Teabag Obama!

[Bliss]

....which is to say, send him teabags to protest high taxes, just like the Boston Tea Party! ...even though that was taxation without representation, which people have now.


Schuster: If You're Planning Tea Bagging Across The Country, 'You're Going To Need A Dick Armey'


Seriously, guys... I had to watch this twice because I couldn't breathe from laughing.

I also suggest checking out both Rachel Maddow and John Stewart's pieces on this particular news item.

[Zeitgeist]

I would agree that the gleeful emphasis on 'teabagging' and the obvious sexual connotations that come with it are indeed hilarious, even if the root cause and purpose behind the event(s) I do believe are genuine and very worthy in of themselves.

[Bliss]

Ultimately, I think that no matter what happens with taxing (raising, lowering, or leaving it as is) there's going to be protest, sometimes with validity and sometimes without... in this case, I think the misguided nicknaming of their protest action is far more interesting than the protest itself.

[Inkidu]

A few notes:

Nothing more than I like to see a biased liberal news show rip a biased republican news show. They're like whiny little children.

If you pause when that guys says taxing or teabagging in the beginning it looks freaking hilarious.

And finally. How the hell could he deliver that with a straight face? I would be laughing my ass off.

[Bliss]

*grin* If you want to see somebody lose it, go look up Rachel Maddow's segment on the teabagging movement... not only can she not keep a straight face for pretty much any of it, at one point she even actually starts to admonish the off-camera people in the newsroom for laughing and making her laugh!

You gotta wonder... why didn't these guys' aides sidle up to them and whisper "Dude, teabagging means (definition)...."

I mean, even the dude known for frequenting prostitutes didn't know? Seriously?

[Inkidu]

There are two definitions for teabagging as far as I know.

The video game slang.
And the sexual slang.

I'm thinking they're thinking the latter.

[Bliss]

If I'm not mistaken, the VG slang sprouted from the sexual slang... given the location of this board in the public part of the site, do you mind PMing me to clarify terms? :)

[RubySlippers]

I attended the local one in Saint Petersburg, Florida. As the only Libertarian Party person there I managed to get to the mic and pointed out the obvious to some boos.

1. To pay for a Nanny State its expensive and taxes will be higher. Noting many agencies like the Department of Education and the EPA duplicate state level programs so are not really needed.

2. That no party will lower the size and expenses of government at the Federal level until in election incumbants are widesly removed by voters, since they need votes more than their PAC money. Since voting keeps them in their seats not just money.

3. Its really simple to fix stop demanding the government offer so many services not in the US Constitution in its core powers and do more things yourselves and at the state level. For an example end all Federal money to education, health care, state projects, welfare and the like and focus on a small military again then we can get taxes down very low Federally. And local and state governments can tax to fill in any of these services with state taxes which are generally easier to contain. Or better let the citizens spend all their money freely to charity efforts as their conscience dictates and to pay for many things themselves with free market alternatives. Adding there is no reason the state and counties need to fund education that is the parents job to arrange for.

I guess the real truth hurts that the tax mess is the voters fault as is the government spending and that happened long before Obama hit the stage.

I wouild suggest restart the Federal income tax to what it was at the beginning 1% on incomes up to $3000 to a whopping 6% on incomes over $500,000.  No government should be able to steal more than that.

[Mathim]

Give the poor guy a break. If he taxes the wrong people he's going to get a bullet in the head and he knows it.

[Bliss]

....I don't understand your supposition, Mathim. Could you please flesh it out more and maybe offer some sources?

[Mathim]

What I'm saying is if he tries to tax the wealthy to solve the problem, he'll be assassinated. Doesn't anyone watch movies anymore? The good guy hero-type always dies doing the right thing. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in a South Park episode in the near future.

[Bliss]

Oh yes, of COURSE, of course!

I completely forgot about how real life politics are always exactly like the movies. Thank you!


Ahem. Seriously, though. (Because teabagging for tax reform is so serious.)

[Mathim]

Actually most of the time reality is way more weird than what happens in the movies. Look at Watergate.

But anyway, if Obama wants to raise taxes I can understand the need but there are way more solutions (if only on the state level, not the federal level) that ought to be explored first. Or rather, that should have been done ages ago before Obama was left to clean up the enormous pile of excrement Bush left behind.

[Zakharra]

 Controlling spending first. The Fed. government spends WAY too much. Deficit spending (piling up a huge debt)  to get out of recession? The tax system needs to be totally reworked where everyone,e including the poor, pay income taxes. As it is now, nearly half of the US  doesn't pay income taxes.  I do not trust the current party to make an effective and fair tax system though. I don't trust the previous party, as it was structured, either to do it.

[consortium11]

I'm a modern liberal (generally Rawlsian), which is slightly to the left of what I know of the US libertarian party, so I'm against large government and social programs in general. I'm also in England, so I'm used to being looked at like I'm crazy for ever suggesting there's a case for reducing the size of the NHS and pretty much completely unrepresented by the political establishment here. From that background I think there's a few things to consider:

1) The fact that the major players supporting this have reaffirmed the use of the word "Teabagging" in the title is something I'd expect from 4chan, not the political elite. It reduces the impact it could have had. It's also clear that several high level members/supporters of the GOP have had a large role in organising this... which only adds to the idea being bandied around that as a movement mainstream Republicanism is out of touch.

2) In conjunction with the above, much of the protest was organised and masterminded by the "old boys" of Republican politics using modern methods. A couple of websites have already broken this down, but it's clear the "sudden grassroots support" was a combination of contrieved and manufactured, although of course, some people did attend outside of that.

3) Yet again in conjunction with above, there is no real popular support for reducing government size. There is while this story is in the news, but that's because smaller government has been a right wing catchphrase used by talking heads for the last decade without actually doing anything to support it. The Libertarian Party has horrible election numbers and Ron Paul, the biggest chance to show a real will to reduce government size only ever drew above 10% in primary votes when the cause was already lost. Both major candidates in the election supported the bailout, and both have had the liberal/socialist tag thrown at them multiple times.

I'd debate whether the government offering services such as education is right or wrong, but there's really an issue for another thread.

[Trieste]

... >.>

<.<

John Rawls is the DEBIL. *shakes fist, steals the threads serious bone, and runs off*

[Inkidu]

... >.>

<.<

John Rawls is the DEBIL. *shakes fist, steals the threads serious bone, and runs off*

Thank You! Run like something that is actually high pressure moving to an area of lower pressure causing a vacuum. You know they should come up for a better word for that.

[Trieste]

I ... am...

SUPER BERNOULLI WOMAN.

[Inkidu]

I ... am...

SUPER BERNOULLI WOMAN.

I smell movie deals.

[Bliss]

Does it smell like fresh-brewed tea?

[Vekseid]

What I'm saying is if he tries to tax the wealthy to solve the problem, he'll be assassinated. Doesn't anyone watch movies anymore? The good guy hero-type always dies doing the right thing. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in a South Park episode in the near future.

Did Eisenhower have any repercussions for raising the top bracket to 90%?

[Inkidu]

Does it smell like fresh-brewed tea?

Maybe I would smell it. I don't like tea. That's why I think I had an ancestor at that Tea Party. Though I think he might have been a Brit. If my family tree is even freaking decipherable.

[Trieste]

... did he get teabagged?

[Bliss]

It was crates of tea, so...
...did he get teaboxed?



*insert Spongebob joke of your choice here*

[Trieste]

Ahahahaha.



KLONK!

[Inkidu]

... did he get teabagged?

No but he was probably a hater of boiled bark. Eww tea...

[Bliss]

[Trieste]

... you just took that picture for the sake of a joke, didn't you?

There's no way such a perfect picture can be found on the internet.

[Bliss]

Oh really?

[Trieste]

[Bliss]

*crowns herself Queen of the Internet*



*sips some tea*

[Trieste]

... purple!

[Oniya]

No but he was probably a hater of boiled bark. Eww tea...

"So that's it, is it?" said the Nutri-Matic when he had finished.

"Yes," said Arthur, "that is what I want."

"You want the taste of dried leaves in boiled water?"

"Er, yes. With milk."

"Squirted out of a cow?"

"Well, in a manner of speaking I suppose ..."

[consortium11]

... >.>

<.<

John Rawls is the DEBIL. *shakes fist, steals the threads serious bone, and runs off*

I don't particularly like much of his jurisprudence work, I really dislike the way he seems to attatch everything to Kant and I'm not even a fan of much of his means for getting to his end: I think the veil of ignorence has serious issues with it, but I do believe his version of liberalism is both the most morally and logically sound... and it's the best of the political philosophy positions.

Does that make me a DEBILworshiper or whatever the cool term is for us now?  :D

[Bliss]

Yesh. Welcome to zee club, here is zee complimentary het.

[Zeitgeist]

Funny how when Bush was in office, dissent was supposed to be 'patriotic'. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, descent is somehow unbalanced, ugly and radical.

This CNN reporter's reaction to the protester's is quite illustrative of this curious switch.

Chicago Tea Party VS CNN Reporter:"Fascist & Anti-CNN?"

Oh and never mind that strange report that came out by DHS and Napalatono about the threat of 'right wing' activism.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/usa/story.php?id=451008

'Cmon, lets be consistent at least. If dissent is patriotic, then it remains patriotic whether or not its your guy in the office or the others.

[Trieste]

What a horrible piece of (I use this term lightly) journalism. Is that woman related to Michael Moore? Her antagonistic, in-your-face style of interviewing does nothing but make everyone - including her - look stupid. Her decision to make her point with the guy who can defend his statements of 'Obama is a fascist' with no other defense but "Because he is!" also makes her look like a bully.

However, the purpose of this thread, I believe, was to make fun of the humor, not bash people for protesting.

