Clinton Apologises
-
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
-
Nope.
First because the tax no tax kabuki dance has been going on for centuries.
But mainly because nothing is really all that easy to discuss in hindsight.
It was a different bubble and a different set of circumstances then.
So how big an improvement in today's economy do you expect we'd had if obama changed the taxes on day 1? And you can use your own current talking point scenario, just hit the rich?
Would we be where we are now? Better? Or worse?
WSS
-
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
His acolytes should be embarrassed.....
But come on, you don't think obama care is a huge step forward in the history of the united states?
Even if you say you don't, I'm pretty sure the president and his gang do.
WSS
-
think the first sentence is clearly wrong.
**********************************
Feeble minded Heck translation:
"I'm the last man standing on earth who thinks Obamao is non-partisan and I'm stupid, yes."
***********************************
The second sentence is embarrassing.
***********************************
Feeble minded Heck translation
"I'm going to love Obamaocare, and I know it's constitutional, even if the U.S. Supreme Court says it isn't,
because I lick Obamao's toes for a paycheck"
***********************************
And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
************************************
Feeble minded Heck translation
"Obamao is my perfect boyfriend, and by damn, I won't admit he's European Socialist minded,
even if the rest of the universe knows better, because I'm paid to be a liberal, I'm born to be a liberal,
and even if Obamao orders the U.S. Constitution null and void, it will be a good thing.
*************************************
Cal could have typed that.
*************************************
Feeble minded Heck translation
"whine" Steve always kicks my ass. Cal does, T does, Bunker does, John does, Diehard does, Ballpeen does, Lady Z does,
and almost everybody else... kicks my ass, too. That's why I love me my Little Johnnie Woodpecker, and gas passing Vapor. I wish Shep
and mz the pussy the pussy would come back. whine"
-
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
His acolytes should be embarrassed.....
But come on, you don't think obama care is a huge step forward in the history of the united states?
Even if you say you don't, I'm pretty sure the president and his gang do.
WSS
His acolytes should be embarrassed.....
But come on, you don't think obama care is a huge step forward in the history of the united states?
Even if you say you don't, I'm pretty sure the president and his gang do.
WSS
I wouldn't say it's a huge step forward, no. I think it's an improvement. You're still going to have a very expensive system, but at least most Americans would be covered under it. Nobody got what they wanted out of it, it was a series of deals and victories and capitulations from beginning to end, so I don't imagine you've captured the mood in the West Wing correctly either.
I don't think you're very good at imagining what other people believe or think.
-
Nope.
First because the tax no tax kabuki dance has been going on for centuries.
But mainly because nothing is really all that easy to discuss in hindsight.
It was a different bubble and a different set of circumstances then.
So how big an improvement in today's economy do you expect we'd had if obama changed the taxes on day 1? And you can use your own current talking point scenario, just hit the rich?
Would we be where we are now? Better? Or worse?
WSS
Nope.
First because the tax no tax kabuki dance has been going on for centuries.
But mainly because nothing is really all that easy to discuss in hindsight.
It was a different bubble and a different set of circumstances then.
So how big an improvement in today's economy do you expect we'd had if obama changed the taxes on day 1? And you can use your own current talking point scenario, just hit the rich?
Would we be where we are now? Better? Or worse?
WSS
My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.
So nobody is discussing my policy preferences. Paul Ryan, for all of his bullshit, is at least entertaining the idea that the whole tax code needs to be simplified and overhauled. And that's about as much good you can say about Paul Ryan's plan.
But one of the greatest things holding us back from having a sensible discussion about tax reform is the Republican insistence that what keeps us from darkest night are low rates on the wealthy, and the party's complete unwillingness to understand that we simply need to bring in more revenue than we do now in order to tackle the long-term deficit. And part of that means taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than we do now. But quite the contrary, you've got a whole party, from leaders on down to the base, who scream about deficits and debt (when they're not in office) and then promote policies that everyone with a brain knows are going to make the problem even worse.
The mainstream Republican view on tax and budgetary policy is just fantasy mixed with idiocy. There's just no way around it.
So you want to know what happens if we reclaimed some revenue by putting the top rates back up where we were under Clinton? Not much. The economy would take a small, mostly negligible hit, and the budget picture would be slightly improved, but not nearly enough.
And that's the current state of debate for you: much ado about nothing important.
But again, ask yourself how serious the Republican Party is about deficit reduction if they won't even agree to any increases in revenue, all while saying the tax code sucks. Translation: the tax code sucks. Now let's not change a thing in the tax code, because it's perfect as is, except for the part where we tax rich people.
-
How serious?
I would say it's not very serious if your only trump card is raising that rate.
