I cannot tell you how much I love this. Facts and Math: the bane of liberalism.
This of course doesn’t take into account such issues as velocity of money, increase stability of banks and increased eagerness to loan, the interest earned on that money not going to the government and the interest saved on the debt..blah, blah, blah…
Tag Archives: economy
I cannot tell you how much I love this. Facts and Math: the bane of liberalism.
Paul Krugman is at it again. After having to make up lies to try and face off against Senator Rand Paul (He claimed the federal workforce is down under Obama…as blatant a lie as you can get…state and local employment is down, federal employment is up, way up) he further shows off his idiocy with a brand new rant of lies and desperation to keep Obama in power.
In “Obstruct and Exploit” he makes the rather farcical claim that the economy is not the fault of the Democrats (the Democrats who control the Senate and refuse to pass the budget) as good people and the Republicans are evil obstructionists.
Actually he makes several bizarre claims…like that Romney is a Keynesian who wants to use military spending to create jobs. Paul, I know you’re a dimwitted hack, but do you know how to listen to speeches or how to read policy papers? Romney is concerned primarily about defense spending because with Chinese expansion in the Pacific, a resurgent al-Qaeda from the Arab Spring, and Putin wanting to reestablish the Soviet Empire you’d have to be as dumb as Ron Paul or Neville Chamberlain to not see that maybe we might need an American military to deal with problems that are obviously coming. The fact that cutting defense would cut jobs merely tangential to the discussion, but true. The goal of Romney’s policies with defense spending are to protect America and Classical Liberalism in general, not to create jobs. But you’d have to actually read his statements to know that.
But let’s actually deal with the heart of his argument. You can’t blame Obama because his ideas have been stopped at every turn (let’s ignore that Obama had a Democratic Congress for two years and only did things that ruined the economy…yes I’m sure Obama would have suddenly come up with good ideas if his party was still in power…). For instance Obama has the American Jobs Act, which Krugman implies would have saved America. (Again let’s ignore that not all of Obama’s Democrats voted for the bill.) As Krugman points out “Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases,” (and let’s ignore the 5.6% tax increase on the wealthy that was in the bill so we can’t call it a tax cut, chalk another lie up to Paul Krugman). I’m personally stunned just at the statement lower taxes and raise spending…cause the raising of our debt even further is a bright idea how Paul? Show me cut taxes and cut spending and cut regulation and then you might have a plan that would work.
But let’s go over the AJA to see what it has in it. That Krugman in his infinite idiocy thinks would work…and for fun let’s compare the points from the Romney plan.
So here are the points of the bill according to the White House web page (and keep in mind this bill may be dead, but these are Obama’s ideas and this is what he will have in a second term so it is relevant even if this bill died).
- Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses:
- A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages
- Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year
So let me get this straight here, further making Social Security unsound is a good thing? Yes I love having more money, and I would love if we were to privatize the whole thing, just paying off on benefits for everyone who is going to be on Social Security in the next 10 years…but that’s not what this is. It’s keeping the same Ponzi scheme but simply making it more insolvent. Good plan genius. You know I like the extra money, and I hate social security…but under this plan it will cost me and future generations more in the long run.
Meanwhile the Romney plan offers real tax cuts that will actually spur growth of business (i.e. job growth) and actually end up putting more money in your pocket. (All points of Romney’s are taken from his 59 point plan and are italicized…Romney has a lot more than that plan…but I’m trying to be fair here and compare one bullet pointed plan to another…if I actually compared substantive proposals of Romney to what passes as substance from Obama it would just be more embarrassing for the President and Krugman)
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the death tax
Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,
flatter rates on a broader base
Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
- Extending 100% expensing into 2012
- Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.
So we’re going to force more banks to make more bad loans (probably to Obama cronies like every other Obama “investment”) and we’re then going to let them write off the investment they made with money that banks were forced to give them (and if every other Obama venture is any indication they’ll be allowed to pocket the money, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven by Obama). And as icing I’m sure Obama will blame the banks again for the effect on the economy.
And instead of regulations designed to help Obama supporters, Romney has real regulation reform in his plan that will help every business.
Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework
Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements
Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy
Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies
Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations
- A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans
Again picking winners and losers, not what the government should be doing. Not improving the economy to actually create more jobs, we’re just going to make it a good call for businesses to fire their existing employees, hire new ones (probably at a lower rate) and a tax write off for it. (Now the good news is most businesses won’t behave in this terrible fashion…except, you know, the kind of bastards who pay off Obama for crony connections).
