U.S. Politics, 12

[Guest Raidne]

So you're of the opinion that most Americans would prefer if there were new laws and no enforcement of current laws in the US for the forceable future?

No? That seems kind of backwards and...possibly utilizing some incorrect word choices. Perhaps you want to try again.

I am of the (cliched?) opinion that Americans intentionally bring about gridlock in order to keep much getting done. That we are inherently conservative and not progressive in that classic sense.

[Inigima]

Raids, I'm not prepared to agree that Obama is either that skilled or that Machiavellian. Even if he were, is the "cure" better than the disease?

[WhiteHaven]

ETA: WhiteHaven - yes, precisely.

Okay I don't get it. I'll call it the US phenomenon and be done with it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Is this loss big enough to temp another Democrat to challenge Pres. Obama in the 2012 Dem. Primary?

[alguien]

But sometimes I wonder if Obama didn't make less of an effort on purpose. I wonder how corrupt he thought the House Democrats were. How much he wanted to clean his own house...

That's kinda interesting speculation, but I sort of doubt it. It seems like if he wanted to do this, it backfired in that the House received the brunt of the cleansing, but the Senate needed it more, and received it less.

ETA: Scot, regarding your speculation about a dem challenger in 2012, I doubt it. I don't think a Carter comparison to Obama works. While the dems lost the House, they still retain the Senate. Not only that, but Obama still has a relatively good approval rating, with even those opposing him viewing him as having good leadership characteristics.

[Inigima]

Scot,

I would not think Obama will have any serious challenge for the Dem nomination unless something really heinous surfaces. A lot of Democrats still really like Obama, and who has the name recognition to do so who would actually do it? And the party would be loathe to give up the incumbency advantage. I would also speculate that any serious challenge to Obama would come from his right, not his left, and would have no chance.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele, Alguien, Inigima,

What about Secretary Clinton? She's been mighty quiet lately.

[Odie]

Here's the hell of it for me: I think McConnell may have a point. Voters don't seem to like the Democrats' agenda. They did reward Republican obstructionism. But we tend to hate the Republicans for obstructing when we should instead resent the dipshit electorate, because the Republicans do seem to be giving them what they want. It's just that the electorate has an awful lot of know-nothing retards who don't have any idea about anything.

This is going to sound a lot like liberal elitism, and that's because it is. I'll say it: the voters have shown that they're dumb and vote for things that are bad for them and bad for the country. The Republicans are merely permitting them to do so.

I make this claim because an enormous number of conservative policies have been shown to be nonfunctional or aggressively bad ideas, and a lot of liberal policies have been shown to benefit the public. But maybe it's time to stop blaming Republican politicians and start blaming the people who vote for them. Or maybe we should start blaming the Democrats for failing to get their message out properly.

Yes. Very, very yes.

People are so fucking stupid, selfish, and short-sighted. It's truly disgusting.

Just give up, people. The idiots have won. Their policies will soon leave the poor and those without perfect luck in the health care arena dead or living a subsistence existence in the streets. Remove all the problem children from the system and BAM, they have even MORE power.

Which is, of course, the ultimate goal.

What baffles me is you know there are lots of people who take advantage of social programs that voted Republican yesterday. What will happen when they're the ones who can't find work, who can't pay their subsided rent any longer, who get sick and can no longer afford health insurance? Will they wise up, or will they still cling to their stupid rhetoric?

I'm not betting on the "wise up" option.

[Odie]

Highly unlikely I would say. Someone on TV through out Feingold's name, but I can't see it at all.

That would be ideal, but as you say, I can't see it either. This country is too FITH to ever back a reasonable candidate who actually gives a shit about people who are not themselves.

[alguien]

Triskele, Alguien, Inigima,

What about Secretary Clinton? She's been mighty quiet lately.

I could see her biding her time to wait until 2016. I think she's smart enough to know that a divided house would wreck both their chances in 2012.

Now if, as Trisk says, in the unlikely event that something heinous were to be made light (I think can hear Zap panting in the distance) then yes, I could see her investigating a 2012 run.

[Kouran]

Well I think this article in the Wall Stree Journal bodes ill for the future of the President.

Obama's Next Worry: A Restive Left Flank

Every president who lost re-election in the last half-century has first been weakened by a primary fight. By JOHN FUND

Voter discontent this year isn't confined to the tea party. A new AP poll reports that 51% of Americans now think President Obama doesn't deserve re-election. More surprising, 47% of Democrats believe he should face a challenge for the party's nomination in 2012. No doubt many Democrats who hold this view are disappointed supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Link: http://online.wsj.co...3239100518.html

Edit: for copyright reasons please do not reproduce articles in full, even if they're short - m

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Did you perhaps miss the "As a transition" qualifying phrase preceding the two-rate tax system?

