The Many Faces of US Politics...

[heganboy]

No, you're not watching golf live on CBS, it finished before 60 minutes started.

I'll get to your post later...

[FL/MAYO]

TO
even though it isn't Fox any chance your watching 60 minutes right now?

Just watched the piece about the corporate tax rates,  I can see why the Irish government won't budge on the issue, 600 US companies employing 1000000 people in Ireland.

[Tyrones own]

No, you're not watching golf live on CBS, it finished before 60 minutes started.

I'll get to your post later...

* shakes head...you're now telling me what I'm watching on my own couch,
what part of being three hours behind live didn't you understand
Also since you come across as a bit of a know it all you'd know that 60 minutes
doesn't air here on the left coast til 8 pm local time!
Feel free to remove you're foot from your mouth

[heganboy]

In all seven months that they've had control

How long do you give them?

as Secretary of the Treasury, he's in charge of the IRS, right? I'm sure he could explain why the code is the way it is

The IRS just collects tax, they do not set the IR Code- that's Congress again. nothing to do with Geithner

and anyway, why stop there...what about Pelosi in the two years prior to that, what did she and the Democrats who had complete control of all three branches of Government do

Nothing- a disgraceful return

to curb these injustices that favor Corps and the so called wealthy 

what so called wealthy? The entire code is a disgrace for rich and poor corporations and individuals and anyone who doesn't have a good lobby, or court influence and power.

that's ten firms, could I suggest you take a look at the Wilshire 5000 current market cap 15.9 trillion dollars, thats greater than the entire national debt

Yes ten firms that wouldn't be around next year to be cleaned again...and that trend would continue But that's not important for the here and now in sticking it to the Man, is it 

what are you talking about? cleaned? sticking it to the man? who won't be around next year?

however I have tried to explain that the economy actually needs to increase revenue (taxes collected) cut the stupid spending (congressional and house pork, dumb programs and dumb vote getting spending) and spend government money to stimulate the economy.
Insanity is trying to do anything other than those three things (all of them by the way no cherry picking)

No cherry picking....  Where exactly have you advocated Cutting spending, I must have missed that

Insanity is trying to do anything other than those three things

yeah you did miss it- read back a few posts...

No actually it's; "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results"
Which these bunch of inept buffoons in this administration would do well to read very slowly.
Raising taxes with the economy in the doldrums and especially with the unemployment situation the way
it is, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever 
As a matter of fact, the inept policies for this empty suit is actually infact putting a strangle hold on any kick start to a recovery,

TO, you get to hear so much BS in the media now that without the background it is fair that you have that opinion. And the rich and the biggest corporations and Fox News and political donors and the lobbyists for both political parties in the US are very very happy that you agree with them on this point.
However you are wrong, plain and simple.

business owners and employers across the board have no idea what he's liable to come up with next and are sitting on the sidelines.

No idea what you're talking about here- do you feel you have a relevant point or even a coherent sentence?

Unsurprising that you did actually end up going with the irrelevant counter punch, you were doing so well up until now. Your list from the 2009 email chain which in fact misses about 300 different taxes is completely irrelevant to this topic. You would be as well listing all of the different items that you spend money on in your weekly budget and putting beside each the federal, state, local and special agency taxes (for the record thats the list of bodies that can collect tax in the US (legally))

The issue is not the individual tax on each item, but rather the effective level of tax. Could I suggest you write your local member of congress (or favored candidate when you get time to watch the DVR) and ask their view on the appropriate effective level of tax they would suggest for a balanced budget, and also what they think that the federal budget annualized spend should be, and what they are proposing to do to ensure that they balance, or even, heaven forbid, have a budget surplus. Other than Ron Paul, no Republican candidate actually has an economic policy that holds water, and its not just the candidates, the leader of the Republican party in Congress miscounted his fix it plan by 350Billion (thats close to those 10 companies' profits just for reference) and that was 30% of his entire project- Thirty percent out when you're adding up is incredible- he actually had gone so far as to have the bill printed for the vote when the (non party) congressional budget commitee said "Ummm, excuse me Mr Boehner, can I see the back of your prayer book where you added these up? I've a feeling you may have been double counting". Missing by that much takes effort.

Irrelevant...Irrelevant,  you're joking right, How on Earth is the fact that we're nickel and dimed to death here with taxes irrelevant...the only irrelevance here as far as I can see is the fact that it simply doesn't suit the agenda of the tax, print, borrow and spend, spend, spend Democrats. Wise up FFS 
Now who's cherry picking what's relevant and what's not when the conversation of taxes comes up 


Oh and on the Balanced budget... What exactly have the Democrats or Obummer himself for that matter put forward toward a balancing the budget,
the Senate hasn't passed one in over 830 days. Even President Obama's last CLUELESS and utterly RIDICULOUS budget proposal went down in FLAMES 97-0 without even a SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTE. 

