How can you tell when Hannity is b.s.ing? His lips are moving. His truth-o-meter rating is even lower than Beck's, way lower. btw, I hear Beck is leaving Faux News. Declining ratings. It seems his over-the-top rants and conspiracy theories are wearing thin on the public. You act out, get higher ratings, so you escalate the acting out till it becomes a regular thing and then people get bored and tune out. Seems to be a bit of a trap many entertainers find themselves in--trapped by their own projection and defined by their extremes.

I'm not accusing anyone of lying here, only of being jelly-brained. And in this particular case, it wasn't him. But I don't think the guests were b.s.ing exactly, just that a lot of commentators aren't that bright and think in cliches and nonsense. Including Obama himself. I saw a shot of him at the Lincoln Memorial, explaining that thanks to the budget deal, it was open today and "that's what America is all about". Weren't you the one saying that he made some speech at a high grade level that was panned as being too elitest, and a low grade level speech that was panned for some other reason. Gimme one of those elitest speeches to compare with, because the dimwitted ones are driving me up the wall. The difference between an Obama and a Beckel is that I do think Obama knows when he's doing it.

As for Beck, I still stand on the statement that he doesn't tell untruths. Rather he doesn't say anything at all, beyond a very vague Founding Father Worship, and I'll stick to that until I hear him actually say something.

Well, we have the Ryan Plan, which is the only one on the table now. Obama only offered another of his No-Plan Plans (i.e. another acknowledgement of the problem, combined with a resolve to study it more closely. He talked about a few things, but put forth no actual plan to implement them. Since he previously ignored the recommendations of the Debt Commission, and came down on the side of no cuts at all in his State of the Union, I see no reason to think he'll take the same recommendations next time around. The Democratic Plan is to do nothing about the spending, despite admitting it to be unsustainable. With Pelosi-logic, we pretty much have to pass the Ryan Plan, since we must pass the bill to find out what's in it.



That's an argument for soaking the rich, but it's not an argument for soaking our grandkids.

I'm not so concerned about "unreasonable taxes" as I am about the debt. These are two different issues, that tend to get lumped together. The debt is what I care about now, with tax rates being a secondary concern. I might be willing to consider tax hikes as part of the solution if I had any confidence at all that a) they would yield more money rather than less, and b) that if we did get more money, it would be used for debt reduction rather than new spending. They've NEVER done that before and will break the promise again if we go for it. Assuming that they even made the promise at all. Every idea Obama has involves more spending. Give me some kind of assurance, like a Balanced Budget Amendment, and I'd go for a big tax increase like a shot.

This is one of the few times I've felt there was a lick of difference between the two parties. Five years ago, they were both doing pretty much the same thing on this issue. We might disagree about which of them was the bigger offender, but both were on the same side. Not at the moment, though. For the time being, the Democrats have come down squarely on the side that the debt is caused by inadequate revenue, the Republicans that it's caused by excessive spending. I don't want to try to tell you which side is right, only to point out that there is a difference now.


But if you want to talk about the other issue; what is a reasonable or unreasonable tax, then I have to admit that to me fairness means that someone making 10 times more than I do should pay 10 times more in taxes. Not 20 times more because I don't like him. I don't care about millionaires, but can't help remembering that bit from Nazi Germany; about how they came for the Catholics but I didn't speak up because I wasn't Catholic, they came for the Jews but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew, and so on. If they tell me that someone ought to pay more in taxes specifically because we don't like them, then I think I really ought to speak up even if it's somebody I can't detest. They might be able to sell me on higher taxes, but not with that argument.

But again, it's a secondary issue, because I would be willing to go along with higher taxes, whether I thought them reasonable or not, in order to fix the bigger issue of the debt.

RE: Obama Plan--it is certainly very fuzzy since it is an outline more than a plan. But looking at the type of plan that could plausibly come from that outline doesn't get anywhere near solving the problem. Much looks like wishful thinking--and even if every wish were granted it looks like Obama is planing to shrink deficit spending, not truly balance the budget.

RE: Ryan plan--I need more info on this one, but it appears to be premised on the notion that we can simply cut our way out of the problem. That ain't gonna work either because it will cause way too much pain.

Shifting $6400/year from gov't to individual seniors might address the problem on the gov't spending side, but we don't have a strong enough pension system for a large number of seniors to afford this. The first old lady who starts eating cat food so she can pay her share makes the evening news and kills the cuts.