(Although, seriously, poor widdle rich guys who can afford accountants up the yin-yang to look for tax breaks are getting their taxes raised? Awwwwwwwww, let me get a violin.)

[Zeitgeist]

What a horrible piece of (I use this term lightly) journalism. Is that woman related to Michael Moore? Her antagonistic, in-your-face style of interviewing does nothing but make everyone - including her - look stupid. Her decision to make her point with the guy who can defend his statements of 'Obama is a fascist' with no other defense but "Because he is!" also makes her look like a bully.

However, the purpose of this thread, I believe, was to make fun of the humor, not bash people for protesting.

(Although, seriously, poor widdle rich guys who can afford accountants up the yin-yang to look for tax breaks are getting their taxes raised? Awwwwwwwww, let me get a violin.)

Well, I would argue that in part, the use of MSNBC's over the top, if admittedly funny parody of tea-bagging is an attempt to cast what is otherwise a fair gripe as just something ridiculous and irrelevant.

Oberman and Maddow as at least as dishonest and disingenuous as the left claim O'Reilly and Hannity are.

[Inkidu]

I laugh at both political parties. They're the two sides of the same coin and refuse to see it. Ignorance is not only bliss but humorous as well. :D

*Ish proud supporter of the Purple Party*

[goalt]

Funny how when Bush was in office, dissent was supposed to be 'patriotic'. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, descent is somehow unbalanced, ugly and radical.

What about the flip side? During the Bush years, dissent was un-American. Now it--even talk of armed rebellion is being praised up and down by the very same people!


Also, these people seem to have taken up the old "taxation without representation" cry. But, wait, what is this? What, then, are those representatives and senators?

One last point. Boston Tea Party was protesting the repeal of a tax.

[Oniya]

Beg pardon, but with in-laws in the Boston area, I get bombarded with 'local history' every time I visit.

On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and has often been referenced in other political protests.

The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their constitutional right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protestors had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.

[consortium11]

What about the flip side? During the Bush years, dissent was un-American. Now it--even talk of armed rebellion is being praised up and down by the very same people!


Also, these people seem to have taken up the old "taxation without representation" cry. But, wait, what is this? What, then, are those representatives and senators?

One last point. Boston Tea Party was protesting the repeal of a tax.

I believe the argument is that because of the vast increases in government spending and national debt those in the following generations will be burdened by a huge tax bill to cover it... and obviously, someone's who's not born yet has no representation.

What weight you want to give to that or other "think of the children!" arguments is up to you...

[goalt]

That's what I get for just trusting Some History Teacher I Know :p

But, do note that, according at least to the Wiki article, it wasn't necessarily the tax that was the issue, but rather the monopoly it would create:

Some claim that the protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protestors were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent.[39] Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights.[40] This was especially true in Massachusetts, the only colony where the Townshend program had been fully implemented.[41]

Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business.[42] Legitimate tea importers who had not been named as consignees by the East India Company were also threatened with financial ruin by the Tea Act.[43] Another major concern for merchants was that the Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade, and it was feared that this government-created monopoly might be extended in the future to include other goods.[44]

EDIT: People who are not born yet have no representation... but they don't exactly exist yet, either.

[Trieste]

See, and I was told by my history teacher that actually, the colonies ended up with lower taxes than the rest of Britain.

With about as much representation as the rest of it.

[goalt]

Well, the British concept of representation was different from what we think of now. To them, the colonies were represented--I forget what the concept was named, though.


There's also the matter of the practicality of representing, what with the ocean in between and all

[Oniya]

See, and I was told by my history teacher that actually, the colonies ended up with lower taxes than the rest of Britain.

With about as much representation as the rest of it.

This may have been true, but it was the colonial perception that they were being mistreated, just as it seems to be the perception that Obama's taxes, though apparently less than Reagan's, are unfairly high.  (And now we're back on topic ;D)

[Zakharra]

What about the flip side? During the Bush years, dissent was un-American. Now it--even talk of armed rebellion is being praised up and down by the very same people!

During the Bush years, the Democrats were saying that dissent 'was' American. Now that they are in power, they are working to make those who do disagree with them, look small and try to  brush them off.

[Nessy]

During the Bush years, the Democrats were saying that dissent 'was' American. Now that they are in power, they are working to make those who do disagree with them, look small and try to  brush them off.

The media has a lot to gain by presenting only the most verbal and most obnoxious individuals from each party on screen. It makes small people comfortable to be confronted by primarily seeing and hearing only individuals of their like minds. It would be difficult, however, for even the media to make someone look small and brush them off if they had actual content to speak of. Instead they are likely not to be presented at all except through less mainstream sources.

Since we already know that the parties are presented in the most extreme lights and that the majority of the population falls somewhere in between them, it seems a mute point to talk about "the" Democrats and "the" Republicans as if the viewpoints that are being referred to actually full represent a majority of the American People.

Personally I think dissent isn't just "American" its part of any healthy democratic process, and I support it if its voiced with thought and meaning instead of usual grunting we hear, however wishing for our government to fail is an extremist position that serves a minority and for the sake of our troups, wishing that a war we already entered to fail was also an extremist position. Both "parties" were wrong on those fronts, but then again, neither party really represents any majority.

[purpleartemis00]

According to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget's Office's site the average American pays about 9.1 of his/her income in taxes. Do you think that's too much?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/04/tax-rhetoric-vs-reality.html

[Zakharra]

According to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget's Office's site the average American pays about 9.1 of his/her income in taxes. Do you think that's too much?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/04/tax-rhetoric-vs-reality.html

  Possibly, but that is the average over all people old enough to pay taxes. Nearly half (About 45-49%) of Americans do not pay Federal income tax. The upper 50% is taxed at a higher rate to compensate for that and they do pay more, much more the higher you go in tax brackets, in taxes. Also the % of income tax paid is far more at the upper levels.

The top 50% pay over 80, nearly 90% of all federal income taxes. Which is a huge chunk already and the government (Congress and White House) plan on tapping that even more, while 'helping' people who do not pay taxes, or pay very little at all. IE, the 'Tax the Rich' arguement because they obviously have more money.

To pay for the massive spending they plan on doing, they are going to have to tax more people, not less. The rich will only be tappable for some long before they are dried out of ready funds.

[goalt]

The top 50% pay over 80, nearly 90% of all federal income taxes.

This statement feels very misleading. Income tax is based on income. Of course the top whatever percent pays a higher total of the collected money--this would be the case even if everyone had the same percent of  income tax! A man paying 9% of $1,000,000 pays more than a man paying 9% of 70,000!*


*Numbers pulled out of nowhere

During the Bush years, the Democrats were saying that dissent 'was' American. Now that they are in power, they are working to make those who do disagree with them, look small and try to  brush them off.

"Look small" and "look like traitors" are two different sentiments! But I'm not denying that both parties have hypocrites.

[Oniya]

This statement feels very misleading. Income tax is based on income. Of course the top whatever percent pays a higher total of the collected money--this would be the case even if everyone had the same percent of  income tax! A man paying 9% of $1,000,000 pays more than a man paying 9% of 70,000!*


*Numbers pulled out of nowhere

I don't believe that the rate of income tax is linear, though.  The man paying tax on $1,000,000 might be paying at a rate of 15% instead of the 9% that the man paying tax on $70,000 owes.

(Numbers likewise pulled out of nowhere.)

[consortium11]

I don't believe that the rate of income tax is linear, though.  The man paying tax on $1,000,000 might be paying at a rate of 15% instead of the 9% that the man paying tax on $70,000 owes.

(Numbers likewise pulled out of nowhere.)

I believe the income tax rates in the UK start out at 10% for the lowest level of taxable income and peak at 40% for those higher than £37k.

In the US I believe it's around 35% for the highest earners... and there's far more brackets between the two.

That also isn't the whole story, as most people (especially in the top brackets) won't just be paying income tax.

[goalt]

I don't believe that the rate of income tax is linear, though.  The man paying tax on $1,000,000 might be paying at a rate of 15% instead of the 9% that the man paying tax on $70,000 owes.

(Numbers likewise pulled out of nowhere.)

No, it may not be. However, it is still misleading to talk about how the top X% income pay the top Y% of the income taxes. To compare the percent tax on their incomes with others is valid, but to suggest that them providing more money in pure amount is some sort of problem is wrong.

EDIT: I also note I may have misread the original poster's intent--I am having a bit of a kneejerk reaction based on previous encounters with similar statements. If so, my apologies.

[Oniya]

I'm thinking that one of the issues being raised (brain not functioning at peak right now) was that the top X% were complaining that their taxes were too high, and yet when Reagan was in office, those taxes were even higher.

Although the painkillers just spoke up and said - 'Why would sending someone a teabag necessarily be a protest? What if they like tea?'

[Zakharra]

I'm thinking that one of the issues being raised (brain not functioning at peak right now) was that the top X% were complaining that their taxes were too high, and yet when Reagan was in office, those taxes were even higher.

Although the painkillers just spoke up and said - 'Why would sending someone a teabag necessarily be a protest? What if they like tea?'

Reagan lowered taxes from a high of about 70% to around 30% for the top marginal rate.

[Zakharra]

This statement feels very misleading. Income tax is based on income. Of course the top whatever percent pays a higher total of the collected money--this would be the case even if everyone had the same percent of  income tax! A man paying 9% of $1,000,000 pays more than a man paying 9% of 70,000!*


*Numbers pulled out of nowhere

I got my numbers from the IRS for the last rated year.  The volume of money being taken in by income taxes is paid in the most part by the top 50% of wage earners. IE, people warning money. Once your money is made, it is more or less untaxed. Income taxes is on earned income.

Now the poor and lower to middle  middle class do not pay income taxes if they get the right exemptions. Which is almost 50% of the money earners now. If it keeps up, more people will be added to the non tax players, thereby making income tax payers a minority.

