2011-2012 Tax Extension Bill

[LongLiveYorke 38]

did you notice the income distribution graphs on this link, since 1940 through 2007 the income / spread had remained virtually unchanged...just sayin.

You're talking about this chart, right. You realize the y-axis is logarithmic in base-2, right?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_S...n_1947-2007.svgFirst of all, it's a terrible chart because there's an unnecessary offset in the y-axis. It starts at 10,000, for some reason. Instead, I'll use the numbers as listed below the chart. If I look at the red line, it starts at around 12,000 and end at around 27,000 for an increase factor of 2.25. The blue line starts at 65000 and ends at 20000 for an increase factor of 3.25.Because the top bracket is the 95th precentile. This is missing a lot of detailed features. As we saw above, the 98.5th precentile starts at around $250,000 for households. So, the 95th precentile starts at around $150,000 for households. I'm not too surprised that people making $150,000+ see only modest relative increases in their wealth. The real increase comes not from people in the 95th precentile or the 98th precentile but in the 99.5th precentile. Those are the numbers that go soaring off the charts.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I like this chart:http://junkcharts.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341...e0702e15970b-pi

[SAM_Hard8 50]

It's not about the rich, bump all the taxes you want they'll just change their behavior and have their accountants change things around and you won't get any of the bump that's predicted anyway.The point is the small businesses that this increase will effect, and don't give me that 5% demo talking point crap, that's already been debunked a hundred times. Small businesses will also change their behavior and that will be bad, really bad for an already struggling economy.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Class Warriors Got What They Wished ForA funny thing happened on the way to spreading the wealth: wealth dried up.A good class warrior wishes for three things (at least). 1. For tax rates to be highest on the richest. Ideally, only the rich would pay taxes. The Father of Class War, Karl Marx, made "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" one of the ten planks of his Manifesto. 2. For no one to be super-rich. Ideally, no one would make more than some amount considered too much. Barack Obama, the Son of Class War, once said, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." 3. For government to have plenty of money so that it can spread the wealth and help the needy. The Democratic Party, the Holy Ghost of Class War, put this in its 2008 platform: "For families making more than $250,000, we'll ask them to give back a portion of the Bush tax cuts to invest in health care and other key priorities."Now think about that for a moment. If the class warriors got their first two wishes, their third wish would be impossible. If you tax only the rich, yet you have no rich, then government collects no revenue. You can't spread wealth if there is no wealth.

[brvheart 1,752]

And that would almost be as bad as a system in which 57 out of 100 people can vote to start discussion on an issue but because a group of 40 bigoted or politically motivated dirtbags vote against it, it fails to move forward.

eyeroll

[LongLiveYorke 38]

eyeroll

So you're saying that they're politically motivated? Or are you defending their decision?To clarify, my comment suggested that, whether their decision to vote agains the repeal was politically motivated or motivated by bigotry, those who voted against the repeal are dirtbags. I just wanted to make sure that my position on that matter was clear.Being for DADT is one of the few indefensible positions in modern politics (along with being against gay marriage). It's just wrong, pure and simple.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

DADT is a stupid thing but it the grand scheme of what needs to be done to help the country it's not even a pimple on rat's ass and shouldn't even be in deliberation right now.It's pure politics to attach it to that bill and the and the fuckers who did that are as big of assholes as those who voted against it.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

DADT is a stupid thing but it the grand scheme of what needs to be done to help the country it's not even a pimple on rat's ass and shouldn't even be in deliberation right now.It's pure politics to attach it to that bill and the and the fuckers who did that are as big of assholes as those who voted against it.

This post makes no sense. Why is the default to keep DADT and not to get rid of it? Why isn't this all the Republican's fault to consider this "pimple on a rat's ass" more important than funding the military?

[Balloon guy 158]

So you're saying that they're politically motivated? Or are you defending their decision?To clarify, my comment suggested that, whether their decision to vote agains the repeal was politically motivated or motivated by bigotry, those who voted against the repeal are dirtbags. I just wanted to make sure that my position on that matter was clear.Being for DADT is one of the few indefensible positions in modern politics (along with being against gay marriage). It's just wrong, pure and simple.

What if you want to support Bill Clinton's policies because the budget was balanced and it was only sex?

[SAM_Hard8 50]

This post makes no sense. Why is the default to keep DADT and not to get rid of it? Why isn't this all the Republican's fault to consider this "pimple on a rat's ass" more important than funding the military?

wow have you watched politics before?The Dems put it in to make a point. The Pubs voted it down to make a point. The military funding will get funded both parties know that. It was all for show over something that really doesn't matter.Both parties suck.

