Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe discussion about deficits and debt in Washington is so colossally stupid and disingenuous that even engaging it makes me despair. But today's Politico so expertly packages together every conceivable Beltway Establishment inanity about "spending" and "deficits" into one glib little piece of analysis that I can't help myself. (Well, I could help myself but was bullied over Twitter into writing about it here.)
There's one big maddening conceptual error at the heart of this piece (whether committed in good faith or bad I can't say) which is to confuse relatively substantial pieces of domestic legislation with a spending "binge." See, a government, like any organization, institution, or firm has expenditures and revenues. Miraculously, it can increase its expenditures, without increasing its deficit, if it also increases its revenues. This is called "deficit neutral" and it's what the current health care bill, in all its incarnations, is. It is what the cap and trade bill will also be. Now consider this paragraph.
For starters, the White House has not dropped plans for an aggressive global warming bill early next year that will be loaded with new spending on green technology and jobs – that would be paid for with tax increases. Democratic lobbyist Steve Elmendorf says the White House focus on deficit reduction could easily kill the cap-and-trade effort. "I think this means cap-and-trade has to go to the backburner," he said.
It's an absolute and total non sequitur! The White House is pushing ahead with it's plans for a bill that won't increase the deficit. And Elmendorf says that a focus on deficit reduction means that this deficit neutral bill just won't fly. Huh?
Now cap and trade should actually be more than revenue neutral, it should raise revenue. (Indeed, that's the central attack on the bill, that it's a tax, ie, a revenue raiser) But in order to get the thing passed we'll have to pay out so many bribes to so many industries, it won't represent much of a net benefit to government coffers.
You may object to government doing the things it's doing. You may think the working poor should just suck it up when they get sick, or that we should subject Bangladesh to a horrific future in which it is plunged into the sea, but you can't say that the motivation for your objection is accounting.
This disingenuousness drives me bonkers, particularly since, as I and others have noted ad nauseum, military spending is simply never considered a relevant part of the balance sheet. (It's mentioned once in passing in the Politico article)
I raised this point in my feature about Blue Dogs. Blue Dogs really like to call themselves "fiscally conservative" but they're not: they're just conservative. In fact, one of their major agenda items is permanent repeal of the estate tax, which would enlarge the debt, and they generally oppose the public option, which would reduce the cost of the health care bill. And of course they all vote for every last defense bill that comes their way. Ask Parker Griffith of Alabama, who recently voted against health care, what he thinks about cutting spending for the military installation in Huntsville.
Fiscal conservatism and deficit concern is nearly always code speak in Washington for something else: sometimes it's class warfare, or just a cheap partisan attack. Most often, when someone in Washington says they're concerned about the deficit, what they're really saying is "I would like to make sure we have a government that focuses maximally on blowing people up."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Good piece. I'd add:
"what they're really saying is "I would like to make sure we have a government that focuses maximally on blowing people up."
... and on keeping the marginal rates for the wealthy below what they were during Reagan's tenure.
Posted by riffle at 11/13/2009 @ 10:05am
HAYES: .....This is called "deficit neutral" and it's what the current health care bill, in all its incarnations, is.
Young Christopher, here' s the reality down in the trenches.....NOT in the Liberal or Journo elite circles.
The Gubbers almost always, have NO credibility; most especially, in domestic policies. At voting times, whichever candidates kiss more babies and sound the most Hopey and Changey, get elected....then, they proceed to represent their real values or just themselves; until a few months before the next set of Elections.
Now that historical context is in place, let's focus on the Magic Era.
Mr. Magic is the 100% `equity' owner of the largest market-cap IPO company ever, at $787 Billion.....it' rightly called Pork, Inc. because it's fat, ugly and needs pink lipsticks badly.....in fact, it's Black, a historical first!
Now, Mr. Magic wants to impress us with "deficit neutral" and here's what investors think:
OK, we'll believe in "deficit neutral" when PIGS CAN FLY, as was first promised by Mr. Magic!
Hey, Hopey and Changey!
Posted by Happy at 11/13/2009 @ 10:09am
There are no "fiscal conservatives" in charge...never were, never WILL be, despite all the Utopian dreams of the Tea Partyers.
Even Reagan increased spending, enlarged the size of Government, and raised taxes.
Like "stopping the scourge of abortion", every election year the Republicans will turn out promising their Base that they'll "cut waste, cut spending", but all they EVER do is cut taxes and cause deficits or, if we're lucky, do nothing at all.
But libertarianism is Utopianism....or pap fed to mouth-breathers who listen to Rush or watch Beck.
To call all liberals "socialists" is an exaggeration....but to claim there are or ever will be any "fiscal conservatives" who'll implement said policies...
is a lie.
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 10:48am
We could cut defense spending and use the money saved by that to fund a mass transit system such as a state to state high speed rail system here in the U.S. That would be a green technology, create jobs in the U.S. and at the same time we'd come out with some badly needed infrastructure for the American public and not spend one penny more in taxes.
Nah, let's continue blowing shit up in Afghanistan, Iraq and waging our fingers at Iran and North Korea. Got to keep that military machine beefed up,bloated, greased and ready to fart at whichever 2nd rate military Washington decides to pick on next.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 11:37am
That's the LEFT-wing's flip-side corollary to my post above, Wolf.
No "Gut the defense budget, spend the money on urban blight and 100% solar by 2020, turn the Pentagon into public housing" liberal is ever going to get THEIR policies implemented either. Never was...never will be.
Too many jobs tied to defense or military bases (S'why they had to have a "Base Closing Commission"...Congress couldn't touch it.)
Trim the edges?...sure. Just like the "fiscal conservatives" trim the edges on some programs.
But the "Big Ideal" is still a Utopian dream.
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 12:02pm
The discussion about deficits and debt in Washington is so colossally stupid and disingenuous that even engaging it makes me despair.
posted by Christopher Hayes on 11/13/2009 @ 09:51am
Perhaps it's because it is your post that is so disingenuous.
Neither the healthcare bill nor the so-called cap and trade are deficit neutral. They make assumptions that counter both history and economic logic.
But it seems young Christopher that your mentors have taught you well about socialism. Lie often, manipulate the facts, and call all your opponents stupid. Congratulations! you are quickly maturing into a good socialist journalist.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 12:03pm
Lie often, manipulate the facts, and call all your opponents stupid. Congratulations! you are quickly maturing into a good socialist journalist.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 12:03pm
Typo alert! That should have read "you are quickly maturing into a good CONSERVATIVE journalist."
No need to thank me now, Mr. antisocialist, but that's the last time I'm going to save your A**.
Posted by raaustin at 11/13/2009 @ 12:14pm
Posted by raaustin at 11/13/2009 @ 12:14pm
Whoops, now I have to catch my own boo boos! "conservative journalist" is an obvious oxymoron. Maybe I can save myself by substituting "Rush Limbaugh" for "conservative journalist." Then no one will mistakenly think that I am talking about journalism.
Posted by raaustin at 11/13/2009 @ 12:20pm
My main problem with much of the article is that "cap-and-trade" has no scientific basis. The reality of Global Warming has to include the equivalent melting of Mars' icecaps during the same period of Solar Warming. The Earth was even warmer in AD1100 to 1300 than it is now.
Are these proponents really that STUPID??