I cannot imagine that being a good thing. It would make those being taxed an unfairly taxed minority. Since they'd be the 'only' ones being taxed.

[Vekseid]

Taxes also come from sales taxes, property taxes, tariffs, etc. It's important to keep in mind that the benefits are not proportional, either - the rich have more assets to have the government protect, on several levels.

The thing is, if you don't provide a means for people to climb out of the hole they dug themselves into (or got thrown into), their natural response is not going to be to starve to death. American education provides rather little on financial management, critical thinking, or self promotion. Lacking in any of these (and other) skills can be crippling and if the next economic recovery is a 'jobless' one, things are not going to improve.

[purpleartemis00]

  Possibly, but that is the average over all people old enough to pay taxes. Nearly half (About 45-49%) of Americans do not pay Federal income tax. The upper 50% is taxed at a higher rate to compensate for that and they do pay more, much more the higher you go in tax brackets, in taxes. Also the % of income tax paid is far more at the upper levels.

The top 50% pay over 80, nearly 90% of all federal income taxes. Which is a huge chunk already and the government (Congress and White House) plan on tapping that even more, while 'helping' people who do not pay taxes, or pay very little at all. IE, the 'Tax the Rich' arguement because they obviously have more money.

To pay for the massive spending they plan on doing, they are going to have to tax more people, not less. The rich will only be tappable for some long before they are dried out of ready funds.

I actually agree with you. I'm just a big fan of injecting facts into discourse and seeing people discuss those rather than speculations.

I'm not saying that anyone was speculating, just that having the facts about specifics makes both sides better informed and more able to formulate interesting arguments.

[Trieste]

... and if the next economic recovery is a 'jobless' one, things are not going to improve.

I actually don't particularly follow the 'jobless recovery' thing. How can you possibly recover from rising unemployment without ... lowering it again?

[Zakharra]

Taxes also come from sales taxes, property taxes, tariffs, etc. It's important to keep in mind that the benefits are not proportional, either - the rich have more assets to have the government protect, on several levels.

*nod* True. But most people think of income taxes, which are increasingly being levied disproportionately on the wealthier people. (upper 50%) That is shown by the hugely lopsided  percantage that they do pay in the income tax revenue. The wealthy also tend to pay more in sales, property taxes, tariffs and such since they have more expensive homes/properties, buy more pricey things (which employ people to make).

[Nessy]

*nod* True. But most people think of income taxes, which are increasingly being levied disproportionately on the wealthier people. (upper 50%) That is shown by the hugely lopsided  per cantage that they do pay in the income tax revenue. The wealthy also tend to pay more in sales, property taxes, tariffs and such since they have more expensive homes/properties, buy more pricey things (which employ people to make).

Well if you want to talk about income taxes and not just talk about the Federal Income Tax, then you need to talk about Medicare and Social Security which disproportionally help the rich and has a cap so that the wealthiest actually pay a lower amount (as a percentage of income) than the lower and middle class. Its disproportionate because those with low incomes tend to have lower lifespans due to lack of proper care and other health issues that are seen more often in their numbers than the wealthy. The whole system is actually built so that less people actually get a chance to ever draw on these benefits. That's one reason they raise the age limit, a lot more people will make it to 60 compared to those who make it o say 70. Which group do you think is loosing the most people in those ten years, the wealthy or the poor?

Edit, I forgot to mention that the capital gains tax situation most definitely benefits the wealthy more as well.

[Torch]

Well if you want to talk about income taxes and not just talk about the Federal Income Tax, then you need to talk about Medicare and Social Security which disproportionally help the rich and has a cap so that the wealthiest actually pay a lower amount (as a percentage of income) than the lower and middle class. Its disproportionate because those with low incomes tend to have lower lifespans due to lack of proper care and other health issues that are seen more often in their numbers than the wealthy. The whole system is actually built so that less people actually get a chance to ever draw on these benefits. That's one reason they raise the age limit, a lot more people will make it to 60 compared to those who make it o say 70. Which group do you think is loosing the most people in those ten years, the wealthy or the poor?

Edit, I forgot to mention that the capital gains tax situation most definitely benefits the wealthy more as well.

Excellent point, and one I've always thought was extremely unfair.

And I'm speaking as one who's income is over the maximum amount for contributions (well, technically it's Mr. Torch's income), but I've never understood why the FICA contribution has remained the same even as our income has risen. Anything over 108K is basically free from FICA tax, which makes little sense. I would have no problem with paying the 6% tax on our entire income, not just the first 108K.

[Vekseid]

I actually don't particularly follow the 'jobless recovery' thing. How can you possibly recover from rising unemployment without ... lowering it again?

The money goes to shareholders of say, companies who heavily outsource rather than people who might be employed by these companies in the US if there were not tax incentives to actually export jobs. (I so want Carly "You have no right to a job." Fiona to run for California governor. I want to see her eat that line.)

*nod* True. But most people think of income taxes, which are increasingly being levied disproportionately on the wealthier people. (upper 50%) That is shown by the hugely lopsided  percantage that they do pay in the income tax revenue. The wealthy also tend to pay more in sales, property taxes, tariffs and such since they have more expensive homes/properties, buy more pricey things (which employ people to make).

Not always. The wealthy often import more, choose areas where they pay lower property taxes, and have better accountants to get them tax writeoffs. I have family members in this category and running my own business has been quite an eye opener in this regard. I personally find sales taxes to be the annoying ones.

As far as the rich sharing a disproportionate amount of the burden, I side firmly with the two richest men in the world. Whose roads, whose research, whose currency enables 'the rich'? I find it amusing that Forbes of all places tries to spin Warren of all people as 'not understanding' the double taxation issue... I think he's quite thoroughly aware of it.

America needs to solve its trade deficit first, of course. Until that happens the US is heading for a train wreck.

[Zakharra]

 

Not always. The wealthy often import more, choose areas where they pay lower property taxes, and have better accountants to get them tax writeoffs. I have family members in this category and running my own business has been quite an eye opener in this regard. I personally find sales taxes to be the annoying ones.

As far as the rich sharing a disproportionate amount of the burden, I side firmly with the two richest men in the world. Whose roads, whose research, whose currency enables 'the rich'? I find it amusing that Forbes of all places tries to spin Warren of all people as 'not understanding' the double taxation issue... I think he's quite thoroughly aware of it.

America needs to solve its trade deficit first, of course. Until that happens the US is heading for a train wreck.

  If Warren Buffet wants to give more taxes he can. It's his money, he can do what he wants with it.

The wealthy do import more. Stuff made in companies in other natuions that employ people. Plus they have (often) houses with staff to tend it. Many have several homes, in the city (high tax areas) and some in the countryside (generally low tax areas). Where I live the govenor of California has(had?) a residence on an island. No doubt fairly low property taxes were paid on it. Overall, the wealthy spend moree. They have the money for it, why shouldn't they spend some of it?

My main issue with taxes, income taxes, mostly is those who do not pay it demanding those who do (anyone wealthier than they are) pay more. I've been told by some on another board that they would not mind if the tax on wealth generated over about $200,000 was about 70-95%. Their arguements for it usually ended up in several ways. 1; they have more so they can 'afford' to be taxed higher. 2; they deswerve to be taxed more. 3; The money is better spent by the government on social programs than by the ones earning it. 4; THE MONEY THEY ARE NOT PAYING IS KILLING PEOPLE!! THEY NEED TO BE TAXED SO IT CAN GO INTO NEEDED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT WILL KEEP PEOPLE FROM DYING!!

Sorry about the cap lock, but that last arguement was exactly what I was told by someone who framed her arguement  that not paying more taxes was killing people and that everyone who was against raised taxed was, indirectly, a murdering bastard.

IF you raised rates, what would yopu raise them to? Would it be just the rich (in this case, the upper 50% of income payers) who would pay or would you be willing to extend the tax back down to the 45% or so that pay no income taxes?

then you need to talk about Medicare and Social Security which disproportionally help the rich and has a cap so that the wealthiest actually pay a lower amount (as a percentage of income) than the lower and middle class. Its disproportionate because those with low incomes tend to have lower lifespans due to lack of proper care and other health issues that are seen more often in their numbers than the wealthy. The whole system is actually built so that less people actually get a chance to ever draw on these benefits. That's one reason they raise the age limit, a lot more people will make it to 60 compared to those who make it o say 70. Which group do you think is loosing the most people in those ten years, the wealthy or the poor?

Edit, I forgot to mention that the capital gains tax situation most definitely benefits the wealthy more as well.

As far as I know, the wealthy do not use Medicare/cade. They can pay for better health care, get the better more expensive treatments.

Capoital gains affects those who own stock, right? If so that is a good many elderly and pensioners that are taxed too. Not just the rich business owners.

[Nessy]

   
As far as I know, the wealthy do not use Medicare/cade. They can pay for better health care, get the better more expensive treatments.

Capoital gains affects those who own stock, right? If so that is a good many elderly and pensioners that are taxed too. Not just the rich business owners.

Medicare is an entitlement program, so is social security. Bob Hope was famous for taking his first check despite the fact he didn't need it. It has nothing to do with how much you make you are entitled to the benefit and many of them take it. Medicaid, however, is not an entitlement program and you have to meet certain financial criteria to get it. You can be on Medicare and Medicaid at the same time, but they are two very different programs. The wealthy certainly use Medicare and then supplement that insurance with an insurance of their own or they just pay cash.

Social Security, another entitlement program and someone like Bob Hope pulled out a lot more money than he ever put into it because he lived so long and because Social Security is a regressive tax and has a cap so the rich don't pay after a certain amount.