Screw helping this group or that group, Romney has the reform that will kill the single biggest killer of jobs there is:
- Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
- Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.
Yeah that’s it, we need the federal government getting involved in local and state matters. Oh, and given the spectacular behavior of teachers in Chicago, getting an average of $76,000 a year (before benefits) to get 80% of students to learn nothing…it’s clear that what the education system needs is new facilities and keeping all the current teachers…and not, you know fire all the union pieces of shit who offend the very profession of teaching by daring to call their pathetic behavior teaching.
You really want to help workers and really want to get better hiring practices for not only government but all employees try these points from the Romney plan:
Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit
Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election
Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month
Or maybe let states deal with their own problems.
Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds
- Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank
Oh great because the Fed wasn’t enough, you need a new bank to fund your own bad behavior even more.
You can talk infrastructure build up…or you can reduce the regulations that prevent the private sector from building that infrastructure, like in the Romney Plan
Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals
Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities
Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas
- A New “Project Rebuild”,
I’m sure that project is shovel ready and won’t be a waste like every other thing you’ve done.
I’ll take not killing a project that will actually create jobs and improve the economy over Obama’s shovel ready BS.
Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
- Expanding access to high-speed wireless
Holy shit, when did Internet become a right? You want Internet you buy it or go to Starbucks like everyone else…I am not subsidizing everyone’s ability to access porn on high speed wifi
I’ll take energy over wifi any day
Open America’s energy reserves for development
The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years:
Because people need more incentives not to go find a job.
A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers
Again, trying to get businesses to just create jobs isn’t going to work. You need to improve the fundamentals of an economy to create growth (which would include lowering taxes, lowering regulation, lowering government, lowering the deficit, strengthening the dollar, and getting free trade agreements—none of which this administration has done).
Or maybe you can be responsible for your own life
Facilitate the creation of Personal Re-employment Accounts
- Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers
So you mean I can’t take into account whether a person was fired or not in deciding whether they’re going to be a good employee…like every other form of “discrimination” legislation in the last 30 years this is just a pay off to the trial lawyers and will result in even less growth and less jobs.
Or instead of making more bad lawsuits you could have real Tort reform.
Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation
- Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.
“Subsidized employment.” You’re kidding right? You’re going to pay people to hire people. (And keep in mind Obama was touting this plan as including tax cuts…so where exactly is the money for this coming from? Oh I forgot Obama won’t be happy until the debt is three times the size of the GDP.)
But how about rather than subsidizing hiring people but actually making a climate where you can actually hire good people.
Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws
Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor
- Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates
This would be a choice for the banks, not the government…which means the President is planning to control the banks even more and force them to do more stupid things…you know the behavior that got us into this mess.
There is no exact counterpart to this, but the fact is that Romney will not rule by fiat, like some people.
- 5Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan. To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.
The humor of this part speaks for itself.
But Romney does have some real plans on how to deal with the insane size of government
Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition
Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services
Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment
The fact of the matter is that Paul Krugman putting up Obama’s abysmal American Jobs Act as the better part of his proposed legislation shows you how unspeakably stupid Krugman is and how bereft of any real ideas Obama is. Romney has real plans not just platitudes that have some conception of how the economy works. Now I’ve breezed over a lot of Romney’s plans, I do this intentionally, I want you to go and do the research on your own and see for yourself that his plans are
This thing about Romney’s tax returns is stupid, and I’m just tired of it.
You have to consider a couple of things to start out with. (1) It’s not like Obama’s White House and IRS don’t have access to those returns and (2) the IRS under Obama has been more than willing to harass Romney supporter as shown here and here (3) if there was anything damning in them don’t you think Obama would have already leaked that (after all if highest level classified national security information can be leaked to the New York Times to get reelected do you really think Obama draws the moral line at leaking his opponent’s tax information?). Also given that people are upset about things like offshore accounts (which are actually good for growing and American economic growth) and the fact that Romney only pays about 15% on his income (because it’s pretty much all capital gains income which is taxed at a much lower rate than other income because if it wasn’t you would see the collapse of what is left of the American economy) it is clear that ignorant people are very agitated by the intricacies of finance when they have no understanding of what is going on…thus releasing even more financial information will allow liberals to make ethical, legal, and smart financial choices sound like unethical, illegal and stupid financial moves (like giving money to your cronies at Solyndra…oh wait that wasn’t Mitt).
