one president to do it. And when he raises taxes in 2010 or 2011, he'll wipe out his gains that he's made now.

wow I should have read further, it's not just a talking point but a talking point prediction/scare tactic. even better

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 02:12 PM
wow I should have read further, it's not just a talking point but a talking point prediction/scare tactic. even better

Hey learn facts! It's not talking points. If he wants to cut the debt like he says, if he wants to have his health care like he says, he will raise taxes, and Keep raising them especially on the top.

Barney frank said as recently as November, we'll spend our way out of this, then tax the hell out of the top to get it back.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/tax-hike-will-b.html


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

PHX-SOXFAN
02-26-2009, 02:18 PM
Hey learn facts! It's not talking points. If he wants to cut the debt like he says, if he wants to have his health care like he says, he will raise taxes, and Keep raising them especially on the top.

Barney frank said as recently as November, we'll spend our way out of this, then tax the hell out of the top to get it back.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/tax-hike-will-b.html


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

and the tax the hell out of them is right in front of everyone with the repealing the bush tax cuts while giving tax cuts to those under $250k. I know the facts and there's now a 10 year budget plan out there with more facts to back up not raising taxes on anyone outside the top 5%. How about those facts? Anything outside of them is a wild speculation and outright lies that fly in the face of everything presented in those silly things called government documents, laws, budgets, etc. Lies spewed on am radio are far from the truth that is written in ink and passed through as legislation.

I love learning facts, try it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090226/pl_politico/19365

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 02:24 PM
and the tax the hell out of them is right in front of everyone with the repealing the bush tax cuts while giving tax cuts to those under $250k. I know the facts and there's now a 10 year budget plan out there with more facts to back up not raising taxes on anyone outside the top 5%. How about those facts? Anything outside of them is a wild speculation and outright lies that fly in the face of everything presented in those silly things called government documents, laws, budgets, etc. Lies spewed on am radio are far from the truth that is written in ink and passed through as legislation.

I love learning facts, try it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090226/pl_politico/19365

First off I never said it was to everyone, I said he was going to raise taxes. Guess what he is going too, it's a fact. We don't know exactly the line yet but taxes will be raised during his 4 years. Not to mention when you let temp tax cuts expire that is ineffect raising taxes!

Zep
02-26-2009, 02:34 PM
Just an article that everyone here might find interesting considering the debate in the thread.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/socialstudies.php

DenButsu
02-26-2009, 02:35 PM
And if your plan for funding a lot of your programs is "screw everyone making over $250,000"...I don't like that either.

On this point, I support the Bill Maher Bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qirifeQesKY

(discussion from 0:00 to about 1:30 in this video)

PHX-SOXFAN
02-26-2009, 03:00 PM
First off I never said it was to everyone, I said he was going to raise taxes. Guess what he is going too, it's a fact. We don't know exactly the line yet but taxes will be raised during his 4 years. Not to mention when you let temp tax cuts expire that is ineffect raising taxes!

top 5%, just like last election. good luck hammering that point in a debate. I'm sure it will get 5% of the american public up in arms. actually less than that since there is hollywood and people like warren buffet.

ari1013
02-26-2009, 03:28 PM
Yes if its' successful it have very long term implications. But it's much harder then just to have one president to do it. And when he raises taxes in 2010 or 2011, he'll wipe out his gains that he's made now.
He won't be able to raise taxes in 2010 -- the growth will still be too slow. But by 2011 or 2012 when growth picks up, yeah we'll have to raise taxes.

That's why revenue via capitalization of the banks would have been such a better idea.

Stupid DC.

ari1013
02-26-2009, 03:30 PM
Just an article that everyone here might find interesting considering the debate in the thread.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/socialstudies.php
Yeah well... unfortunately the concept of taxes has become so demonized over the past two decades that Obama's not going to be able to do what Reagan did, i.e. raise taxes almost every single year of his tenure as president. Nor should he. Reagan went a little overboard on some taxes.

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 03:31 PM
He won't be able to raise taxes in 2010 -- the growth will still be too slow. But by 2011 or 2012 when growth picks up, yeah we'll have to raise taxes.

That's why revenue via capitalization of the banks would have been such a better idea.

Stupid DC.