Capital gains is a lot more complex than just what you earn on stocks, but it can apply to gains on stock. The point is if you had earned $100,000 dollars because of a trust fund you were given by your grandmother and someone else earned $100,000 through wages, the person with wages is going to pay a lot, a lot more in taxes. Capital gains is heavily tilted in favor of the wealthy. As for elderly, the number of poor making it to the status of elder is dwarfed by the wealthy, and the middle class is going to have a lot of their money tied up in things like mortgages. I don't think the 50 (just a number) bucks a month they might put in their 401ks is going to make up for the amount of money the wealthy has in stocks.

[Vekseid]

  If Warren Buffet wants to give more taxes he can. It's his money, he can do what he wants with it.

The wealthy do import more. Stuff made in companies in other natuions that employ people.

But not employ people in the United States. Thus my jobless recovery comment - there seems to be this assumption that parents will just let their children starve if we killed food stamps.

Plus they have (often) houses with staff to tend it. Many have several homes, in the city (high tax areas) and some in the countryside (generally low tax areas). Where I live the govenor of California has(had?) a residence on an island. No doubt fairly low property taxes were paid on it. Overall, the wealthy spend moree. They have the money for it, why shouldn't they spend some of it?

If the money stays in the US - either via bank or purchases such as those - or taxes - then there is really no issue. It is really hard to actually 'remove' wealth from the global economy unless someone is wealthy enough and chooses to contribute no productive value to society (me, hate pensions? >_>).

If wealth goes out of the country, however, that can become a problem - America is home to an obscene amount of wealth, of course, but only so much can leave before it becomes an economic burden. Every fifty thousand dollars worth of imports is one person's job for a year.

On small scales, this is easily coped with. For 2007 and 2008, however, the trade deficit was eight hundred billion dollars.

Anyone who wants a forecast of how Obama may be remembered may want to look at this graph.

It's rather soon to say, but if imports continue to fall and exports continue to rise, Obama will have to actually try to fail. Heaven help the Republicans if the US has a trade surplus month during his first year in office.

My main issue with taxes, income taxes, mostly is those who do not pay it demanding those who do (anyone wealthier than they are) pay more. I've been told by some on another board that they would not mind if the tax on wealth generated over about $200,000 was about 70-95%. Their arguements for it usually ended up in several ways. 1; they have more so they can 'afford' to be taxed higher. 2; they deswerve to be taxed more. 3; The money is better spent by the government on social programs than by the ones earning it. 4; THE MONEY THEY ARE NOT PAYING IS KILLING PEOPLE!! THEY NEED TO BE TAXED SO IT CAN GO INTO NEEDED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT WILL KEEP PEOPLE FROM DYING!!

I don't think anyone here is advocating such taxes on such a low bracket. Even Eisenhower's 90% bracket, adjusted for inflation, comes out to ~50 million a year or something like that.

More to the point, however, look at #4 for a bit. A more appropriate example is say, Ecuador or Peru and their water crisis, but that does not mean the same situation does not apply in the United States.

The premise is simple.
1: If you refuse to provide
2: If you refuse to educate
3: People will attempt to provide for themselves and their families via those means that they understand.

Who pays for the jails?
Who pays for the extermination squad, if you prefer to kill them?
Who pays for their children? Or do you seriously believe this nation has the political will to eliminate millions of starving children?

Sorry about the cap lock, but that last arguement was exactly what I was told by someone who framed her arguement  that not paying more taxes was killing people and that everyone who was against raised taxed was, indirectly, a murdering bastard.

I would not call them murderers. I would call them shortsighted.

IF you raised rates, what would yopu raise them to? Would it be just the rich (in this case, the upper 50% of income payers) who would pay or would you be willing to extend the tax back down to the 45% or so that pay no income taxes?

Pay with what money?

Oh, sure. If you're willing to educate and provide proper support and regulation, this all becomes unnecessary. Ideally most people would pull in relatively egalitarian incomes, give or take. That all goes out the window when people lobby for their special exemptions, government contracts, and deregulation "You don't need to know what we put in your food, really!" People die. Nations fail.

Capoital gains affects those who own stock, right? If so that is a good many elderly and pensioners that are taxed too. Not just the rich business owners.

Yes, although it's taxed as income. Pensions are another anchor that chains the American economy. Fortunately we won't be saddled with them forever, but still, right now, they hurt.

[OldSchoolGamer]

The fiscal situation of the United States is hopeless.  There is far more debt at every level than is practical or even possible to pay back.  About the wisest course of action would be to write it all off, issue a new currency, and pass a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget.

[Ket]

Good luck with that, Ty.  People will still make the same mistakes.  Not only that, but US currency is global.  Wiping our own slate totally clean would affect the rest of the world.  Besides, what debt do you choose to cut out?  Just government debt, or do you wipe away credit cards, mortgages, IRS debt, vehicle loans?  Who figures out what a new dollar would be worth?

We only screwed ourselves.  We (speaking in terms of the entire country) allowed big business to outsource overseas for cheaper labor, while the prices of said products and services remained the same or rose.  We took on loans that we could not afford to pay back, not really thinking what would happen when that interest rate rose, only concerned about having the nicest house at the moment.  We forgot how to plan for the future. 

As for the tax issue.  Seriously enough, my biggest pet peeve with income taxes comes during tax season.  I used to prepare taxes for extra income to pad my savings account with.  And I kid you not, the amount of people I saw receiving earned income credit, and the amount of such credit these people were receiving boggled my mind.  As one woman so eloquently put it.  "I have my two kids, and I only work just enough to make a certain amount a year so that I'm guaranteed to get back all of my taxes plus the maximum child tax credit and earned income credit."  This woman worked the system, was making a wage underneath poverty level, yet received a return of over $7,000.  And she did this every year.  That pisses me off!

Here I am, working my butt off for my $50 grand a year that sometimes doesn't even cover everything I need, trying my damnedest to put money in savings for my future, to be lucky to receive a couple of hundred back when I do my return.  Personally, it's not about the money, as long as I break even with the IRS I'm fine.  But to just watch that money I do pay in taxes being handed to someone who purposefully works the system for it?  Who I know will not put it towards her own education, or her children, or making a better life for herself and her family.  EFF THAT! 

I don't mind paying my 15% a year.  Sure part of that is because it comes right back to me in the form of my paycheck and benefits, but even if it didn't, I wouldn't mind.  What bothers me is people who pay nothing, and receive everything.  Free rides need to be over.   

[Zakharra]

But not employ people in the United States. Thus my jobless recovery comment - there seems to be this assumption that parents will just let their children starve if we killed food stamps.

?? Where did that assumption come from?

If the money stays in the US - either via bank or purchases such as those - or taxes - then there is really no issue. It is really hard to actually 'remove' wealth from the global economy unless someone is wealthy enough and chooses to contribute no productive value to society (me, hate pensions? >_>).

If wealth goes out of the country, however, that can become a problem - America is home to an obscene amount of wealth, of course, but only so much can leave before it becomes an economic burden. Every fifty thousand dollars worth of imports is one person's job for a year.

On small scales, this is easily coped with. For 2007 and 2008, however, the trade deficit was eight hundred billion dollars.

Anyone who wants a forecast of how Obama may be remembered may want to look at this graph.

It's rather soon to say, but if imports continue to fall and exports continue to rise, Obama will have to actually try to fail. Heaven help the Republicans if the US has a trade surplus month during his first year in office.

Then they need to make it profitable for companies to stay IN the US. One of the main reasons they leave is because operating costs are too high to make a profit.  Money can flow both ways. The person that looses a job to outsourcing is free to look for another(hopefully better paying one). Jobs come and go.

Obama will be remembered for his full term. We'll see how it ends first. Remember Bush's first year in office had him at a very high approval level. His first year was very well set.  If Obama has a healthy trade surpluss, and a lower deficit, then we'll see something, but if he ends his first term with higher taxes (which he will have to do to fund the massive spending he and the Demos are planning on doing) then he could end up quite hated.

I don't think anyone here is advocating such taxes on such a low bracket. Even Eisenhower's 90% bracket, adjusted for inflation, comes out to ~50 million a year or something like that.

More to the point, however, look at #4 for a bit. A more appropriate example is say, Ecuador or Peru and their water crisis, but that does not mean the same situation does not apply in the United States.

The premise is simple.
1: If you refuse to provide
2: If you refuse to educate
3: People will attempt to provide for themselves and their families via those means that they understand.

Who pays for the jails?
Who pays for the extermination squad, if you prefer to kill them?
Who pays for their children? Or do you seriously believe this nation has the political will to eliminate millions of starving children?

  70-90% is a low bracket? Who pays for those things? Tax payers. Now there are more taxes than just the income taxes, but a huge volume of wealth comes in via income taxes, which pays for a lot. If the income tax burden is increasingly laid on the wealthy, while the lower and middle class skate out from under it, the burdoe will be paid in an unfair amount. ie, a minority supporting the majority. Hardly fair or sustainable.

I would not call them murderers. I would call them shortsighted.

Shortsided for not wanting to pay more taxes than they do now? For not wanting to pay an increasing amount of the tax burden? How has not paying taxes been linked to people dying?

Pay with what money?

Oh, sure. If you're willing to educate and provide proper support and regulation, this all becomes unnecessary. Ideally most people would pull in relatively egalitarian incomes, give or take. That all goes out the window when people lobby for their special exemptions, government contracts, and deregulation "You don't need to know what we put in your food, really!" People die. Nations fail.

The wealthy tend to be better educated and trained in the area they work in. Most people have no real idea of the stress and work that is involved in building and/or running a multi million/billion $ company. They also have the support system to work at that level too. The regulation is mostly governments responsibility and bad or over made regulations can lead to a bad situation as well as too little regulation.

People lobby for their interests all the time. The wealthy and poor, groups of people and businesses all have lobbyists.

Yes, although it's taxed as income. Pensions are another anchor that chains the American economy. Fortunately we won't be saddled with them forever, but still, right now, they hurt.

Can you explain that further?

