American Politics # Whatever

[Nymeria Sand]

Exactly! Because private industry is generally too smart to play the lottery.

Enron.

Goldman Sachs.

Bear Sterns.

No lottery players there, I guess.

I think private money would get there faster and at far cheaper cost than any government program. But in a way, that creates a good analogy going back to your "low profit, tremendous risk" example. Let's say Senator Reid happened to catch your econ class, and says "hey, there is this tremendous power source on the moon that can replace oil at twice the efficiency and half the pollution. let's spend $1T to go there and get it, because those cheap bastards in the private sector lack the vision." So Reid gets his bill, and they rush the project, and it's horribly over budget but they do manage to find this power source and mine it.

Er, the government doesn't do this work by itself. It contracts to private companies. If the project is over budget, whose fault is that? It's not the government's; it's the private company that was contracted (usually by submitting a ridiculously low bid, knowing perfectly well they'll go over budget) that's at fault.

Of course, the government pays it anyway. If the work isn't done on time, on budget, and on schedule, the government shouldn't pay them. If a contractor showed up at my house and did a poor job, demanded more money from me, then took a year longer than promised, there's no way I'd pay them.

Then they find out that the transportation costs to bring it back here are tremendous, and that when you factor in those costs, it's actually only half as efficient as oil. The private capital guys are all sniggering in their lapels because they knew it was daft in the first place, which is why they didn't bother.

Then why didn't the private capital guys build their own ship and their own equipment to go there and mine it themselves? Or are they waiting for Richard Branson to do it for them?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Enron.

Goldman Sachs.

Bear Sterns.

No lottery players there, I guess.

Oh hell yes. But at least Enron lost it's own money, not mine.

Er, the government doesn't do this work by itself. It contracts to private companies. If the project is over budget, whose fault is that? It's not the government's; it's the private company that was contracted (usually by submitting a ridiculously low bid, knowing perfectly well they'll go over budget) that's at fault.

Sure it does. But the initial question is whether the cost/benefit ratio makes sense at all. A private contractor will always take the work because it doesn't care what it costs the government -- it just cares that it gets paid. =

Of course, the government pays it anyway. If the work isn't done on time, on budget, and on schedule, the government shouldn't pay them. If a contractor showed up at my house and did a poor job, demanded more money from me, then took a year longer than promised, there's no way I'd pay them.

That's because it's your money. But they're playing wiht our money, so they don't quite care as much. And honestly, they lack the ability to monitor it effectively anyway. They're politicians, not engineers, accountants, or whatever. Plus, they have agendas other than just ensuring the completion of the assigned engineering/scientific project.

Here's a fun question. Guess what the current NASA Administrator identified as the "foremost" task given to him by the President?

"[T]o reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/

Then why didn't the private capital guys build their own ship and their own equipment to go there and mine it themselves? Or are they waiting for Richard Branson to do it for them?

Because it was low reward, tremendous risk. And NOBODY should be doing that type of project. The only ones who will are the government. And that's the problem.

[Smashing Young Man]

Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%

- The 25% bracket rises to 28%

- The 28% bracket rises to 31%

- The 33% bracket rises to 36%

- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.

Hope and change!

[Nymeria Sand]

Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History

Hope and change!

The expiration of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 ARE NOT A TAX HIKE. And IIRC, they'll still be paying less than they did under Clinton...so why are they bitching and complaining again?

[Maithanet]

Oh hell yes. But at least Enron lost it's own money, not mine.

Unless you're one of the tens of thousands of people who worked for various energy companies that were swallowed up by Enron, only to have their retirement plans disappear. In which case, they most certainly did lose your money.

[Nymeria Sand]

Oh hell yes. But at least Enron lost it's own money, not mine.

And that of 30,000 employees, but they're just the little guys. No need to care about them, I guess.

Sure it does. But the initial question is whether the cost/benefit ratio makes sense at all. A private contractor will always take the work because it doesn't care what it costs the government -- it just cares that it gets paid.