Posted by balataf at 11/13/2009 @ 1:06pm
Posted by balataf at 11/13/2009 @ 1:06pm
The problem with what you say is that your "science" comes from pundits and not the scientists. Mars is not getting warmer - some people mistakenly want to associate Mar's albedo changes due to global dust storms with warming. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.P31D..05R
The Medieval warm spell, such as it was, appears to have been a regional phenomenon and not a global one, as opposed to what is going on now.
Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004
Posted by raaustin at 11/13/2009 @ 1:45pm
The problem with cap and trade is that it is flat-out ineffective. Europe's experience with a cap and trade system has made this perfectly clear. This is why the two EPA enforcement attorney Laurie Williams and Allen Zabel issued a youtube video criticizing the proposal.
Posted by nkurland at 11/13/2009 @ 2:58pm
But the "Big Ideal" is still a Utopian dream.
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 12:02pm
I don't see any need to close one stateside base. We should be shutting down bases all over the world. How many bases do the Brits have around the world? How many bases do the French have? How about the Russians or the Chinese? Now, compare that to how many bases we have?
Those bases are nothing but a constant reminder in other countries not to mess with U.S. interests. In short, it's a very, very expensive threat.
If people want to keep those soldiers in uniform, great, we'll turn them into a civil engineering firm employed by the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines let them build a high speed rail system in the CONUS.
So, we can keep our bloated defense budget and still build something here instead of wasting money over there.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 2:59pm
There's a certain idiocy when people counter "but it reduces the deficit" when that's no guarantee that the legislation is any good.
Posted by nkurland at 11/13/2009 @ 3:13pm
If people want to keep those soldiers in uniform, great, we'll turn them into a civil engineering firm employed by the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines let them build a high speed rail system in the CONUS.
So, we can keep our bloated defense budget and still build something here instead of wasting money over there.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 2:59pm
You would think that someone that served in the military would not hate the military and the US as much as wolfie does.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 5:21pm
So, we can keep our bloated defense budget and still build something here instead of wasting money over there.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 2:59pm
No, I LIKE to spend American Taxpayer money to blow big smoking holes in third world nations. After all, That's what our $650 Billion dollar military is for? Right?
Hell, if we weren't blowing big smoking holes in third world countries, what ever else would we possibily spend that money on?
Posted by COProgressive at 11/13/2009 @ 6:34pm
Climate sanity requires no "tax." Rather, it calls for a "reimbursement to the commons."
The atmospheric commons belongs to all equally. If corporations want to use it as a dump (for CO2 and other pollutants), they must pay the owners--us--should we be willing to sell the privilege.
What's amazing is that the current (mis)framing of the issue, one which "legitimizes" trespassing and worse, seems to be ubiquitous.
See these related posts:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Glocality/message/71 ("We can't solve our climate problem . . .")
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Glocality/message/78 ("Housing inflation vs. a sustainable economy")
Posted by fragen at 11/13/2009 @ 7:22pm
Cap and trade is a joke and another sell out to the corporate community. Corporate tax cuts will arrive in December with the jobs summit.There will be closed door meetings and negotiations with big business. Union leaders will be" valets" at this get together. When is Obama going to help out his largest special interest group,The American people.
Posted by whatozz at 11/13/2009 @ 11:10pm
If you want C & P to pay for it's self impose a Tolin Tax, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax in all C & P transactions.
Posted by OrganicGeorge at 11/14/2009 @ 05:38am
Check out Stephen Stoll's essay in this month's Harper's to see how the medieval warming and cooling trends directly correlate with human population growth and decline: how the Black Death in 1350 and after wiped out 1/3 of the population in Europe and Asia, and was followed by a 'mini Ice Age' as abandoned human settlements re-forested.
As for deficits, Jerry Ford was the last Repub prez who cut the deficit. I stopped being a Repub when the party converted to voodoo and abandoned genuinely conservative sound fiscal policy. Racism alone isn't enough to keep today's 'conservative' Repubs in power: they also have to promise something for nothing. If the federal government weren't able to run a deficit, it would be insolvent like California, where the something-for-nothing 'tax revolt' began.
Posted by samcrossett at 11/14/2009 @ 07:25am
This is the Reagan legacy. Reagan rose taxes and spending, yet he created an aura that said ALL taxes are bad, ALL government spending is bad. This led to an explosion of the deficit and the subsequent economic morass we are in today.
As for why this is a GOOD thing for neocons, I go with Dick Cheney when he intimated that the real desire of conservative spawned deficits was to force the government, at some point, to cut all services that Cons deem unnecessary.
They, of course, didn't have the balls to just propose and pass such measures.
Posted by erazma at 11/14/2009 @ 07:29am
Neither party wants to be the party that gives the keys to the car back to the people.Both parties have plenty of individuals that enjoy limo rides and foreign junkets. Senate Democrats have loved their free photo ops tied to health care.Republicans have called press conferences as much to be seen as heard.When is there going to be a visibility index developed for candidates. The bottom line is ,the issues are overridden by the people who are doing the voting.
Posted by whatozz at 11/14/2009 @ 08:41am
welcome back!!!
you been working or something, HAYES?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/14/2009 @ 08:41am
Well, when speaking of the Obamanation administration and the Demoncrat controlled congress the term "Deficit Idiotcy" could never be more approriately used! At least Hayes started off on the right track, but then his brain derailed!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/14/2009 @ 08:50am
It's wrong to view infrastructure investments (unless it's strictly for military purposes) as government "spending". Investments increase productivity and thus has a return on investment (ROI) that pays back the investment over time. Infrastructure investments, like roads etc., are paid back by taxes on the increased productivity by the users of the infrastructure investment.
We need to distinguish between deficit spending and deficit investment. Thus deficit investment will be paid for in the future by higher productivity. Deficit spending (unemployment benefits, tax-cuts for the middle-class, etc.) should be compensated for by increased taxes on the top 10% (plenty of money there).
We don't really know what the ROI on "green" tech infrastructure will be, so we need to to be careful, but I believe it's worth the gamble. The inter-state freeway system still pays dividends every day. Anyone think we haven't gotten our money's worth from the inter-state freeways, or the railroads, or "research" universities?
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 10:06am
We need to distinguish between deficit spending and deficit investment. Thus deficit investment will be paid for in the future by higher productivity. Deficit spending (unemployment benefits, tax-cuts for the middle-class, etc.) should be compensated for by increased taxes on the top 10% (plenty of money there).
We don't really know what the ROI on "green" tech infrastructure will be, so we need to to be careful, but I believe it's worth the gamble. The inter-state freeway system still pays dividends every day. Anyone think we haven't gotten our money's worth from the inter-state freeways, or the railroads, or "research" universities?
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 10:06am
where did you learn economics?
a tax cut is NOT SPENDING
BTW-we pay fuel taxes aka user fees that are paid into the Highway Trust Fund which is supposed to pay for building and maintaining federal highway infrastructure. The collections ave 35 billion per year.
What is congress doing with that money?
As to your increasing taxes, the top 1% pay more than the bottom 95% combined.
the top 10% (representing over 14 million Americans) currently pay 71% of all income taxes paid.
And to hit the top 10% in 2007 only required 113k in income. Hardly wealthy
http://tinyurl.com/yhglmfg
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 10:31am
A tax cut is not spending?