I don't know it was for FY 2010 from the way I read it, adn they pushed it back to 2011. But regardless tax raising will be done

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 03:32 PM
top 5%, just like last election. good luck hammering that point in a debate. I'm sure it will get 5% of the american public up in arms. actually less than that since there is hollywood and people like warren buffet.

You honestly think only the top 5% (if that's all that's effected) will be mad about it. People get mad about things that don't affect them. There will be people who dont' have their taxes raised but dont' agree with others having it raised.

PHX-SOXFAN
02-26-2009, 03:34 PM
You honestly think only the top 5% (if that's all that's effected) will be mad about it. People get mad about things that don't affect them. There will be people who dont' have their taxes raised but dont' agree with others having it raised.

no I don't think that's as far as the sentiment will reach. I think it will be the usual suspects, aka 25%

ari1013
02-26-2009, 03:38 PM
I don't know it was for FY 2010 from the way I read it, adn they pushed it back to 2011. But regardless tax raising will be done
All it looks like is projected increases in tax revenue. Bush had that same thing going each year even when he cut taxes. I wasn't sure who he was trying to fool in the early part of the decade, and I don't know who Obama's trying to fool now.

spartanbear
02-26-2009, 04:21 PM
Don't know if this is one topic but here goes:

Obama's coalition has to continue to come from the 30 and under crowd. Reagan blew up the prospect of anybody else every being considered a "Great Tax Cutter." There is never any reason why the gov't (much like it was early on in his term and prior to Reagan) should have had anybody's marginal tax rate at what was it? Like 70 sum odd %? That's ridiculous! So Reagan cut taxes and the government benefited with increased revenue b/c of a growing economy but that's over (he also grew the size of gov't but another topic for another day). It can't and won't happen anymore. Cutting taxes won't build anymore coalitions and raising them never has. So BHO has to bank on young people (with our bright eyes and bushy tails) to be the engine that moves his "CHANGE train." The other piece of the formula has to be results. We can hope and believe and have faith until the cows come home but until everybody has healthcare, people aren't losing "their" homes and jobs, everybody can go to college and the budget deficit is cut in half then you can't get the rest of the crowd.

I agree with an earlier comment I read (forgot who posted it) but you CANNOT underestimate peoples capacity to vote against their own self-interests. Once those Bush tax cuts expire (which made no sense in passing in the first place) some ideologues are going to start screaming "TAX and SPEND LIBERAL" "WASTE" "PORK" and guess what some people are going to start running with it. That won't be affected might I add but still they'll send msg and call friends and spread half-truths b/c some of us are quite delusional in this country..."I have no degree, no skills, no talents, nothing to sell but you know what...I want to open my own multi-million dollar business one day and I don't want the "TAX and SPEND" gov't taking my money and giving it to the poor, untalented, uneducated lazy ***** (ie., yourself by your own definition)."

Now the way to combat that is to be the President of results make America believe once again that government can work for them. Stop playing the tax game b/c Reagan won it forever.

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 08:31 PM
no I don't think that's as far as the sentiment will reach. I think it will be the usual suspects, aka 25%

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

BobbyCox4Life
02-26-2009, 09:18 PM
You honestly think only the top 5% (if that's all that's effected) will be mad about it. People get mad about things that don't affect them. There will be people who dont' have their taxes raised but dont' agree with others having it raised.

everyone will be affected. those top 5% are the ones that run businesses in this country. You tax them more, they have less to reinvest.

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 09:23 PM
everyone will be affected. those top 5% are the ones that run businesses in this country. You tax them more, they have less to reinvest.

Shhh, don't tell Barney Frank that.

BobbyCox4Life
02-26-2009, 09:25 PM
I don't have a huge problem with taxing the rich more...they can afford it. But when you tax the rich more, at the same time as cutting taxes for everyone else....I have a problem with it.

And if your plan for funding a lot of your programs is "screw everyone making over $250,000"...I don't like that either.

just b/c they can afford it? I can afford to do a lot of things, but i choose not to b/c its my money.

BobbyCox4Life
02-26-2009, 09:26 PM
Shhh, don't tell Barney Frank that.

damn too late... did i **** up?

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 09:28 PM
damn too late... did i **** up?

Lol, you just basically told them what's wrong with their logic, more than likely in two years I think just about everyone's taxes are gonna get raised, but that's a personal opinion.

