Political distractions vs. True Policy issues

[Sgt Hulka]

In this thread, I would like people to list things that they feel strongly about. The genesis of this is the kerfuffle over Mitt Romney's wife/working thing.

for me:

Issue that matters (not in order):

Tax policy
Deficit
Crony Capitalism (which could be addressed with streamlining the tax system)
Make all military actions fall within the war powers act (and make them ON BUDGET)
Restriction of freedoms (patriot act)
Over reach of the federal govt (obamacare)
encroachment of the executive branch on legislative branch
Disregard for the 10th amendment
The belief that if something is wrong, you go to government.
Firing Jeff Bdzelik

Things that don't matter:

Romney's wife's work history
Gay marriage
War on anything (especially drugs since it is a waste of resources).
War on Christmas!!
Class warfare!!!
War on Women!!!!
pretty much anything RJ thinks should be an ad for the DNC.

OK< GO

 

[RaleighDevil]

If you want to see a true war on women, go to Afghanistan. The fairer sex is not high above the level of chattel slaves. I was reading a recent story that mentioned a woman killed by her brother because she went outside the home to teach. Compare that with the malarkey emanating from certain quarters here.

I totally agree with many of your concerns. There seems to be no limiting factor when it comes to the growth and power of the national government. So-called conservatives are against the government except when it can help line their pockets. Liberals believe in the almighty power of Washington to set almost all things right.

BTW, anyone who has ever read much about liberalism should understand that what we have today is not liberalism as it was historically understood.

http://lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon96.1.html

The ideal type of liberalism should express a coherent concept, based on what is most characteristic and distinctive in the liberal doctrine – what Weber refers to as the "essential tendencies." ... Historically, where monarchical absolutism had insisted that the state was the engine of society and the necessary overseer of the religious, cultural, and, not least, economic life of its subjects, liberalism posited a starkly contrasting view: that the most desirable regime was one in which civil society – that is, the whole of the social order based on private property and voluntary exchange – by and large runs itself. (p.65, emphasis in original)

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

If you want to see a true war on women, go to Afghanistan. The fairer sex is not high above the level of chattel slaves. I was reading a recent story that mentioned a woman killed by her brother because she went outside the home to teach. Compare that with the malarkey emanating from certain quarters here.

Same thing with the War on Christianity. I would hope we aren't comparing ourselves to fundamentalist Islamic nations. Obviously women are not being persecuted in the United States, much less to the degree they are in Afghanistan. Similarly, Christianity/the War on Christmas surely doesn't really exist either, much less to the degree such persecution of Christians may exist in some Middle Eastern countries.

The biggest 'issue' to me is that people seem incapable and unwilling to think for themselves or to share any belief that is fundamentally opposed with the party they vote for. That, and people get most of their "news" from hacks like Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Donnell/Schultz etc. When the people you listen to and sympathize with policy wise describe your opposition in such derisive and ridiculous terms it fosters a really unhealthy dynamic in this country.

Regarding actual issues that I care about:

destruction of federalism
elimination of personal freedom and liberties throughout every corner of the government (economically on the left, shit like the NDAA on the right)
reasonable foreign policy (which I think Obama has actually handled well and has been far more moderate than those on the right describe him as)
debt issues

I normally don't care as much about social issues as I do economic/foreign policy issues, but I generally despise the right when it comes to social "conservatism". Individually, I don't care much, but gay marriage, things like Walker's bill in Wisconsin re: women, xenophobic attitudes towards immigrants, incessant crying about the "war on christianity" etc makes me care more about such things than I normally would. I would actually vote for the Romney who was governor if he was running. Give me a Republican who is serious about limited federal government BOTH economically AND socially (and not be such a hypocrite like Santorum who is pretty much the opposite of small government) and you probably get my vote. When I disagree with policy stances on every single social issue which violates individual freedoms and liberty and the concept of small government, and I disagree with 95% of foreign policy stances (which again "conservatives" conveniently forget we also have to pay for), I end up voting Dem due to the lesser of two evils. I really wish the right didn't capitulate so much to the evangelical base of the party.