This then of course brings up a discussion of how the rich need to pay their “fair share.” Let’s just ignore that 47% of the nation isn’t paying anything (is that fair?) or that the top 10% earn about 45% of the income but pay 70% of the taxes (yeah that sounds fair). And Mitt only pays 15% of his income to the government, that’s not fair (of course he already paid taxes on when Bain earned the money and paid a corporate tax on it, then Romney paid taxes on the money Bain paid him, which he then invested in companies who paid their own taxes on the money they earned, and then Mitt paid his 15% on the income he earned from that investment. Oh, and the US has the highest corporate tax rate of any nation (http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/corporate-tax-rate) …so it’s not like he hasn’t paid and paid and paid taxes on that income. Yep he hasn’t paid his fair share. Now there are other reasons that Mitt hasn’t paid income taxes in a while…like the fact that he didn’t take a salary as head of the Olympics or as Governor of Massachusetts–when you don’t earn anything you don’t pay taxes. And of course this all ignores the fact that this is a man who gave away his entire inheritance to charity and gives about 15% every year to charity (some bigots will decry the fact that a large portion of that goes to the Mormon church, but even if you had theological issues with the church , you’d be a damn fool to say they are not in the business of numerous aid programs).
But liberals just dismiss this because (A) “he’s not paying his fair share” (still waiting to hear what percentage that is) and (B) it’s not to the charities they like.
And this leads to an odd habit I’ve noticed among rich liberals. They bitch and moan and whine about how we don’t support Planned Parenthood, or NPR, or PBS, or the arts or this or that project or organization enough.
Oddly enough these are often the same rich liberals who say that they aren’t being taxed enough. (Let’s ignore for the moment you can just not take deductions and pay the full rate or you can give more than the minimum to government…and yet they’re taking deductions and not just giving money by the bushel load to the feds (follow the link, it goes straight to where you can just give money to the Treasury Dept…I’m going to wager right now no one is going to give a dime). That the rich should be taxed at much higher rate (one assumes to pay for all these pet projects they want funded).
Hmmm….rich people say the government is taking enough of their money AND they’re saying the government should give more to their pet projects…hmmmmm….
Am I the only one who thinks that they could just cut out the middle man and give more to all these things they say needs funding. Just cut a check, and don’t worry about the government.
But, some whiny liberal will say, there are more rich Republicans. But that’s not really true, it’s a bit more divided fairly evenly and statistics suggests it may be slightly biased to the left (performers are statistically more liberal and entertainment makes people very rich very quickly). Also it might be helpful to take into account that Obama has raised 181 Million from large contributors and Romney has raised only 121 Million from large contributors (a 3:2 advantage for the left ) so while not a perfect way to calculate it (if nothing else Romney had months of fundraising that he had to share with Ricky and Newt that Obama could just rake in the dough) but there is still the fact is that there are still a lot of rich liberals .
Then of course the rich liberals will complain that it’s not enough if they do it, they need the money of ALL the rich to make an effort…apparently these people are forgetting what the overhead of the government is between numerous departments, lost interest on the money, corruption, waste, idiocy, Michelle’s vacations, trust me giving straight to the charity is far, far more efficient (or did we forget how much money the GSA is spending?) .
Now if liberals don’t want to spend their money that’s their right and I support it. I believe in the virtue of charity, but I also believe that different people have different things to learn in different life times and the virtue of charity, while admirable in most cases (it’s not as if it’s done merely for good press…like, say, you say you’re going to give all your money away when you die, but you spend your days trying to avoid paying back taxes…Warren Buffet I mean you), but it is not the only virtue and I can see some spiritual lessons may require for not giving out money…and I’m not going to judge who is in what category. But I will judge hypocrisy. And if you claim more of your money should be taken for the public good, but don’t spend it on the public good when it is fully in your power to do so, you are a gutless, virtueless, hypocritical piece of filth. I believe it also goes by the title DNC donor.
The fact of the matter is that liberals don’t care about Romney’s tax records. The bright ones know there is nothing untoward in there, they want a piece of propaganda to rile the more ignorant in their base.* They don’t care about fair share or helping others because if they did they would put their money where their mouths are with or without the government’s help.
*I’m not claiming there aren’t ignorant people on the right, there are, they were known as Santorum supporters…but his loss shows they’re not in the majority.
Taxes should not be a “buffet” where you get to pick and choose what you like and don’t like. It is supposed to be a just and equal system. Which is preposterous as it is based on penalizing those who are more successful –not quite sure how that is just or equal but we will deal with that later.
Let’s talk about all those millionaires that do not pay taxes or pay less then their secretaries.
The tax codes are difficult to follow and it is fair to say that many people pay taxes multiple times on the same money.