Exactly. You bash the government for being inefficient, and yet its the private contractors that cause the problems. Greed and shoddy workmanship are all that matters to them.

That's because it's your money. But they're playing wiht our money, so they don't quite care as much.

Not true. As an employee of said government, I can tell you that we know full well whose money it is we're spending: the taxpayers' of the United States of America. So don't hand me that BS.

And honestly, they lack the ability to monitor it effectively anyway. They're politicians, not engineers, accountants, or whatever. Plus, they have agendas other than just ensuring the completion of the assigned engineering/scientific project.

Just as in any industry, it's the rank and file who do all the work. And just like in any industry, it's the PhD's at the top who manage to f*ck everything up. And there are more than competent engineers, accountants or whatever, working for the government. I like helping people, not screwing them over to make a buck. I couldn't do my job if I didn't feel that way.

Here's a fun question. Guess what the current NASA Administrator identified as the "foremost" task given to him by the President?

"[T]o reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."

So what? You do know that the Arabs invented algebra, calculus, and algorithms, right? They invented zero. They discovered pulmonary circulation. And they envisioned test tube babies 600 years before anyone actually did it.

Because it was low reward, tremendous risk. And NOBODY should be doing that type of project. The only ones who will are the government. And that's the problem.

They're waiting for Richard Branson to do it for them. They have no balls, but they're willing to stand on the backs of others' work and collect the profits.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Unless you're one of the tens of thousands of people who worked for various energy companies that were swallowed up by Enron, only to have their retirement plans disappear. In which case, they most certainly did lose your money.

That's the risk anyone had when you work for an employer, if that employer makes it's retirement plan based only on its own stock. But the taxpayers at large don't get hit.

[Nymeria Sand]

That's the risk anyone had when you work for an employer, if that employer makes it's retirement plan based only on its own stock.

Not quite true. The executives at Enron could move their money at will. The employees' accounts got frozen--I really doubt the employees knew that was going to happen. The average severance package was $4500 while the execs cashed in a couple of hundred million in stock.

They screwed over their employees, and you see nothing wrong with that?

I find your cavalier attitude disturbing.

[Swordfish]

Bush Sr. did do just that. It was a compromise to get the budget done--it raised the marginal marginal tax rate and phased out exemptions for high-income earners, and cut spending.

That's how you cut the deficit. And he got pilloried for it. Reagan's policies, which even Bush called "voodoo economics", left us with a massive debt.

Bush Sr. did the responsible thing, and it cost him.

Here's a breakdown of amount added to the national debt by presidential term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

The expiration of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 ARE NOT A TAX HIKE.

:rofl:

This is one of my favorite nonsensical arguments in all of politics.

taxes going up is not a tax increase!!!!!!!!

[Jaime L]

Not quite true. The executives at Enron could move their money at will. The employees' accounts got frozen--I really doubt the employees knew that was going to happen. The average severance package was $4500 while the execs cashed in a couple of hundred million in stock.

They screwed over their employees, and you see nothing wrong with that?

Absolutely true. Not to mention not all their employees actually agreed to sign on with Enron. They'd acquired PG&E before they went bust and all of those employees lost everything as well.

Not to mention they also screwed over pretty much the entire state of California using energy arbitrage to artificially jack up the rates there. Lot of people unwillingly subsidized Enron at various stages in the process.

[Spastic Plastic]

Here's a fun question. Guess what the current NASA Administrator identified as the "foremost" task given to him by the President?

"[T]o reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/

Sorry, you just lost all credibility in my eyes when you quoted Fox News as a truthful source.

And you don't seem to get the point that governments are better than corporations because at least the purpose of a government is to represent its people and take care of them, while the purpose of a corporation is to make money.

Just look at the BP situation. They obviously don't give two shits about the thousands of people on the Florida coast whose healths they have endangered.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And that of 30,000 employees, but they're just the little guys. No need to care about them, I guess.

I suspect that a lot more than just the "little people" lost their jobs.