No. But I didn't see where they said that the system they wanted to transition to would not be progressive.

So, what is it transitioning to, if not a complete flat tax system?

Who knows? It wasn't specific precisely because it was a long-term goal that didn't have to be addressed, and likely one upon which there wasn't complete agreement. All we do know is that they supported a two-rate flat tax with large family deductions (which is still progressive), plus the option to pay under the current system. The latter part seems like the "transition" to me. So clearly, that platform does not support the claim that Rpeublicans want to eliminate all progressivity in taxes.

But hell, if you want to speculate, fine. I strongly suspect that the GOP got that platform plank from the Heritage foundation, so looking at their site may illuminate that issue:

What Is a Flat Tax?

Unlike the current system, a flat tax is simple, fair, and good for growth. Instead of the 893 forms required by the current system,[4] a flat tax would use only two postcard-sized forms: one for labor income and the other for business and capital income. Unlike the current system, which discriminates based on the source, use, and level of income, a flat tax treats all taxpayers equally, fulfilling the "equal justice under law" principle etched above the main entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building. And unlike the current system, which punishes people for contributing to the nation's wealth, a flat tax would lower marginal tax rates and eliminate the tax bias against saving and investment, thus ensuring better economic performance in a competitive global economy.

There have been several flat tax proposals over the years, all of them based on the pathbreaking proposal developed by two Hoover Institution economists.[5] While no two plans are identical, they all share common features that fix the major flaws of the current Internal Revenue Code. Simplicity and fairness are also natural consequences of these component features of tax reform.

These major features of a flat tax are:

A Single Flat Rate....

Elimination of Special Preferences....

No Double Taxation of Saving and Investment....

Territorial Taxation....

Family-Friendly. All flat tax proposals have one "loophole." Households receive a generous exemption based on family size. For instance, a family of four would not begin to pay tax until its annual income reached more than $30,000.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/07/A-Brief-Guide-to-the-Flat-Tax

I bolded that last part for obvious reasons. If a flat tax rate contains a large exemption for folks at the lower end of the economic spectrum, then it is a progressive tax, because people earning less are taxed at a lower effective rate than people earning more. The political question would be how large that exemption is.

So even if you assume that the goal in the long-run is a one-rate flat tax, with no option to file under the current system, your claim that the GOP wants "to eliminate all progressive taxing" is still completely unsupported, because the "flat tax", as the term is used, is still progressive.

For what it's worth, the real appeal to the so-called "flat tax" isn't progressivity or regressivity, but simply elimination of all the bizarre deductions, credits, classifications, etc., that require the employment of so many tax professionals and complicate business and personal transactions. There are an obscene number of business transactions that serve no purpose other than to improve "tax consequences". But the government uses all those credits, exemptions, deductions, etc., so as to steer behavior in certain directions, and at this point, I don't think there's anyone alive who understands all that shit fully. I think you'd garner enormous efficiencies by cutting that whole Gordian knot of bullshit.

And you could still protect people at the lower end of the spectrum by arguing about where you set that one, singular family deduction. So to some extent, this wouldn't even be a liberal/conservative issue. It's just smart, or at least, worthy of discussion.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well I think this article in the Wall Stree Journal bodes ill for the future of the President.

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588283239100518.html

To quote someone from earlier in the thread, I think the chances of a significant challenge to the President in the primary are somewhere between zero and none.

African-American voters are a large part of the core Democratic base. Alienation of that base likely would doom the Democratic party to minority status for a very long time. And I don't see any way that a Democratic party that ditches the first African-American President (Bill Clinton not withstanding) retains the percentage of African-American votes it needs to remain competitive on a national level. Enough powerful Democrats will be aware of that dynamic that any potential challenger is going to find it very difficult to garner much support.

It's one thing to duke it out in an open primary. It's quite another to ditch a sitting President.

[Guest Raidne]

Nobody is going to challenge Obama in a primary. I mean, okay, 70 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with Washington, period. Only 51 are dissatisfied with Obama. Hell, 80 percent of Americans are probably dissatisfied, period.

At any rate, in 2001 Bush had 90 percent approval ratings and in 2008 he was down to 25 percent. We are in the middle of a freaking recession and two unsuccessful wars and my President's disapproval rate is only 51 percent? Gravy.

Obama, when he wants, is still capable of getting out of the box of governing by focus group and defining the debate. That's the same strategy he'll use to win in 2012. I have no idea why he did not get out there and do it this time, but he did not even try.