Basically taxes are based on actual income earned from working in a progressive manner with those making more paying a higher percentage rate. But the main problem is with all the loopholes written into that code. Most of us are familiar with mortgage deductions and charitable contribution deductions, but there are many many pages of many more deductions. These are the loopholes everyone is referring to.
So when a millionaire receives income from working they pay at the highest percentage rate of taxes (not counting deductions) then they take that money and invest it (means making it work by putting it into other business) then when they receive additional income from that investment they only pay approximately 15% on that investment. Now that money that they were paid for their investment has already been taxed for the company paying the interest on the investment in several different ways and now that it has been paid back to the investor he must now pay that additional 15% on it. Keep in mind that if he lost his investment he can only deduct that which he lost minus whatever he had received on it (this is very simplistic but close enough I think – if you invested $10,000 and had received $1,000 on it you now lost $9,000). I am not sure if you can declare the complete $9,000 as deduction but even if you can you have lost much more than that in reality as if you had just put it into a bank or some bonds or such you probably would have earned more (unless this is a short term loss) but you can not take that into account – you also can not take into account that you previously paid taxes on the $1,000.
The reason we offer a lower tax rate for investment is that it is good for the economy and society as a whole. Already the tax rate for companies is the highest in the world and the tax rate for investment is the highest in the world so actually we are hurting ourselves when we claim it is not fair for millionaires to pay a lower tax rate. They already paid the higher rate when they actually worked and earned that money now they are only investing it instead of hoarding it like Scrooge McDuck.
Now back to Mr. Buffett – my understanding is that he does still work for his company but chooses to take his pay in the form of stocks. That means that he has enough money to live on so instead of taking actual pay then he pays only 15% on the profit on his investment annually (the stock). Now in reality if he sells that stock he will pay the higher tax rate again but right now he is only being taxed on the capital gains he receives. So you are not comparing apples to apples in this scenario. Of course the ultimate irony about the Buffett rule is that is comes from a man who one minute states he wants to pay more but doesn’t go to the IRS web site that allows him to pay more of his own free will, and who says he should pay more one moment and next the company that he is chief executive of, Berkshire Hathaway, is behind in taxes by millions of dollars dating back to 2002 and is fighting in court what they should pay. Hypocrisy thy name if Buffet.
What we are doing is cutting our own throats to do something that sounds fair on the face of it but if you look at it in the real context you can see that they are not really paying less in taxes but just postponing the inevitable and as the pot grows the inevitable will be a substantial amount. Also keep in mind that with a death tax penalty that for most people the inevitable moment comes when they die and their estate is over taxed at around 45-50%. Gee I think that more than makes up for the lower taxes while they were alive. Especially when you think of all the benefit the economy received by their keeping the money working in the economy instead of hoarding it or accumulating materialistic things.
The Republicans have often but to no avail offered up plans where the tax becomes flat meaning it is a lower rate for all but then there will be no loopholes or deductions. Actually this will bring in more money to the treasury in the long run. But the Democrats want something quick and flashy like an all you can eat buffet sign. Pick whichever group it is popular to beat up on and tax them. Tax them as much as you want, it’s all you can eat. No concern for the long term health of the economy, no concern whether it will have immediate effect, just tax what you want because you want it. Just like a buffet. And when you’re done at the all you can tax buffet, gorge yourself and clogging the arteries the of the economy (yes I know this metaphor is running too long I’m almost done) you can go and put a couple hundred million on Solyndra at Roulette wheel.
It would be great if society started to think long term versus short term and what sounds nicer instead of what will work in the long run and be more just and equal in the long run. I personally will support a VAT tax (and only a VAT, not a combination of VAT and income) as I have serious problems with income taxes due to penalization of success.
And let me add that all persons in the US can of their own volition give money to the treasury or even dedicate additional money to our national debt. So if someone really believes they are not paying enough taxes then they could very easily write that check and the government will gladly accept it from you. So I find it very hypocritical that so-called wealthy/millionaires want the government to pass a law to be able to by force take additional money from them but not want to willingly just give it away to the government. Would it be that they know with their money they can afford the best tax accountants and attorneys in the world that will allow them to still pay less money then the amount the law states????
Please also do some research and you will find that everytime congress has added a tax for the “wealthy” they end up adding it downward as it really does not bring in the funds they want so by wanting someone else to pay up you actually end up making the middle class pay up.
So, logically you must come to the conclusion that all of this is political hype and nothing more! And still no one wants to solve the actual underlying problem – SPENDING!!