quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
which is not so bad considering the larger part of Europe at this point. Bush destroyed your economy and now Obama has got to make repairs without money facing (although not the beginning) a majority of Rep's.

---

This isn't entirely fair. From the 110th Congress (2007-2009), Bush didn't have control of either the House or the Senate, and it was under this Congress that the economy tanked. So, while yes, everything did go south on Bush's watch, it's not fair to shoulder all the blame on him and the Republicans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:
What are you talking about? He had a super majority his first two years and he was able to do whatever he wanted. His actions during that time are a big part of why our economy is where it is today.

---

This statement shows just how little you know about the US Economy, and how little you know about US politics at a national level. You should really do more research before spitting out Republican talking points. If you did, you might understand how silly some of them are.

First, the Super majority myth:

http://538refugees.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/the-democratic-super-majority-myth/

Nothing happens quickly in Congress. Three month stretches of a Super Majority mean you might get a few things done, and Obama actually did a lot in his few stretches.

In politics today, you have one inclusive party that allows a diversity of thought. That party includes progressives and moderates, who often have differences of opinion. It takes time for that party to reach a consensus, typically after informed debate.

You have another party that has become monolithic. It pushes what its big-dollar backers want. It accommodates a host of lunatic-fringe cultural issues. Just look at our Republican controlled House of Representatives, which is supposed to initiate most legislation. When we need stimulating jobs legislation (like infrastructure), we instead get our "anti-abortion vote of the week". When we need serious immigration reform we instead get "English only" or "Christian only" votes. When we need to come together as a country we instead get calls for hearings on whether certain Democrats are part of the "Muslim Brotherhood" or claims that Democratic members of Congress are "card-carrying Communists". Republicans don't care about the truth, only about whether their sound bites will play well with rush and with Fox News.

If you think at all differently from the "group", you get drummed out of the party. If you are pro-life, you can no longer be a Republican on the National stage. If you are in favor of any tax, you are drummed out of the party, even if the tax was fair, or was correcting unfair tax breaks to special interests. If you agree that anything Obama has done was good for the country (even killing Bin Laden), then you are suspected of being a traitor to the Republican Party. You can be the craziest person in the country, but if you believe that Obama:

1. was born in Kenya, or anywhere outside the US
2. is a Muslim
3. Has increased everyone's taxes, or
4. Is going to take your guns away

And if you can scream the crazy-speak loud enough, you can be a Republican Super-hero with a fast track to Congress in Red States and red districts.

In a political system based upon compromise, monolithic opposition, combined with Republican abuses of the filibuster rules, impeded even basic lawmaking. The US lost its triple-A credit rating not because of the size of our debt or deficits. We lost it because the credit rating agencies determined that the Republican "win at all cost" mentality could bring the US to a default situation. Internal politics, not financial status, was the cause.

As for the economic malaise, Wall Street's excesses with the sub-prime mortgage fiasco cost the country more than $8 trillion dollars in lost wealth, with at least 1/4 of that in mortgage-backed securities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

The credit default swap market incurred individual losses (its a zero-sum game) of 5 to 10 times that amount. So some entities got really rich, and those that lost threatened our entire financial system.

The US was losing about $500 billion per month in wealth when Obama came into office.

He also inherited a structural deficit that amounted to ~ $1 trillion per year (Note: Bush ran huge deficits, but was able play accounting games to hide them. He offset ~ $200 billion per year because of Social Security surpluses that no longer exist. Bush also refused to recognize the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan War's in the budget. Obama has no Social Security surplus, and one of his first orders was a change in the accounting rules to show Americans how much the wars have actually cost).

The extra $100 billion per month that Obama was able to inject into the economy was a band-aid against the $500 billion the economy was losing each month. It was enough to stabilize the economy, but not enough to grow it.

When you have a catastrophe that wipes out all your earnings for a year, it takes a while to recover. If you get wiped out and can't find a way to earn money, it takes a longer while.

The only way Obama can make money for the country is by spending money on jobs programs (Republican's refuse to consider it, and jobs programs, by law, must originate out of the House of Representatives)to get more people working, or by returning taxes toward their historical levels (current Federal Tax rates are the lowest they have been in more than 50 years).

Obamacare, the biggest piece of legislation Obama got through, seems to have moderated health care costs, which have been the single biggest out-of-control component of government spending for decades (and what did Republican's, who are heavily funded by the Health care Industry do about it when they were in power? Answer: Nothing at all!)