Every business borrows to buy new plant and equipment, hire additional staff, build up inventory etc. The reason is simple: expanding the business brings in more revenue.
But no business borrows year after year for the purpose of writing off receivables. Any business that did so would have to find a way to reduce payables, or go bankrupt.
Repubs always have a new plan for writing off more receivables, but when challenged for reductions in payables never fail to change the subject. We could eliminate the entire HHS Dept. in accordance with racist Repubs' subject-changing attacks on 'welfare' and still not save enough to pay for racist Repubs' wars on Muslims.
Posted by samcrossett at 11/14/2009 @ 11:24am
"...the top 1% pay more than the bottom 95% combined. "
Anti, That is more a statement of the income disparity is this country than about the social responsibility of the economic elite.
Posted by Tatra at 11/14/2009 @ 12:35pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 10:31am |
"As to your increasing taxes, the top 1% pay more than the bottom 95% combined."
Their effective tax RATES are still less than 20%...the fact that their incomes have skyrocketed is no fault of the bottom 95% other than having contributed to the success of the top percentile through hard work.
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/1-23-07inc-f1.jpg
What a tiresome, disingenuous, and lame canard you play at every conceivable opportunity.
"And to hit the top 10% in 2007 only required 113k in income. Hardly wealthy"
Depends on where you live, doesn't it? $113k is more than enough for a family of 6 almost anywhere in the country except possibly CA or NY.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 1:03pm
"And to hit the top 10% in 2007 only required 113k in income. Hardly wealthy"
Depends on where you live, doesn't it? $113k is more than enough for a family of 6 almost anywhere in the country except possibly CA or NY.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 1:03pm
Virtually no one would define that as wealthy in any part of the US.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 1:34pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 10:31am |
Mark 12:43-44
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 1:36pm
"As to your increasing taxes, the top 1% pay more than the bottom 95% combined."
Their effective tax RATES are still less than 20%...the fact that their incomes have skyrocketed is no fault of the bottom 95% other than having contributed to the success of the top percentile through hard work.
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/1-23-07inc-f1.jpg
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 1:03pm
according to the IRS, the top 1% have 22.85% of the AGI of all taxpayers and pay 22.45% of taxes.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 1:39pm
"You would think that someone that served in the military would not hate the military and the US as much as wolfie does"
in larry's parlance, "hatred for the military" means "finding ways to reduce the military budget."
"As to your increasing taxes, the top 1% pay more than the bottom 95% combined. The top 10% (representing over 14 million Americans) currently pay 71% of all income taxes paid."
and what do they keep AFTER taxes, larry?
Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2009 @ 1:51pm
"Neither the healthcare bill nor the so-called cap and trade are deficit neutral"
evidence?
Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2009 @ 1:52pm
Anti, you're missing the point, I'm arguing for the top 10% to pay 100% of federal income tax. They certainly have the means to cover the bill.
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 2:45pm
It's the income inequality stupid!
It's real simple, double the productivity, allow the top 1% to horde all the gains, then because only half the workers are needed, there is massive unemployment. Why is this so difficult to understand?
We have greatly increased productivity during the last decades, but the gains have mostly accumulated at the top layer of society.
Since the rich already consume as much as they want (more or less), there is no corresponding increase in demand for that increased productive capacity.
Since we produce more with less people, there is less demand for workers. Thus higher unemployment; thus more competition for jobs; thus lower wages; thus even more wealth transferred to the rich; thus less demand; thus more layoffs; thus ...
Starting with Reagan, most productivity gains has been captured by the rich. The middle class has tried to keep up by reducing savings and going into debt. But you can only borrow so much before the inevitable day of reckoning arrives. It took 25 years for it to show up, but it's here, and we have to deal with it.
More Supply-Side tax-cuts will just make things worse. We can balance the federal budget next year AND turn around the economy next year. It's easy: tax the rich, cut taxes for the middle class, and massive infrastructure investment. We know what's required, but, for reasons I don't understand, the political will is lacking.
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 2:53pm
I saw the republican economic proposal; it looked eerily similar to Herbert Hoover's economic policy from 1929-1932. Anyone know why the press isn't running head-lines that say "republican economic proposal leads to depression"? Why is the press so afraid of offending the republicans?
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 2:56pm
"Now cap and trade should actually be more than revenue neutral, it should raise revenue. (Indeed, that's the central attack on the bill, that it's a tax, ie, a revenue raiser)"
-Christopher Hayes
Tax revenues are correlational to economic growth, not rates of taxation. Therefore, lower taxes encourage economic growth, which in turn results in higher revenues.
"Cap and Trade" is not "neutral" as to what effect it will have on economic gowth and activity in America.
It can either be detrimental or beneficial to economic growth.
Seeing as it will use government coercion to artificially increase the cost of anything produced in America through taxes, it will necessarily be an anti-growth policy.
Additionally, it will place these newly more expensive American goods and services at a disadvantage against imported goods that were not produced under such burdensome regulations and taxes.
Therefore, cap and trade is not a revenue increaser because it will not be conducive to economic growth. It is specifically designed to curb economic activity.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 3:00pm
"Now cap and trade should actually be more than revenue neutral, it should raise revenue. (Indeed, that's the central attack on the bill, that it's a tax, ie, a revenue raiser)"
-Christopher Hayes
Tax revenues are correlational to economic growth, not rates of taxation. Therefore, lower taxes encourage economic growth, which in turn results in higher revenues.
"Cap and Trade" is not "neutral" as to what effect it will have on economic gowth and activity in America.
It can either be detrimental or beneficial to economic growth.
Seeing as it will use government coercion to artificially increase the cost of anything produced in America through taxes, it will necessarily be an anti-growth policy.
Additionally, it will place these newly more expensive American goods and services at a disadvantage against imported goods that were not produced under such burdensome regulations and taxes.
Therefore, cap and trade is not a revenue increaser because it will not be conducive to economic growth. It is specifically designed to curb economic activity.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 3:00pm
It's easy: tax the rich, cut taxes for the middle class, and massive infrastructure investment. We know what's required, but, for reasons I don't understand, the political will is lacking.
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 2:53pm
It's best your understanding stand where they are! It's bad enough and perhaps, already too taxing for you.
Posted by Happy at 11/14/2009 @ 3:10pm
Happy, you got something against tax-cuts?
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 3:22pm
The path forward is clear:
tax the rich, cut taxes for the middle class, balanced trade (lower US$), massive infrastructure spending.
The "increased savings" is really debt-reduction by the Middle-class. The Middle-class overextended the last two decades, and must now reduce their debt. Barring inflation, Middle-class families need to reduce their debt, so that demand reduction must be replaced by investment spending. Business won't invest as long as capacity utilization remain at the current low level (70%).
The federal government must pick up the slack with massive infrastructure investments like, smart grids, energy efficiency, renewable energy, communications infrastructure, as well as traditional roads and bridges.
Spending on infrastructure is an investment that can be payed back over time. Infrastructure spending results in higher growth, thus higher revenues. The higher growth will make today's deficits look puny compared to tomorrows much higher GDP.
In addition, with the ascendancy of the developing world, and the increased global population, we need to improve our energy efficiency and come up with new products that use less materials as well as less energy. If we don't, our standard of living will be reduced.
