Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Apr 14, 2011 12:06:18 GMT -5
Also FWIW, I am in the cross hairs of Ryan's means testing of Medicare and it sure feels like you just increased my taxes for nothing back to me. I assume then, that you would have no problems with calling cuts to Medicaid a tax increase on the poor?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 14, 2011 12:07:48 GMT -5
Also FWIW, I am in the cross hairs of Ryan's means testing of Medicare and it sure feels like you just increased my taxes for nothing back to me. I assume then, that you would have no problems with calling cuts to Medicaid a tax increase on the poor? I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe Obama could create yet another commission to try and answer it.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Apr 14, 2011 13:58:50 GMT -5
Also FWIW, I am in the cross hairs of Ryan's means testing of Medicare and it sure feels like you just increased my taxes for nothing back to me. I assume then, that you would have no problems with calling cuts to Medicaid a tax increase on the poor? Depends on whether it is a real cut or just the Prez's "we'll cut waste and abuse" ;D
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 14, 2011 15:34:47 GMT -5
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Apr 15, 2011 9:31:39 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 15, 2011 10:10:08 GMT -5
Why is the only thing defined as "courageous" have to be a tax increase? Well, mostly because Republicans disapprove of tax increases and it would be courageous of a Republican to suggest something that unpopular but necessary. Cuts to Medicare which don't hit anyone on Medicare or anyone who will be on Medicare in the next ten years aren't courageous - it's just a brazen political maneuver to shut down the program - not a deficit plan. Why is it necessary? Even the Prez's first commission suggested bringing down tax rates. I thought Krauthammer did a good explanation: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-grand-compromise/2011/04/14/AFrSmKfD_story.html
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 19, 2011 11:16:51 GMT -5
The notoriously conservative Wall St. Journal somehow allowed a realistic analysis of Paul Ryan's Republican Budget proposal to appear on it's OpEd page. One of the column's key points notes that the $4.3 Trillion in genuine savings Ryan proposes are offset by $4.2 Trillion in tax breaks, overwhelmingly benefiting the wealthy. Ergo, the spending cuts are being used to provide still more tax breaks for the wealthy rather than addressing the Deficit as it claims. And Ryan has the chutzpah to call Obama's budget talk last week "partisan". Of course, the plan also eviscerates Medicare and Medicade. Paul Ryan's Reverse Robin Hood Budget - WSJExcerpts The plan threatens to eviscerate Medicare by privatizing it—with vouchers that, absent some sort of cost-control miracle, would fall further and further behind the rising cost of health insurance. And to make that miracle even less likely, House Republicans want to repeal every cost-containment measure enacted in last year's health-reform legislation.
Medicare would not die a sudden death under the Ryan plan—people over 55 are grandfathered. It would, instead, succumb slowly to a debilitating illness as the growing gap between the vouchers and the cost of private health insurance priced more and more seniors out of the market.
Then there's Medicaid, which is a lifeline for the poor. House Republicans want to turn it into a block grant, underfund it, and let the 50 states figure it out.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, about two-thirds of Mr. Ryan's so-called courageous budget cuts would come from programs serving low- and moderate-income Americans, while the rich would gain from copious tax cuts.
This reverse-Robin Hood redistribution is bad enough in the abstract. Coming on the heels of 30-plus years of rising inequality, it is breathtakingly mean-spirited. But was such class warfare necessary to make the budget numbers work? Absolutely not. Both President Obama's plan and the Bowles-Simpson plan achieve comparable deficit reduction without further gilding the New Gilded Age.
How many Americans know that 72% of Mr. Ryan's claimed budget cuts would go to fund tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich?
Actually, it's much worse. Astute budget analysts noticed two errors in the $5.8 trillion number. First, Mr. Ryan's staff made a miscalculation, which overstated interest savings by $200 billion. Second, $1.3 trillion of the advertised savings come from dropping the (silly) assumption that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will go on forever at current spending rates, rather than phasing down in accord with current policy. The total overstatement of $1.5 trillion leaves just $4.3 trillion in genuine savings over 10 years—barely enough to cover the tax cuts.
The Ryan plan has received vastly too much praise from people who should know better. For a while, it was even celebrated as "the only game in town," which it never was. It was preceded by both the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin plans, which are vastly superior in every respect. Within days of Mr. Ryan's announcement, President Obama chimed in with his own ideas on deficit reduction—another huge improvement over the Ryan plan. Now we await the Senate Gang of Six's entry.
No, the House Republican plan is not the only game in town. It's only the worst.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 19, 2011 13:39:44 GMT -5
Alan S. Blinder is not from the notoriously conservative Wall Street Journal but a professor at Princeton University and former member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors. The Journal merely published his article, just as the Washington Post publishes articles from the likes of George Will and Charles Krauthammer.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 20, 2011 0:49:42 GMT -5
Alan S. Blinder is a regular columnist for the WSJ, according to his faculty website. For what it is worth, he is also a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, against which I believe the conservative movement has issued a fatwa.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 20, 2011 9:09:35 GMT -5
Alan S. Blinder is a regular columnist for the WSJ, according to his faculty website. For what it is worth, he is also a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, against which I believe the conservative movement has issued a fatwa. Oh my GOD!! How did he sneak into the pages of that disreputable, vile WSJ??? There must be a secret fifth column in the bowels of Rupert Murdoch's slave operation that told the editors they found a lost William F. Buckley column -- an ode to Barry Goldwater and Joseph McCarthy -- and then substituted this text in at the last minute on press!! I wonder how many Bothans died so that this opinion could get out in public?