Just because it polls well with the great unwashed.
And who cares if that pittance comes from raising the rate for closing a loophole?
But if we can untangle ourselves from the non serious plans of the 2 parties I personally have no gripe with raising that rate a tad if there were some real remember I said real cuts to go along.
And using that money to take a bite out of the debt.
But I simply don't trust you guys.
It seems to me that first and foremost the democrats are dying to use the broken tax pledge like they did on bush 1.
If anyone were serious simpson bowles would have gotten more traction.
WSS
-
His acolytes should be embarrassed.....
But come on, you don't think obama care is a huge step forward in the history of the united states?
Even if you say you don't, I'm pretty sure the president and his gang do.
WSS
I wouldn't say it's a huge step forward, no. I think it's an improvement. You're still going to have a very expensive system, but at least most Americans would be covered under it. Nobody got what they wanted out of it, it was a series of deals and victories and capitulations from beginning to end, so I don't imagine you've captured the mood in the West Wing correctly either.
I don't think you're very good at imagining what other people believe or think.
I don't think you're very good at imagining what other people believe or think.
And I don't think you are particularly honest about it.
WSS
-
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
-
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
No. Not at all.
People make the mistake of thinking the complex part of the tax code are the different tax rates, and if we go to a flat tax that makes everything more simple, when actually the simplest part of the tax code are the different rates. The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs - that's the complex part. That's what fills up all of those pages in the tax code.
This part fits on to a page or two:
10%,
15%,
25%,
28%,
33%,
35%.
-
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
No. Not at all.
People make the mistake of thinking the complex part of the tax code are the different tax rates, and if we go to a flat tax that makes everything more simple, when actually the simplest part of the tax code are the different rates. The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs - that's the complex part. That's what fills up all of those pages in the tax code.
This part fits on to a page or two:
10%,
15%,
25%,
28%,
33%,
35%.
No. Not at all.
People make the mistake of thinking the complex part of the tax code are the different tax rates, and if we go to a flat tax that makes everything more simple, when actually the simplest part of the tax code are the different rates. The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs - that's the complex part. That's what fills up all of those pages in the tax code.
This part fits on to a page or two:
10%,
15%,
25%,
28%,
33%,
35%.
Heck, I am talking about removing "The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs".
Do it on a post card: You pay x.
I'll even make it a bit progressive: if you make x you pay y%; if you make 1.25x you pay z% and so on.
PS And you get to lay off many people working for the IRS and, more importantly - perhaps - is lowering demand for tax attorneys.
-
It's going to end up being bigger than Rick Perry's index card, but that's okay. Lots of those deductions are very popular. They're going to be extremely hard to get rid of.
Like, most economists hate the home mortgage tax deduction, but it puts a lot of money in a lot of voters pockets. Who is going to step forward and say, "Let's get rid of that!" Anyone?
Paul Ryan doesn't mention a single loophole he'd close for a reason.
-
It's going to end up being bigger than Rick Perry's index card, but that's okay. Lots of those deductions are very popular. They're going to be extremely hard to get rid of.
Like, most economists hate the home mortgage tax deduction, but it puts a lot of money in a lot of voters pockets. Who is going to step forward and say, "Let's get rid of that!" Anyone?
Paul Ryan doesn't mention a single loophole he'd close for a reason.
It's going to end up being bigger than Rick Perry's index card, but that's okay. Lots of those deductions are very popular. They're going to be extremely hard to get rid of.
Like, most economists hate the home mortgage tax deduction, but it puts a lot of money in a lot of voters pockets. Who is going to step forward and say, "Let's get rid of that!" Anyone?
Paul Ryan doesn't mention a single loophole he'd close for a reason.
I'm not talking about Paul Ryan, Heck. I'm talking about you.
"......the myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs" Paul Ryan didn't say that - you did.
I offer a flat tax alternative that would -to a great extend - remove the myriad and you talk about Paul Ryan.
So you really like "......the myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs" - just not those that impact what Steve likes to refer to as 'the great unwashed'.
-
Oh, no. I'm just saying that what I would want to do as king of fantasyland doesn't really matter. We live in a political reality. I don't expect to see many changes in the tax code for precisely the reason I noted before - because once you create a lot of beneficiaries through the tax code people fight to have those benefits maintained.
But in fantasyland, I'd go for an income tax that is a simple set of progressive rates with no (or few) deductions beyond charitable, and more narrowly define what is and what isn't charity.
The flat tax doesn't eliminate any loopholes. It just eliminates rates.
-
Actually I like the mortgage deduction sense it promotes home ownership.
That's at least kind of a forced savings program.
You would eliminate that one if it were up to you, Heck?