[Zakharra]

I don't mind paying my 15% a year.  Sure part of that is because it comes right back to me in the form of my paycheck and benefits, but even if it didn't, I wouldn't mind.  What bothers me is people who pay nothing, and receive everything.  Free rides need to be over.

That's it exactly! Those who do not pay income taxes, especially at the low end of the income levels are getting more than they sometimes make and are regularly promised (mostly by Democrats) more in the way of benefits. that mentality is one of expecting, demanding even, such benefits. As if they are owed them or it's a right for them to get it.

They are getting something for nothing since they don't pay into the system.

[Vekseid]

?? Where did that assumption come from?

You said so yourself - imports employ people in other countries.

Then they need to make it profitable for companies to stay IN the US. One of the main reasons they leave is because operating costs are too high to make a profit.  Money can flow both ways. The person that looses a job to outsourcing is free to look for another(hopefully better paying one). Jobs come and go.

The reasons are manifold. Tax incentives for outsourcing jobs, a horrible mess of import/export regulations, but we also have environmental and health regulations. Tainted milk, poison toy paint, bad dog food - that isn't supposed to fly in the US, but I imagine mandating safety regulations for imports may put a damper on some things.

That things need to be fixed is a given, but having safety nets promotes stability. No food stamp program would make for riots, at this point.

Obama will be remembered for his full term. We'll see how it ends first. Remember Bush's first year in office had him at a very high approval level. His first year was very well set.  If Obama has a healthy trade surpluss, and a lower deficit, then we'll see something, but if he ends his first term with higher taxes (which he will have to do to fund the massive spending he and the Demos are planning on doing) then he could end up quite hated.

Massive spending? What was the Iraq war then?

The fact of the matter is, quite a few rich are prepared and willing to pay higher taxes to help get us out of this mess. Those that aren't make up a fraction of the population and are divided against themselves - libertarians, corporatists, and the religious right.

70-90% is a low bracket? Who pays for those things? Tax payers. Now there are more taxes than just the income taxes, but a huge volume of wealth comes in via income taxes, which pays for a lot. If the income tax burden is increasingly laid on the wealthy, while the lower and middle class skate out from under it, the burdoe will be paid in an unfair amount. ie, a minority supporting the majority. Hardly fair or sustainable.

It may not be fair.

It sustained America for fifty years, coming out of the biggest depression of the century and the second biggest in American history.

ONLY when the regulations and high-tax brackets were repealed did America's economy begin to falter.

America's economy was never stronger on the global scale of things than when the top tax bracket was at its highest.

Guess where the top tax bracket resides at the two points in modern history when the American economy is at its weakest?

Shortsided for not wanting to pay more taxes than they do now? For not wanting to pay an increasing amount of the tax burden? How has not paying taxes been linked to people dying?

You didn't bother to try to understand my post, did you?

How does providing food stamps not save lives? How does providing public healthcare not save lives? How does providing for public safety not save lives? How does providing for national defense not save lives? How does the CDC not save lives? How does the National Weather Service not save lives? How does tsunami preparedness not save lives? How does hurricane preparedness not save lives? How does volcano monitoring not save lives?

Some of those can be 'safely' defunded. It takes quite the idiot, however, to tell twenty million parents that their children don't deserve to eat.

Because their response is not going to be 'roll over and die'.

The wealthy tend to be better educated and trained in the area they work in. Most people have no real idea of the stress and work that is involved in building and/or running a multi million/billion $ company. They also have the support system to work at that level too. The regulation is mostly governments responsibility and bad or over made regulations can lead to a bad situation as well as too little regulation.

What overregulation has been responsible for making a complete wreck of the global economy three times? I'm referring to the current crisis, the Great Depression and the credit freeze of the 1870's.

People lobby for their interests all the time. The wealthy and poor, groups of people and businesses all have lobbyists.

Yeah, whose are better funded?

Though this seems to be a bit of an eye opener for a lot of people.

Can you explain that further?

Pensions - granting resources to non-productive individuals. 'Free rides'. Does not matter how you spin it, an economy can only handle so much of that. It is part of the reason for the current crisis on two levels - one being the concentration of wealth, but a major factor is also pensions.

Social Security needs a rethink but it's a surprisingly well thought out program. Pensions are rarely so.

[Will]

I won't deny that there are people who work the system, but I have to believe they're in the minority.  I agree that they should be dealt with in any way possible, as long as it doesn't involve denying people that deserve those credits.

I've never not gotten a return on my income taxes, and I receive the earned income credit.  Even with that it's a struggle to meet needs sometimes.  So yeah, we can talk about fairness all we want, but all I know is that I really can't afford to pay much more.  That's the bottom line.  And I'm not in massive self-inflicted debt, either.

And you want to talk about wealthy people spending more?  Maybe not as a percentage.  I save nothing.  I spend 100% of my income; I have no choice.  Now I know that it's still not that much as a solid dollar amount, but there are a massive number of people in my position.  It adds up.

Finally, as has been said before and not really responded to, wealthy people have enough money to hire experts to find them loopholes.  They can afford to live wherever they pay the least property taxes regardless of where their employment is based.  There are many ways that they can actively reduce their tax burden.  So, simply saying that their tax rate is too high is a little misleading.

[RubySlippers]

I might then suggest taxing everyone something even if they earned $1 in a given year. And I would eliminate the earned income credit. Of course I would advocate chopping government down to size and make taxes as low as possible say 1-10% of ones income. So that the working poor might only have a light tax burden of 1 or 2% and the people earning $1,000,000 or more 10%. I'm not overly religious but if God is happy with a tithe so should any mortal government. I would rather use my money to aid charities I liked and help that way over the Federal government doing that. Local and state governments at least have fair cause to tax since the Constitution of the United States left many powers to the states.

As for paying off the national debt its likely going to be hard we will need to bring in maybe 10% more income than the government spends and pay them down for a long time. But its better than doing nothing at least by running the government to that point of efficiency would mean to me a great deal.

And I don't buy the people will starve without the almighty Federal government the Great Depression showed special care may be needed for a time for people. But who often took care of parents before that point their children if the parents needed a place to live or were sick or had little money. And I have yet to see real numbers as to how many children were really starving in 1900 in the US. I would argue the Great Depression did demand a short term government response only not these large systemic changes such as social security. If the government had a light hand in regulations, interference in states duties and when the did fund a program had to also find a way to pay for it we would be fine now. Low taxes, more personal responsibility and likely a better economy since the government wouldn't regulate it to death.

[Will]

No, I don't think people would starve without federal assistance either.  I may easily be mistaken, but I think that's more or less what Vekseid meant.  People will get what they need, one way or another.  It just might not be pretty.

So, if they earn a dollar, what then?  They get taxed a dime?  It costs the government a lot more than a dime to process each person's taxes every year.  Not exactly calling for smaller government, that.

[Ket]

*The terms "We" and "You" are used generally in this post.

I won't deny that there are people who work the system, but I have to believe they're in the minority.  I agree that they should be dealt with in any way possible, as long as it doesn't involve denying people that deserve those credits.

I've never not gotten a return on my income taxes, and I receive the earned income credit.  Even with that it's a struggle to meet needs sometimes.  So yeah, we can talk about fairness all we want, but all I know is that I really can't afford to pay much more.  That's the bottom line.  And I'm not in massive self-inflicted debt, either.

Working your butt off for it is one thing.  Popping out two children then working the minimum possible to receive the maximum credit?  That's what bothers me.  And sadly, even though only one woman voiced it, I know many more who actually do it. 

And you want to talk about wealthy people spending more?  Maybe not as a percentage.  I save nothing.  I spend 100% of my income; I have no choice.  Now I know that it's still not that much as a solid dollar amount, but there are a massive number of people in my position.  It adds up.

As a whole, those of us with more more do tend to spend more.  We buy more expensive property, higher cost vehicles, more expensive everything in general... etc.  Once you get beyond that, luxury tax can come in.  While I don't think the US has it anymore (not 100% sure on that) there are still luxury taxes out there.  Not only that, but we pay on savings.  All the interest I make on all my accounts is taxed every year.  And while it's not millions of dollars, it still adds up, in my opinion. 

So while all of your available funds are going towards your needs, those who have met their needs already and still have available funds are going to either put them in savings or spend them on some luxury item.  (Luxury in the sense that the item is NOT a necessity)  Either way, that money is still taxed, most of the time doubly taxed. 

Finally, as has been said before and not really responded to, wealthy people have enough money to hire experts to find them loopholes.  They can afford to live wherever they pay the least property taxes regardless of where their employment is based.  There are many ways that they can actively reduce their tax burden.  So, simply saying that their tax rate is too high is a little misleading.

Sure they do, but guess what, you can find these loopholes yourself.  It's public knowledge which states don't have personal property taxes, which have higher paying jobs, where the lowest housing markets are, etc, etc.  Not only that, but you have the opportunity to work at home.  Yes I know, just saying so is much easier than actually doing.  But that still doesn't take away from the fact that you have the chance to do so. 

Simply saying that higher tax rates would be the end all be all to our problems is not the answer.  Between corporation taxes, federal income taxes, state income taxes, personal property taxes, various sales taxes, luxury taxes, and the various fees that many states (who do not have income or personal property tax) charge for items, there really is a lot of money flowing into tax coffers.  It's how that money is spent that is the problem. 

[Zakharra]

This assumption is what I meant, there seems to be this assumption that parents will just let their children starve if we killed food stamps.

Just because people are not being taxed at a higher level doesn't mean people will starve. The children would be fed one way or another.

Massive spending? What was the Iraq war then?

That's only about $600-700 billion over 7 years. Obama is talking about trillions of dollars. that'll make the Iraq war look like lunch money, and saddle the US taxpayers with a huge debt. How will that debt be paid off?