 

[ogb&c]

I believe strongly that:

1. Every American should be treated with dignity and respect, including the right to marry the person of one's choice and freedom from employment discrimination, regardless of sexual orientation;

2. No American should die or go bankrupt because he cannot afford essential medical care (the conservative approach embodied in the ACA is not my preferred approach, but it is vastly superior to the status quo ante);

3. The need to realign tax and spending priorities to ensure the long-term fiscal health of the country, even though that would mean my family and other more fortunate Americans pay higher taxes than we have over the past decade;

4. The funding of political campaigns should be completely transparent, regardless of whether those contributions are made directly to a candidate or political party or indirectly through a PAC, SuperPAC, or other organization involved in political advocacy; and

5. Jeff [Redacted] should be fired immediately.

At least we can all agree on one point.

 

[Caturday]

Ogb&c,

As to your third point, raising the taxes on the wealthy will have minimal impact on the "fiscal health of the country." You'd have to considerably raise the tax on the upper middle class to make a tiny debt in the deficit. Our government has shown no fiscal restraint in the past decade as Debt/GDP ratio has more than doubled. If the government succeeds in raising tax revenue, what makes you at all confident that it won't be matched or overmatched by a corresponding increase in government spending? I have no faith in this administration to reign in spending. Increasing the federal income tax isn't the way to grow the tax base. The only way to run a balanced budget is to have a strong private sector and to exercise restraint in spending. The idea that wealthy Americans should pay "their share" is a class warfare tactic and doesn't account for deadweight loss, disincentives to work/invest and incentivizes tax shelters. High tax rates for the upper middle class (not billionaires) punishes hard work and success. The government should focus on taxing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior.

 

[WFFaithful]

Ogb&c,

As to your third point, raising the taxes on the wealthy will have minimal impact on the "fiscal health of the country." You'd have to considerably raise the tax on the upper middle class to make a tiny debt in the deficit. Our government has shown no fiscal restraint in the past decade as Debt/GDP ratio has more than doubled. If the government succeeds in raising tax revenue, what makes you at all confident that it won't be matched or overmatched by a corresponding increase in government spending? I have no faith in this administration to reign in spending. Increasing the federal income tax isn't the way to grow the tax base. The only way to run a balanced budget is to have a strong private sector and to exercise restraint in spending. The idea that wealthy Americans should pay "their share" is a class warfare tactic and doesn't account for deadweight loss, disincentives to work/invest and incentivizes tax shelters. High tax rates for the upper middle class (not billionaires) punishes hard work and success. The government should focus on taxing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior.

So something has to have more than a "minimal impact" to make it worth doing? If it helps, it helps. The realignment of spending priorities that ogb&c mentioned are even more important. The median single income household earns just over $46,000 while those with two incomes earn just over $67,000. That's a long way below the $1,000,000 a year earners or even the $250,000 a year earners.

Only 2.7% of Americans make over $200,000, yet they are in the middle class?

 

[Caturday]

Tax revenues have declined since 2007 yet spending has increased and we have little to show for it. Monetary policy not fiscal policy brought us back from the brink of collapse and we'll have to pay the piper for that eventually. Do you really expect that if the government has access to more money they aren't simply going to spend more?

We don't have a minimal problem that needs a minimal solution. We have a major problem that requires a major solution. The disproportionate amount of time spent on arguing why the upper middle class should pay more is deflecting from the major issues we face: low growth relative to long term growth expectations, high unemployment, deficit spending and so many others. The argument is populist garbage and misconstrues the real issues of this economy.

As I've said on these boards a number of times, never consider an economic figure without context or at least a thorough understanding of what it's measuring. Median income is a poor statistic in any argument involving tax burdens because it over represents the poor and those incentivized by government programs not to work. 25% of Americans make less than $25,000/year and barely contribute (~2% of total tax revenue) to tax revenue. Many of these individuals benefit from negative income tax. Basically, they're being paid to be poor.

You also don't consider that high earners have often invested in their education and training with post tax dollars and took on debt to do so. So now you want them to be taxed at a higher rate for investing in education and often going into debt to do so? Again we're increasing the tax on good behavior in order to pay for bad behavior (government excess, those who abuse social programs).

Someone making $10m probably doesn't think on the margin but someone making $200k sure does. So when you increase their taxes they will respond with changes in preference and demand which sends ripples throughout the economy. But this is exactly what Obama wants to appeal to the masses while attacking the successful to avoid being held to account for his economic policy failures.

 

[PhDeac]

Cutting government spending would change preferences and demand and send ripples through the economy as well.