[Inigima]

Hillary was in the news recently for her comments on the Khmer Rouge. Is Secretary of State customarily a noisier position? I assumed this was a pretty normal amount of talk, but my political memory is not that long.

Anyway, I think too many people still hate her for her to be credible. And with healthcare as toxic an issue as it is right now, I have to think her past would haunt her. Recall that the Republicans' compromise offer from that era approximates the healthcare bill we ended up with -- I'm sure the GOP would love to paint her as "more radical than Obamacare."

Besides, Obama outprimaried her last time. Why would she do better next time? I'd think it would be even harder for her, for a few reasons.

[Fez]

Simplifying the tax code would definitely be a good thing, and using the tax code to promote certain behaviors is not a good thing though we do it constantly. However a flat tax is not good for the simple reason that it will never possibly raise enough revenue for the government unless its so high that it wipes out the middle class. There's a reason taxes are higher on the rich, its where the money is.

To 'fix' the tax code, just start cutting out exemptions, lower the marginal rates accordingly and to make up the lost revenue set up a VAT. Nothing more simple to collect or comply with than a VAT, and if it covers services as well as goods it could be kept really quite low.

[TerraPrime]

No. But I didn't see where they said that the system they wanted to transition to would not be progressive.

That answer is like fat-free bacon with no sodium - utterly worthless.

Who knows? It wasn't specific precisely because it was a long-term goal that didn't have to be addressed, and likely one upon which there wasn't complete agreement. All we do know is that they supported a two-rate flat tax with large family deductions (which is still progressive), plus the option to pay under the current system. The latter part seems like the "transition" to me. So clearly, that platform does not support the claim that Rpeublicans want to eliminate all progressivity in taxes.

But you're right that Raidne's thesis is not supportable because she used the word "all."

In reality, though, it's a very minor difference between all progressivity and just a tiny bit of it. Even if you set the exemption to 25k per two adults plus 10k per child, where a family of 4 will get 45k, you're still taxing regressively the big chunk of the population that makes more than 45k/family of 4 to, say, 250K/family of 4.

It's just so bizarre to hear an argument that flat tax is not regressive, when it so clearly is. Having one small exemption does not magically make the entire premise of flat tax something other than what it is.

Plus, that's a rather bad bait-and-switch anyway, because it's really not a flat tax any more with that exemption. They should call it what it is instead of trying to deceive people about what they want to implement.

At any rate, are there any countries, now preferably but I'll take historical records, that has implemented a flat tax system? How did it work out?

[Maithanet]

Besides, Obama outprimaried her last time. Why would she do better next time? I'd think it would be even harder for her, for a few reasons.

This. She would have almost no advantages over Obama. She is part of the administration, so she could hardly distance herself from him. Politically they are very similar on all issues that democratic voters care about, as was evidenced in the last election. She already ran against him once when she was the frontrunner with plenty of cash (at least initially). Why would things go better now? She's not exactly an underdog/outsider candidate. I think she's waiting for 2016. Maybe even 2020 if she has to (who knows what 2016 will look like), because she knows she can't make a credible run at the presidency more than twice.

[Kouran]

I will respectfully disagree on the theoretical Democratic primary challenge. Let us look at the core of the issue:

1. Unemployment is very high and not likely to improve before the election in 2012 by any appreciable number.

2. The President was by and large repudiated in this election.

3. Any candidate will need to start raising money and forming a PAC within the next 6 months

4. African-American voting during this election was very low. 10% as compared to 13% in 2008.

This sets the stage for a possible Democratic challenge to the President. If in the next 6 months voter apathy remains high and the Presidents approval numbers are still low the possibility of a challenge would be very high.

[Kouran]

Simplifying the tax code would definitely be a good thing, and using the tax code to promote certain behaviors is not a good thing though we do it constantly. However a flat tax is not good for the simple reason that it will never possibly raise enough revenue for the government unless its so high that it wipes out the middle class. There's a reason taxes are higher on the rich, its where the money is.

To 'fix' the tax code, just start cutting out exemptions, lower the marginal rates accordingly and to make up the lost revenue set up a VAT. Nothing more simple to collect or comply with than a VAT, and if it covers services as well as goods it could be kept really quite low.

I think that even proposing a VAT is about the fastest way to get run out of town on a rail that you do in modern US politics.

I am however all for a reformed tax code. When I get taxed on the same income multiple times it makes me wonder why I bother investing money in the economy. I would be in favor of a tax code that had no exceptions or exemptions for anyone low income or not and no tax exempt status for non-profits. If everyone pays equally no one has room to complain, even though they will of course.