If the plan has some sort of means testing so that the rich are paying more than the poor it might survive--but that goes against the current republican creed of protecting the wealthy.



Pretty much. Our grandparents and parents stuck us with this mess and unless something is done it will be passed onto the children and grandchildren that are yet unborn. Well, actually, I think the children and grandchildren will end up picking up the pieces of the financial collapse.



On much we agree. The debt is the core problem. We need to both get better control on spending and ask those with the means to provide more support. But those in charge constantly go in the opposite direction, spending more and taxing less.

This crowd cannot be trusted to use our tax dollars wisely. That is unfortunate because it just means that the problem will be perpetuated until it is too late (if it isn't already).

(Aside: apparently the IMF has issued a statement/report that talks about the need for the U.S. gov't to get its debt under control or prepare for collapse.)




At some level they are both right which is why they'll never get to a plan that solves the problem. In many ways we do spend too much. And in many ways we don't spend enough.

If we cut enough spending to balance next year's budget--or even cut enough to move towards balancing the budget in 5 years--there would be a lot of damage. (Keep an eye on South Dakota's economy next year...our governor put across the board cuts in place and declared that the world would no be better. He has no idea how much damage is going to be done with that much cutting that quickly.)




I was once an unapologetic supporter of a flat tax. I thought it was a "fair" tax. I don't think that any more. We've had 30 years of this tax experiment during which the gap between rich and poor has grown into a gaping gulf.

The rich have enjoyed more of the benefits from living in this country and they can afford to give more back. It isn't that I hate them, I wish to be one of them. But someone making a million dollars a year isn't going to feel an extra $50,000 in taxes in any meaningful way.

I used to buy into the notion that the rich somehow deserved their wealth--but more and more I come to understand that there is substantially more luck involved than many believe. Those folks making 7-figures on wall street could largely be replaced with $100k/year recent grads and no one would know the difference. Those high priced bankers and investors aren't any smarter than most of us, but they are a lot luckier.

Those who are born to wealth have a much easier time of it than those who are not. They aren't better, just luckier in their choice of parents.


[/quote]

Agreed. If we could trust the dimwits in DC to manage the money properly I would start by forgiving much of the debt owed to me. (I have a small collection of savings bonds. Not enough to even be noticeable given the size of the debt. But if I knew for a fact that no new debt would be issued I'd be willing to send them in uncashed.)

I was too. When I was a young teen. (13-15) Then I grew up, and realized that not everyone can be like me. Not everyone is blessed to be born into an upper middle class family. And to put it bluntly, not everyone is lucky enough to be born with a relatively high amount of brain power. The fact is, a flat tax is grossly unfair. Someone making a million dollars a year won't give a damn about 50,000 more in taxes, let alone be affected by it. It won't change their consumption habits.

As for the jobs argument, this one would be a howler if so many people didn't buy this right-wing lie. Companies hire to increase capacity. If they have extra capital, but no need increase capacity, they won't hire. So tax cuts don't do a damn thing. One could make the argument that lower taxes fuels more consumption which in turn leads to more jobs, but this is probably only true at the lower income levels (who already pay little to no income tax). Furthermore, government spending should also fuel consumption, and services to the poor free up money for them to make discretionary purchases. In the end money is fungible, and zero sum.

Well, if you wouldn't mind a little constructive criticism, it might do bettter to rely less on the acrimony and the talking points.

As for the acrimony, the whole point of discourse is discussion. If you go to the well too often with the idea that nothing is truly debatable and anyone with an opposing view is stupid or a liar, you might intimdate a few into changing their view just to avoid being thought that way. But it's like The Boy Who Cried Wolf, by the 5th or 6th time it won't work, and they'll just revert back and never listen to you again.

In this case, it's not at all intuitively obvious that a company will be equally willing to expand, regardless of the risk, and regardless of the cost of expanding. So, the idea that anyone who thinks so is duped or lying is kind of a lazy man's way of avoiding the legwork of demonstrating the idea. In theory, government spending should, and does fuel consumption as well, but it tends to do it much less efficiently, simply because there's no need to be efficient.



As for the talking points, it's important to show how your arguments flow into your conclusions. It's not enough to just say "The Rich have too much, therefore anything we do in the name of opposing that must be good", you also have to show how what you're doing actually furthers that goal.