 

[ogb&c]

We're going to have to raise more revenue somehow to pay for Medicare, Social Security, and the old-age component of Medicaid as the baby boom generation retires. We will make up a large portion of the gap through improved economic growth (much of the current deficit is cyclical, but there is also a large structural imbalance), and we can continue to squeeze a little out of discretionary spending (politicians in both parties love to rail against "waste" and "abuse," but even if it were possible to root out all such wasted spending, this represents far too small a portion of our budget to put a serious dent in the problem), but at the end of the day we will also have to raise more tax revenue.

The best way to do this would be to overhaul the tax system for both individuals and corporations by eliminating most/all deductions and credits while lowering rates. But simply going back to the rates we had the last time our budget was balanced would also do the trick. Ideally, the threat of option two would provide the political impetus to make option one happen. But given that most Republicans mortally fear Grover Norquist and most Democrats know that the "Buffett Rule" polls far better than ending the mortgage interest deduction, I'm not optimistic.

 

[WFFaithful]

A big part is what we do with the surplus when/if we get one again. The last time we cut taxes instead of reducing the deficit/saving ss/etc.

 

[Caturday]

Cutting government spending would change preferences and demand and send ripples through the economy as well.

So we're clear, you're in favor of raising income tax on individuals in the top tax bracket? Those who already foot a disproportionate amount of the tax burden.

Correct, cutting government spending would have effects in the private market. But we're a consumer driven economy and the private sector is the more efficient and larger of the two . You seem to forget that the cost of a good isn't it's price, it's the cost of the best foregone option. There is a multiplier effect in the private sector equal to roughly 4 times that of the government sector. When you are reallocating resources from public to private you are acting irrationally, forgoing the best economic option. Then it becomes a case of wealth redistribution. Furthermore, you have to finance the budget gap which becomes increasingly expensive each year. At this pace, in most of our live times, tax revenues will only pay for net interest. I can't express to you how dire this is.

Raising taxes to cover government spending is the most inefficient thing you can do as you remove resources from the most efficient sector and incur a deadweight loss which hurts the private sector as well as the government.

In order to have a balanced budget we need to take some politically challenging steps such as cut programs that are easily handled in the private sector, reform entitlement spending, cut tax loop holes, simply the tax system, have every working American contribute to the tax base, unwind Fannie and Freddie, repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, let states administer more of the entitlement programs and a whole bevy of other things.

 

[fuheel]

So we're clear, you're in favor of raising income tax on individuals in the top tax bracket? Those who already foot a disproportionate amount of the tax burden.

they also control a disproportionate amount of the wealth

 

[Caturday]

they also control a disproportionate amount of the wealth

I feel that when people speak of the wealthy they have this idea of early 20th century tycoons running around kicking the poor and wearing monocles. The vast majority of the wealthy in this country are self-made, they've created profits for their companies, taken risk, made tradeoffs, etc. They control what they have by and large earned. Why should we arbitrarily tax them more for being successful? Because other people aren't and the government can't control itself? Again, taxing good behavior and rewarding bad behavior. We'll see how it works out in 30-40 years when we're really, really broke.

 

[fuheel]

I feel that when people speak of the wealthy they have this idea of early 20th century tycoons running around kicking the poor and wearing monocles. The vast majority of the wealthy in this country are self-made, they've created profits for their companies, taken risk, made tradeoffs, etc. They control what they have by and large earned. Why should we arbitrarily tax them more for being successful? Because other people aren't and the government can't control itself? Again, taxing good behavior and rewarding bad behavior. We'll see how it works out in 30-40 years when we're really, really broke.

I'm interested in your claim that the "vast majority of the wealthy in this country are self-made." It has always been my perception that this is not the case. Any links on the subject, or is your claim perception as well?

This isn't directly on point to what you just said, but I do find it interesting that economic mobility in the US is quite poor compared to other industrialized countries.

 

[Caturday]

Well 70% of the 400 wealthiest Americans are self made according to Forbes. That doesn't include individuals that inherited a small family business and turned it into a multibillion dollar one.

At lower levels you'll find an increasing blend of doctors, lawyers and other professionals.

 

[Sgt Hulka]

I'm interested in your claim that the "vast majority of the wealthy in this country are self-made." It has always been my perception that this is not the case. Any links on the subject, or is your claim perception as well?

This isn't directly on point to what you just said, but I do find it interesting that economic mobility in the US is quite poor compared to other industrialized countries.