DenButsu
02-26-2009, 09:38 PM
everyone will be affected. those top 5% are the ones that run businesses in this country. You tax them more, they have less to reinvest.

It's amazing that people still cling so desperately to the disproven "trickle down" theory that has failed again and again ad nauseum.

cabernetluver
02-26-2009, 09:39 PM
It's amazing that people still cling so desperately to the disproven "trickle down" theory that has failed again and again ad nauseum.

Den to me ad nauseum is so apt, because, when I hear it, I need to get some Pepto.

BobbyCox4Life
02-26-2009, 09:43 PM
It's amazing that people still cling so desperately to the disproven "trickle down" theory that has failed again and again ad nauseum.

think whatever you want. I come from a background of business owners. If you think increase taxation on business has no negative effects, then you are just naive.

DenButsu
02-26-2009, 09:45 PM
Where's ari?

cabernetluver
02-26-2009, 09:46 PM
Where's ari?

St Louis I think. lol

ari1013
02-26-2009, 11:02 PM
everyone will be affected. those top 5% are the ones that run businesses in this country. You tax them more, they have less to reinvest.
Except that something like 98% of corporations pay close to zero in income taxes.

And those that do pay into that upper tier -- well, most of them pay dividends which means they're definitely not reinvesting all that much to begin with.

ari1013
02-26-2009, 11:05 PM
St Louis I think. lol
Unfortunately...

BobbyCox4Life
02-26-2009, 11:06 PM
Except that something like 98% of corporations pay close to zero in income taxes.
And those that do pay into that upper tier -- well, most of them pay dividends which means they're definitely not reinvesting all that much to begin with.

where did you come up with that? corporations pay income tax

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 11:19 PM
Unfortunately...

With cracker ... er ... crappy pizza.

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 11:35 PM
With cracker ... er ... crappy pizza.

Damn straight, Rosattis has the best pizza, we actually have one in Vegas, we just don't have a Portillos, which is crappy cause when I went to Cali I saw quite a few of them.

spartanbear
02-26-2009, 11:57 PM
where did you come up with that? corporations pay income tax

Not the smart, crafty, efficient and focused and well managed organizations. These organizations have superior tax departments that deploy a myriad of clever (and legal) strategies to mitigate their tax liabilities. A more correct statement would be...Corporations pay some income tax.

This idea would needs a little more meat and thought but I prescribe to something that Robert Reich proposes in his book Supercapitalism:... . He says that corporations should not be taxed at all rather a law should be passed that requires them to pay a dividend to the owners and that investment income as well as the owners regular income should be taxed at the normal income tax rate. Because of course who really shoulders the responsibility for corporate taxes the "corporation," its owners, its employees, its customers, society as a whole? Who? The tax policies as they relate to corporations are silly and inefficient.

gcoll
02-27-2009, 02:59 AM
Just to be clear as to what the point was (and wasn't) in this post, since people are starting to make presidential comparisons...

The point is NOT that Obama is Reagan, or Obama is Reagan-esque, or Obama will do what Reagan did (thus inviting comparison with other former presidents).

The point is that Obama is pursuing a policy agenda which could have the potential impact of dismantling a voting bloc that was assembled by Reagan, that detaches the super-rich from the middle class in terms of voting for self interest, where Reagan melded them together.

Divide and conquer? Motivate everyone against the rich? Sounds great.


just b/c they can afford it? I can afford to do a lot of things, but i choose not to b/c its my money.
My comments were merely an endorsement of the current system of a graduated income tax, where the rich pay a higher percentage.

I'm very much a small government, low tax, pro individual type person....hence why I'm a Republican. But, at the end of the day, the government still needs revenue.

DenButsu
02-27-2009, 03:23 AM
Divide and conquer? Motivate everyone against the poor? Sounds great.

^Reaganomics version.

In_Ned_I_Trust
02-27-2009, 05:11 AM
The great Ronald Reagan inherited a worse economy that this (don't believe me look it up) and how did he fix it TAX CUTS not the highest tax increase in history.