In this case, if a flat tax is unfair, you need to say what is fair. The idea that "any dollar we can take out of those #$%'s is a Hate based philosophy that will only appeal to fringe elements. Hate has no limits, but fairness does. If it's not fair that a guy who makes 10 times more than me pays 10 times more than what is fair? To have any claim to being fair, then it must be possible, in theory at least, to be unfair to the Rich. If it's not possible, even in theory, to be unfair to someone (whether it be the Rich, Jews, Muslims, or whoever you want to name), then you have a Hate based philosophy.

You imply that the point of the tax code is to change people's consumption habits, but is that a settled fact? Is it something that everyone would agree on? Or are there other ideas?

Really? Have you ever had a million per year income?

Again, I have no acrimony for the wealthy. I am no Robin Hood proposing that we take more from the rich and give to the poor.

The argument for a flat tax or low tax is based on a "just world hypothesis" that people get what they deserve. Those who are wealthy are some how superior and more deserving than those who are poor. A position that is positively acrimonious against those who are struggling.

(Worse yet there is a growing body of evidence that those who are making 8 figures on wall street are really no better than monkeys throwing darts. Here I do have some acrimony against people who are taking money under false pretenses.)

Those who are wealthy are reaping the greatest benefit from the taxes that are paid. Why should they not pay a bit more?

The psychological and practical impact of $50,000 is much less to a millionaire than $2500 is to someone making $50,000/year even though the percentages are the same.

If low income taxes were a major consideration for corporations choosing to expand South Dakota would be an urban/industrial state. We aren't. No income taxes, some of the lowest wages in the country, and major corporations barely look at us as they add another facility in some higher tax state.

Tax policy is well down the list of criteria that businesses use to decide whether to hire workers or not.

Oh, I know. In fact, I think we're pretty close to agreement. I'm just saying that that's the way it's sold to the public. The joke is that it's sold by people who are themselves wealthy, but jealous of those wealthier than themselves. I'm okay with the idea of taxing the rich, I just balk at the idea that we should hate them.

But even that's a secondary concern at the moment. The debt is top priority, and taxing them more won't solve that problem. Every time the government gets more, they spend it rather than using it for debt reduction. We have to fix that problem first. Worse yet, the problems they spend it on get worse rather than better because they don't spend it very wisely.

Otherwise, I'm fine with the idea that the rich should pay more. We don't want a situation like revolutionary France, with a couple of people having everything while the peasants starved. But if we spend trillions helping the poor and they starve anyway, then we need to rethink how we're spending it.

Right now, the top 3% pays more in taxes than the bottom 97%. Could they afford even more? Yes, they probably could. I don't know if the rest of us could, but the rich could. The problem is we're in a global economy, and if doing business here is too expensive, people take the jobs to someplace where it's less expensive. I was laid off from Dell four separate times because of the job being shipped to India. One time it was out the door that same day. The other times they said "You've got this long to find another job within the company, or you're out." Twice I managed to, the other time I didn't. So, four layoffs, two fatal. And I don't see either party doing anything about that.

As for the Flat Tax, I'm flexible even on that. But, if that's not fair, I want to hear what is. Some specific number about how much a millionnaire should pay. What the Democrats give us "as much as possible, and it's never enough, and any time we overspend it's their fault for not giving more." If you think someone who makes 10 times more than me should pay 20 times more in taxes, then I might be willing to go along with even that, as long as we have a number beyond which we shouldn't go.

The way they sell tax hikes now is with the idea that somebody else will pay it, not you (of course you do anyway, because every time they say they're going to raise taxes on the rich, they raise them on the rich and middle class both). I don't think I should be able to raise taxes on someone else without raising them on myself too. Maybe not as much, but some. People would be less willing to solve problems with more taxes rather than less spending if they knew they were going to pay more too. (They pay more as it is, they just aren't aware of it beforehand).

Mainly, I want to be sure that what we do actually fixes the problem. As you say, the gulf between rich and poor is still huge, despite the fact that the top 3% pays more than the bottom 97%.

Could we have a definition of "wealthy" and "afford"? This argument is rather like saying "I'm against bad things."

There are two advantages to the flat tax which no one addresses. First, there are no "boundry problems", as we call them in philosophy. If you go from making $10,000, and paying 10% tax, to making $100,000 and paying 20% tax, you don't care because your after-tax income goes up from $9,000 to $80,000. But how often does that happen? If you go from $10,000 and 10% to $11,000 and 20%, well, you care a lot and that does happen a lot. This is the boundary problem. The flat tax eliminates that.

More in the next post.