I'm done with this TO, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion and you can express it however you want. You are however completely and utterly wrong, you demonstrate no understanding of the US tax system, you have no grasp on the workings of the economy in the US, you have no comprehension of government spending or its impact, you argue strongly that Tax policy should be changed by someone who doesn't control tax. The Republican Congress who does control tax hasn't made any changes in its seven months, but apparently they should be given more time, if, that is, you are even sure that they do control tax because it may be the IRS and, you know, don't they report to a Democrat? There isn't a Republican candidate with a viable economic plan and the current Democratic party are to busy trying to keep the place afloat that they haven't made a single strategic move that resonates with the public, leaving the door open for the Debt Ceiling issue to downgrade the US' credit rating.

You can't get a handle on this stuff by watching the TV "news" (and I include any news channel in the US- though I reserve particular disgust for Fox and MSNBC) All of the news channels in the US are profit driven and make money on advertising, not on telling the news, so they tell their viewers what they want to hear, and imply that opinion is fact, and editorialize events to suit whatever agenda is top of the bill payers list. Actually NPR isn't a business but it still thinks in terms of Woodstock and the hippy movement, so its agenda is just as transparent and equally painful

If you want to actually have a well informed opinion on the US economy do the research, read economists opinions, evaluate them for yourself, come up with your own thoughts don't listen to politicians and don't trust anything that you hear on TV. (3 hours behind or otherwise)

[Oraisteach]

Heganboy, this post has nothing to do with US politics/economics, but since red herrings are as plentiful as flying teabags, I just wanted to say that Jerry Hicks would be mortified to hear your comment about English at SPCA.  Though I went to the Brothers myself, I knew a lot of college lads who thought a lot of him.  Of course, if he had any part in making Paul Muldoon indecipherable, then he should be used as target practice in the handball alleys.

Anyway, HB, fight the good fight.   TO is as slippery as a Lough Neagh eel.

He should be happy that Bachman Turner Overdrive won the Iowa straw poll.  We ain't seen nothin' yet.

[heganboy]

I was never lucky enough to have been taught by Jerry, more's the pity. I got stuck with Vincentians...

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Contrary to some of the far-right rubbish being spouted on this thread, here's a man who knows a thing or two about the fecked up state of the US taxation system.

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT

OUR leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It's a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn't mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=4

[thejuice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vRuy0m7IjA&feature=channel_video_title


Funny this; seems Ron Paul isn't allowed win the Republican nomination despite being as popular as Bachmann. I guess its that his policies are so at odds with the Republican party but he clearly has supporters surely he's worthy of comment. He rarely gets a mention on this side of the pond, only Perry, Bachmann and Pawlenty are talked about. The Independent (UK) had a report on Iowa and he wasn't even mentioned.

It's quite staggering, perhaps he shouldn't have ran as a Republican but I guess there isn't much room or time to establish a Libertarian party this time around. 

[stew]

The fact is the republicans need to tax the rich but they dont have the minerals to do it, on this issue Obama is correct but make no mistake here, Obama is the FDR and he isnt going to dig us out of the mess by spending money, when he tried that the rich got richer and awarded themselves big bonuses and the country is in undiscovered country pertaining to the defecit.

Every time he takes a hit at the polls the demos roll him out in front of a camera, the man is wonderful in front of a camera but there seems to be no substance to him, he aligned himself with the lies of Pelosi and couldnt have fcuked the economy up more if he tried.

No doubt the sheep will come out in droves next year when the elections roll around and he will kill a dictator or two and take te credit for being tough on insurgents the world over. The bottom lines is however that he is a weak president no matter what way you slice it. I was hoping for more.

[thejuice]

[Jimmy]

Looks like there are more picking up on Ron Paul getting ignored. It's quite laughable (please note you need to be able to view videos from america to watch the link, I had to install and add-on to firefox to watch daily show videos).

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier

[thejuice]

the thing with Ron Paul though is that he will hammer social welfare. He is the very opposite of an altruist.

But then again its not like US Presidents are ever meant to do anything other than maintain the status quo. Sticking to the promises that the public elected you for is of little importance. Would Paul be any different?

[Tyrones own]

Contrary to some of the far-right rubbish being spouted on this thread, here's a man who knows a thing or two about the fecked up state of the US taxation system.

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT

OUR leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It's a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn't mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=4

Notice he mentioned exceeding the million dollars a year
quite the contrast to the 250k (super rich) that Obummer has going!

[seafoid]

The Christian right are hypocritical vermin of the lowest order.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/436f7644-c40f-11e0-b302-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1V5brRyYC

His faith is an important part of his CV. He grabbed the national spotlight this month when he hosted a prayer rally in Houston that drew some 30,000 Christians. As they swayed with outstretched arms, he prayed for those who had lost jobs and hope. In April, as his state struggled to combat drought and contain wildfires, the governor – a global warming sceptic – sought help from above calling on people of all faiths to pray for rain.

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/glenn-beck-russo-cuban-afl-cio-islamist-israelis-occupying-tel-aviv.html#more-49549

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Contrary to some of the far-right rubbish being spouted on this thread, here's a man who knows a thing or two about the fecked up state of the US taxation system.

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT

OUR leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It's a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn't mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=4

Notice he mentioned exceeding the million dollars a year
quite the contrast to the 250k (super rich) that Obummer has going!

I've highlighted the most relevant parts, since you seem to have a peculiar and particular blindness in such regards.