If the Republicans do gain control of the government this Fall, I expect the following will happen:

1. Taxes on the rich, already at historic lows, will go down.

2. Taxes on the poor and on the middle class, will go up.

3. Federal deficits will rise dramatically, as they have under every Republican Administration since World War II.

4. Obama-care will get repealed, leading to huge increases in health care costs, and hundreds of unnecessary deaths every day to US citizens who can't get affordable health coverage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
This isn't entirely fair. From the 110th Congress (2007-2009), Bush didn't have control of either the House or the Senate, and it was under this Congress that the economy tanked. So, while yes, everything did go south on Bush's watch, it's not fair to shoulder all the blame on him and the Republicans.

On the other side of the coin, Obama had complete control of the 111th (2009-2011), and instead of fixing the economy and making heroes out of the Democrats, took the opportunity to push his health care agenda. At the time, polls indicated jobs and the economy were the most important issues to Americans, yet nothing more than a good-will gesture was done. Yes, we are better off than Europe at the moment, but we're still not where we should be. You can blame the Republicans being uncooperative till you're blue in the face, but the Democrats had the super majority; they were in control.

---

Please read your history. The housing bubble broke in 2006, and by that time virtually all the sub-prime mortgages and credit-default swaps had already been issued. By early 2007 housing was crashing, and by later in 2007 the stock market and job market followed suit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
This statement shows just how little you know about the US Economy, and how little you know about US politics at a national level. You should really do more research before spitting out Republican talking points. If you did, you might understand how silly some of them are.

---

And you come on here with your far left wing talking points calling people names. You are the reason why there can't be any discussion on here. Fact, Reagan worked with a full Democratic Congress to get the economy moving, from a worse position than now, by the end of his first term. Fact Clinton worked with a Republican House to lead us to a thriving economy in the late nineties.

Even after losing control of the Congress, it is on the President to set the country's agenda and work with the other party to compromise for the good of the country. Your name calling on here is what is happening in Washington and why this country is going down the tubes. Obama is all about division, he has done nothing but try to tear this country apart. His belief is to win by divide and conquor. You reap what you sow, Obama has sown nothing but hate towards his opposition and he has recieved it in return. Both parties are to blame. I know that you as a liberal are blinded by your bias and can't see it, but it's true.

You can post all your jiberish and one sided arguements, but that doesn't change the facts. This country faces what is probably it's most important crisis since the 1930s on Jan 1. Obama is like Nero, fiddling while Rome burned and then blaming everything on someone else. He has done nothing so far to avoid the impending disaster. If he is reelected, he will be dealing with a fully Republican Congress and be in a much weaker position than now. If reelected, Obama's lack of leadership will continue to drag this country down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
[B]Obamacare, the biggest piece of legislation Obama got through, seems to have moderated health care costs, which have been the single biggest out-of-control component of government spending for decades [B]

---

You lose all credibility when you post crap like this. It just shows how biased you truly are.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rats60:
And you come on here with your far left wing talking points calling people names.

> Does not address his argument.

You are the reason why there can't be any discussion on here.

> Ad hominem.

Fact, Reagan worked with a full Democratic Congress to get the economy moving, from a worse position than now, by the end of his first term.

> Because the facts are exactly the same as in the '80s? Because the republicans haven't spent the last few years stonewalling every single policy Obama has tried to pass, going as far as the disgraceful debt ceiling thing last year?

Fact Clinton worked with a Republican House to lead us to a thriving economy in the late nineties.

> No relevance.

Even after losing control of the Congress, it is on the President to set the country's agenda and work with the other party to compromise for the good of the country.

> If the house won't work with you, there's nothing you can do.

Your name calling on here is what is happening in Washington and why this country is going down the tubes.

> Ad hominem.

Obama is all about division, he has done nothing but try to tear this country apart. His belief is to win by divide and conquor.

> Overgeneralization, no facts to back it up. Obama was reconciliatory for years to no effect. You can't be friends with somebody determined to make you fail.

You reap what you sow, Obama has sown nothing but hate towards his opposition and he has recieved it in return.

> Incorrect. Prove it.

Both parties are to blame. I know that you as a liberal are blinded by your bias and can't see it, but it's true.

> Unfunded wars in two countries, huge tax cut for the rich, huge cuts to social programs for working and middle classes. These are all things that clearly Obama did and the Republicans did not do.

You can post all your jiberish and one sided arguements, but that doesn't change the facts.

> You have yet to say a single fact. Also, ad hominem. And you spelled "gibberish" wrong.

This country faces what is probably it's most important crisis since the 1930s on Jan 1.

> Incorrect. An economic crisis is, I think, rather less dire than world war 2 or the Cuban missile crisis.

Obama is like Nero, fiddling while Rome burned and then blaming everything on someone else.

> Incorrect. Obama has tried a lot of things, the republicans have blocked most of them.

He has done nothing so far to avoid the impending disaster.

> Yes, he certainly hasn't attempted to pass job creation bills, funding for infrastructure, closing of tax loopholes, health care reform, and any number of other problems.

If he is reelected, he will be dealing with a fully Republican Congress and be in a much weaker position than now.

> Doubt it. He already has to deal with uncooperative republicans. How would this change anything? Also, there is no guarantee that the Republicans are going to emerge stronger with their disgraceful last few years showing.

If reelected, Obama's lack of leadership will continue to drag this country down.

> You haven't even given a single example of lack of leadership. I mean, I could just assert that the country is being dragged down by the Republicans and it would be the same as what you just said. I'm pretty sure the biggest problem facing the US today is Scalia and Thomas, idiocy like Citizen's United, the fact that the country runs on a constitution last updated in the 18th century, that parties need to win three elections before they can promulgate meaningful policy.

You lose all credibility when you post crap like this. It just shows how biased you truly are.

> You haven't really done anything aside from parroting republican talking points. Obamacare was developed in part by Republicans, who only decided it was bad when Obama adopted it. How is it "crap" to say that Obamacare has salutary effects? The numbers are there that certain costs have decreased or have increased less under the new regime. US government health care spending IS out of control. You don't need to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. Or allege bias (bias is assumed in political arguments! This isn't a classroom) You sound like a grasping imbecile if you attack assertions which are both neutral and largely true. Attack arguments only when you think you can prove them wrong. It's like trying to attack an assertion that 1 + 1 is 2. Properly attacking an argument (especially when you use words like "crap", "lose all credibility" and "biased") requires proof from a neutral source (aka not Fox News), or a strong refutation by a reliable source (aka not Fox News) of some pre-asserted facts. Oh, and using ad hominem doesn't make your argument stronger. Ad hominem only really works when you're preaching to the converted, which is why it's so effective coming from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh.

It is a real shame that this country has become so divided that no one qualified for president wants to run for office.

> Obama is qualified. So was Huntsman, probably, but he didn't have billionaires giving him cashmonies.

We are left with two poor choices, Obama or Romney.

> We are left with the obvious choice, Obama. Romney might be slightly more moderate than the rest of the candidates, but he's very clearly in the pocket of some very rich people and they will come to collect come next year if he is elected. (If you want proof, take a hard look at his somewhat odd behaviour in Europe, particularly in Israel, then compare to his known billionaire backers).

This thread is a microcosm of our political system where if you deviate from the talking points, you are attacked with hatred by hammr7 and friends.

> Um, actually, you are sticking to the talking points, and you're likely to get attacked for it. This sentence makes no sense.

Go ahead and continue spewing your hate as the country continues to suffer. Your selfishness is truly sad.

> Having an informed and/or centrist/leftist opinion is selfish? Show me one place he used "hate".

Which is why Republicans like Olympia Snow are no longer running. She has been consistent in her views, and has been a credit to our country, but the Republican Party now shuns her. Republicans talk about the good old days of Reagan (who I strongly supported). Reagan couldn't get the time of day with the current Republican powers that be.

The reason Obamacare took so long and is so watered down is because Democrats tried to work with Republicans. Most of the fundamental tenets of Obamacare were introduced by Republicans. But as Mitch McConnell stated early in Obama's presidency, the prime directive of Republicans was to make Obama a one-term president.

Democrats are always willing to compromise for the good of the Nation. For Republicans that is no longer the case. That, and the lies the Party is willing to accommodate (the entire birther thing) is what drove me from the Party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
I am a moderate, and have always been so. I used to be welcomed in the Republican Party. I have been consistent in my viewpoint for decades. It is the Republican Party, not me, that has changed.