We also need to invest heavily into education to enhance labor mobility into new technologies and techniques. Education is also an important component of Research & Development for developing new products.
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 3:28pm
Republican economic plan:
http://www.jconline.com/article/20091112 /OPINION/911120311/1098/OPINION /Improving-health-care-without-a-big-takeover
Same plan that Herbert Hoover followed in 1929.
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 3:44pm
Anti, you're missing the point, I'm arguing for the top 10% to pay 100% of federal income tax. They certainly have the means to cover the bill.
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 2:45pm
Actually they don't. Furthermore, are you saying that you want Firefighters, Teachers, Policeman, and Nurses taking up the income tax load? Because that's what you're talking about with the top 10%.
What you're saying is that you want all the services but none of the responsibility.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 4:56pm
according to the IRS, the top 1% have 22.85% of the AGI of all taxpayers and pay 22.45% of taxes. Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 1:39pm |
They also have the nicest homes and thus the largest interest deductions. Nice try.
22.85% of WHICH taxes, Anti? You quoted Fed income taxes.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 5:05pm
runelagman is spot on.....
Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2009 @ 5:08pm
antisocialist is in complete denial of what the super-wealthy take home AFTER TAXES.
that's what matters.
Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2009 @ 5:09pm
They also have the nicest homes and thus the largest interest deductions. Nice try.
22.85% of WHICH taxes, Anti? You quoted Fed income taxes.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 5:05pm
Tax deductions including the mortgage interest deduction, property taxes, and charitable contributions are all phased out progressively based upon level of income.
Where the top 1% keep more of their money is by taking less in salary income and more in capital gains and deferred compensation.
In fact, I'm currently showing businesses how to take advantage of the Section 162 Executive Bonus plans that let them and key employees put money into a cash acumulation insurance product. the company pays the employee a bonus to cover the premiums and the taxes on the bonus. The company then is able to deduct the bonus as salary expense. the employee gets a tax free retirement account with life insurance as a bonus.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 5:32pm
antisocialist is in complete denial of what the super-wealthy take home AFTER TAXES.
that's what matters.
Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2009 @ 5:09pm
I'm not in denial, I don't care what they take home.
Why should you care either, unless you are jealous?
This is part of the moral bankruptcy of the left. They want to steal from others because they believe it is unfair for someone else to succeed more than they do.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 5:34pm
It's easy: tax the rich, cut taxes for the middle class, and massive infrastructure investment. We know what's required, but, for reasons I don't understand, the political will is lacking.
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 2:53pm
The bottom half of the top 10% that you want to increase taxes on constitute the middle class. So which is it? you want to both tax the middle class and give them a tax cut?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 5:46pm
Santi-When do you have time for your pro bono work?So you work on loopholes for the rich congratulations. Social Security tax stops at $191,000,did you forget about that or was it just not pertinent to your part of the discussion?I guess this is a win win for corporations,again congratulations.What income level is the middle class? I have a feeling you have a large amount of money somewhere that makes "you" not care.
Posted by whatozz at 11/14/2009 @ 6:14pm
Anti, you're definitely in denial, show me the the teacher that makes 113K, or the cop, or the Firefighter, or the nurse. You will not find many. Besides, up to 113K you'll pay zero federal income tax. You have something against tax-cuts?
Anti, tell me why the top 1% should horde most of the productivity gains. Why is this fair?
Since you don't care what they take home, then why do you care how much tax they pay?
Anti, it's really about what kind of society you want, I want a society where I can work hard and get rewarded for it. With societal rules where most of the productivity gains are captured by the rich, it will not matter how hard I work, because I will not catch up, nor will you.
Anti, I understand you're a tax-adviser to the rich, so I understand your zealous attitude towards the rich paying more taxes. You probably believe that that's what they want to hear, or you will not get any gigs.
Anti, I'll pray for your soul.
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 6:31pm
Thanks for the article. Glad you could bring up military expenditures to which, it seems, people give very little consideration these days -- much to my dismay.
Salon has a treatment of the deficit in the context of health care vis-a-vis military outlays, noting that the former will cost nearly a trillion but ultimately save around $110 billion. Whereas defense sending over the next ten years is approximately $6.3 trillion. "Deficit hawks" never seem to pay attention to this latter number.
Posted by kirquaker at 11/14/2009 @ 8:09pm
"They want to steal from others because they believe it is unfair for someone else to succeed more than they do"
and here we have antisocialist's mentality in a nutshell. all taxation, in his mind, is theft. and for some incredibly strange reason, he doesn't see defense spending as theft. that's......necessary spending.
but spending on healthcare is.....unconstitutional.
but invasions and occupations of dangerous, unstable foreign countries? totally constitutional.
and he claims (!) to be fluent in the writings of our founders, who if around today wouldn't stop throwing up if they saw what we were spending on defense.
Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2009 @ 9:09pm
Invasions, indeed -- wholesale nation building.
Posted by kirquaker at 11/14/2009 @ 9:42pm
No "Gut the defense budget, spend the money on urban blight and 100% solar by 2020, turn the Pentagon into public housing" liberal is ever going to get THEIR policies implemented either. Never was...never will be.
Too many jobs tied to defense or military bases (S'why they had to have a "Base Closing Commission"...Congress couldn't touch it.)
Trim the edges?...sure. Just like the "fiscal conservatives" trim the edges on some programs.
But the "Big Ideal" is still a Utopian dream.
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009
It's better to cut military defense spending by choice than out of necessity.
How much longer can the US afford to outspend the rest of the world combined?
We're wasting millions on a military designed to fight an enemy that no longer exists, the Soviets.
Posted by koroviev at 11/15/2009 @ 04:24am
Oh and what that money could do for the people of this country.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/15/2009 @ 09:07am
My Utopian dream is ton the leader of the Free World to be intelligent.
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
"I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft."
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."
"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
"They misunderestimated me."
Posted by winyahn at 11/15/2009 @ 09:29am
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 5:32pm |
These are precisely the kinds of loopholes that we need to expunge from our tax code. Making up different rules for the myriad forms of compensation of 'executives' is tantamount to differential taxation.
Restoring the cap gains tax rate to something like 25% would certainly help our budget woes. Do we really think people need to be egged on to invest in the Fed's balloon market these days?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/15/2009 @ 09:52am
Getting rid of "loopholes" will constitute a tax increase, no matter how you slice it. And "loopholes" is a loaded word suggesting less than above board behavior.
A flat tax would get rid of all "loopholes". You simply take everything you earned, find the taxed percentage of it, and pay it. If some guy makes $14 million one year, he pays the same percentage on those earnings as the guy who made $45,000 that year.
And everyone should have to do that. Under that system, NOBODY could ever claim somebody wasn't paying their fair share, because everybody would be paying the same identical percentage. My God, the friggin' Russians have a flat tax. How is it that we don't?
Okay, that was rhetorical. I know why we'll never have a flat tax rate for everyone. Because our tax code is not for just reising revenue to fund government. It is a social engineering tool, and a political tool to exploit class envy and translate it into votes every election.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 10:03am
Getting rid of "loopholes" will constitute a tax increase, no matter how you slice it. And "loopholes" is a loaded word suggesting less than above board behavior.
A flat tax would get rid of all "loopholes". You simply take everything you earned, find the taxed percentage of it, and pay it. If some guy makes $14 million one year, he pays the same percentage on those earnings as the guy who made $45,000 that year.
And everyone should have to do that. Under that system, NOBODY could ever claim somebody wasn't paying their fair share, because everybody would be paying the same identical percentage. My God, the friggin' Russians have a flat tax. How is it that we don't?
Okay, that was rhetorical. I know why we'll never have a flat tax rate for everyone. Because our tax code is not for just reising revenue to fund government. It is a social engineering tool, and a political tool to exploit class envy and translate it into votes every election.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 10:03am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 10:03am |
A progressive tax structure with no deductions would accomplish the same goals without leaving our government even more bankrupt than it already is.
No convincing people to have children, to get married, to speculate in the markets, etc...I have a sneaking suspicion that other cultural pressures would suffice such that they don't need the fiscal encouragement.
What rate would you suggest for your 'flat' tax?
Does 20% across the board work for you?
Do you think that 20% would hurt Ken Lewis or the part-time greeter at Wal-Mart more?
i.e. 20% of a seven figure salary leaves a six figure salary at least, while 20% of minimum wage leaves one well below the poverty line.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/15/2009 @ 10:36am
Honestly, I'd have to see how the Russians tackled those issues before offerring an opinion. They are valid questions.
What do you think about a Fair Tax? Or national sales tax replacing the income tax?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 1:05pm
Honestly, I'd have to see how the Russians tackled those issues before offerring an opinion. They are valid questions.
What do you think about a Fair Tax? Or national sales tax replacing the income tax?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 1:05pm
Santi-When do you have time for your pro bono work?So you work on loopholes for the rich congratulations. Social Security tax stops at $191,000,did you forget about that or was it just not pertinent to your part of the discussion?I guess this is a win win for corporations,again congratulations.What income level is the middle class? I have a feeling you have a large amount of money somewhere that makes "you" not care.
Posted by whatozz at 11/14/2009 @ 6:14pm
No, I do it for the middle class. I don't have any wealthy clients. I only have 2 clients who make at least 100k per year. Most of them are in the 30-80k range.
I have no money stored away. I don't plan to retire and I need very little to live
Posted by antisocialist at 11/15/2009 @ 1:24pm
What do you think about a Fair Tax? Or national sales tax replacing the income tax? Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 1:05pm |
A national sales tax 'sounds' egalitarian, but its still regressive to the Wal-mart greeter who spends his entire income to survive versus someone like me who spends maybe 30% of my income on taxable 'stuff' and would only really whine when I went to buy a big-screen TV.
It also tends be less than a stable source of income due to normal cyclical business effects (the binging and purging shows up in collections too)...as bad as unemployment and thus tax revenues will be, they'd be worse right now if we were using a sales tax (10% UE...vs 40% sales drops depending on industry).
Posted by snowball777 at 11/15/2009 @ 1:45pm
Anti, I understand you're a tax-adviser to the rich, so I understand your zealous attitude towards the rich paying more taxes. You probably believe that that's what they want to hear, or you will not get any gigs.
Anti, I'll pray for your soul.
Posted by RuneLagman at 11/14/2009 @ 6:31pm
I don't have any rich clients. More than half my clients make less than 40k per year. About a 1/3 make less than 30k per year.
I have 2 clients who make more than 100k per year and none who make more than 150k. Hardly wealthy.
1 is a radiology technician and the other is a doctor who runs an urgent care clinic for the poor.
You simply have no concept of earnings in this country. or that the concepts I bring to people can be employed by people making less than 40k per year.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/15/2009 @ 1:45pm
What rate would you suggest for your 'flat' tax?
Does 20% across the board work for you?
Do you think that 20% would hurt Ken Lewis or the part-time greeter at Wal-Mart more?
i.e. 20% of a seven figure salary leaves a six figure salary at least, while 20% of minimum wage leaves one well below the poverty line.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/15/2009 @ 10:36am
Why don't you read up on the flat tax before making such uninformed statements.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
Posted by antisocialist at 11/15/2009 @ 1:48pm
A national sales tax couldn't possibly replace the income tax. That being said, it wouldn't be a bad idea as part of a package of tax reforms.
Posted by nkurland at 11/15/2009 @ 1:49pm
Are you guys for real? Revenue neutral. Raise the national debt to the forth power and they haven't even gotten health care bull passed yet. He and his will work on getting cap and trade passed and any other free enterprise toxic legislation they can get in place.
Raise revenue by taxation? Kill the goose that lays the golden eggs...the private sector. Who the hell is going to have any income to tax when it's over. The government will have 45 to 55% of our economy in its pocket and we all know how revenue positive the government is...it is positive that it will spend anything it gets its hands on and destroy any incentive.
The next step once they have hamstrung our economy they will say we have to cut domestic spending and MILITARY spending so they can gut our ability to defend ourselves.
This is a bald faced attempt to destroy our system institution by institution in good Fabian Socialist fashion.
Posted by nunzio at 11/15/2009 @ 1:50pm
Are you guys for real? Revenue neutral. Raise the national debt to the forth power and they haven't even gotten health care bull passed yet. He and his will work on getting cap and trade passed and any other free enterprise toxic legislation they can get in place.
Raise revenue by taxation? Kill the goose that lays the golden eggs...the private sector. Who the hell is going to have any income to tax when it's over. The government will have 45 to 55% of our economy in its pocket and we all know how revenue positive the government is...it is positive that it will spend anything it gets its hands on and destroy any incentive.
The next step once they have hamstrung our economy they will say we have to cut domestic spending and MILITARY spending so they can gut our ability to defend ourselves.
This is a bald faced attempt to destroy our system institution by institution in good Fabian Socialist fashion.
Posted by nunzio at 11/15/2009 @ 1:53pm
Are you guys for real? Revenue neutral. Raise the national debt to the forth power and they haven't even gotten health care bull passed yet. He and his will work on getting cap and trade passed and any other free enterprise toxic legislation they can get in place.
Raise revenue by taxation? Kill the goose that lays the golden eggs...the private sector. Who the hell is going to have any income to tax when it's over. The government will have 45 to 55% of our economy in its pocket and we all know how revenue positive the government is...it is positive that it will spend anything it gets its hands on and destroy any economic incentive.
The next step once they have hamstrung our economy is to cut domestic spending and MILITARY spending so they can gut our ability to defend ourselves.
This is a bald faced attempt to destroy our system, institution by institution, in good Fabian Socialist fashion.
Posted by nunzio at 11/15/2009 @ 1:58pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/15/2009 @ 1:48pm |
Nice comparison calculator.
6% increase in spending power for me.
4% increase in spending power for the Wal-mart greeter, his wife, and two kids making $30k/yr.
Hardly seems 'fair'. :)
It seems like they're pullin' my leg on the revenue neutrality pitch too, but I'll finished reading their research later.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/15/2009 @ 2:22pm
I agree that the actual costs of health care and climate change legislation have been distorted. But that's quite distinct from the long-term budget issue, which (under the status quo) will be driven by cost increases and in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These longer term projected deficits are set to grow the national debt exponentially, in the coming decades. True, national security spending and artifically low taxes are problems in their own right, but they are relatively small as compared to the long-term entitlement challenge.
It's fair to say that important legislation shouldn't be fodder for scare tactics, but it's a mistake to portray concerns about deficits and debt as if they are baseless. Without substantial adjustments to both spending and tax policy, the long term federal budget numbers will remain a big problem.
Posted by mpurusho at 11/15/2009 @ 3:46pm
That is why the Bush tax cuts should be repealed,we should pay a tax for Middle Eastern nation building,and a "real"payment plan for national health care should be enacted.Enough of borrowing to buy guns and weapons systems to kill people in foreign lands and call it nation building.At the same time I don't feel it is right to have a surtax on people making $200,000 + to pay for national health care.Then to top it off there are 30 pages explaining who can,can't,or may be a part of national health care.After 6 months of wrangling the true winners in the process are the insurance companies it is supposedly is going to control.How the Democrats are going to turn things around is interesting.They have turned a win-win situation into a lose-lose one. Perhaps there is a leader in the Democratic party I just hope he reappears.
Posted by whatozz at 11/15/2009 @ 7:49pm
Again, tax revenues are a function of economic growth/activity, not rates of taxation. Will raising taxes, especially in this economic climate, promote economic growth and job creation? Or will it slow that stuff down? Taking billions of dollars out of the private sector, I'm thinking, will tend to discourage the sort of investment that grows the economy and jobs.
"Repealing" the Bush tax cuts is simply raising taxes. Why not call it what it is? If you suddenly have to pay more than you currently are, then it is a tax hike. It doesn't matter what happened in the past to get your tax rate to it's current level. If you suddenly are paying less next month than you are this month, that's a tax cut. Enough of this "repeal" jackassery.
Reminds me of when the Dems demogogued a reduction in the rate of growth on social security as a "cut" in social security. And the willing media went right along with it.
Hey, when Grandma gets a check next month that is smaller than the one she got last month, that's a cut.
When she gets a check for more than she did last month, that's an increase.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 9:21pm
Okay Cit it will be raising taxes when you repeal the Bush tax cuts. Tell me what has been the benefit of that tax cut?On paying for 2" wars",why not? It would make Americans actually a real part of them other than a political pawn like they are now.People could give a thumbs up or down on Iraq or Afghanistan> Thirdly,if we are going to have national health care,all Americans can pay for it. Then we would not have the gimmicks or the "formulas" to pay for it as know being put forward. To put it bluntly our politicians would have to put forward an "honest"reform plan.
Posted by whatozz at 11/16/2009 @ 05:44am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 9:21pm |
"Again, tax revenues are a function of economic growth/activity, not rates of taxation. Will raising taxes, especially in this economic climate, promote economic growth and job creation? Or will it slow that stuff down? Taking billions of dollars out of the private sector, I'm thinking, will tend to discourage the sort of investment that grows the economy and jobs."
You're assuming that money invested necessarily creates jobs, which is going to get you trickled on...what's to keep the investors from walking with the money without creating jobs?
Why not protest B of A for lack of credit loaned?
This is why job tax credits are a slightly better incentive for this kind of private sector 'nudge'.
The problem we have at the moment is a massive oversupply (global commodity boom wind-down and sputtering domestic economy) with no demand due to uncertainty about the future of the economy and the very real effects of the evaporation of trillions in the housing asset bubble's pop.
This is especially targeted at unskilled, low-income workers who are relatively disposable in our fabulous (Hair) Club for Growth and CATO approved 'service economy' where most of us work getting the 'stuff' off the boats and into your local StuffShack(tm).
Since Ma and Pa Kettle are adjusting to life under a reset ARM, they don't hit up the local mall much anymore...ghost towns.
This doesn't effect 'some'...~30M of us are in the "bachelor's degree or better" column with only 4.7%...i.e. normal...unemployment to deal with, but that's...10% of the country.
Millions more work in offices with those 30M...near 80M, given the employee counts at bigger international companies. UE rate < 8%.
Then retail...Wal-Mart to Tiffany's...a bloodletting.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/16/2009 @ 07:40am
Thank you Mr. Hayes for standing up and saying that these programs (health care and Cap and Trade) will raise taxes and do so massively.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/16/2009 @ 07:57am
and what do they keep AFTER taxes, larry?
Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2009 @ 1:51pm
About half of what they earned...
and it is none of your business....
the real question should be asked of you....why is it you are incapable of producing ANY tax or income to be taxed? Just because you "help" out at a fruit market doesn't mean you contribute anything other than a little help...it contributes nothing to the country as a whole.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/16/2009 @ 08:55am
And as such, since you produce nothing of value or taxable on a monetary level , your views and opinions as to how much another person who DOES pay into the system takes home or how much should be taken away from them...should be voided as ...irrelevent, inappropiate, and ignored.
Wanna play? Then pay, like other tax payers...until then....
have another toke.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/16/2009 @ 08:58am
what's to keep the investors from walking with the money without creating jobs?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/16/2009 @ 07:40am
That would only happen if they literally take the money and put it under their mattress.
Even if all they do is put it in a bank, it is then used by that bank to make loans for such things as cars, homes, small business loans, etc.
But what if those rich investors just go out and buy a new Cadillac or something?
Well, that's an investment. And if you happen to be one of the people working on the assembly line at Cadillac, then you depend on those guys making that "investment".
So, unless they literally take bales of cash and stockpile it in their basement, then this money will be used in one way or another to either create new jobs or to sustain existing ones. And it will do it more efficiently than government disbursement of those funds. No doubt about it.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/16/2009 @ 09:11am
what's to keep the investors from walking with the money without creating jobs?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/16/2009 @ 07:40am
That would only happen if they literally take the money and put it under their mattress.
Even if all they do is put it in a bank, it is then used by that bank to make loans for such things as cars, homes, small business loans, etc.
But what if those rich investors just go out and buy a new Cadillac or something?
Well, that's an investment. And if you happen to be one of the people working on the assembly line at Cadillac, then you depend on those guys making that "investment".
So, unless they literally take bales of cash and stockpile it in their basement, then this money will be used in one way or another to either create new jobs or to sustain existing ones. And it will do it more efficiently than government disbursement of those funds. No doubt about it.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/16/2009 @ 09:11am
So, unless they literally take bales of cash and stockpile it in their basement, then this money will be used in one way or another to either create new jobs or to sustain existing ones. And it will do it more efficiently than government disbursement of those funds. No doubt about it. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/16/2009 @ 09:11am | ignore this person | warn this person
--don't tell the civilian war profiteers
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:39pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/16/2009 @ 09:11am |
They prefer their 'bales' in the form of shares due to deference to cap gains in our tax code.
Have you tried getting an SBA loan or car loan lately?
Assume you have decent credit as an axiom and even a decent business plan in hand. Your business requires $30k/mo payroll or $360k per year for your entire motley crew. Your product can be made in say 3 years to the shelves to reap several million.
So you're looking for that million dollar loan. What are your chances, now, in Nov, 2009 of getting it?
How does the public option help or hurt?
How does cap'n'trade help or hurt?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:51pm
Cap and trade hurts because it is specifically designed to make the production of goods and services that rely on "carbon" more expensive.
Essentially, it is designed to make living in America more expensive. As such, it is specifically for reducing economic acitivity. And all for a global warming belief that looks more and more dubious with each passing day.
A model of "cap and trade" was used to reduce sulphur emissions into our air. Sulphur comprises about 5% of coal. The sulphur cap and trade was successful in reducing sulphur emissions into our air, which created acid rain. I believe these measures cost Americans about 2-3 billion dollars annually.
The problem with "cap and trade" to reduce carbon, rather than sulphur, is that coal and oil ARE carbon. Carbon is not a mere percentage of a lump of coal. You cannot install scrubbers on smokestacks to reduce carbon emissions like you can sulphur. The only way to reduce carbon emissions is to significantly REDUCE the use of fossil fuels.
The impact that such a plan would have on our private sector economy and job creation is fairly obvious...and not positive.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/16/2009 @ 2:12pm
Cap and trade hurts because it is specifically designed to make the production of goods and services that rely on "carbon" more expensive.
Essentially, it is designed to make living in America more expensive. As such, it is specifically for reducing economic acitivity. And all for a global warming belief that looks more and more dubious with each passing day.
A model of "cap and trade" was used to reduce sulphur emissions into our air. Sulphur comprises about 5% of coal. The sulphur cap and trade was successful in reducing sulphur emissions into our air, which created acid rain. I believe these measures cost Americans about 2-3 billion dollars annually.
The problem with "cap and trade" to reduce carbon, rather than sulphur, is that coal and oil ARE carbon. Carbon is not a mere percentage of a lump of coal. You cannot install scrubbers on smokestacks to reduce carbon emissions like you can sulphur. The only way to reduce carbon emissions is to significantly REDUCE the use of fossil fuels.
The impact that such a plan would have on our private sector economy and job creation is fairly obvious...and not positive.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/16/2009 @ 2:12pm
So you're looking for that million dollar loan. What are your chances, now, in Nov, 2009 of getting it?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:51pm
Youth & inexperience!
What you describe needs venture capital, NOT bank loans....there isn't any collateral! Any `bank' that loan that million deserves to go bankrupt!
Even in condo developments during `normal' times, require certain level of pre-sales, usually somewhere near 50%. IF the start-up in your scenario had orders in hand based off of prototype(s), then you're still talking venture capital...or some kinda of mezzanine financing.
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 3:16pm
So you're looking for that million dollar loan. What are your chances, now, in Nov, 2009 of getting it?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:51pm
the smart business person knows that instead of trying to get a bank loan, they find some Angel Investors.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 4:00pm
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 3:16pm | Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 4:00pm |
How much 'collateral'? Can I put up a crappy mortgage backed security as 'collateral'? Is $100k enough?
Yes, you can bridge finance and play `hopey' equity games on the off chance that an IPO works out in your favor; tis true...wait for the flop, the turn, burn one card, and...oh, pump and dump...you lose this time.
You can borrow the money from loan sharks too, but I wouldn't advise either.
But even *that* avenue is getting narrower as VC firms conserve capital for their current ventures; business 101...in times of NO DEMAND, circle the wagons.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/16/2009 @ 4:56pm
There's good news and bad news regarding the impact of the stimulus in Minnesota and other states. The good news is, at the cost of hundreds of mllions of dollars, it has created tens of thousands of jobs in several districts. The bad news is, those districts don't actually exist.
"MINNEAPOLIS, MN--You'd never know it without going online to the new and improved federal government stimulus tracking website, but the economy and jobs picture is really picking up in Minnesota's 57th congressional district. There in plain sight, it states that 35 jobs have been saved or created as a result of $404,340 in stimulus spending, according to the figures found by the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota on the federal government's stimulus tracking website on the summary page for MInnesota at Recovery.gov.
Over in Minnesota 's 27th congressional district, however, it appears to be a bleaker picture for those hoping for a turnaround. The federal government's statistics indicate only 2.5 jobs have been created or saved despite the listed expenditure of $3,159,657 of taxpayer dollars.
Then there's the 13th congressional district which outperformed them all. Hard to believe, but the hard working folks in the 13th congressional district generated five jobs from just $42,109 in stimulus spending.
That would certainly come as news to most Minnesotans, since the 14th, 27th and 57th congressional districts in Minnesota do not exist, except on the Obama Administration's website. Nor does the 00 congressional district listed as spending $404,340 and creating zero jobs.
Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 9:28pm
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 10:48am
"But libertarianism is Utopianism....or pap fed to mouth-breathers who listen to Rush or watch Beck."
Well, which is it...Utopianism or pap? You're scraping the bottom here, MASK, slipping into inanity. Libertarianism in its wildest dreams was never Utopian - it's political science 101.
"To call all liberals "socialists" is an exaggeration...."
Only if you think it's an exaggeration to call Miller Lite an actual beer - hmmm, maybe you do have a point!
"but to claim there are or ever will be any "fiscal conservatives" who'll implement said policies...is a lie."
As long as Americans are conditioned to demand something for nothing, that's true. Or at least it's true until we get a Republican Congress to go with a Republican President - then we'll have to hope they don't sell out.
Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42pm |
Explain why you believe the MILLIONS of people who've lost a job during this recession, beginning in '07, under Dubya, who were WORKING before they lost said job, are demanding "something for nothing".
Does your "something for nothing" logic equally apply to John Thain, Ken Lewis, or anyone receiving a bonus from taxpayers this year (Merry Christmas @$$4@+5)?
I think you're demanding my vote (something) for your empty utopian pap (nothing) where everyone builds their own sewer infrastructure and traffic is managed by laissez-faire rules while we no longer mandate car insurance and drill offshore while stockpiling guns for the great end time.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/17/2009 @ 07:22am
Funny, Ponti mocks me claiming guys like him are "Utopians"....then says-
"Or at least it's true until we get a Republican Congress to go with a Republican President - then we'll have to hope they don't sell out."----Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42pm
When he had that they "sold him out"...but HOPE springs eternal that "the next time" they'll control everything, enact a "pure conservative agenda" and then bring us....
hmmmm?....what would be the word?????
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 09:17am
allow the top 1% to horde all the gains,
hoard
Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 10:54am
Anti, tell me why the top 1% should horde most of the productivity gains. Why is this fair?
hoard.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 11:02am
Anti, tell me why the top 1% should horde most of the productivity gains. Why is this fair?
hoard.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 11:02am
Because we don't live in a totalitarian socialist society. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
Who takes a bigger loss when productivity and demand fall?
Who bears the most risk for maintaining our economic engine? the worker or those who create the jobs?
Marxists claim it's the worker. But that was only true to any real extent up to 40 years ago. Technology has put us into a paradigm shift on the means of production and the left still hasn't caught up with that fact.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:04pm
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 09:17am
"When he had that they "sold him out"...but HOPE springs eternal that "the next time" they'll control everything, enact a "pure conservative agenda" and then bring us....hmmmm?....what would be the word?????heheh"
MASK, the most pathetic thing about your sophistry is that you actually believe it.
Posted by pontificus at 11/17/2009 @ 3:42pm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/17/2009 @ 07:22am
"I think you're demanding my vote (something) for your empty utopian pap (nothing) where everyone builds their own sewer infrastructure and traffic is managed by laissez-faire rules while we no longer mandate car insurance and drill offshore while stockpiling guns for the great end time."
Oh, I see snowball - so if I don't agree that the government should take over an additional 1/6 of the economy and an unprecedented chunk of everyone's personal liberty, that means I don't think they should be in charge of anything? You think in cariacatures and straw men, it's no wonder to can't come to any rational conclusions.
