Danivon, my point is to have the 20% of of every government budget, and a 20% across the board increase of taxes because the two sides cannot come to agreement. My recommendation of the 20% is to hurt enough that it will be disdainful enough to actually cooperate.

Apparently that cannot be done in politics today.

Since I blame both Rs and Ds for this problem, I want both sides to pony up what they will offer, not what the other side has to give.

Boehner has offered the tax increase. What have the Ds offered? (what has the President offered?) I am sick of rhetoric. I want action. That is why I have suggested two courses for the deal. The 20/20 plan, or give the Dems everything, and abstain, as Republicans, and let the chips fall where they may.

geojanes wrote:

georgeatkins wrote:I would bet that somebody with $100K on the line goes through as much stress and anxiety as anybody working a factory line. Maybe more. I would bet that the investor would also, as a general rule, has put in a lot of research before putting down that hunk of dough.

I completely disagree. It's a lot easier on the body and less stressful to be an investor than a factory worker, except for maybe a few months in 2008, and even then it was easier on the body. In fact, being an investor may be the world's easiest job.

I don't think so. You're just being argumentative! Sure, you can wreck your body in really bad workplaces, but people who depend upon their minds have their own types of breakdowns that are just as traumatic and long term. People who are not in the practice of using their minds often don't consider things like that, which may account for why intelligence is often suspect and smart people are often treated as freaks.

When I was an active investor (as opposed to an inactive retirement fund investor), I spent loads of time pouring over information, newspapers, books, etc. I didn't just dump money into a fund and wait for the good times to roll in. And if you were a really rich person, you aren't going to just read the latest copy of Forbes and plunk down a few millions into a company or investment strategy without a lot more digging! In any event, your premise seems to be based on the assumption that physical labor is more worthwhile or serious than mental labor. I think lots of educators and scientists (for example) would disagree with that.

On the other hand, maybe investing IS easy if you are investing the money of OTHER people. Congressmen seem to have no problems spending other people's money, after all.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Someone told me Buffett hasn't paid taxes in ten years.

Well then it must be true. I assume this 'someone' had evidence that helped to convince you?

Hey, it was good enough for the Senate Majority Leader, so it's good enough for me! Evidence is so overrated.

That he does not voluntarily pay extra taxes doesn't invalidate what he says

.

Then he should stop whining about his secretary paying more than he does and just call for a general increase in taxes. His hypocrisy comes in suggesting others should pay more when the only "problem" he lists is one he could remedy on his own.

Two points:

1. I agree with some commentators: the GOP should abstain and let Obama and the Democrats jack up rates as much as they want. It's their "solution." When the economy craters, Obama and his fawning acolytes won't be able to use the "obstruction" bogeyman.

2. I have zero personal stake in the tax rates. I simply don't believe that raising them will solve anything. What it will do, as it always has, is embolden Democrats to spend even more.

On a side note: it's funny to think of 90% tax rates. California just passed an 11% income tax rate on those making $250K or more.

So, with an 11% State rate, I think rich Californians will soon qualify for EITC. 101% has to hurt them a bit, yes?

bbauska wrote:Danivon, my point is to have the 20% of of every government budget, and a 20% across the board increase of taxes because the two sides cannot come to agreement. My recommendation of the 20% is to hurt enough that it will be disdainful enough to actually cooperate.

Apparently that cannot be done in politics today.

I'm not interested in the politics of it, so much as the economics. That was the point I was making, and which you've ignored, because it doesn't suit a simplistic solution.

Since I blame both Rs and Ds for this problem, I want both sides to pony up what they will offer, not what the other side has to give.

Well, yes that would be good. But it tends not to be a great negotiation tactic to start low and bargain up. By saying what you will offer, you lose any advantage. Anyone who has bought a second hand car knows you don't start off with saying how much you are prepared to pay as top whack.

Boehner has offered the tax increase. What have the Ds offered? (what has the President offered?) I am sick of rhetoric. I want action. That is why I have suggested two courses for the deal. The 20/20 plan, or give the Dems everything, and abstain, as Republicans, and let the chips fall where they may.

What tax increase has Boehner offered?

Boehner urges GOP to continue fighting tax increase

A day before Boehner urged his lawmakers to hold firm, Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla, said he was trying to convince those same House Republicans to back Democratic plans to raise some income taxes in the name of compromise and to avert automatic tax increases that could hit lower-wage workers on Jan. 1.

Boehner said he talked to Cole Wednesday morning.

"I told him I disagreed with him," Boehner said. "You are not going to grow the economy if you raise the top two tax rates. It will hurt the economy."

Republicans have already offered to raise additional tax revenue by ending some deductions closing loopholes in the tax code, Boehner noted.

"We are willing to put revenue on the table as long as we are not raising rates," Boehner said.

If you meant the Cole version of events, seems that Boehner hasn't offered it at all. If you mean tweaking deductibles and keeping rates the same, I can't see that having anything like the necessaryimpact (and it would be nowhere near the 20% across the board increase you talk about).