WSS
-
Yeah, i'd phase it out over time so it doesn't wallop homeowners. I'm not sure there's a good reason to encourage home ownership. But it's also very popular with voters (I think it's north of 60% approval) and I'd be surprised if anyone took it on.
It was eliminated in Bowles-Simpson and replaced with a credit, if i'm not mistaken. That would be a preferable alternative that might go down easier for the voters.
As I always say, fuck if I know, man. It's a great big fucking mess.
-
I think vet bills should be tax deductable. And a flat tax is fair. Higher rate for over a million bucks... I don't care all that much.
but ALL medical bills should be tax deductable.
What if I have vet bills for my chickens later this year, dammit?
-
Yeah, i'd phase it out over time so it doesn't wallop homeowners. I'm not sure there's a good reason to encourage home ownership. But it's also very popular with voters (I think it's north of 60% approval) and I'd be surprised if anyone took it on.
It was eliminated in Bowles-Simpson and replaced with a credit, if i'm not mistaken. That would be a preferable alternative that might go down easier for the voters.
As I always say, fuck if I know, man. It's a great big fucking mess.
Yeah, i'd phase it out over time so it doesn't wallop homeowners. I'm not sure there's a good reason to encourage home ownership.
As I always say, fuck if I know, man. It's a great big fucking mess.
Agreed on point number two.
But I remember when I bought my first home, shit hole that it was.
I remember kicking myself in the ass for every previous month I handed over a wad of cash to the land lord. There is a certain independence and confidence that comes from being able to say sure it's a dump, but it's mine as opposed to going to a land baron once a month with your hat in your hand. With nothing to show for it.
That may be a core philosophical difference between us.
If we eliminate a great amount of homeowners and plunge more and more into renting it would seem logical that most property would be owned by fewer and fewer. Would you take that extra revenue and put it into subsidized housing?
IOW lots more people dependent upon the government just for a place to live? Is that the goal or merely a by product?
WSS
-
Why can't you deduct vet bills for farm animals?
I'd bet that's done all the time.
WSS
-
Yeah, i'd phase it out over time so it doesn't wallop homeowners. I'm not sure there's a good reason to encourage home ownership.
As I always say, fuck if I know, man. It's a great big fucking mess.
Agreed on point number two.
But I remember when I bought my first home, shit hole that it was.
I remember kicking myself in the ass for every previous month I handed over a wad of cash to the land lord. There is a certain independence and confidence that comes from being able to say sure it's a dump, but it's mine as opposed to going to a land baron once a month with your hat in your hand. With nothing to show for it.
That may be a core philosophical difference between us.
If we eliminate a great amount of homeowners and plunge more and more into renting it would seem logical that most property would be owned by fewer and fewer. Would you take that extra revenue and put it into subsidized housing?
IOW lots more people dependent upon the government just for a place to live? Is that the goal or merely a by product?
WSS
Agreed on point number two.
But I remember when I bought my first home, shit hole that it was.
I remember kicking myself in the ass for every previous month I handed over a wad of cash to the land lord. There is a certain independence and confidence that comes from being able to say sure it's a dump, but it's mine as opposed to going to a land baron once a month with your hat in your hand. With nothing to show for it.
That may be a core philosophical difference between us.
If we eliminate a great amount of homeowners and plunge more and more into renting it would seem logical that most property would be owned by fewer and fewer. Would you take that extra revenue and put it into subsidized housing?
IOW lots more people dependent upon the government just for a place to live? Is that the goal or merely a by product?
WSS
But for some people it makes more sense for them to rent rather than stretching themselves to buy. While I might agree with you that owning might feel better for some, it also becomes an albatross for others, especially those that bought too much house and fall on hard times. They often have "nothing to show for it" either even though they own. Removing the tax preference would remove the distortions and encourage people to make decisions based on what's best for them rather than pushing them towards ownership. The deduction also pushes home prices up and encourages people to take on large amounts of debt. This isn't a good idea. It's also why a credit like in Simpson-Bowles (again, haven't checked this, but I remember it being in there) is a better idea. If you want to help people own homes, give them a credit for buying a home. Don't subsidize the debt you take on when you buy a home.
As for the extra revenue, I don't think I'd plunge into anything but the general fund.
It's funny. We're looking to buy right now and going through this. When you do all the work with the loan officer you have a certain idea of what you can afford. And then you figure in the tax preference, which goes a long way in an expensive market like LA, you suddenly realize you can afford a more expensive house than you thought because of the tax preference. Is this a good idea, to make me and everyone like me afford more home than we normally could? I don't think so. It's a distortion that encourages Americans to take on more debt.
....Though, like you, I hate pissing away rent every month.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login