Which is why Republicans like Olympia Snow are no longer running. She has been consistent in her views, and has been a credit to our country, but the Republican Party now shuns her. Republicans talk about the good old days of Reagan (who I strongly supported). Reagan couldn't get the time of day with the current Republican powers that be.

The reason Obamacare took so long and is so watered down is because Democrats tried to work with Republicans. Most of the fundamental tenets of Obamacare were introduced by Republicans. But as Mitch McConnell stated early in Obama's presidency, the prime directive of Republicans was to make Obama a one-term president.

Democrats are always willing to compromise for the good of the Nation. For Republicans that is no longer the case. That, and the lies the Party is willing to accommodate (the entire birther thing) is what drove me from the Party.

When I challenge something in this blog, I back it with facts. If you disagree with me, show where I am wrong with facts. Anything less won't work.

---

No you post bias and hatred, not just facts. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who starts out his post with a personal attack. I could seprate your facts from your bias, but it would be a waste of time. All you want to do is blame one side when both are equal to blame. Like I said, go ahead with your hate. This countries fate is on you and your kind. You can post all you want that you are moderate, were a Republican, ect., but it is a lie. Your posts portray you for what you really are. I only debate with reasonable people. I've been on MOTL long enough to know that you are your buddies are not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:
No you post bias and hatred, not just facts. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who starts out his post with a personal attack.

---

Why dont you point out ANY of this bias/hate/personal attack instead of just repeatedly stating it hoping it becomes true?

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

[16:17] <@BrassMan> what do you need new tech for?
[16:18] <@BrassMan> gush is unrestricted

1.) Volcanon is nothing like a far-leftie. IMO I'm much further left than he is, and I'm hardly a far-leftie either. Whatever our position on the spectrum may be, neither one of us (hammr7 too, come to think of it) is a crazy.

2.) From the standpoint of someone not actually living in your country (and therefore consuming far less American media coverage), it seems perfectly false to me to say that Obama somehow ushered in a wave of vitriol against Republicans. Sure, Republicans were pretty widely disparaged back in 2008--directly as a result of their disastrous (even ludicrous) foreign and domestic policies of the last eight years. And it looks to me like Obama was immediately dragged through way more mud than anything "conservatives" had to wade through. I mean, come on: at least two conspiracy theories (viz., he's a Muslim and he wasn't born in America) have 1.) received ridiculous amounts of support and primetime coverage--they're being taken seriously, for cripe's sake! and 2.) have yet to disappear from the mainstream four years later. What's more, I've seen Obama extend any number olive branches to the Republicans a number of times these last four years, and I've seen the Republicans empty their chamber pots all over the place in return. Cooperation doesn't mean blocking everything unless it's all done your way, and it certainly doesn't mean trashing the place.

I'm not so fond of Obama, but Republicans or conservatives (or whatever you want to call yourselves) really need to grow up, stop playing the victim, and start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. It's really, really old at this point. You already own the media; there's no media-led liberal conspiracy against you. Nor is there a liberal-led media conspiracy against you.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
Why dont you point out ANY of this bias/hate/personal attack instead of just repeatedly stating it hoping it becomes true?

---

Are you really that blind? I point out the simple fact that Obama and the Democrats controled the White House and Congress with a super majority for two years and hammr7 starts his response with a personal attack against me. Why would I even bother to argue with such a hateful, biased person as that? Why would I even read the rest of his post? For 8 years he has done nothing but spew hatred against one party on these boards.

Edit: Even with congress turned against you, as the president you have an obligation to make things happen even if they aren't exactly what you want. If congress is against you, you need to make some concessions to get some stuff done. Not that I am for or against anyone currently, but blaming congress for all of this mess is idiotic. Obama certainly deserves some blame.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

I also pointed out that Republicans have become experts at obstructionism. Which makes attempts by Democrats to find compromise exercises in futility.

There is a good article which reflects my views regarding the parties, that can be read at:

http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/05/tit-without-tat/

I would love to hear facts that counter this interpretation, but I understand from your earlier post that supplying facts is something you don't normally do.

I don't post from hatred. My decisions are based upon a huge amount or research. And they are based upon a huge amount of personal experience. Most of all, they are based upon facts. I am fighting for the Moderate Republican, which in most areas of the country is now extinct.

I should be a Republican. I'm not in the top 1%, but I do very well financially. I am a financial conservative, but to me that means balanced budgets and everyone paying their fair share, rather than the richest gaming the system (which I think is the current state of affairs) and me attempting to emulate them.

I think those of us who make more should give back a bit more. Unlike Romney, last year I paid ~ 30% of my income in Federal Taxes. If everyone who made my money paid my rate most of the deficit would go away.

I would like to see most tax loopholes eliminated, including popular loopholes like the mortgage interest deduction, and I would like to see most forms of passive income taxed at the same rate as earned income. Many of my other tax policy ideas have already been posted on this site.

I believe every American has a right to reasonable cost health insurance. I don't think this insurance should be tied to your job. And I firmly believe that if the health industry is going to rip you off or outright exclude you from coverage, then it is a perfect responsibility of the government to supply coverage. Because I don't see the law ever allowing hospitals to not treat people in need, and taxpayers will always pick up the tab for many, including many who could pay.

I have little tolerance for those who hide in a political bubble and are unwilling to seek the truth from all sides. And I have no tolerance for those who blindly spout "talking points". So if you are a "birther" you have lost credibility with me. If you think that taxes are higher under Obama than they were under Bush you have lost credibility with me. Because the facts speak differently. These positions are popular with those who hate Obama and are looking for excuses to justify their hate. They are also popular with those who get spoon-fed their political beliefs. I don't always agree with Obama, but I keep my criticism focused on the truth.

By training and background I am a scientist, and I am stunned by the way the Republican Party has politicized science over the last decade. When Bush was president, government scientist, friends of mine, were stymied and later banned from talking about the results of their scientific investigations. They had to have their results filtered for political correctness. Scientific statements had to be made by political hacks (about as sane a policy as choosing our Iraq nation-building team based upon whether they were anti-abortion, which led to 20,000 Americans in Baghdad, with only a few hundred familiar with Arabic Society and only a handful fluent in Arabic).

For example, the Republican Party has decided, unilaterally, that climate change (not global warming, but watered down climate change) doesn't exist, and that somehow all the weird weather of the last decade is simply some sort of natural oscillation. There used to be big-name Republicans who agreed that something had majorly disrupted historical climate norms. But they had to shut up or lose political relevance in the Republican Party.

I'm sorry, but I believe in an open discussion of problems rather than censorship in the name of political expediency or correctness. But Rush decided there is no climate change so the whole party has to agree. And given the amount of campaign financing Republicans get from the fossil fuel industry, I've since assumed this was a "quid pro quo". Good for the Republican Party and its politicians, not necessarily good for the country.

So now many coastal cities in Red States have problems. Sea levels are rising, and many coastal areas need major enhancements to infrastructure to handle the rising sea level. But the cities are not allowed to complain, because it will make "climate change" seem possible, and "global warming" seem plausible. Republicans at the state level have passed laws making it impossible (and illegal) for city leaders and civil defense managers to even consider that the rise in sea level might accelerate over the next century.

I am a problem solver, and seek both the best information and compromise when dealing with competing interests. That used to be the mantra of both Democrats and Republicans. If finding the best solution, and compromise (when possible) makes me a hater and a radical, I'm guilty as charged.

You claim the Republican Party is all about compromise with Democrats, and specifically with Obama. Can you give me any recent examples of merit?

All I see from the Republican Party these days is obstruction. They have claimed as much (but not on Fox News). How many of Obama's numerous appointees have been confirmed? Better yet, why are there record amounts of appointees that are being held up by Republicans? Some of these appointees have been held up since Obama took office. Check the record.

In the past, Democrats approved Republican appointees, but the opposite isn't true. By any historical comparison, these hold-ups are at record levels. If Republicans take control, should the Democrats resort to the same obstructionist tactics?

And then there are the filibusters, Nothing says obstructionism more than the filibuster. And again, Republicans are filing them at record levels.

I'm more than willing to listen to, and debate, an informed response. Calling me names won't cut it. Being ignorant of the facts won't either. You want to claim Obama is a do nothing, then show an understanding of how government works, and show where Republican initiatives to make jobs and stimulate the economy were rebuffed. Show me where compromises (like the one between Obama and John Boehner, where Boehner got "98% of what he wanted") weren't killed by his own party once they were actually proposed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:
Are you really that blind? I point out the simple fact that Obama and the Democrats controled the White House and Congress with a super majority for two years and hammr7 starts his response with a personal attack against me. Why would I even bother to argue with such a hateful, biased person as that? Why would I even read the rest of his post? For 8 years he has done nothing but spew hatred against one party on these boards.

---

lolwut

No, seriously, wut

I want a good debate, supported by facts. Some of them can't find facts, so get frustrated with me. I keep hoping they will rise to the occasion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneofchaos:
@ Hammr who are you talking too?

@ The rest - somebody please supply me some significant reasoning that a flat tax will not work on America?

---

hammr is still talking to rats.

I dont think a flat tax would work anywhere tbh. For any individual in the US making 25k (nearly double the federal Min Wage), and any household under 40k/year, paying 25% as tax leaves you in a pretty miserable state. Even at double those income levels ($25/hour for the individual), you're left with 38k individual/60k family. However, the guy making 1m/year, sure, paying 250k in taxes is a LOT, but he still has 750k left with which to 'live comfortably'.

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

[16:17] <@BrassMan> what do you need new tech for?
[16:18] <@BrassMan> gush is unrestricted

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneofchaos:
@ The rest - somebody please supply me some significant reasoning that a flat tax will not work on America?

---

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+won%27t+a+flat+tax+work%3F

I suppose I'd vote NDP in the next election if my vote mattered (I'm in Bob Rae's riding - I do vote, but Rae will keep winning until he retires).

I'd call myself a centrist or a pragmatist. I do love me some social programs, and I love me some taxes. Taxes get stuff done that would cost me a hell of a lot more cheaper. Easy example is how much I pay for health insurance (or how much my wife's family pays for it in Japan) over what most Americans pay, if they pay. I don't particularly support more social programs and it's always good to make sure your money is doing what it should, but yeah, I think "libertarians" are at best misguided. For example, I think we should be vomiting money into education in Canada, but that's another discussion.

I hang around with a lot of Conservatives due to going to school with them, and it's somewhat interesting how half of them would be democrats and the other half would be republicans if they were Americans (some are dual citizens). The US is so rightist now it's absurd. Obama is more of a conservative than Harper is, too, which is funny.

Anyway, I do enjoy arguing with conservatives and they do have some good points. But they have to actually make arguments before I can really say anything intelligent or do anything aside from mocking them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
hammr is still talking to rats.

I dont think a flat tax would work anywhere tbh. For any individual in the US making 25k (nearly double the federal Min Wage), and any household under 40k/year, paying 25% as tax leaves you in a pretty miserable state. Even at double those income levels ($25/hour for the individual), you're left with 38k individual/60k family. However, the guy making 1m/year, sure, paying 250k in taxes is a LOT, but he still has 750k left with which to 'live comfortably'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneofchaos:
I remain unconvinced. I'm just trying to get some sort of sound mathematical failure that shows it won't. But I don't it's fair to tax somebody more because they make more. The tax tier system is stupid, way too easy to cheat the system. While a flat tax system is going to have flaws, how do you cheat the system? I'm curious. If everyone has to pay 20%, unless you are below the poverty line how do you avoid it?

---

It's never 20% unless you throw away deductions, inclusions, and other tax planning rules. Which would never happen. I can't be bothered to check, but I assume capital gains are taxed in the US, potentially differently from income.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
It's never 20% unless you throw away deductions, inclusions, and other tax planning rules. Which would never happen. I can't be bothered to check, but I assume capital gains are taxed in the US, potentially differently from income.

It would be better to close loopholes so rich men like Romney pay more tax than a single mother working a crappy job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
It's never 20% unless you throw away deductions, inclusions, and other tax planning rules. Which would never happen. I can't be bothered to check, but I assume capital gains are taxed in the US, potentially differently from income.

It would be better to close loopholes so rich men like Romney pay more tax than a single mother working a crappy job.

---

In the US, active income (actively working for a company or yourself and drawing a paycheck) is taxed at the tiered rates you see in most discussions. It includes things like tips and commissions.

For most individual retirement accounts, you pay in with pre-tax dollars but once you retire and start withdrawing that money it is taxed at active income rates. For pensions and annuities, the amount you get back over what you put in (in after-tax dollars) is considered active income.

Active income is subject to Federal Income Tax. Active Income, except some retirement benefits, is usually also subject to Federal Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes to both the employer and employee (or both to the individual if self-employed). These latter taxes amount to 15.3% of income up to ~$110,000 earned per person, and 2.9% on anything above. Due to one of the remaining stimulus tax cuts, this rate is currently reduced to 13.3% on the first $110,000.

Passive income is income you derive from investments, rather than from work you perform. It is normally taxed at lower or much lower rates than active income. Capital Gains from investments held over 12 months, dividends from
qualified US Stocks, and certain interest payments.

Most passive income is subject to the lower Federal Income Tax rates. For those who would pay 15% on their active income, they pay 10% on passive income. For those who pay higher active income tax rates (25% and higher), they pay 15% on passive income. Passive income is excluded from Federal Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes.

A major problem is that, if you are rich enough, most of your active income can be re-characterized as passive income. This is especially true in financial circles, using exotic financial derivatives and funneling earnings through foreign tax havens.

This has two major benefits for those who qualify. The first benefit is the obvious immediate reduction in taxes. If you earned $1 million as active income, as normal income you would pay ~$300,000 in Federal taxes. As passive income this could drop to $150,000. For each additional $1 million you can modify to passive income, you can save ~ $200,000.

The second benefit deals with investment write-offs. If you have passive losses (your stock portfolio drops) you can write off losses, but only against passive income. So if you earn $1 million in active income, but lose $1 million on paper in your portfolio, you can only write off $3,000 of the loss against income. But if you earn $1 million in passive income, and have a $1 million loss in your portfolio, you can write off the entire loss.

And there are strategies to game these losses. As an example, if you invested money in a "total market" mutual fund in 2007 or earlier, then you had losses in that same fund in 2008 and early 2009, when the stock market tanked. If you expected the stock market to rebound, you could take advantage of the temporary drop in stocks. But only if your future income was passive. You could sell your "total market" mutual fund in 2008 or 2009 and immediately purchase the same amount of a "large cap" mutual fund. The total market and large cap funds are different, so you could lock in a huge passive income tax loss (. But the total market and large cap stock funds are highly correlated. So if the stock market rebounds (as it has) you don't really lose anything. But you get to write off all you passive income taxes for years to come (until you write off all of the paper loss).

There are some very rich, and very savvy, individuals who have been able to play this game virtually their entire life, effectively paying almost no taxes on anything. These are usually the ones who scream the loudest to eliminate the estate taxes.

So if you work a regular job and lose big, you need to just sit on the loss, as you can only deduct $3,000 per year of passive losses against active income. But if you are rich, there are ways to use the loss to get rid of all taxes, sometimes for years to come.

This is exactly what many hedge fund managers have been doing. They have been able to earn billions of dollars in a single year, yet pay only 15% on those annual earnings, and often defer even those tax payments into the future.

Mitt Romney has also used at least some of these tricks. In his one released tax return, he had no active income and he paid ~15% in total Federal taxes, and no Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid taxes.

Given the very careful wording to describe the tax returns Mitt Romney won't release, the concern among Republicans I know is that he can't release his earlier returns, because they may show that he adjusted his portfolio in 2007 and 2008 so that he paid little or no federal taxes in those years, and perhaps into 2009 as well.

The part that makes me the angriest is the bitter knowledge that it's STILL not going to lead to a change in gun control laws.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:
I could seprate your facts from your bias, but it would be a waste of time.

---

No you can't.

EDIT:

While I do agree with people who say that the Republicans are blocking and trying to do what they can to stop any of Obama's agenda, I think towards the end of this term something else might be happening. I'd like to just point out that I have by no means gone through any of these documents with a fine toothed comb, but to me it seems like they're sending things to the Republican Congress that they know will never pass, and should never pass.

We know that the Reps don't want to pass any of this stuff Obama is working for, but I think at some point you gotta play a bit of politics. I'm always seeing some sort of news headline like "Republican house denies fire-fighters government grants, and police and whateverthecrap else". Seems that they're sending bills that just shouldn't pass, and having them involve fire, police and hospital employees just so they can say "Look what you **** canned." during this year's election. Hardly anyone will go back and read these, and say "Wow these are all awful, even if they support fire, police, etc." They'll just see that those people "got screwed".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
The part that makes me the angriest is the bitter knowledge that it's STILL not going to lead to a change in gun control laws.

---

Because it doesn't matter. Cocaine is illegal and, never having bought or used drugs before, I'm fairly sure I could find some within a day or two. Want to just make the fully auto guns illegal? I'm sure you could do quite a bit of damage w/ a semi automatic or even just a standard rifle. Beyond that, there are kits and guides to turn semi auto into fully auto readily available on the internet.