SmthBluCitrus
02-27-2009, 09:30 AM
Ronald Reagan = Jesus, the Incredible Hulk, and George Washington ... all rolled into one convenient 20th century package.

ari1013
02-27-2009, 09:54 AM
where did you come up with that? corporations pay income tax

The 98% was an exaggeration, but most companies don't pay taxes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812

Some US media sources as well:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5561455
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml

ari1013
02-27-2009, 09:57 AM
Not the smart, crafty, efficient and focused and well managed organizations. These organizations have superior tax departments that deploy a myriad of clever (and legal) strategies to mitigate their tax liabilities. A more correct statement would be...Corporations pay some income tax.

This idea would needs a little more meat and thought but I prescribe to something that Robert Reich proposes in his book Supercapitalism:... . He says that corporations should not be taxed at all rather a law should be passed that requires them to pay a dividend to the owners and that investment income as well as the owners regular income should be taxed at the normal income tax rate. Because of course who really shoulders the responsibility for corporate taxes the "corporation," its owners, its employees, its customers, society as a whole? Who? The tax policies as they relate to corporations are silly and inefficient.
Bingo.

ari1013
02-27-2009, 09:58 AM
The great Ronald Reagan inherited a worse economy that this (don't believe me look it up) and how did he fix it TAX CUTS not the highest tax increase in history.
The NEAR-Great (even according to the WSJ rankings) Ronald Reagan RAISED taxes almost every single year he was in office.

Overall there was a net increase in tax rates between his cuts and increases between 1981 and 1989.

DenButsu
02-27-2009, 10:00 AM
The great Ronald Reagan inherited a worse economy that this (don't believe me look it up) and how did he fix it TAX CUTS not the highest tax increase in history.

He fixed it?

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

SmthBluCitrus
02-27-2009, 10:08 AM
"Deficits don't matter"

DenButsu
02-27-2009, 10:29 AM
"Deficits don't matter"

Sorry, forgot the rules of (keep a straight face, keep a straight face), um, fiscal responsibility.

BobbyCox4Life
02-27-2009, 02:33 PM
The 98% was an exaggeration, but most companies don't pay taxes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812

Some US media sources as well:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5561455
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml

that said b/t 98 and 05. Trust me, im studying accounting in school right now. The SEC has chaged the rules drastically, including 10 year prison sentences for CEO's that lie on their income statments....

But that's besides the point. 80% of the country works for small businesses vs. corporations. Thus we can assume that 5% is made up alot of that 80%.

ari1013
02-27-2009, 06:31 PM
that said b/t 98 and 05. Trust me, im studying accounting in school right now. The SEC has chaged the rules drastically, including 10 year prison sentences for CEO's that lie on their income statments....

But that's besides the point. 80% of the country works for small businesses vs. corporations. Thus we can assume that 5% is made up alot of that 80%.
Well that's definitely wrong.
1. You completely ignored the public sector. -- small bus = 44.3%, not 80%.
2. Most small businesses fall into the under-250K level as far as profits go

DenButsu
02-27-2009, 10:02 PM
that said b/t 98 and 05. Trust me, im studying accounting in school right now. The SEC has chaged the rules drastically, including 10 year prison sentences for CEO's that lie on their income statments....

Good. And then after they stop robbing us blind by cheating on their taxes, they can be thankful they don't live in China, where they really don't **** around (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/22/china-milk-scandal-2-get-_n_159908.html) when it comes to corporate fraud.

Cubsrule
02-27-2009, 10:04 PM
Good. And then after they stop robbing us blind by cheating on their taxes, they can be thankful they don't live in China, where they really don't **** around (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/22/china-milk-scandal-2-get-_n_159908.html) when it comes to corporate fraud.

We could say the same for some Dems :D

gcoll
02-27-2009, 10:26 PM
^Reaganomics version.

It was actually liberal democrats. Reagan liked to demonize and mock liberal democrats.

About Reagan though. If I lived back then, and was my age when Reagan first arrived on the national scene.....I would have probably been more disgusting than Chris Matthews with my hero worship.

Reaganomics.....we can find a better system. But I like the philosophy behind it, and behind a lot of what Reagan said.

DenButsu
02-27-2009, 10:33 PM
We could say the same for some Dems :D

Did I say Republicans?

(Hint: No.)

Cubsrule
02-27-2009, 10:39 PM
Did I say Republicans?

(Hint: No.)