And the Democrats would say that they have offered spending cuts:

Van Hollen: Dems have compromised on spending cuts

Speaking on CNN’s “Starting Point,” Van Hollen said President Obama had provided a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction as lawmakers look for a solution to avoid the “fiscal cliff” of tax hikes and spending cuts.

“With respect to Medicare and spending cuts, it’s really interesting to hear Sen. McConnell say this, because he knows we adopted over a trillion dollars in cuts over the next 10 years; he also knows the Congressional Budget Office would reduce the deficit,” Van Hollen said, touting Democratic efforts on spending.

“We need to take the balanced mixed approach; the president has actually put that plan on the table; it would be useful if our Republican colleagues, Mitch McConnell, would actually tell the American people what they are talking about,” he added. “You can see the president’s plan — it’s actually on the Internet.”

Both sides do need to move if they are to reach a compromise. However, I can see that there are some clear red lines developing that make this harder. The GOP will not budge on rates of income tax. The Democrats will insist that Welfare from Social Security is not partof the current debt and deficit issue.

But as I say, I'm not arguing for a 'Democrat' plan. I'm saying that a simplistic approach may not work economically. Increasing taxes in the wrong way, or cutting the wrong spending, could hurt the economy. At the end of the day, the best way to narrow the fiscal gap is actually to encourage growth, as that will bring in more tax revenue and reduce the need for spending. That it also happens to mean a more prosperous America would be a welcome side-effect

Danivon,
I do not want a simplistic plan either. I want it well thought out, and balanced, in which ALL people have to pay some of the repair of this issue. Barring the agreement of the two sides of this, I want a draconian, harsh, rapid correction of the debt. Maybe then the people will see that debt is bad, because it come due sooner than later.

Growth will benefit the problem, but lets not count our chickens before they are hatched.

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I do not want a simplistic plan either. I want it well thought out, and balanced, in which ALL people have to pay some of the repair of this issue. Barring the agreement of the two sides of this, I want a draconian, harsh, rapid correction of the debt. Maybe then the people will see that debt is bad, because it come due sooner than later.

Sounds like you are more about having 'fairness' as a principle than 'what works' (and if you can't have 'fairness', well then let's just have chaos!).

Where you are concerned with 'ALL' people having to pay for the repair, surely the overriding principle should be making the repair effective and timely.

Growth will benefit the problem, but lets not count our chickens before they are hatched.

My concern is more that in the rush to fix the deficit, GDP will stop growing. We've had that in the UK, where since the new government came in and started making spending cuts and increasing taxes for all (sales tax, the idiots!), we've had a second recession which is technically over but no-one is sure we won't slip back into a third next year.

Seriously, it's not about counting the chickens, it's about not being so complacent about them you just chuck eggs about.

georgeatkins wrote:When I was an active investor (as opposed to an inactive retirement fund investor), I spent loads of time pouring over information, newspapers, books, etc. I didn't just dump money into a fund and wait for the good times to roll in.

Why exactly was that hard? Learning is exploring, and is for most intellectuals a joy. Kinda like going to school but getting paid for it. Factory work? Yeah, not so much.

georgeatkins wrote:On the other hand, maybe investing IS easy if you are investing the money of OTHER people.

In this case investing might actually be stressful, because you've got a boss, who can fire you if you don't perform and it's a tough business to consistently beat the benchmarks. Still easier than factory work, of course.

The way the American right revere the investor class is just so bizarre to me.

Doctor Fate wrote:2. I have zero personal stake in the tax rates. I simply don't believe that raising them will solve anything. What it will do, as it always has, is embolden Democrats to spend even more.

Surely you mean "government" not "Democrats," right? Republicans have a track record of spending that is at least the equal of Democrats, as you've acknowledged in the past. They just like spending money on different stuff.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:2. I have zero personal stake in the tax rates. I simply don't believe that raising them will solve anything. What it will do, as it always has, is embolden Democrats to spend even more.

Surely you mean "government" not "Democrats," right? Republicans have a track record of spending that is at least the equal of Democrats, as you've acknowledged in the past. They just like spending money on different stuff.

No, I mean "Democrats." We're not in a place where Republicans are either in control or looking to increase spending. We are in a place, as a nation, wherein the Democrats are vowing to increase spending and taxes.

fate

No, I mean "Democrats." We're not in a place where Republicans are either in control or looking to increase spending. We are in a place, as a nation, wherein the Democrats are vowing to increase spending and taxes.

You talking about responsibility?
How did the US get to this "place"?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=205

Effective budgeting means bringing in at least as much revenue as you want to spend....
Since 2008 taxes as a percentage of GDP have been at historicallly low levels.
In 2000 revenues were about 20.6% of GDP and there was concern that the US debt would be paid off in the near furture... really.
But what changed were three things. 1) Large Tax cuts. 2) no resulting economic out put increase resulting in increased revenues from these tax cuts... 3) a couple of wars that weren't paid for, plus continued spending...

Even without the crash of 08, things were headed in the wrong direction.
By continuing to deny that lower taxation was a part of the original problem, and continuing to believe that somehow increased taxation of wealthy people to levels of say 2000 will depress the economy , republicans are contributing to the problem.
Lets add, continuing to support a runaway and unecessary military budget too.