The fact of the matter is, quite a few rich are prepared and willing to pay higher taxes to help get us out of this mess. Those that aren't make up a fraction of the population and are divided against themselves - libertarians, corporatists, and the religious right.

God for them. They can write a check to the government that it will be more than happy to take.

It may not be fair.

It sustained America for fifty years, coming out of the biggest depression of the century and the second biggest in American history.

ONLY when the regulations and high-tax brackets were repealed did America's economy begin to falter.

America's economy was never stronger on the global scale of things than when the top tax bracket was at its highest.

Guess where the top tax bracket resides at the two points in modern history when the American economy is at its weakest?

Reagan lowered taxes from a high of 70% for the top marginal rate and the economy explxoded in a huge surge. The economy expanded drastically, the Dow Jones surged beyond the 5000 mark to top about 14,000. People were getting more money. If more people can keep their money, they will spend it. It's not our or the government's right to say when or were you can spend your money.

You are also linking high taxes and tigher regulations. Those have nothing to do with eachother.

Pensions - granting resources to non-productive individuals. 'Free rides'. Does not matter how you spin it, an economy can only handle so much of that. It is part of the reason for the current crisis on two levels - one being the concentration of wealth, but a major factor is also pensions.

Social Security needs a rethink but it's a surprisingly well thought out program. Pensions are rarely so.

Odd.. that sounds exactly like what Social Security is. A pension program. Except it is from the government, not a company. Soc Sec isn't going anywhere. When the Republicans tried to reform it, they were shouted down by the Democrats and people who view Soc Sec as inviolate. ANY attempt to refom it will be met with very stiff resistance. It's one of the largest parts of the US federal budget, added with Medicare/caid, that is over 40% of the federal budget. With the Babyboomers reaching retirement age, that will have to grow more and more federal money funneled to fund it, raising taxes until they die off in 30-50 years. Where does the government get the money? From the people.

[RubySlippers]

No, I don't think people would starve without federal assistance either.  I may easily be mistaken, but I think that's more or less what Vekseid meant.  People will get what they need, one way or another.  It just might not be pretty.

So, if they earn a dollar, what then?  They get taxed a dime?  It costs the government a lot more than a dime to process each person's taxes every year.  Not exactly calling for smaller government, that.

Its not that hard take it off payroll and that would be maybe1 or 2 cents. My point is everyone should pay the government and there should be few if any deductions. Just a flat payroll deduction of 10% to keep this simple so if a food server earns in a week $400 they would have $40 deducted from that and paid to the government. Once could adjust that for having children as a percentage perhaps of say 1% per child up to four would be fine. And that would be easy to calculate Jane Doe has one child her tax burden is 9% per paycheck. And since its likely done electronically the actual work should not be too burdensome unless one is self-employed. Even then its just 10%. That number could be higher but the point is to keep it honest and the same for everyone with no loopholes or deductions other than for easy to note ones. Children dependent on the worker is easy to verify for example.

[Will]

*The terms "We" and "You" are used generally in this post.

Working your butt off for it is one thing.  Popping out two children then working the minimum possible to receive the maximum credit?  That's what bothers me.  And sadly, even though only one woman voiced it, I know many more who actually do it. 

Like I said, I agree.  *shrugs*

Sure they do, but guess what, you can find these loopholes yourself.  It's public knowledge which states don't have personal property taxes, which have higher paying jobs, where the lowest housing markets are, etc, etc.  Not only that, but you have the opportunity to work at home.  Yes I know, just saying so is much easier than actually doing.  But that still doesn't take away from the fact that you have the chance to do so. 

Well, moving is simply not an option for me, considering all the incidental costs that would involve.  If I could cover those costs then of course I could move wherever I liked, but a lack of money is a lack of options.

And working at home?  Doing what?  I imagine most people would love to be able to work from home and make a living wage.  So why aren't they?  I don't think it's as practical as all that, or even possible in most cases.

[Oniya]

Odd.. that sounds exactly like what Social Security is. A pension program. Except it is from the government, not a company. Soc Sec isn't going anywhere. When the Republicans tried to reform it, they were shouted down by the Democrats and people who view Soc Sec as inviolate. ANY attempt to refom it will be met with very stiff resistance. It's one of the largest parts of the US federal budget, added with Medicare/caid, that is over 40% of the federal budget. With the Babyboomers reaching retirement age, that will have to grow more and more federal money funneled to fund it, raising taxes until they die off in 30-50 years. Where does the government get the money? From the people.

Actually, with the change in demographics, Social Security very well might 'go away' for many of the people currently working and contributing to it.  Why?  People are living longer, the 'baby boomers' are getting older and retiring, and what you (the worker today) contribute goes directly to them, not into a waiting fund for you. 

From a 2005 article: 

The way that the Social Security program is financed, as you probably know, it's a pay-as- you-go system, meaning that today's tax revenues are not saved to pay for workers' own retirements but are used immediately to finance the benefits of their parents and grandparents.

And the reason that's important is because the ratio of the workers to beneficiaries becomes very important in such a system. When there are fewer workers to support each beneficiary, it becomes difficult to pay the benefits that have been promised under current law.

For the past 30 years, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries has been relatively -- has been actually completely flat: 3.3 workers to support every one beneficiary. Over the next 30 years, though, that ratio is going to fall to only two workers to support each beneficiary, and that's going to put a lot of stress on the system.

[consortium11]

Actually, with the change in demographics, Social Security very well might 'go away' for many of the people currently working and contributing to it.  Why?  People are living longer, the 'baby boomers' are getting older and retiring, and what you (the worker today) contribute goes directly to them, not into a waiting fund for you. 

From a 2005 article:

Just to add to this, in 2004 the BBC had a docu-drama about the issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/3489560.stm

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451084/

It's a real issue that people often don't like to talk about. Especially in the UK with a history and culture of running to the government at the slightest hint of trouble, with the grey-vote being the most powerful and life expectencies increasing (but mandatory retirement remaining the same), it's not going to be that long until the party that panders to the retired population wins each election.

[Ket]

Well, moving is simply not an option for me, considering all the incidental costs that would involve.  If I could cover those costs then of course I could move wherever I liked, but a lack of money is a lack of options.

And working at home?  Doing what?  I imagine most people would love to be able to work from home and make a living wage.  So why aren't they?  I don't think it's as practical as all that, or even possible in most cases.

I know moving is not an option for the majority of people.  I was simply stating that these 'tax loopholes' are public knowledge. 

There are actually MANY jobs that are now done at home.  Yes, the initial cost is on that of the person wanting to work at home, however, it can and many times does pay off.  I'm not saying it will make a person rich, but I know several people who live quite comfortably while working from home.  For example, many times, when you call a large national company's customer service, you are reaching someone who is sitting at home in front of a computer with a head set.  Sometimes for tech support too.  (The two I know of off the top of my head are Apple and Barnes and Noble)   It's lower cost for the company, as they don't have to provide a building for people to work at, which would need to be maintained, etc.  A lot of companies allow employees to telecommute, so they are only at work once a week or so.  It's just about finding that particular job.

Yeah I know, easier said then done, like I said before.  But if one really truly wants something, then they have the motivation to go out and get it. 

[Will]

I didn't mean the loopholes were shady, or anything like that.  Loopholes is probably the wrong word, anyway.  They are definitely public knowledge.  I just meant that they are not just difficult, but in actuality, impossible, for most people to take advantage of.

I really didn't know that about the customer service from home thing.  That's pretty awesome.

[Oniya]

There are actually MANY jobs that are now done at home.  Yes, the initial cost is on that of the person wanting to work at home, however, it can and many times does pay off. 

A number of non-phone-based jobs can be done from home also.  Frequently, you need to work at the company for a while, but anything that requires nothing but typing can be accomplished with Fed-Ex (or electronic transmission), a telephone (for conferencing) and a shredder (for confidential stuff).

[The Dark Raven]

I didn't see this in here but....just to fall in with the historical nature of my family (rebel-rousers all)....

There's this uproar about taxes...I'm not exactly sure what because politics make my brain hurt...they're all eejits.

But...

What I want to know, if the President is not proposing this, is why the "rich" (ie, people who make more than $100,000 /yr) aren't taxed on that income over and above $100,000?  Shouldn't they be taxed on all that free and clear income they get, while the most of us in the generation ponying up their Social Security to be make $20k to $30k/yr and get stuck with the taxes too....?  Oh, and are the FIRST to be fired/laid off in "tough economic times" because we have less valuable experience.

My two ranty cents...may my ancestor applaud in his grave and everyone here not grow to hate me too much... ;-)

[Zakharra]

 I could go for that, as long as it is an equal % of the total income. There is NO reason they should be taxed at a higher rate simply 'because they can afford it'.

[Nessy]

The whole concept of a progressive tax is based on the idea that 10% for the poor is the difference between freezing to death in their home or starving. Don't tell me it doesn't happen. It did. While 10% for the rich is the difference between what model of car they might pick. Progressive taxes also work the same for everyone.  No body pays on the first 8,000 dollars (using a number here not exact), and then everyone pays something like 10% from 8,0001 to 32,000.  It's not like we take the rich's income and force it into the last bracket, it's spread out over all the brackets. so those who say they are paying say 40-50%, that might be their average but they are still getting that first 8,000 tax free. And for those idiots (not referring to anyone here, as far as I know this arugment hasn't come up here yet)who whine about working more and all their money going to taxes if they get put into another tax bracket, that's not how it works. If there is a tax bracket that is 10% up to 35,000 and it jumps to 15% after that and you make 35,001, guess what, you are paying 15% on 1 dollar, 1 dollar.

Where the tax code gets messy is all the deduction's and the credits and the exemptions, and guess what, most of those were pushed for by lobbyist, and while certain poor groups have lobbyist, there are a heck a lot more on the other end.