[Dagata 0]

Nobody is even talking about the internet poker regulation attachment that is being considered for this bill?You all fail

[strategy 4]

yeah no one cares about poker. what do you think this is, 2005?

[ShakeZuma 585]

I mean, if by they you mean "a majority of Americans" then sure. A majority of Americans have consistently supported keeping the Bush tax cuts for only people under that threshold.

where did you get this information from?not here I'm assuming.

[strategy 4]

where did you get this information from?not here I'm assuming.

wait wait, people support lower taxes and higher spending?shiiiiit, when did this happen?

[ShakeZuma 585]

wait wait, people support lower taxes and higher spending?shiiiiit, when did this happen?

today!

[El Guapo 8]

http://finance.senate.gov/legislation/deta...cd-99708697eff0the top link is a summary that is my reading material for the weekend. FUN.

[ShakeZuma 585]

you're a pretty slow reader huh

[El Guapo 8]

you're a pretty slow reader huh

This will take me all weekend, I will read a paragraph - fall asleep. Read another paragraph, then go do something else because who the hell wants to read a tax bill. And it will continue that way for the whole weekend.

[ShakeZuma 585]

hell I read the first page just for kicks. CAUSE I'M SMART, NOT LIKE EVERYBODY SAYS, LIKE DUMB, I'M SMART

[hblask 1]

I like this chart:http://junkcharts.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341...e0702e15970b-pi

It makes me want to play Monopoly.

[nutzbuster 7]

So...let me get this straight.The party of NO decides to agree to a deal and says YES to a compromise (Obama himself called it a compromise) and now the hard left Dems are saying NO to the party of NO that said YES.Hypocrisy much? is it only an acceptable/successful compromise when the Dems get what they want? And then right after the deal Obama bashes the Republican "hostage takers"...****ing brilliant. Bad mouth the party you just shook hands with...and the party that you have to deal with the next two years....and the party that will be in the majority the next 2 years. Very smart.It's all horseshit. The Democrats want what they want and nothing else. This is clear proof that they appear to not care at all about reaching across the aisle, bi partisanship, compromising, blah blah blahAnd yes, agree that Obama is so screwed. Even if this gets amended the hard lefties will never forget it. This is Obama's "READ MY LIPS" meltdown moment.EDIT: and this isn't helping Obama imo... Clinton Back in the White House

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So...let me get this straight.

You didn't quite get it straight. See, Republicans threatened to filibuster any tax extension bill that didn't extend taxes to super-minority of rich americans (my graph allows me to call them that). If they simply had a straight up vote, Republicans would of course lose because Democrats are still the majority, so they must resort to filibustering, or "filibustering." Anyway, they did this because they know that if there is no deal and taxes are raised on ALL Americans, it doesn't make them look bad, it makes the President look bad, and that's their only goal. So, to avoid this, the President makes a deal that pisses off many Democrats. And rightfully so, but it's probably the only deal he could make, and it has some good things (lower payroll taxes, etc etc). So, Democrats are putting up a fight because they don't want to appear completely powerless, but they'll go with it anyway.In the mean time, the "Party of No" refused to sign a nuclear arms treaty with Russia because it would make the President look good and refused to fund the military because it would let homos sacrifice their lives for this country. Also, they refused to give health benefits to victims of 911 who sacrificed their time to clean up Ground Zero and became ill in the process.So, yeah, they pretty much are terrible this week.

[ShakeZuma 585]

super-minority of rich americans

great, now scram hates rich people too.

Anyway, they did this because they know that if there is no deal and taxes are raised on ALL Americans, it doesn't make them look bad, it makes the President look bad, and that's their only goal. So, to avoid this, the President makes a deal that pisses off many Democrats. And rightfully so, but it's probably the only deal he could make, and it has some good things (lower payroll taxes, etc etc). So, Democrats are putting up a fight because they don't want to appear completely powerless, but they'll go with it anyway.

no, it's not their only goal. the goal is not to raise taxes on many of the people who are responsible for nearly half of the jobs in the country at a time when we have 9.8% unemployment. yes it would make the president look bad if all the extensions aren't passed, but come on, that's leverage, not the end goal. the goal is to avoid taking a baseball bat to the legs of a still crippled economy, and you may not believe in supply side, but that doesn't make it any less of their goal.but on the other side of that coin, what is the democrats' goal in blocking the legislation with the hopes of not extending the tax cuts in the highest bracket? I'm really asking, because I haven't heard or read any reason, and the only valid one I can figure is austerity/paying down the debt, and after the past two years... come on. And really, if that is the goal, how stupid is that? even the most ardent deficit hawks (<-- I will hate this word soon I'd imagine) know that now is not the proper time to start paying down the debt.and lets not pretend that this compromise is just a total win for the republicans: with the extension of unemployment (which republicans were originally against), plus the child tax credit, education incentives, and even energy tax credits, among other things, there are tons of add-ons in the bill aimed directly at the democrats, so again, why don't they like it?

