Doctor Fate wrote:1. Pardon me for being confused. It's easy to be confused when you so readily take both sides of an issue.

It's not 'taking both sides'. Just because I don't blame Obama for X, does not mean I blame Bush for Y. Please try applying rudimentary logic, rather than your own partisan-based filters, that assume anyone who disagrees with you on something must disagree with you on everything.

2. A fine example of your double-speak: you claimed a recession started on Bush's watch. Now you say it was not officially a recession.

Actually, this started because you claimed that Bush inherited a recession. My first response was to point out that the dip started after he came in. Further checking has shown that it was actually not a national recession, just a slow down based on a recession in a particular sector.

3. I responded in kind. I refuse to prove again what I've already proven, your opinion notwithstanding.

You can't 'prove' it. It's impossible to prove. And my main problem is that you argue against me having already decided what I think, and ignoring what I actually tell you I think. There's little point in you engaging if you apply such bad faith.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:1. Pardon me for being confused. It's easy to be confused when you so readily take both sides of an issue.

It's not 'taking both sides'. Just because I don't blame Obama for X, does not mean I blame Bush for Y. Please try applying rudimentary logic, rather than your own partisan-based filters, that assume anyone who disagrees with you on something must disagree with you on everything.

2. A fine example of your double-speak: you claimed a recession started on Bush's watch. Now you say it was not officially a recession.

Actually, this started because you claimed that Bush inherited a recession. My first response was to point out that the dip started after he came in. Further checking has shown that it was actually not a national recession, just a slow down based on a recession in a particular sector.

Excellent use of the passive voice to avoid admitting error! (Who says I never say anything nice about you?)

This article nicely demonstrates that, no matter how one slices it, a decline in the economy began in the middle of 2000. This academic article argues 2001 was a recession. You can jump through all the hoops you want, but many academics believe a recession began in March 2001 and it is beyond argument that Clinton handed over an economy that was in decline.

3. I responded in kind. I refuse to prove again what I've already proven, your opinion notwithstanding.

You can't 'prove' it. It's impossible to prove. And my main problem is that you argue against me having already decided what I think, and ignoring what I actually tell you I think. There's little point in you engaging if you apply such bad faith.

That is not what I said, if you care to read carefully--in other words, it only reads as you understand it IF you ignore all that I said prior to that one post. If I need to recap every single prior argument before I post so that you can understand it, please do let me know.

The basic substantive point is, however, that the recession[1] that Bush inherited[2] was nowhere as deep as the recession[3] that Obama inherited[4].

[1] which was arguably not a recession, merely a slowdown in growth, which just shows how mild it was.
[2] which still started after he was in post. Yes, a short period, but stating that fact is still not 'blaming' Bush for it.
[3] in case you had forgotten, the worst recession since WWII, and that was well expected before the election.
[4] in that it was already happening when he came in.

Dotcom was a blip (outside the IT sector), where the credit crunch was a fundamental global event.

Please show me which of this is mere 'opinion'.

danivon wrote:The basic substantive point is, however, that the recession[1] that Bush inherited[2] was nowhere as deep as the recession[3] that Obama inherited[4].

[1] which was arguably not a recession, merely a slowdown in growth, which just shows how mild it was.

But, in the context of the gushing, glowing reviews of the Clinton Era of higher taxes, it puts the lie to the myth.

[2] which still started after he was in post. Yes, a short period, but stating that fact is still not 'blaming' Bush for it.

Actually, the downturn began in 2000--as indicated in my links in the post above yours.

[3] in case you had forgotten, the worst recession since WWII, and that was well expected before the election.

True, but what makes this recovery remarkable is its tepid nature. Generally speaking, the deeper the recession, the more vibrant the recovery. Why this recovery has been so much less sharp is important.

[4] in that it was already happening when he came in.

Dotcom was a blip (outside the IT sector), where the credit crunch was a fundamental global event.

Reading this, it seems a bit more than a blip.

Please show me which of this is mere 'opinion'.

I just did.

Why is Sen. Reid objecting to vote on Obama's fiscal cliff plan?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/05/mcconnell_offers_to_vote_on_obamas_fiscal_cliff_plan_reid_objects.html

Maybe the Dems want to drive over the cliff... Any other possibilities?

Back on topic.

I thought it was a small thing that some companies were borrowing money to pay dividends now, so as to avoid higher taxes. Then I saw the WaPo is doing it, and I still thought, "Meh."

However, how about this nugget:

The Washington Post’s dividend payment also stands to benefit those with a significant stake in the company, such as Warren Buffett’s firm Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire is its largest shareholder with an estimated 1.7 million shares, which means it could get a roughly $17 million dividend payment.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 7-16-53-14

So, all the talk about paying higher taxes was . . . just as I thought.

Oh come on. What you're suggesting is patently absurd. Buffet is the world's biggest long-term investor: he's not some day-trader moving in and out of stocks. He reports that his favorite holding period is "forever" and Berkshire has owned WPO since at least the 1970s and probably earlier. It's not like they're giving Berkshire any more dividends, they're just paying their dividend early.

Further, as a corporate investor, Berkshire is taxed as a corporation, and it's unclear how the changes that are coming down the pike are going to impact corporate investors. Finally, Buffett's wealth is mostly in Berkshire and Berkshire, famously, doesn't pay dividends, so this move would not impact him personally at all.

You can argue that Buffett is promoting his portfolio when he goes out and advocates for a rational tax system, but his portfolio can't work without a prosperous America, because it is so concentrated in America. Besides Washington Post, count Coke, IBM, Wells Fargo, US Bancorp, GEICO, Burlington Northern, General Motors, John Deere, Benjamin Moore, Dairy Queen, and Shaw Industries among the more prominent companies Berkshire owns either outright or through large stock holdings. If Buffett is talking his book, he's talking for a prosperous America. The guy is unquestionably the world's most successful capitalist. You should love him, but you don't. What are you? A socialist?