If you want to talk about tax inequalities, let's talk about the single tax payer versus the married and those with families. In some cases the married might wind up with higher taxes but in most cases, no. And those with kids, why should other tax payers fit the bill for your reproduction. They already fit the bill for things like education and in many cases, health insurance for the low income children. And what about people with houses, why should anyone have to help others with their mortgages? Or public transportation, bike trails, national parks. Heck I am sure if we go down the list far enough we'll eventually hit something you care about and there is the problem.

The tax problem isn't our tiered system its what happens when people get ahold of it and put what they care about in the tax code.

By the way, there is nothing wrong the USD or anything inherently evil with debt, but if anyone is no longer interested in the USD I will be happy to take them off your hands.

[Zakharra]

 The problem is there are those that think the more you make, the more government should take. 35%  45% 50% 60%  70%  90%  There are those that think the wealthy should pay 'far' more of their income in taxes because they are rich and can afford it. Even though more money being taken from the wealthy will not improve the life of the poor, as long as the rich get it stuck to them, it's ok.

That might not be true, but that is the attitude that comes across heavily in the news I read and hear. That the rich deserve to have it taken away.

[Vekseid]

This assumption is what I meant, there seems to be this assumption that parents will just let their children starve if we killed food stamps.

Just because people are not being taxed at a higher level doesn't mean people will starve. The children would be fed one way or another.

By hook or by crook, no matter the fairness. Food riots may not happen in America, but the reason is because of such social programs.

That's only about $600-700 billion over 7 years. Obama is talking about trillions of dollars. that'll make the Iraq war look like lunch money, and saddle the US taxpayers with a huge debt. How will that debt be paid off?

...the heck are you getting your figures?

Total allocation for the Iraq War so far is $907 billion over seven years, and it's largely externalized - that is, oriented outside of the country and worse, towards the destruction of wealth rather than the construction of it.

The stimulus is only $787 billion. Obama has rather little to do with the bank bailouts, which Obama did not have a say in as they were largely enacted before the elections. Where is he talking about trillions?

God for them. They can write a check to the government that it will be more than happy to take.

Alternately the ones who don't like it can take a hike to a libertarian paradise like Somalia. I'm sure they'll enjoy it there.

Reagan lowered taxes from a high of 70% for the top marginal rate and the economy explxoded in a huge surge. The economy expanded drastically, the Dow Jones surged beyond the 5000 mark to top about 14,000.

Oh really? Seriously, where are you getting your data?

People were getting more money. If more people can keep their money, they will spend it. It's not our or the government's right to say when or were you can spend your money.

As does the government. People get the money that gets spent. Only, it stays within the country - usually for a minimum of two cycles.

You are also linking high taxes and tigher regulations. Those have nothing to do with eachother.

We only have a few datapoints, really. We know some things that don't work at all, and only a few suggestions as to what works really well.

Odd.. that sounds exactly like what Social Security is. A pension program. Except it is from the government, not a company. Soc Sec isn't going anywhere. When the Republicans tried to reform it, they were shouted down by the Democrats and people who view Soc Sec as inviolate. ANY attempt to refom it will be met with very stiff resistance. It's one of the largest parts of the US federal budget, added with Medicare/caid, that is over 40% of the federal budget. With the Babyboomers reaching retirement age, that will have to grow more and more federal money funneled to fund it, raising taxes until they die off in 30-50 years. Where does the government get the money? From the people.

Ideally it would have a ten year collection limit. Safety nets (which is why it's called social security) are good. Desperate people do desperate things.

[Zakharra]

 

...the heck are you getting your figures?

Total allocation for the Iraq War so far is $907 billion over seven years, and it's largely externalized - that is, oriented outside of the country and worse, towards the destruction of wealth rather than the construction of it.

The stimulus is only $787 billion. Obama has rather little to do with the bank bailouts, which Obama did not have a say in as they were largely enacted before the elections. Where is he talking about trillions?

I was quoting the Iraq war, not adding in Afghanistan to the cost. War itself is a waste, so nothing new there. The link you provide lists Iraq and Afghanistan as one cost. It lists Iraq as costing $657.3. With an additional $52.7 for supplimental spending, pushing the cost to about $710 billion.

  Reagan's lowering of the tax rate helped the economy in the long run. Including the Dow Jones. I should have said the time from then to now. It DID rise to nearly 14k. When Reagan took office, it was 875.85, when he left office the DJI was 2,158.04. Black Monday was merely a blip in the road. Since then it's steadily risen higher and higher. It's fallen recently, but is still far above the 1988 level, and it will rise again.

Obama is planning to spend $3.6 trillion in his budget. $5oo billion more than Bush's. The next years will be even higher. Not only is Obama promising a bigger budget, but he's promising to cut the deficit in half as well. How will he do all he's promising? Where will he get the money?

His stimulus package, which is HIS spending plan, not Bush's,

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said the amount set aside for a new stimulus package could equal or surpass the $700 billion designated for the TARP fund, more than half of which has been used to shore up U.S. banks and insurer American International Group Inc.

Martin Baily, who was the White House’s chief economist under President Bill Clinton, told Bloomberg that the stimulus could exceed $1.2 trillion. That would dwarf the $175 billion package Obama proposed just one month ago, and even the $168 billion tax-break stimulus package President Bush issued earlier this year.

(from last year) On Monday morning in Chicago, Obama will introduce key members of his economic team -- Geithner and soon-to-be National Economic Council director Larry Summers -- and will reiterate what he said in his Saturday weekly radio address: that he will push for a massive stimulus package proposal, one much larger than the $175 billion he proposed as a candidate, perhaps as high as $500 billion.  Obama is not expected to give a specific price tag for the stimulus package on Monday.

.. and he and his party are making plans to spend even more.

By hook or by crook, no matter the fairness. Food riots may not happen in America, but the reason is because of such social programs.

Or by the fact of others providing food (soup kitchen type outfits, food banks) or the families feeding their children. The parents need to take some responsibility in caring for their family. A government handout should be one of the last things that should be offered.

[Oniya]

My mother-in-law sometimes volunteers at a food bank.  The problem is, with the economic crisis, donations are drying up, and people seeking aid are lining up.  The food has to be purchased by somebody, and when money gets tight at home, donating to others is the first thing to be cut.

[Vekseid]

  I was quoting the Iraq war, not adding in Afghanistan to the cost. War itself is a waste, so nothing new there. The link you provide lists Iraq and Afghanistan as one cost. It lists Iraq as costing $657.3. With an additional $52.7 for supplimental spending, pushing the cost to about $710 billion.

  Reagan's lowering of the tax rate helped the economy in the long run. Including the Dow Jones. I should have said the time from then to now. It DID rise to nearly 14k. When Reagan took office, it was 875.85, when he left office the DJI was 2,158.04. Black Monday was merely a blip in the road. Since then it's steadily risen higher and higher. It's fallen recently, but is still far above the 1988 level, and it will rise again.

Well if you're going to use the DJIA as an economic marker:
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia19802000.html

Why did it rise -faster- under GHWB's and Clinton's tax hikes?

More to the point, though, ignoring the rising income inequality during Republican terms:

http://forecasts.org/data/data/GDPC96.htm
1981-01-01   5307.544
1989-01-01   6918.116

Real GDP growth over Reagan years: 30.345%

1993-01-01   7459.718
2001-01-01   9875.576

Real GDP growth over Clinton years: 32.385%

Obama is planning to spend $3.6 trillion in his budget. $5oo billion more than Bush's. The next years will be even higher. Not only is Obama promising a bigger budget, but he's promising to cut the deficit in half as well. How will he do all he's promising? Where will he get the money?

I don't believe Obama's going to be keeping many promises. Unless he wants to convince the treasury to print a few trillion. He did insist that the budget would be combed through, but I doubt it will account for that.

Regardless, blaming Obama for non-discretionary spending and war costs is ridiculous.

His stimulus package, which is HIS spending plan, not Bush's,

.. and he and his party are making plans to spend even more.

He's following Keynes. There are other schools of economic thought.

Or by the fact of others providing food (soup kitchen type outfits, food banks)

...were you paying attention to the news last November?

[consortium11]

He's following Keynes. There are other schools of economic thought.

While it's seemingly the in-thing to label any government spending "Keynesian", he isn't following Keynes.

Keynes entire theory was based upon taking money out of the economy during the good times so it can be injected during the bad. Whether you believe this works or not is another arguement... the simple fact there is no savings for Keynes's theory to work with. Running at a deficit and then spending money is pretty much the antithesis of Keynesian economics

[Nessy]

While it's seemingly the in-thing to label any government spending "Keynesian", he isn't following Keynes.

Keynes entire theory was based upon taking money out of the economy during the good times so it can be injected during the bad. Whether you believe this works or not is another arguement... the simple fact there is no savings for Keynes's theory to work with. Running at a deficit and then spending money is pretty much the antithesis of Keynesian economics

I understand what you are saying but are you actually suggesting that Keynes theory was only to be applied after there was savings? That the only countries that could adopt his plan would have had to have a surplus before doing so. I don't think that was his intention at all. Think of it as starting at point zero where deficits initially during a down economy are necessary. The problem isn't is the deficits during the down time, although that's all anyone can talk about now, it's the refusal to pay it down during the up tick. You know when everyone is raking it in and few seem to care about the debt.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Well if you're going to use the DJIA as an economic marker:
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia19802000.html

American capitalism has gotten so far removed from the actual production of goods and services of value to real people that to me the stock market really isn't a valid economic indicator--if it ever was.

At this point, it's really more a marker of how much fiat money the government is pouring into the economy in desperation than it is of real economic performance.  Consider the last rally...what was it based on?  What has changed?  The government has poured out over a trillion dollars and all we're seeing is "signs the bottom may be near?"