Multiple sources out there, but I don't have the original source. Here are a couple of citations:

Millionaires Just Inherited Their Money
We all know the story of the spoiled heiress who spends her days sipping her beverage of choice by the pool, shopping, or waiting for her next scheduled appearance at the latest club or event opening. This is the protypical “trust-fund baby.” However, inherited wealth is far less common than you might think. Eighty percent of millionaires are first-generation rich, and roughly 65% have been wealthy for less than 15 years according to a study by American Express Publishing. Also, consider that just because you come from money doesn’t mean you will inherit it. Many wealthy don’t feel obligated to contribute to their grown children’s lifestyle or net worth. Forty-six percent of children from wealthy parents never receive an intergenerational transfer of wealth: not one dollar’s worth of inheritance.

http://www.roshawnwatson.com/7-surprising-facts-about-millionaires/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_110333.html

1. Millionaires Don't Pay Their Taxes
Fact: It is estimated that millionaires, those in the top 1% of earners, pay about 40 percent of all taxes. Current tax regulation shifts may change these numbers to make this even larger than that -- so think twice before accusing the millionaires in America of not paying taxes.
2. Millionaires Just Inherited Their Money
According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first-generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved, and lived within their means to generate their wealth -- think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died -- they worked for the money.

 

[Wakelaw2006]

Multiple sources out there, but I don't have the original source. Here are a couple of citations:

Millionaires Just Inherited Their Money
We all know the story of the spoiled heiress who spends her days sipping her beverage of choice by the pool, shopping, or waiting for her next scheduled appearance at the latest club or event opening. This is the protypical “trust-fund baby.” However, inherited wealth is far less common than you might think. Eighty percent of millionaires are first-generation rich, and roughly 65% have been wealthy for less than 15 years according to a study by American Express Publishing. Also, consider that just because you come from money doesn’t mean you will inherit it. Many wealthy don’t feel obligated to contribute to their grown children’s lifestyle or net worth. Forty-six percent of children from wealthy parents never receive an intergenerational transfer of wealth: not one dollar’s worth of inheritance.

http://www.roshawnwatson.com/7-surprising-facts-about-millionaires/

I would LOVE to see where this statistic comes from (not directed at you, Hulka - I clicked through to the link and can't find anything to back it up there). In my 6th year of practice I can count on one hand (actually, 2 fingers) the number of clients that have completely disinherited their children. One couple left everything to charity and one couple had one son who was a drug addict and in and out of jail - they left pretty much everything to nieces and nephews. I don't think my practice is atypical - I cannot imagine that 46% of children from wealthy (whatever that means) parents do not receive some form of intergenerational wealth transfer.

 

[Sgt Hulka]

I would LOVE to see where this statistic comes from (not directed at you, Hulka - I clicked through to the link and can't find anything to back it up there). In my 6th year of practice I can count on one hand (actually, 2 fingers) the number of clients that have completely disinherited their children. One couple left everything to charity and one couple had one son who was a drug addict and in and out of jail - they left pretty much everything to nieces and nephews. I don't think my practice is atypical - I cannot imagine that 46% of children from wealthy (whatever that means) parents do not receive some form of intergenerational wealth transfer.

I agree with you..seems like it can't be true. However, just thinking from your perspective...could it be that they do not engage trust attorneys (or whatever you do, but it seems logical) to administer their estates if they are going to stiff their kids and just go to joe blow local attorney? I can see that playing a role in why you would not have seen that many....but not to the 46% level. (ergo why I said I have not confirmation of the info.)

 

[Les Grossman]

The only political issue that currently matters to me is our deficit/debt. I want a long term plan that reduces our deficit and ultimately work towards paying down our national debt. I dont care if this is a 50 year solution. But, it needs to be done. We should literally lock every member of Congress in a room and refuse to let them out until they come up with a viable and workable solution. I also know this will never happen, they will continue to pass the buck, and focus on making political points over all the stupid crap that doesnt really matter.

 

[Wakelaw2006]

I agree with you..seems like it can't be true. However, just thinking from your perspective...could it be that they do not engage trust attorneys (or whatever you do, but it seems logical) to administer their estates if they are going to stiff their kids and just go to joe blow local attorney? I can see that playing a role in why you would not have seen that many....but not to the 46% level. (ergo why I said I have not confirmation of the info.)

Most clients don't have this kind of forethought, but completely disinheriting your kids would actually be an even more important reason to have a reputable estate planning lawyer draw up your documents. A lawyer experienced in this area would take steps to make it less likely that a will challenge would have any chance of succeeding. Since clients don't think that way, I'm sure you could be right, but I completely agree with you - not to the level of 46%.