As long as republicans control the House, and can filibuster the Senate, they own the problem. A problem that grew over the last 10 years. That bespeaks ownership too.
And I doubt that Democrats are vowing to increase spending....Are you refering to the mischaracterization of the effects of the health Care act? Or do you have other evidence?

Politically the GOPs intransigence on this issue isn't healthy. According to a CNN poll

Two thirds of those questioned in the poll say that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, with just under one in three saying a deal should only include spending cut

If thats the case, who owns the results of a failure to reach a compromise?

geojanes wrote:Surely you mean "government" not "Democrats," right? Republicans have a track record of spending that is at least the equal of Democrats, as you've acknowledged in the past. They just like spending money on different stuff.

Exactly. This partisan BS, and the right wing posturing on a holier-than-thou idea that they are the ones to cut spending is frankly part of the whole problem. We are expected to completely forget about the large increases in the deficit in the years in which the Republicans were in control of the Presidency and 1 or 2 chambers of Congress.

If the Republicans in Congress are acting like that (and/or if the Democrats are), then you aren't going to get a deal. Just a bunch of name-calling.

You guys need to do something about the 'Government' and quit pretending that the government is not actually made up yourselves.

I have already said that the Dems and Rs are both to blame. Hence I trust neither side to really address the issue. They are both interested in only protecting their own financial "fiefdoms".

Boehner said he wants rates to stay the same, but will consider revenue increases?
What entitlement reduction has Harry Reid put on the table?

This is all too cryptic. Lay the cards on the table, and lets get this done. We are all counting on the "leaders" to quit trying to protect the partisan side that elected them, and just make the cuts/tax increases.

Enough is enough...

RickyP,
If the Republicans abstain and give the Dems everything they want, and the fiscal cliff happens who is at fault?

If the Republicans abstain and give the Dems everything they want, and the fiscal cliff is avoided who gets the credit?

rickyp wrote:fate

No, I mean "Democrats." We're not in a place where Republicans are either in control or looking to increase spending. We are in a place, as a nation, wherein the Democrats are vowing to increase spending and taxes.

You talking about responsibility?
How did the US get to this "place"?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=205

Did I say what you are suggesting I said?

No.

Not even close.

Effective budgeting means bringing in at least as much revenue as you want to spend....

Conversely, planning to spend less than what you will have in revenue. Democrats don't want to hear about that.

danivon wrote:

geojanes wrote:Surely you mean "government" not "Democrats," right? Republicans have a track record of spending that is at least the equal of Democrats, as you've acknowledged in the past. They just like spending money on different stuff.

Exactly. This partisan BS, and the right wing posturing on a holier-than-thou idea that they are the ones to cut spending is frankly part of the whole problem.

Not at all.

There are three ways to go about this and be fair. One is to look at history and take careful note of who was in charge of how many levers of government during times of notable increases. Another would be to look at who created the drivers of our debt.

The third way, my focus, is to look at recent history. Democrats have blocked any kind of Federal budget. We've never had a situation like we have now: three-plus years with no budget.

Ryan's budget passed the House but was derided as too draconian. So, one might expect the Democrats to modify it or get their own budget through the Senate and force compromises. That seems to be the historical practice.

Instead, Democrats in the Senate have done nothing. The President can't get any Democrats to vote for his budgets because they are filled with so much chicanery.

Right now, Democrats are acting like tax increases will solve the problem. Now, their rhetoric may indicate a knowledge of spending cuts being needed, but their actions belie any such statements. They are proposing, as is their wont, cuts tomorrow for tax increases today and modifications to entitlement programs "later."

How out of control are entitlements?

The 8,786,049 workers taking federal disability in September is a net increase of 18,108 from the 8,767,941 workers who took federal disability in August.

Over the past 45 years, the number of American workers taking federal disability payments has increased four-fold relative to the number actually working.

In August 1967, 74,767,000 Americans were working (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and 1,152,861 were taking federal disability insurance (according to the Social Security Administration). That means that at that time there were about 65 Americans working for each worker collecting disability.

In August 2012, 142,101,000 Americans were working and 8,767,941 were on disability–meaning there were only 16.2 people working for each person collecting disability.

That's pretty remarkable.

We are expected to completely forget about the large increases in the deficit in the years in which the Republicans were in control of the Presidency and 1 or 2 chambers of Congress.

Nope, I'll readily blame Bush when he deserves it. However, he's not the issue now.

And, the answer to "Bush spent too much" should not be "therefore, we have a blank check."

If the Republicans in Congress are acting like that (and/or if the Democrats are), then you aren't going to get a deal. Just a bunch of name-calling.

Meanwhile, the President can't even be bothered to participate in negotiations. Hawaii is calling!

You guys need to do something about the 'Government' and quit pretending that the government is not actually made up yourselves.

No, "the government" has grown into an unwieldy leviathan--a threat to our liberties, finances and future. There is nothing democratic about the EPA, the implementation of Obamacare, or any number of dictates coming out of the White House. In fact, the responsibility of citizens is to try and restrain the Administration because it recognizes no bounds on its authority.