Obviously, once the fiat money runs out, the free-fall will resume.  The hole opened up by even a 10% shrinkage in the value of derivatives is around $45 trillion.  So we've filled, what, about $5 to 7 trillion if you add up reflationary efforts of central banks around the world?  That leaves around $40 trillion left...and if you look at what's happened to the valuation of actual, verifiable assets (like real estate and stocks) with firm connections to the real world, a 10% decline is a ludicrously conservative estimate of what's happened to the flim-flam paper of collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps.  I'd say 25 to 40% is a more realistic estimate.

[Zero]

On a funny note...

Texas threatened to Secede from the Union, Oh no Texas! Don't do it, you've lived such a long life with us...

[Avi]

During the Bush years, the Democrats were saying that dissent 'was' American. Now that they are in power, they are working to make those who do disagree with them, look small and try to  brush them off.

The way that I read the report was that they were not saying all right-wing protest is dangerous.  But rather, they were targeting groups like neo-Nazis and other white-supremacist groups who might use the economic situation and the fact that we now have a black president to rile up supporters in the hope of inflaming anger, racism, hatred, and violence. 

For me, there's a very big difference between dissenting with what the government and advocating an open, armed rebellion against the government that (NEWS FLASH!) the people of the United States voted into office in accordance with the guidelines set down in the Constitution of the United States.  For me, it seems rather hypocritical for some conservatives (not all of them, many whom I know are quite reasonable and are respectable people) to wrap themselves in the Constitution and then advocate taking up arms against the government which that very document provided for.

Just a thought.

[consortium11]

I understand what you are saying but are you actually suggesting that Keynes theory was only to be applied after there was savings? That the only countries that could adopt his plan would have had to have a surplus before doing so. I don't think that was his intention at all. Think of it as starting at point zero where deficits initially during a down economy are necessary. The problem isn't is the deficits during the down time, although that's all anyone can talk about now, it's the refusal to pay it down during the up tick. You know when everyone is raking it in and few seem to care about the debt.

It's hard to say exactly what Keynes thought in a practical sense because The General Theory... is such a theoretical book, and it's only since then that others have tried applying it in a practical context. While people try to use deficit spending and Keynsian interchangeably, they're not. The only real evidence is that within the General Theory Keynes started by saying the government should save rather than spend money... and from there built the rest of the theory.

[Nessy]

It's hard to say exactly what Keynes thought in a practical sense because The General Theory... is such a theoretical book, and it's only since then that others have tried applying it in a practical context. While people try to use deficit spending and Keynsian interchangeably, they're not. The only real evidence is that within the General Theory Keynes started by saying the government should save rather than spend money... and from there built the rest of the theory.

Understood. My understanding of the General Theory by J.M Keynes is that there was no discussion of the use of monetary or fiscal policy. So if you are going to use his theories in a practical situation, you would would have turn theory into action. Otherwise its just a theory. The Keynesians did adopt the multiplier model (again not in the original Theory) on the basis of using it with Keynes ideals in mind, that fact that it was not in the original treaties itself, in itself, does not mean it was not Keynesian. Adopting certain models and practices to create a Keynesian model as opposed to just reading The General Theory in order to best capture the theories in The General Theory is an attempt to use his ideas in the real world, and while I don't think that process will ever lead to a perfect translation, it is a good attempt.

The multiplier model would suggest that spending during low economic terms does help. People can debate which helped more WWII or the New Deal, but what most people fail to understand is that economically, they're one in the same. The government spent a lot of money building roads and keeping people from starving, and they spent a lot of money building ships and tanks and weapons. The keyword is spend, not socialism or war. Theoretically, you might have been able to achieve the same results if you built all those ships and weapons and just sank them in the sea when you were done. It wasn't the death and destruction of the war that spurred economic growth, it was spending. The death and war and the destruction encouraged the spending, made it politically possible to do it but who says it was economically necessary to have the "need" of death and war to build these things. We're capable of knocking down old buildings and building new ones on our own after all.  It's not a perfect example, but I am basically taking a real world situation and creating a theory out of it by removing things like the human and political components, which, of course, you can't do in real life.

Anyway, my point is that spending hasn't been disproved as effective if you keep in mind that wars require government spending. More modern wars, however, are a bit different in that a lot of weapons and what we are using in general are being pulled from inventory so the manufacturing part is partially removed and because of how globalized the military is (we don't make it all ourselves anymore).

I do not think, however, that Keynes intended for governments to save indefinitely. What is the point of saving if you never intend to spend. Saving generally has an ending point or for something that doesn't have a foreseeable life, a stopping and starting point. Logic would suggest that you are saving to spend at another time and for now, the time is during down times and the saving during the upticks. I think the saving part keeps getting skipped over because there is so much political maneuvering going on that even when we are at full employment (which is not now), it is difficult for our government to cut back because while everyone wants the government to spend less, no one is willing to give up the projects that are important to their local forcing their reps to cater to their votes. It's pork when you live in Texas and its being spent in Florida, but suddenly its important when its in your background (states are just examples, i live in neither).

edit addition: And I should have mentioned the spending is politically difficult to achieve because people suddenly pay more attention to what is being spent when they're struggling themselves and are being asked to help someone else or just give up some luxuries.

[Nessy]

On a funny note...

Texas threatened to Secede from the Union, Oh no Texas! Don't do it, you've lived such a long life with us...

Not to sound old school, but since one of the Representatives of the current government is actually encouraging this blimp of nostalgia,this revival of a revolution as a good idea that never worked out well for them the first time around, isn't that something along the lines of treason? I mean there is dissent and then there is open rebellion with the intent to basically break up the state. I just don't get these hard right rallying points. Tea party, since when is loosing an election mean you have no representation, and to the best of my recollection, parts of the south tried to break up the union before, and they lost that too.

[Oniya]

However, constitutionally, the South did have the right to secede.  Yes, they lost, but it was the costliest war in American lives up to that point.

I'm not saying that Texas is smart to put this on the table, but it's not against any federal law or Constitutional principle.

[Vekseid]

It's still America's costliest war ever. Pretty sure it trumps every other war combined.

Losing Texas would be the end of the Republican party on a national scale, however.

[Nessy]

However, constitutionally, the South did have the right to secede.  Yes, they lost, but it was the costliest war in American lives up to that point.

I'm not saying that Texas is smart to put this on the table, but it's not against any federal law or Constitutional principle.

Where in the Constitution does it say a state has a right to secede after it becomes a part of the Union?

oh and the recollection part was actually sarcasm ;-)

edited for spelling

[OldSchoolGamer]

In the face of the changes to come, I have begun to worry less and less about what happens or is going to happen to the U.S. government.  It's a dinosaur.  All of the modern super-states are going to wither away, or re-organize at a drastically reduced level of complexity and energy input, during the 2020s as the Long Emergency begins to seriously bite down.

The U.S. debt will likely never be repaid.  If you're under 45 or so, I also would not count on Social Security in any form.  My advice is to study the lifeways of civilizations that did not enjoy a cheap-oil energy bonanza.  Prepare for a pay-as-you-go economy with your extended kin, your community and "tribe" as your "security" source...in other words, a return to what has been the norm for better than 99.9% of the human race's tenure here on Earth.

[Inkidu]

It's still America's costliest war ever. Pretty sure it trumps every other war combined.

Losing Texas would be the end of the Republican party on a national scale, however.

Well yes, we have multimillion dollar humvees, fighters, armors. It's a little more expensive than a WW II G.I. and his B.A.R, and pool-ball frags. Plus you have to accommodate for inflation. Think of what Vietnam would cost at today's rates.

[Oniya]

Where in the Constitution does it say a state has a right to secede after it becomes a part of the Union?

oh and the recollection part was actually sarcasm ;-)

edited for spelling

Actually, in the Tenth Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There is nothing in the Constitution saying that the government can prevent a state from seceding.

[Nessy]

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This does not state that a State has a right to leave the union. It only says that there are certain powers that the states have that the federal government doesn't have.

In the matters of the law, the abscence of a right being mentioned doesn't mean that that right, in fact, is given.

This is a grey area. There is nothing in the contitution that gives states a right to break  the lasting relationship with the Union once they enter it. Texas vs. White didn't really establish it either. And the fact that wars were involved to keep states from leaving implies that its not a garaunteed right at all.

[Kroduk]

If Texas seceded, we'd take Arkansas with us. Not as citizens, though. As slaves. That way the Texans are free to concentrate on war, and being the most powerful nation in the world.

See, it's perfect! Texan babies with even the tiniest flaw would be tossed into the Gulf of Mexico (or possibly just Mexico itself) to make for a stronger race, holistically. And while Arkansans do all our farming/building/making stuff, we Texans train day and night and become the ultimate soldiers! Hawoo!

Warning: offending diplomats will be kicked into oil wells.

[Nessy]

If Texas seceded, we'd take Arkansas with us. Not as citizens, though. As slaves. That way the Texans are free to concentrate on war, and being the most powerful nation in the world.

See, it's perfect! Texan babies with even the tiniest flaw would be tossed into the Gulf of Mexico (or possibly just Mexico itself) to make for a stronger race, holistically. And while Arkansans do all our farming/building/making stuff, we Texans train day and night and become the ultimate soldiers! Hawoo!

Warning: offending diplomats will be kicked into oil wells.

Hey the critics gave it mixed reviews but I enjoyed that movie a lot even if it was a little... gross at times for me.

[Trieste]

[Inkidu]

Actually, in the Tenth Amendment.

There is nothing in the Constitution saying that the government can prevent a state from seceding.

Well last time it happened there was a big ole honking Civil War. So secession is probably frowned upon. 

[Will]

Hmm... Too subtle.  Ha!

[Trieste]

I am the queen of subtle.

[Doomsday]

I didn't want to start a new thread, so I'm bumping this to share a funny with you all: