Obama, taxes, and the dailyKos alternative betaverse.

[dsummoner]

I'm not sure that there are many people out there who vote who pay zero taxes. Even folks who end up getting money back on their tax returns are paying FICA and payroll taxes, not to mention various other taxes (like when they fill up their cars with gas). How much do you have to pay before you get a seat at the table?

Under extant circumstances? Everyone, their dog and those channeled by the Long Island Medium get a free seat at the table (even if they contribute nothing). Is that how it should be? I am surmising no. The folks that actually foot the majority of the country's bills (outside of the borrowing) pay all of the above and quite a bit more on top of it. Buying a t-shirt at the local Ferrari dealership does not entitle one to driving a Ferrari off of the lot.

I think this is contradictory. Even funding the national defense, as you reference in the previous paragraphs, is taking the money of another and giving it to someone else, be it to build tanks, rifles, or give a wage to a soldier. Everything the government does is inherently redistribution. Hell, redistributing to the military and their associated contractors is welfare pretty much on the same scale as Social Security and Medicare under current conditions.

It would be contradictory if it were forced. However, that is not what I am suggesting. Actual national defense (I should have also included the Federal jurisprudence system) is a 'global' (not geographically speaking) function. The best mechanism to tie in its funding without coercion is to tie it into the privilege of voting. X numbers of dollars required for actual national defense and Y citizens who want the privilege of voting. Those that want additional 'services' would be more than free to fully fund those services from their own funds without pushing the costs onto others and without stripping others of their rights.

I think you're arguing for anarchy (or maybe de facto oligarchy) at this point, not constitutionally constrained government. I also don't think a collapse is going to bring about the society you want. It's more likely to bring about roving bands of thugs taking whatever they want at gunpoint and maybe not even leaving you alive afterward. That strikes me as a much nastier fate than dealing with taxation.

I am expecting (a matter of when and not if) a semi-structured significant pairing back of the scope of government as foreigners start saying 'no' to purchasing US debt and to having to obtain US fiat for trading of critical commodities. I am expecting to see a dramatic change in US foreign policy as well as domestic policy (a stripping away of the decades of socialism that have been put in place). A collapse along the lines of "The Road" is not in the cards.

[CajunRaven]

Throughout the campaign, Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan made this election a referendum on President Obama's policies, and now after months and millions of dollars spent on ads driving home their point that America had been given a great choice between two different views of government, they're trying to claim that voters have not rejected their ideas.

After hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the election, we pretty much have the status quo. Congress is relatively the same expect for a few changes where Gerrymandering was in play. The country is roughly split about scope of government.

Romney wasn't rejected on economic policy.

[soulflower]

After hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the election, we pretty much have the status quo. Congress is relatively the same expect for a few changes where Gerrymandering was in play. The country is roughly split about scope of government.

Romney wasn't rejected on economic policy.

The House stayed the same because of redistricting.

Americans could have chosen to give the Senate to Repubs. Instead, the Dems gained Senate seats.

In terms of total votes, more Americans voted for Dems this year.

The Republicans wanted the election to be a choice about different ideas. Well who's ideas were rejected?

I don't think people voted for gridlock. They want compromise from both sides. Which means Repubs will have to drop their idiotic stance on tax increases.

[Rael]

According to a poll by Pew Research, most people will blame the Repubs if no deal is reached

That maybe so but the truth is people will blame an amorphous congress, not their particular congressman. However the president will not have this blame shield available to him.

[skeemer]

I don't think people voted for gridlock.

Wrong.

[CajunRaven]

The House stayed the same because of redistricting.

Americans could have chosen to give the Senate to Repubs. Instead, the Dems gained Senate seats.

In terms of total votes, more Americans voted for Dems this year.

The Republicans wanted the election to be a choice about different ideas. Well who's ideas were rejected?

I don't think people voted for gridlock. They want compromise from both sides. Which means Repubs will have to drop their idiotic stance on tax increases.

The republicans have stated, they are willing to talk revenue increases through loophole reductions. The idiotic stance is saying the rate has to change. As stated here before, the rate is irrelevant if there are a ton of loopholes that massively affect the effective rate.

The dems were lucky they gained senate seats. It took a couple of true bozos to throw away winnable seats, which is not suprising, but still reality. You think if Akin keeps his pie hole shut about rape, he loses? I doubt it.

And the redistricting worked for both sides. Think Roscoe Bartlett would have lost without it?

[soulflower]

The republicans have stated, they are willing to talk revenue increases through loophole reductions. The idiotic stance is saying the rate has to change. As stated here before, the rate is irrelevant if there are a ton of loopholes that massively affect the effective rate.

If a rate increase isn't likely to bring in much revenue, why do republicans oppose it? Isn't their goal to get as much spending cut as possible while not increasing revenue?

If increasing the rate isn't likely to bring in much revenue then Repubs should be all over it.

Whatever deal is reached is likely to have far more in spending cuts than tax increases. If the Repubs don't take a deal that has $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, they're idiots...

[CajunRaven]

If a rate increase isn't likely to bring in much revenue, why do republicans oppose it? Isn't their goal to get as much spending cut as possible while not increasing revenue?

If increasing the rate isn't likely to bring in much revenue then Repubs should be all over it.

Whatever deal is reached is likely to have far more in spending cuts than tax increases. If the Repubs don't take a deal that has $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, they're idiots...

I would bet you can get a lot more revenue through tax reform versus a rate increase. Again, GE makes $14B and pays no taxes. That is wrong.

Allow me to make a minor change to your statement.

"If the Repubs don't take a deal that has $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue increases, they're idiots.

And at the end of the day, most of them are just plain idiots anyway. But then again, so are the democrats.

[soulflower]

I would bet you can get a lot more revenue through tax reform versus a rate increase. Again, GE makes $14B and pays no taxes. That is wrong.

Allow me to make a minor change to your statement.

"If the Repubs don't take a deal that has $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue increases, they're idiots.

And at the end of the day, most of them are just plain idiots anyway. But then again, so are the democrats.

Tax reform is a long-term negotiation. It's impossible to get any real tax reform deal in the next few weeks.
It makes more sense to extend some, not all of the tax cuts for another year or so...

[CajunRaven]

Tax reform is a long-term negotiation. It's impossible to get any real tax reform deal in the next few weeks.
It makes more sense to extend some, not all of the tax cuts for another year or so...

Or just leave everything as is for a short period and go straight to serious reform. right now, they're squabbling over money that can run the government for a few weeks at best.

[soulflower]

Or just leave everything as is for a short period and go straight to serious reform. right now, they're squabbling over money that can run the government for a few weeks at best.

There are other things on the table besides taxes. There's the sequestered spending cuts and the debt ceiling.

The President in his press conference yesterday seemed to be pushing for more than just a short term deal...

[songfourone]

After hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the election, we pretty much have the status quo. Congress is relatively the same expect for a few changes where Gerrymandering was in play. The country is roughly split about scope of government.

Romney wasn't rejected on economic policy.

No, then what was he rejected for?

[SomeIdiot]

Under extant circumstances? Everyone, their dog and those channeled by the Long Island Medium get a free seat at the table (even if they contribute nothing). Is that how it should be? I am surmising no. The folks that actually foot the majority of the country's bills (outside of the borrowing) pay all of the above and quite a bit more on top of it. Buying a t-shirt at the local Ferrari dealership does not entitle one to driving a Ferrari off of the lot.

So it is oligarchy then that you're advocating. I think you're in luck because as far as I can tell the system is already captured by the folks at the top of the economic ladder who dollar for dollar are paying the most.

It would be contradictory if it were forced. However, that is not what I am suggesting. Actual national defense (I should have also included the Federal jurisprudence system) is a 'global' (not geographically speaking) function. The best mechanism to tie in its funding without coercion is to tie it into the privilege of voting. X numbers of dollars required for actual national defense and Y citizens who want the privilege of voting. Those that want additional 'services' would be more than free to fully fund those services from their own funds without pushing the costs onto others and without stripping others of their rights.

Do you think that the natural result of such a system is a stable society or even one in which those paying in could have their persons and property adequately protected? Even if they could would that protection be in a cost effective manner? It's a lot harder to protect whats yours while the guy who didn't buy in up the street has his things ravaged. Disenfranchising people or casting them to the wolves on a large enough scale carries a price.

I am expecting (a matter of when and not if) a semi-structured significant pairing back of the scope of government as foreigners start saying 'no' to purchasing US debt and to having to obtain US fiat for trading of critical commodities. I am expecting to see a dramatic change in US foreign policy as well as domestic policy (a stripping away of the decades of socialism that have been put in place). A collapse along the lines of "The Road" is not in the cards.

I think this is wishful thinking. Recreating the circumstances that led to the adoption of socialism strikes me as a poor way to curb it. Indeed I think the long term result would be a demand for even more of it.

On a completely different note it's also nice to see you back, I saw you'd been gone for some time.

[dsummoner]

So it is oligarchy then that you're advocating. I think you're in luck because as far as I can tell the system is already captured by the folks at the top of the economic ladder who dollar for dollar are paying the most.

Oligarchy is what the US already has. The voting to oneself the funds of others does no stop with the povs. Ending it requires that the mechanism by which such looting occurs itself be ended. It is easy for the povs to pull the lever for 'free' stuff (they are not ones paying for it) and it is easy for the whore politicians to 'represent' to the lobbyists. One suspects that the same lobbyists coming to you and asking for your money for their clients would be met with a different response.

Do you think that the natural result of such a system is a stable society or even one in which those paying in could have their persons and property adequately protected? Even if they could would that protection be in a cost effective manner? It's a lot harder to protect whats yours while the guy who didn't buy in up the street has his things ravaged. Disenfranchising people or casting them to the wolves on a large enough scale carries a price.

I have never been a fan for the extortion argument. Those that would resort to rioting and looting have firmly put themselves into the extirpation column.

I think this is wishful thinking. Recreating the circumstances that led to the adoption of socialism strikes me as a poor way to curb it. Indeed I think the long term result would be a demand for even more of it.

My friend, it is exactly this argument that shows the lack of merit of extant 'programs.'

On a completely different note it's also nice to see you back, I saw you'd been gone for some time.

Busy and still too busy but the limitations of the meatsack housing consciousness leads to forays herein.