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 20, 2011 10:58:04 GMT -5
Let's not get off track, here. The subject of the column remains the important issue. About two-thirds of Ryan's so-called courageous budget cuts would come from programs serving low- and moderate-income Americans, while the rich would gain from copious tax cuts. Clearly, a better solution exists than this B.S.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 20, 2011 11:13:41 GMT -5
Let's not get off track, here. The subject of the column remains the important issue. About two-thirds of Ryan's so-called courageous budget cuts would come from programs serving low- and moderate-income Americans, while the rich would gain from copious tax cuts. Clearly, a better solution exists than this B.S. Copious tax cuts. Yes, how could Obama's own commission* propose such a horrible idea. * I'm referring to Obama's first commission on the budget, not the second commission, or any future commissions he may propose.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 20, 2011 11:17:52 GMT -5
Let's not get off track, here. The subject of the column remains the important issue. About two-thirds of Ryan's so-called courageous budget cuts would come from programs serving low- and moderate-income Americans, while the rich would gain from copious tax cuts. Clearly, a better solution exists than this B.S. You realize it was an opinion piece, right? You state these things as though they are undisputed facts. They are not.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 20, 2011 12:16:22 GMT -5
Most recent information I can find is for 2008 where the top 1% of income tax filers paid 38% of the total personal income tax. Top 5%, 58.72%. Bottom 50%, 2.7%. Also read that 45% don't pay any income tax. So, what does Obama want to do? Tax the top people more. Now I realize these figures are only income tax, not total taxes but, as long as almost half are paying no income tax, they don't care if income taxes go up since they're not paying their fair share, to coin a phrase. www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Apr 20, 2011 13:00:46 GMT -5
Most recent information I can find is for 2008 where the top 1% of income tax filers paid 38% of the total personal income tax. Top 5%, 58.72%. Bottom 50%, 2.7%. Also read that 45% don't pay any income tax. So, what does Obama want to do? Tax the top people more. Now I realize these figures are only income tax, not total taxes but, as long as almost half are paying no income tax, they don't care if income taxes go up since they're not paying their fair share, to coin a phrase. www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlDoes anyone have a breakdown of who actually fits into that 45% who doesn't pay federal tax? I have a suspicion a large sum of that is teenagers/college students working part-time, poor single mothers, people on disability, and the elderly. I don't understand how that portion of the population needs to give more. On edit: Personally, my preferred federal tax would be a flat tax, but all income up to the the poverty line (adjusted by family size and zip code) would be exempt.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Apr 20, 2011 13:49:01 GMT -5
Copious tax cuts. Yes, how could Obama's own commission* propose such a horrible idea. * I'm referring to Obama's first commission on the budget, not the second commission, or any future commissions he may propose. You mean the Bowles-Simpson, where Republicans came in and said they would not agree to anything that didn't include copious tax cuts? How is that proving anything?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 20, 2011 14:05:55 GMT -5
Copious tax cuts. Yes, how could Obama's own commission* propose such a horrible idea. * I'm referring to Obama's first commission on the budget, not the second commission, or any future commissions he may propose. You mean the Bowles-Simpson, where Republicans came in and said they would not agree to anything that didn't include copious tax cuts? How is that proving anything? Then don't act like this is a GOP idea when the commission proposed essentially the same thing. (Not talking about you personally). Has anyone looked in the evidence locker at the Lexington office of the US Marshals? Maybe we could find enough cash in there to make a dent in the national debt.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Apr 20, 2011 20:50:42 GMT -5
Does anyone have a breakdown of who actually fits into that 45% who doesn't pay federal tax? I have a suspicion a large sum of that is teenagers/college students working part-time, poor single mothers, people on disability, and the elderly. I don't understand how that portion of the population needs to give more. On edit: Personally, my preferred federal tax would be a flat tax, but all income up to the the poverty line (adjusted by family size and zip code) would be exempt. There are plenty of upper middle class people who aren't paying any income taxes either, coughMcleancoughPotomaccough. This chart appeared on cnn.com the other day: www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 21, 2011 9:02:38 GMT -5
You mean the Bowles-Simpson, where Republicans came in and said they would not agree to anything that didn't include copious tax cuts? How is that proving anything? Then don't act like this is a GOP idea when the commission proposed essentially the same thing. Good point KC. Yes, both Simpson-Bowles and Paul Ryan included reforms to the Tax Code.. therefore they are exactly the same, right? Unless, of course, you consider that Ryan's "reforms" result in $4.2 TRILLION of REDUCED revenues for the government, thereby exacerbating the national debt crisis, while the Simpson Bowles Tax reforms result in over $1 TRILLION of INCREASED revenues.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 21, 2011 9:13:20 GMT -5
Alan S. Blinder is not from the notoriously conservative Wall Street Journal but a professor at Princeton University and former member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors. The Journal merely published his article, just as the Washington Post publishes articles from the likes of George Will and Charles Krauthammer. Blinder is a also a former Vice Chairman of the Fed, and one of the most highly respected economists in the world. FYI: The Economics Department at Princeton is, arguably at least, regarded as the #1 such department. And, if you were attempting to suggest we should minimize his views because he was a member of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, what's wrong with that? During Clinton's 8 years, the economy added 22 million jobs, enjoyed outstanding growth, and resulted in the first US Budget Surpluses in Decades - a feat previously considered to be unthinkable - especially after Reagan and Bush 1 ran up unprecedented (in peace time) and extraordinary deficits. Compare that to the the Bush/Cheney ("deficitis don't matter") admin which incurred the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the 8 million jobs lost. Given the choice -- on objective terms of actual economic performance -- would the rational man choose Republican Economic policy?
|
|