In the mean time, the "Party of No" refused to sign a nuclear arms treaty with Russia because it would make the President look good and refused to fund the military because it would let homos sacrifice their lives for this country. Also, they refused to give health benefits to victims of 911 who sacrificed their time to clean up Ground Zero and became ill in the process.

again, no, those are not the reasons they refused to sign any of those bills. it's been pretty widely reported (and I'm pretty sure it's been discussed in this forum) that republicans have refused to address any other bills until the tax cuts have been extended. they consider it the most important piece of current legislation with the most pressing timeline (20 days right now) so they want to get it done. that timeline doesn't exist for those other bills, so why are democrats pressing so hard on those issues when the tax extensions are still out there in limbo? perhaps there's some stubbornness in voting down all of those bills regardless of their merit, but you know damn good and well that they were all chosen specifically for the negative image it portrays on republicans when they're voted down. "republicans hate 911 heroes and soldiers!" right.

So, yeah, they pretty much are terrible this week.

your face is terrible

[LongLiveYorke 38]

great, now scram hates rich people too.but on the other side of that coin, what is the democrats' goal in blocking the legislation with the hopes of not extending the tax cuts in the highest bracket? I'm really asking, because I haven't heard or read any reason, and the only valid one I can figure is austerity/paying down the debt, and after the past two years... come on. And really, if that is the goal, how stupid is that? even the most ardent deficit hawks (<-- I will hate this word soon I'd imagine) know that now is not the proper time to start paying down the debt.

I agree that it's probably correct to extend the tax cuts for a year or two. But doing so will cost more than the stimulus package. So, the next time Republicans complain about the stimulus package exploding the deficit, they have to realize that the tax cuts have done more harm to the deficit than the stimulus package.And of course, this is all nothing compared to the potential damage that would be done if the tax cuts to the wealthy were to be made permanent. If this were to happen, it would cost trillions over the next decade and, for example, outweigh the social security shortfall over the next 30 years. The Democrats' goal is to avoid this. They know that in 2 years the congressional landscape may lead to these tax cuts being made permanent, which would be devastating for the deficit. Their goal is also to wine and save face a bit as well, but that's understandable, they're congressmen. I think they'll reluctantly vote for the package and hope it isn't a back door to a massive loss in long term revenue.Ardent deficit hawks have been saying that the deficit should be our number one priority for about two years now, starting right after Obama passed his stimulus package. And yet I don't hear them screaming now as these expensive tax cuts are being made. But I don't think I need to explain that there are a lot of hypocrites out there.

[ShakeZuma 585]

I agree that it's probably correct to extend the tax cuts for a year or two. But doing so will cost more than the stimulus package. So, the next time Republicans complain about the stimulus package exploding the deficit, they have to realize that the tax cuts have done more harm to the deficit than the stimulus package.And of course, this is all nothing compared to the potential damage that would be done if the tax cuts to the wealthy were to be made permanent. If this were to happen, it would cost trillions over the next decade and, for example, outweigh the social security shortfall over the next 30 years. The Democrats' goal is to avoid this. They know that in 2 years the congressional landscape may lead to these tax cuts being made permanent, which would be devastating for the deficit.

no it won't cost, not in the same cost as the stimulus package costs anyways. losses in revenue do not add to the deficit, they simply don't pay it down as quickly. it only costs to lower taxes in the same manner that it costs you not to be an investment banker. but as in that example, it's not necessarily going to lead to the best net outcome.in order to really address the deficit problem, we need to actually address the real costs: government spending. there has been talk about this too, namely from paul ryan's roadmap thing, and this is the most important and prudent way to eliminate the debt while allowing for the economy to grown and maintain strength. and no, the deficit can't be paid down with reductions in spending alone (not with any reasonable speed at its current levels anyways), and eventually temporary tax increases will probably be needed, but a time of 9.8% unemployment is just nowhere near the time for those increases.

Their goal is also to wine

no ted kennedy's dead.