I'm not suggesting anything.

The liberal WaPo endorses Obama. To avoid giving the government its due, the WaPo takes a loan to pay stockholders early.

Buffett's company is the #1 shareholder and beneficiary.

What part of that is untrue?

Doctor Fate wrote:So, all the talk about paying higher taxes was . . . just as I thought.

Nothing. But what did you mean by this? What was your "thought?"

I'll help, George. DF and other conservatives have maintained that since Buffett is advocating that the rich should pay higher taxes he should start with himself. But that is ridiculous because his paying higher taxes will not impact anything , while an overall change in tax policy that taxes the rich higher will have a significant impact. But, anyway, conservatives continue to attack Buffett as not being serious about paying higher taxes when he takes advantage of the current system
I think that is perfectably acceptable for Buffett to advocate that he will pay higher taxes if the rest of the rich are forced to pay higher taxes through changes in tax policy, but be unwilling to do so by himself until changes in tax policy are made. Why don't the Republicans take him up on his offer and raise taxes on the wealthy?
Anyway, it's not a valid attack but DF is continuing that line of attack in the post you questioned

Freeman2 What is the deficit if the tax plan Obama suggested is put effect? Will that solve the debt problem. No, the entitlements MUST be dealt wit as well. To expect taxes raisng without entitlement reform on the table is sophomoric.

Actually, I don't think that entitlement reform should be mixed up with discussions about current deficits. This is negotiation by blackmail, just as the prior negotiations on the debt ceiling were negotiation by blackmail. If changes need to be made to either Medicare or social security then that should be done separately. Probably a bipartisan commission can be appointed that can make recommendations that social security and Medicare stay solvent. Both programs are currently a long-way from insolvency so reforms can be done a slower pace and need not be related to deficit reduction

Indeed, Freeman. Most of welfare is paid for out of Social Security, which is in surplus at the moment (we can talk about future liabilities separately). In fact, reducing 'entitlements' would also lead to a clamour to reduce SS payroll taxes - after all, if you've been paying into the system, why should it be cut just because the government can't balance the books elsewhere?

The real spending that is a drain on the government is stuff like overloaded military spending, agricultural subsidies, boondoggles sponsored by local politicians for favours...

bbauska

Freeman2 What is the deficit if the tax plan Obama suggested is put effect? Will that solve the debt problem. No, the entitlements MUST be dealt wit as well. To expect taxes raising without entitlement reform on the table is sophomoric.

What is a reasonable time to achieve a balanced budget?
Surely you can't expect a balanced budget in 3 or 4 years?
Ryan's plan didn't expect that, even by slashing spending, mostly on "entitlements".
You can't run budget deficits for almost 32 straight years, and fight 3 wars funded by borrowing, and over spend on areas like agricultural subsidies, the military and security... and expect an immediate solution.
On Fareed Zakkaria's show yesterday he referred to the enormous amount of money spent on security in the US. The military and security are two sacred cows in the US. Neither are ever subject to the scrutiny that they deserve. Neither are at levels that would be sustained if they had to be paid for out of current taxation revenues.

As long as republicans cling to the notion that the fiscal problems in the US federal government are all spending, its doubtful a solution can be achieved. And as long as the sacred cows of military, security and agricultural and corporate subsidies are left unscathed no long term solution will be found either.
Current Federal taxes are at 15% of GDP. Current expenditure are at 25%.
If the economy improved, the second percentage would decrease, as the expenditures are fixed. As the economy improved, taxes would stay about the same percentage.
Therefore the gap needs to be addressed with increased rates of taxation on those who can afford it, and spending cut on areas that aren't directly serving the economy.
Social spending, mostly goes to the poor and middle classes and serve to feed the consumer economy. The US is overly dependent on the consumer economy and if the economy is going to improve requires the poor and middle class to continue their spending... So, right now, that's an area that shouldn't be touched.
The demographic problems, that will cause structural problems in these programs do need to be addressed long term. But short term, they are actually part of the solution to getting the economy moving more positively.

freeman2 wrote:Actually, I don't think that entitlement reform should be mixed up with discussions about current deficits. This is negotiation by blackmail, just as the prior negotiations on the debt ceiling were negotiation by blackmail.

Oh, so something like, "I will veto any bill that does not raise taxes on the top 2% to the Cinton-era level" would be "negotiation by blackmail" too?

What is "negotiation?"

I'll give you this if you give me that. I won't give you that, but I might be able to do this.

The President's position has been: I won the election so I get everything I want.

Well, he didn't "win" in the sense that his party does not control Congress. He has to "negotiate," not dictate. He is not Grant at Appomattox and should stop acting like it.

If changes need to be made to either Medicare or social security then that should be done separately.

The only leverage the GOP has is to link them. Many Democrats have indicated they want no changes to entitlements.

Probably a bipartisan commission can be appointed that can make recommendations that social security and Medicare stay solvent. Both programs are currently a long-way from insolvency so reforms can be done a slower pace and need not be related to deficit reduction

Medicare is not "a long way" from insolvency. The closer we get to SS insolvency, the more difficult it becomes to solve the problem. It's not that difficult. The President offered something last year that was about half what is needed. Then he asked for massive tax increases and Boehner refused.

A commission would be just another symbolic gesture and another indication that Obama can only "lead" by fiat and can't bring people with differing opinions together. In other words, he can't lead.