Lol, you kind of set me up for that one, either way public opinion of CEO's are pretty poor right now.

gcoll
02-27-2009, 10:45 PM
Lol, you kind of set me up for that one, either way public opinion of CEO's are pretty poor right now.

Yeah. CEOs are unpopular.

My favorite part of Obama's speech the other night is when he chastised them for using tax payer money to pay for private jets. This made Nancy Pelosi rise to her feet excitedly in applause, which was funny.

Cubsrule
02-27-2009, 10:50 PM
Yeah. CEOs are unpopular.

My favorite part of Obama's speech the other night is when he chastised them for using tax payer money to pay for private jets. This made Nancy Pelosi rise to her feet excitedly in applause, which was funny.

I'm convinced that if Obama had said everyone is getting an increase in taxes she would have rised excitedly.

behindmydesk
02-28-2009, 10:04 AM
Well now wait a second. That def would have made her rise, she wants higher taxes.

BobbyCox4Life
02-28-2009, 03:28 PM
Did I say Republicans?

(Hint: No.)

good b/c we dont want to be confused with crooks.... as one of our gods Newt G would say

DodgersFan28
03-02-2009, 03:52 AM
My favorite part of Obama's speech the other night is when he chastised them for using tax payer money to pay for private jets. This made Nancy Pelosi rise to her feet excitedly in applause, which was funny.

Yeah, it's a pretty hilarious argument considering how Air Force One, Marine One, Congressional transportation, etc is all paid for.

I might go back and re-watch some of Bush's SOTU's from '06-'08 just to see how different Pelosi reacts compared to that speech.

DenButsu
03-02-2009, 04:14 AM
Yeah, it's a pretty hilarious argument considering how Air Force One, Marine One, Congressional transportation, etc is all paid for.

And owned by the government, not Obama, of course... :rolleyes:

DodgersFan28
03-02-2009, 08:46 AM
And owned by the government, not Obama, of course... :rolleyes:

And who's running the government?? :rolleyes:

The head executive of the goverment who owns its own private jets, helicopters, etc, criticizing the head executives of companies for buying/owning/maintaining a private jet/transportation and/or spending taxpayer money to buy/own/maintain a private jet/transportation is some pretty funny stuff. Hypocrisy: We Can Believe In. :clap:

DenButsu
03-02-2009, 10:43 AM
And who's running the government?? :rolleyes:

The head executive of the goverment who owns its own private jets, helicopters, etc, criticizing the head executives of companies for buying/owning/maintaining a private jet/transportation and/or spending taxpayer money to buy/own/maintain a private jet/transportation is some pretty funny stuff. Hypocrisy: We Can Believe In. :clap:

You do understand the difference between publicly and privately owned property, I assume. For example, when that CEO bails on his company and collects his $30 million dollar golden parachute after firing all his employees and leaving their a**es hanging out to dry, he still gets to keep that $20 million private jet and either retain is as capital or resell it for the cash he gets back for it. Whereas, when the President (be it Bush or Obama) leaves office, he takes nothing with him.

behindmydesk
03-02-2009, 10:56 AM
You do understand the difference between publicly and privately owned property, I assume. For example, when that CEO bails on his company and collects his $30 million dollar golden parachute after firing all his employees and leaving their a**es hanging out to dry, he still gets to keep that $20 million private jet and either retain is as capital or resell it for the cash he gets back for it. Whereas, when the President (be it Bush or Obama) leaves office, he takes nothing with him.

I'm not sure you are correct on this buddy. Usually when the CEO leaves, he doesn't take a jet or anything just his money. The jets and that stuff are owned by the company.

Yea and also when the President sucks, and leaves the country worse, or resignes he still gets his pension and secret service for life, and a government paid for office.

ari1013
03-02-2009, 11:52 AM
I'm not sure you are correct on this buddy. Usually when the CEO leaves, he doesn't take a jet or anything just his money. The jets and that stuff are owned by the company.

Yea and also when the President sucks, and leaves the country worse, or resignes he still gets his pension and secret service for life, and a government paid for office.
And a library. :)

DenButsu
03-02-2009, 12:15 PM
And a library. :)

And an airport named after him.

behindmydesk
03-02-2009, 12:16 PM
And a library. :)

Clinton's is more of a massage parlor!

I forgot about the library. What else do they get?

behindmydesk
03-02-2009, 12:16 PM
And an airport named after him.

That's not required is it? This could get interesting.

Lets google ex presidential perks!

ari1013
03-02-2009, 01:16 PM
Clinton's is more of a massage parlor!

I forgot about the library. What else do they get?
Automatic access to PSD's VIP club. They get to skip the whole 25,000 post requirement.

Oh and free lunches for life at a restaurant of their choice.

An autographed WS baseball.

3 pairs of tube socks -- because you never know when you'll need those.

A Starbucks coffee cup with free refills

And finally, a photo op with the alien they're keeping in Area 51.

behindmydesk
03-02-2009, 01:23 PM
Automatic access to PSD's VIP club. They get to skip the whole 25,000 post requirement.

Oh and free lunches for life at a restaurant of their choice.

An autographed WS baseball.

3 pairs of tube socks -- because you never know when you'll need those.

A Starbucks coffee cup with free refills

And finally, a photo op with the alien they're keeping in Area 51.

Do they get to take a manuscript with the real killers of JFK?

Zep
03-02-2009, 01:25 PM
Do they get to take a manuscript with the real killers of JFK?

No, that info is reserved for Nicholas "Stanley Goodspeed" Cage and his wife...and Sean Connery of course.

ari1013
03-02-2009, 01:30 PM
Do they get to take a manuscript with the real killers of JFK?
Nope. Only the NWO Shadow Government has that.

Nice try though.

behindmydesk
03-02-2009, 06:39 PM
Ok on topic!

If this is true and Obama is doing this, and being successful at it. Then he's doing it by motive, not by being Bipartisanship. And the more I think about it, I reject the notion that Obama gave into republicans as a point of Bipartisanship. He campaigned on tax cuts. He was following threw. Because of this, wouldn't it throw out the notion that Obama is bipartisan, and that he's trying to kill off the republican party, and thus ultimately the most partisan.

DenButsu
03-02-2009, 10:27 PM
It wouldn't destroy the Republican Party (and the objective isn't to do that anyhow, but to be successful in carrying out his own agenda by garnering popular support for it and strengthening the long term political footing of the Democratic Party).

But what it might do - and I believe this ultimately would be a good thing for the country and for the Republican Party itself - is force to GOP to have a transformational moment of reckoning of the nature that Clinton did by pushing through welfare reform to earn the Democratic Party some fiscal responsibility street cred. It might force the GOP to make a more sincere attempt at being a party of ideas rather than a party of ideology. (Although if the CPAC conference was any indication of the direction things really are going, I won't be holding my breath on that one).

behindmydesk
03-02-2009, 10:47 PM
So you seem to agree a bit, that his tax cuts in the stimulus weren't an effort to be bipartisan, it was to break the party.

DenButsu
03-02-2009, 11:40 PM
So you seem to agree a bit, that his tax cuts in the stimulus weren't an effort to be bipartisan, it was to break the party.

Not at all.

a) The party was already broken by its own hands (see November 4th, 2008).

b) Obama promised tax cuts all along in his campaign, and that element of the stimulus package was not inconsistent with the agenda he'd already outlined.

c) It was, however, bigger and more generous than many Democrats felt was necessary, and he pissed a lot of them off in that way. And I still think he sincerely was extending an olive branch to show the GOP that he was willing to be flexible and compromise (within reason) and be inclusive of more conservative ideas in the stimulus package.

but, and this might be the most important point,

e) Operating in a bipartisan fashion does not mean Obama (or McCain or anybody from either side) must abandon his own party, or stop trying to make his party successful, or stop trying to advance its agenda. And it especially does not mean that at a time when the American people just resolved at the voting booth to put that party (with its agenda) in power to try to do the things it set out to do.

behindmydesk
03-02-2009, 11:46 PM
Not at all.

a) The party was already broken by its own hands (see November 4th, 2008).

b) Obama promised tax cuts all along in his campaign, and that element of the stimulus package was not inconsistent with the agenda he'd already outlined.

c) It was, however, bigger and more generous than many Democrats felt was necessary, and he pissed a lot of them off in that way. And I still think he sincerely was extending an olive branch to show the GOP that he was willing to be flexible and compromise (within reason) and be inclusive of more conservative ideas in the stimulus package.

but, and this might be the most important point,

e) Operating in a bipartisan fashion does not mean Obama (or McCain or anybody from either side) must abandon his own party, or stop trying to make his party successful, or stop trying to advance its agenda. And it especially does not mean that at a time when the American people just resolved at the voting booth to put that party and its agenda in power to try to do the things it set out to do.

The tax cuts were goign to piss of the left regardless. And to me you made the point, he campaigned on it, it wasn't bipartisan.

And this comes from someone who isn't going to ***** that he's partisan, because I would be in his position. I just would be honest about it. I mean when Obama said while going threw the stimulus I'll trump you on that, remember who won the election. I thought that was cool, because he did win. But this whole I gave tax cuts so i'm playing bipartisan is hooey to me. Maybe i'm mistaken, but what tax cuts are in this stimulus that he didn't campaign on. 95% will have their taxes lowered (from oh May of 08 to Nov of 08) 95% will have their taxes lowered (Jan and Feb of 08). I lowered 95% of the countries taxes (March 08-November 2012.)

DenButsu
03-03-2009, 12:05 AM
The tax cuts for businesses in the stimulus package were something different altogether, though.

And since McCain also campaigned on tax cuts (albeit a more top-beneficial variety), doesn't that make tax cuts an act that has bipartisan appeal? :shrug: I really don't think what I said proves your point in any way whatsoever.

behindmydesk
03-03-2009, 09:37 AM
The tax cuts for businesses in the stimulus package were something different altogether, though.

And since McCain also campaigned on tax cuts (albeit a more top-beneficial variety), doesn't that make tax cuts an act that has bipartisan appeal? :shrug: I really don't think what I said proves your point in any way whatsoever.

Were they? I can't remember that's why I asked.


But Obama campaigned that he was going to give more tax cuts then McCain. He said that many times, my tax cuts are actually bigger then his, so how i am a socialist (paraphrasing)

So he didn't give tax cuts as a gesture to the right, he was following threw on campaign promises.

DenButsu
03-03-2009, 12:26 PM
But it seems to me that you're sidestepping the larger point, which is that most of the congressional Democrats would have preferred a stimulus package that consisted for the most part of stimulative spending, while most congressional Republicans would have preferred a stimulus package that consisted exclusively of tax cuts, and furthermore tax cuts are something Obama could have dealt with in his budget rather than in the stimulus bill itself. So it's a little disingenuous to claim that he really wasn't putting anything on the table as a good faith offer of compromise to the GOP.

behindmydesk
03-03-2009, 12:30 PM
But it seems to me that you're sidestepping the larger point, which is that most of the congressional Democrats would have preferred a stimulus package that consisted for the most part of stimulative spending, while most congressional Republicans would have preferred a stimulus package that consisted exclusively of tax cuts, and furthermore tax cuts are something Obama could have dealt with in his budget rather than in the stimulus bill itself. So it's a little disingenuous to claim that he really wasn't putting anything on the table as a good faith offer of compromise to the GOP.

Not really, because he campaigned on it. He didn't give anything that he didn't campaign on. I mean kudo's to him for delivering on a campaign slogan/rhetoric/platform.

And the point of this thread was can he break the republican mantra of tax cuts. Well if your goal is to break a mantra of a party, it's not bipartisan.

Don't get me wrong it's a great strategy. But he can't be the great strategist, the great leader of both parties, at the same time.

DenButsu
03-03-2009, 01:03 PM
Not really, because he campaigned on it. He didn't give anything that he didn't campaign on. I mean kudo's to him for delivering on a campaign slogan/rhetoric/platform.

And the point of this thread was can he break the republican mantra of tax cuts. Well if your goal is to break a mantra of a party, it's not bipartisan.

Don't get me wrong it's a great strategy. But he can't be the great strategist, the great leader of both parties, at the same time.

But see you're operating from a flawed assumption, which is that to lead in a bipartisan fashion means to actually "be the leader of both parties". Obama never will (and never will try, and never will claim to) be a leader of the Republican Party, because well, he's not a Republican. "Bending over and taking it" is not a prerequisite for "reaching across the aisle".

And let's just be real here.

If you want to see the honest view of bipartisanship that people from each party really have, look no further than the disdain (as they call them "traitors", "liberals in conservative clothing", "fake Republicans" and worse) that so many Republicans have for the three senators who voted for the stimulus package, and look at the same time at the lack of similar disdain that most Democrats have for the handful of Democrats in the House who voted against it. Look which president offered multiple high-level cabinet posts to politicians from the other party. And although this may seem trivial since it's not directly about the political process, I think it's actually significant: Look which president actually has respect and appreciation on a personal level for his political opponents, and just is cool with hanging out with them and, say, inviting them over to watch the Superbowl.

Part of bipartisanship is a lack of acrimony, a lack of contempt, a lack of petty disdain. And we're seeing it now in some very real ways that haven't happened in a long, long time.

cabernetluver
03-03-2009, 01:34 PM
If you want to see the honest view of bipartisanship that people from each party really have, look no further than the disdain (as they call them "traitors", "liberals in conservative clothing", "fake Republicans" and worse) that so many Republicans have for the three senators who voted for the stimulus package, and look at the same time at the lack of similar disdain that most Democrats have for the handful of Democrats in the House who voted against it. Look which president offered multiple high-level cabinet posts to politicians from the other party. And although this may seem trivial since it's not directly about the political process, I think it's actually significant: Look which president actually has respect and appreciation on a personal level for his political opponents, and just is cool with hanging out with them and, say, inviting them over to watch the Superbowl.

Part of bipartisanship is a lack of acrimony, a lack of contempt, a lack of petty disdain. And we're seeing it now in some very real ways that haven't happened in a long, long time.

Great post.

behindmydesk
03-03-2009, 01:55 PM
But see you're operating from a flawed assumption, which is that to lead in a bipartisan fashion means to actually "be the leader of both parties". Obama never will (and never will try, and never will claim to) be a leader of the Republican Party, because well, he's not a Republican. "Bending over and taking it" is not a prerequisite for "reaching across the aisle".

And let's just be real here.

If you want to see the honest view of bipartisanship that people from each party really have, look no further than the disdain (as they call them "traitors", "liberals in conservative clothing", "fake Republicans" and worse) that so many Republicans have for the three senators who voted for the stimulus package, and look at the same time at the lack of similar disdain that most Democrats have for the handful of Democrats in the House who voted against it. Look which president offered multiple high-level cabinet posts to politicians from the other party. And although this may seem trivial since it's not directly about the political process, I think it's actually significant: Look which president actually has respect and appreciation on a personal level for his political opponents, and just is cool with hanging out with them and, say, inviting them over to watch the Superbowl.

Part of bipartisanship is a lack of acrimony, a lack of contempt, a lack of petty disdain. And we're seeing it now in some very real ways that haven't happened in a long, long time.

I'm talking about the tax cuts. Nothing else, (not trying to change the subject, just letting you know where i'm coming from). It's been the mantra of a few people here that tax cuts in the stimulus were done to include republicans. When I say that was not hte case, it was following threw on a campaign promise, and to take away the tax cut out of the republican party.

And it's always more important for the extreme minority party to stick together! It's threw disdain on both sides when in the minority.

And remember my assertion is neither side wants or should want bipartisan. Heck look at McCain, he was being bipartisan before Obama even came out as a candidate. He was apart of the big gang of 14, saying it's ok Democrats you don't need to vote on judges, we'll eliminate some of the far right ones you don't like that way you won't have to vote on them.

cabernetluver
03-03-2009, 02:08 PM
I'm talking about the tax cuts. Nothing else, (not trying to change the subject, just letting you know where i'm coming from). It's been the mantra of a few people here that tax cuts in the stimulus were done to include republicans. When I say that was not hte case, it was following threw on a campaign promise, and to take away the tax cut out of the republican party.

And it's always more important for the extreme minority party to stick together! It's threw disdain on both sides when in the minority.

And remember my assertion is neither side wants or should want bipartisan. Heck look at McCain, he was being bipartisan before Obama even came out as a candidate. He was apart of the big gang of 14, saying it's ok Democrats you don't need to vote on judges, we'll eliminate some of the far right ones you don't like that way you won't have to vote on them.

Tax cuts as an issue are not in a room by themselves. In fact, it is the type and amount of tax cuts that were added to the bill that were an attempt at reaching across the aisle. I agree that some would have been in absent the attempt, but not all of them.