Posted by pontificus at 11/17/2009 @ 3:45pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/17/2009 @ 3:45pm |
I guess you'd rather settle for any conclusion rather than seek for a rational one.
Your 'caricature' of government 'take over' (oooh...sounds really scary when you roll out the loaded language like that, Hoss) is no less a straw man...care for a match?
Monopsony of health INSURANCE, not care, would provide the only humane outcome that can contain medical costs over time. That's rational.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/18/2009 @ 05:55am
Technology has put us into a paradigm shift on the means of production and the left still hasn't caught up with that fact. Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:04pm |
We'll have to ask you to pack up your things, you've been replaced by a Java applet:
String pickPoster(); String pickLabel();
String fs("%1$20s is nothing but a %2$20s%n");
system.console.printf(fs, pickPoster(), pickLabel());
Posted by snowball777 at 11/18/2009 @ 06:01am
Anti, tell me why the top 1% should horde most of the productivity gains. Why is this fair?
hoard.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 11:02am
Because they are the risk takers, venture capitalists, and entrepeneurs.
Or do you suppose if left to their own devices, 1000 people could just show up on a bare patch of ground and somehow synergistically "create" a tool and die manufacturing plant?
No, it's usually one guy who does that. One leader. Taken in that sense, the one man who can accomplish that is of greater value and importance than the 1000 people standing around waiting for him to do it. They need him far more than he needs them, for he is more unique, while they are far too common.
Our system rewards and encourages such individuals. This appears to annoy you.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 07:47am
Anti, tell me why the top 1% should horde most of the productivity gains. Why is this fair?
hoard.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 11:02am
Because they are the risk takers, venture capitalists, and entrepeneurs.
Or do you suppose if left to their own devices, 1000 people could just show up on a bare patch of ground and somehow synergistically "create" a tool and die manufacturing plant?
No, it's usually one guy who does that. One leader. Taken in that sense, the one man who can accomplish that is of greater value and importance than the 1000 people standing around waiting for him to do it. They need him far more than he needs them, for he is more unique, while they are far too common.
Our system rewards and encourages such individuals. This appears to annoy you.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 07:47am
Posted by snowball777 at 11/18/2009 @ 05:55am
"Your 'caricature' of government 'take over' (oooh...sounds really scary when you roll out the loaded language like that, Hoss) is no less a straw man...care for a match? "
It's hardly a strawman to refer to the current Democratic health care bills as a takeover. Most analysts, even Democratic ones, recognize that it is a virtually unprecedented expansion of power for the central government, both over the industry and over individuals, and that through its over 3,500 'shalls', asserts government control over private health care and individuals' health choices. Just as a start, it eliminates my HSA and high deductible plan, and forces me to buy insurance which effectively forces me to subsidize the rest of the health insurance pool inasmuch as it forces health insurance companies to pay for those with pre-existing conditions. It further asserts that I 'shall' purchase a health care plan with specifications and costs designated by an anonymous bureaucrat in DC, under penalty of fines and jail terms. Thus it is hardly a strawman to refer to this as a private industry takeover and an egregious infringement on individual liberties.
No, snowball, you don't get away with the 'we're both guilty' dodge so famous with MASK and others here when they've been caught out in a lie.
Posted by pontificus at 11/18/2009 @ 07:48am
I'd call it a takeover. What would you call it? Reform?
From what I'm seeing it is a mandated expense. The Federal Government is about to pass a law saying they can fine and/or imprison you if you don't buy an insurance policy from a private company.
Man, I sure would like to own a business in which the government tells people they must buy my product under penalty of fines or imprisonment!
That is such an "American" way of thinking!
And the damn thing doesn't reduce any costs at all. The stuff will probably be more expensive because now insurance companies cannot "discriminate" against pre-existing conditions.
And I'll just bet liberal populists are thinking, "Yeah, stick it to those evil insurance companies! Show them they can't turn away the sick or injured!"
What a classically stupid way of thinking about this. You and I will pay for the coverage of the pre-existing conditions with bigger bills. And we cannot simply refuse to subsidize this mandate, because we'll be put in jail or fined if we try.
This is reform? Because it sounds more like the Soviet Union to me.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 07:57am
I'd call it a takeover. What would you call it? Reform?
From what I'm seeing it is a mandated expense. The Federal Government is about to pass a law saying they can fine and/or imprison you if you don't buy an insurance policy from a private company.
Man, I sure would like to own a business in which the government tells people they must buy my product under penalty of fines or imprisonment!
That is such an "American" way of thinking!
And the damn thing doesn't reduce any costs at all. The stuff will probably be more expensive because now insurance companies cannot "discriminate" against pre-existing conditions.
And I'll just bet liberal populists are thinking, "Yeah, stick it to those evil insurance companies! Show them they can't turn away the sick or injured!"
What a classically stupid way of thinking about this. You and I will pay for the coverage of the pre-existing conditions with bigger bills. And we cannot simply refuse to subsidize this mandate, because we'll be put in jail or fined if we try.
This is reform? Because it sounds more like the Soviet Union to me.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 07:57am
They need him far more than he needs them, for he is more unique, while they are far too common.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 07:47am | ignore this person | warn this person
--"he" needs them if "he" wants to get rich. you statement displays the fundamental lack of respect for the worker who enables the man "hes" to get rich in this country. their ideas are merely ideas unless lots of the "far too common" people work for him.
how about some mutual fucking respect you cocksucker.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 01:31am
I know why we'll never have a flat tax rate for everyone. Because our tax code is not for just reising revenue to fund government. It is a social engineering tool, and a political tool to exploit class envy and translate it into votes every election.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 10:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
--so you're against social engineering. ok. i'm sure you'll say you're for free markets, liberty, freedom, etc.
and then out of the other side of your mouth you'll say you're against gay marriage and that it would ruin marriage.
FUCKING HYPOCRITES!
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 01:36am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 07:47am |
-- "Because they are the risk takers, venture capitalists, and entrepreneurs."
You've been sniffing Wall St crotch for too long and have banker's envy.
Some speculation is healthy in an economy and can drive innovation, but there's more to life than risk and paper shuffling.
Unless you were born to their caste, have an MBA from Harvard, and went to Stanford for your doctorate, you're not them.
-- "Or do you suppose if left to their own devices, 1000 people could just show up on a bare patch of ground and somehow synergistically 'create' a tool and die manufacturing plant?"
No, this requires the lifetime of skills acquired by several people...some of whom may have learned their craft in a UNION.
-- "No, it's usually one guy who does that. One leader."
Little Horatio, what makes you think that 'one person'...is the finance dork?
-- "Taken in that sense, the one man who can accomplish that is of greater value and importance than the 1000 people standing around waiting for him to do it."
You vastly underestimate the interdependence of the entire 'team' of players required to do most anything useful in society.
There are some at the bottom whose skills are easily replaced...they're the ones for whom you are supposedly a champion...the ones for whom you want jobs, but not government ones...at this juncture.
-- "They need him far more than he needs them, for he is more unique, while they are far too common."
What qualities distinguish his uniqueness from everyone else?
What essential skill that could not be possessed by any of the others?
-- "Our system rewards and encourages such individuals. This appears to annoy you."
Our system encourages speculative risk...bubble-economics, and yes, it does.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/19/2009 @ 05:06am