CheapyD on U.S.' debt ceiling

Wow...DARE? I just read a few articles about articles on it and it looks like I'll need to read the actual studies in the journals to get it...argh. Something's striking me as it being a little off though. Then again, one of the articles suggested that targeted programs are better than overarcing ones. Another article said that it made more suburban kids try drugs...I LOLOL'd. I can't see you on raising the retirement age because mortality rates aren't the same for race, gender, class, but I can certainly see you on having an asset cap.
 
Yeah in general pretty much every study of DARE finds no impacts, and a few find it increases drug use relative to control groups who didn't get the class. And these aren't new studies, this has been known for a number of years now, yet it's still funded.

The GREAT gang resistance program is another example--though evidence is more mixed there than with DARE where it's almost uniformly negative.

A big problem with both programs is they tend to be led by uniformed police officers which aren't the best people to try to get rebellious kids to listen to....particularly for GREAT since it's it's a middle school program most of the time. Who thought it was a good idea to try to dissuade rebellious youth at risk for gang membership by having them attend a program led by a cop? *sigh*

That kind of crap is just typical of a lot of social programs. They get put in place without proper piloting and research to make sure they're worth while. Funding for research is more limited than it should. And once research is done it's typically ignored and they just keep running the programs same as before.


As for raising retirement age, it could be done and just have more leeway with getting benefits earlier if your health fails and you can't keep working full time etc. I can't imagine moving it say 2-3 years forward for now would lead to all that many problems on that front anyway.
 
Crazy day in the stock market. Was up 200 when I checked mid morning or so, was down a bit in the afternoon, and finished up 430 points with a late rally.

chart_ws_index_dow_201189162014.top.png
 
[quote name='nasum']He gets into that Lewis Black head shaking and wild hands thing. I think I like this guy.[/QUOTE]

I like Ratigan. He is a former CNBC anchor who really made a name for himself during the last financial crisis. He was one of the few who would actually ask hard questions to the guests and CEO's that were just trying to talk up their shares.
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']I like Ratigan. He is a former CNBC anchor who really made a name for himself during the last financial crisis. He was one of the few who would actually ask hard questions to the guests and CEO's that were just trying to talk up their shares.[/QUOTE]

Good to know; ever since Cenk Uygur was told by MSNBC to tone down his criticisms of Obama and refused to renew his contract (let alone ol' Keith Olbermann), I've long considered MSNBC to be stuffed with mild progressives, rather than the real US progressive base - a populace steaming angry at having virtually zero representation on television and in politics (save for Bernie Sanders and occasionally Bill Maher), and at a loss for how to rectify that.

The channel has fleeting moments of insight - moreso than other channels that put out ultra-moderate (can someone be ultra and moderate?) Democrats like Paul Begala and act like that's the appeasement for liberals. But for the most part they want to appease the overlord Democrats in charge, even if the persons in charge are gutless cowards who don't resemble progressives in the slightest.

Part of me can't help but think Ratigan was angling for his own "Rick Santelli" moment, though.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And the Dow is down over 400 points currently today....[/QUOTE]

We will probably continue to see these big swings up and down until we get more clarity out of the Euro zone. It sounds like the fate of the Euro zone is in Germany's hands right now as it seems they are the only ones financially stable enough in the union to provide any kind of worthwhile backing for the debt problems in the region. The real question is will Germany step up to the plate or tell the EU to pound sand?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Good to know; ever since Cenk Uygur was told by MSNBC to tone down his criticisms of Obama and refused to renew his contract (let alone ol' Keith Olbermann), I've long considered MSNBC to be stuffed with mild progressives, rather than the real US progressive base - a populace steaming angry at having virtually zero representation on television and in politics (save for Bernie Sanders and occasionally Bill Maher), and at a loss for how to rectify that.

The channel has fleeting moments of insight - moreso than other channels that put out ultra-moderate (can someone be ultra and moderate?) Democrats like Paul Begala and act like that's the appeasement for liberals. But for the most part they want to appease the overlord Democrats in charge, even if the persons in charge are gutless cowards who don't resemble progressives in the slightest.

Part of me can't help but think Ratigan was angling for his own "Rick Santelli" moment, though.[/QUOTE]
If you like Cenk, you should catch his Young Turks webcast. It's much more progressive than what's currently on MSNBC, but still a little too neo-liberal for my tastes.
 
[quote name='Ratigan']We’ve got a real problem…this is a mathematical fact. Tens of trillions of dollars are being extracted from the United States of America. Democrats aren’t doing it, Republicans aren’t doing it, an entire integrated system, banking, trade and taxation, created by both parties over a period of two decades is at work on our entire country right now.[/QUOTE]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/08/dylan-ratigans-howard-beale-moment/41072/

Seems to me like Ratigan had a point that, as far as I'm concerned, is rant-worthy.

Businesses don't want to pay for the higher wages and healthcare of American workers, and if they can get our government and our tax dollars to chip in on the cost of moving jobs offshore they're going to milk us suckers for all we're worth.

Ideally I would like to see American workers slash management overheads by forming worker cooperatives that elbow their way into markets but this is a longshot. For one thing they would need protection from unfair competitive practices that I don't see happening with our current bought-and-paid-for political system. For another thing, I don't know how adaptable a company ruled by comittee would be to the changing winds of the market. But it would be awesome.
 
[quote name='camoor']http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/08/dylan-ratigans-howard-beale-moment/41072/

Seems to me like Ratigan had a point that, as far as I'm concerned, is rant-worthy.

Businesses don't want to pay for the higher wages and healthcare of American workers, and if they can get our government and our tax dollars to chip in on the cost of moving jobs offshore they're going to milk us suckers for all we're worth.

Ideally I would like to see American workers slash management overheads by forming worker cooperatives that elbow their way into markets but this is a longshot. For one thing they would need protection from unfair competitive practices that I don't see happening with our current bought-and-paid-for political system. For another thing, I don't know how adaptable a company ruled by comittee would be to the changing winds of the market. But it would be awesome.[/QUOTE]
Allow me to introduce you to a company called the Mondragon Corporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
 
Just read that these past 4 days are the first time in history the Dow has been up or down 400+ points for 4 consecutive days.

It's up 165 pts today currently, so probably won't be 5 straight days unless something crazy happens this afternoon.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Omaha

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Click to expand...
 
Until some con stooge comes up and says "well nobody is telling him that he can't pay more if he wants to so badly". I love that argument.
 
That already happened. Some other article I read had a blurb from a republican congressman that said something along the lines of "If Mr. Buffett wants to pay higher taxes and give more money to Washington, what's stopping him?"

I don't recall what news site I read that on or I'd post a link.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

Part of me can't help but think Ratigan was angling for his own "Rick Santelli" moment, though.[/QUOTE]

Every time I have watched his show he is always complaining about something so I don't think this rant is that far out there. A lot of that stuff that he is ranting about is stuff that he has been complaining about for forever. He fucking hates Wall Street and the banking system, he hates Wall Street, and he hates corporate interests.

Cenk was alright, but I found him a bore to listen to.
 
[quote name='nasum']Until some con stooge comes up and says "well nobody is telling him that he can't pay more if he wants to so badly". I love that argument.[/QUOTE]

It's not an argument - it's a factual statement.
 
You would see that as a sensible response. Bob, I sincerely hope that one day your golden ship comes in and all your defense of these folks finally pays off.


Until then I'll just continue to roll my eyes.
 
Are you saying there's some kind of magical force preventing Warren Buffet from paying more into the government?

Or is it just easier for him to sit on his money while gaining all these adoring fans talking about how he should be paying more in?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Are you saying there's some kind of magical force preventing Warren Buffet from paying more into the government?

Or is it just easier for him to sit on his money while gaining all these adoring fans talking about how he should be paying more in?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='WarrenBuffett']First, my pledge: More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day.[/QUOTE]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsmakers/Warren_Buffett_Pledge_Letter.fortune/index.htm

His reputation is not unearned.

Please come back when you have looked up what your heroes like the Waltons have contributed to... well to anything.
 
Mr. Buffet stated several coherent and factual reasons why the tax rate for the mega rich should go up.

Do any of the clown shoes around here care to make a rebuttal that isn't a sorry ass non sequitor?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I hate to be the one to break this to you, but picking and choosing which private charities you wish to donate your money to is a totally different ball game than giving your money to the government and letting them decide who deserves it.

Again - let's see him put his money where his mouth is.[/QUOTE]

I just proved that for Warren Buffett it isn't about adoring fans as you stated - he is making a serious contribution to charity. Proved. As in you were wrong to give him that label.

I don't give a shit what you think about the rich and how much taxes they should pay, I discounted your opinion long ago. I'm only going to chime in when I feel like schooling you on one of your factual mistakes.
 
I think the IRS should have a donation line in their tax forms, just to see if anyone would actually pay more than what they owe.
 
[quote name='camoor']I just proved that for Warren Buffett it isn't about adoring fans as you stated - he is making a serious contribution to charity. Proved. As in you were wrong to give him that label.

I don't give a shit what you think about the rich and how much taxes they should pay, I discounted your opinion long ago. I'm only going to chime in when I feel like schooling you on one of your factual mistakes.[/QUOTE]

The Warren Buffett you adore so much said in his statement this - "I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering."

So the argument that the ultra rich aren't giving anything is BS. They just aren't giving it to the government. Which is why UncleBobs argument is valid. What would happen if all these billionaires Mr Buffett knows, decided to pay 20% more taxes on their own? If all these people were ok with doing it they could do it on their own, and yet they don't. Why?
 
[quote name='camoor']I just proved that for Warren Buffett it isn't about adoring fans as you stated - he is making a serious contribution to charity. Proved. As in you were wrong to give him that label.[/QUOTE]

You'd be right if someone came on here bragging about how awesome Buffett is for giving money to charity. I do agree that's great and do think the man should be admired for that.

But that is *not* what happened. dmaul posted an article by Mr. Buffett where Buffett complained that the "super-rich" should give more money to the government and everyone started hailing Buffet based on *that*. No one mentioned his private charity work.

So, Buffett gets to sit on his money for as long as he wants, determine when he wants to give it out and who he wants to give it to, and talk out of his ass about "wanting" to give more money to the government. Sounds like a win-win-win for him.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Mr. Buffet stated several coherent and factual reasons why the tax rate for the mega rich should go up.

Do any of the clown shoes around here care to make a rebuttal that isn't a sorry ass non sequitor?[/QUOTE]

Welp...
 
My favorite part of the article:

I didn’t refuse [to invest], nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.
Click to expand...

The same is true of the vast swaths of cash companies are sitting on and the jobs they aren't adding to their businesses. Companies add jobs in order to grow their business, to become *more* profitable. Tax rates don't matter here; a company is lying through their teeth if they insist they're forgoing potential profit because they fret over a 32% versus 35% tax rate.

Likewise, investments are made when there is an opportunity for profit, which happens independent of tax rates.

I mean, we can engage these deliberate maroons who think that "take a penny, leave a penny" is how taxation should work. Or we can continue to point out that Buffett makes cogent, logical arguments. If we want to argue Buffett's points, don't let the bastards move the goalposts: we know they can not argue Buffett's op-ed on its arguments and merit.

I will continue to cite Buffett in small, bite-sized quotes. These people clearly can't read and process 300 words all at once; so let's give them Buffett 20 words at a time instead.
 
Apparently, asking Buffet to put his money where his mouth is is a bad thing.

Similar to the jokers on here who openly flaunt the fact that they don't live up to their own, legal tax obligations while complaining that others should have to pay even more into the tax system.
 
Are you really trying to compare paying internet taxes to the corporate fat cats?

Is there another tax that forum goers openly declare that they're not paying?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Does it matter? You're defending the practice of picking and choosing which legal tax obligations one should pay?[/QUOTE]

When did I defend it? I'm just trying to understand your thought process here.

Also, do you pay taxes on your internet purchases?
 
Yes, I do. In general, what I buy comes from Walmart, which taxes my stuff automatically. For those that don't, Illinois state income tax forms have a line for paying internet use tax.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yes, I do. In general, what I buy comes from Walmart, which taxes my stuff automatically. For those that don't, Illinois state income tax forms have a line for paying internet use tax.[/QUOTE]

And what did you put on that line?
 
What? I'm required to open my tax forms up for your scrutiny?

If you must know, $27. Which covers use tax on up to $432 worth of non-taxed internet purchases. Which is well more than I purchased online (untaxed) last year.
 
Is anyone seriously ok with the mega wealthy only being taxed at 15% on the vast majority of their income since most is from stock options etc.?

Is anyone really opposed to treating all income the same so the wealthy are at least getting all their income taxed at the top bracket rate rather than below the middle class bracket?

That's what I don't get about all this "no raising taxes!" rhetoric from the right currently. How can people be opposed to taxing the wealthy at least at the highest current bracket (or whatever future top bracket) on all their income? Or ending deductions for corporate jets and closing BS loopholes.

It's one thing to oppose increasing the current tax brackets--I disagree with it but I can at least understand the principle there. I can't understand the opposition the tea party has to things like the capital gains tax which has millionaires paying a lower effective tax rate than much of the middle class, closing loopholes etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Is anyone seriously ok with the mega wealthy only being taxed at 15% on the vast majority of their income since most is from stock options etc.?

Is anyone really opposed to treating all income the same so the wealthy are at least getting all their income taxed at the top bracket rate rather than below the middle class bracket?[/QUOTE]

I would support treating all income the same and taxing it at the exact same rate. Or, to an extent, taxing the first $X at a rate, then the next $X at a slightly higher rate.

But, if this is how we're going to do it, this means *all* income.

My main opposition to raising taxes is that our current (and previous, just to be clear) government isn't being responsible with money... so I don't think they need to be given more money.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What? I'm required to open my tax forms up for your scrutiny?

If you must know, $27. Which covers use tax on up to $432 worth of non-taxed internet purchases. Which is well more than I purchased online (untaxed) last year.[/QUOTE]

Commendable. Is that equal in any way to the amount of taxes the top 1% doesn't pay?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Commendable. Is that equal in any way to the amount of taxes the top 1% doesn't pay?[/QUOTE]

Doesn't matter. People who don't pay their legal tax obligations shouldn't be going around telling others that they need to be paying more. People who aren't willing to pay $20 in taxes that they're legally obligated to pay shouldn't be pushing for changes in tax code that would require other individuals to pay millions more.

It's about as hypocritical as a candidate running on "family values" having an affair.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']My main opposition to raising taxes is that our current (and previous, just to be clear) government isn't being responsible with money... so I don't think they need to be given more money.[/QUOTE]

In other words, herp derp
 
[quote name='camoor']In other words, herp derp[/QUOTE]

I wholly believe that is exactly what you took in after reading that.

I also believe that's what you take in after reading most things you disagree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top