Exactly. You bash the government for being inefficient, and yet its the private contractors that cause the problems. Greed and shoddy workmanship are all that matters to them.

The problem is doing the project in the first place.

Not true. As an employee of said government, I can tell you that we know full well whose money it is we're spending: the taxpayers' of the United States of America. So don't hand me that BS.

I've been employed by the government too, and my experience was that it wasn't as frugal as the private sector when it came to spending decisions. Anyway, it's not you I'm talking about. It's the politicians who vote for the projects in the first place. And they lack the ability to monitor spending effectively. More importantly, they dodge accountability like the politicians they are. Look, whatever else was screwed up during the financial crisis, a lot of people in private industry who were responsible for that stuff lost their jobs. Either because their company went under, or they just got fired. How many politicians who played a role lost their jobs? At a minimum, Dodd and Frank, and their GOP counterparts on those committees, should go. Instead, Dodd and Frank are patting themselves on the back for a new "reform" package. It is far too easy for politicians to claim political success for projects that produce a tangible benefit (even if outweighed by the cost), and to duck responsibility for the bad ones.

Just as in any industry, it's the rank and file who do all the work. And just like in any industry, it's the PhD's at the top who manage to f*ck everything up. And there are more than competent engineers, accountants or whatever, working for the government. I like helping people, not screwing them over to make a buck. I couldn't do my job if I didn't feel that way.

I'm not disagreeing with you. It is the guys at the top, the politicians -- who f*ck it up. And unfortunately, they are inherent in any program. That's why they should limit themselves to the stuff private industry can't do, and stop messing around in things that they just think they can do better than private industry.

So what? You do know that the Arabs invented algebra, calculus, and algorithms, right? They invented zero. They discovered pulmonary circulation. And they envisioned test tube babies 600 years before anyone actually did it.

Yeah, and according to Ensign Chekhov, the Russians landed on the moon first.

I know they claim that. At least, some of that. Some are more true than others. Algebra and zero were being used, at least conceptually, prior to Mohammed. And calculus? There were lots of little steps along the way, but I always thought the debate regarding actual calculus was between Newton and Leibniz. Did Moslems make significant contributions in mathematics? Sure.

But what does that have to do with the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration? His foremost responsibility should be something in the fields of, well, aeronautics and space, right? But instead, it's stroking foreign egos. That's a political mission, not a scientific or engineering mission. If the President thinks it important to stroke the egos of moslems, then he can always continue with the Czar route. Appoint a Czar of Moslem Ego Stroking, and let the NASA Administrator handle NASA stuff. But again, this is just a perfect example of how politics will infect the actions of government that supposedly are based in science, technology, or really, just about anything.

They're waiting for Richard Branson to do it for them. They have no balls, but they're willing to stand on the backs of others' work and collect the profits.

Isn't Branson a private citizen? And if he wants to spend his money on that stuff, AND HE'S PROVEN CORRECT, he'll make a shitload of money. If it turns out to be a boondoggle, it comes out of his pocket. I'm having a hard time understanding why you seem to have a problem with that.

[awesome possum]

This is one of my favorite nonsensical arguments in all of politics.

taxes going up is not a tax increase!!!!!!!!

How exactly is it nonsensical? The current administration and congress are not increasing taxes. They are letting previous tax cuts expire. Tax cuts that, as per Trisk's previously ignored link (which will likely continue to be ignored since it, you know, once again refutes the reality Republicans are trying to live in) shows are hugely responsible for our current deficit.

They were a giant mistake and need to expire, but of course Republicans are going to go all Palin on everyone by claiming something when actually the complete opposite is true.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sorry, you just lost all credibility in my eyes when you quoted Fox News as a truthful source.

Well, you didn't have any credibility in my eyes to start with, so you can't have lost it. That's not really personal, because I'm not sure why anyone should give a nameless person on the internet with whom they've had no prior communications any credibility.

However, now that I do have some communication with you, I don't think we'll be having "credible" exchanges anyway. It's one thing to disregard opinions, inferences, or judgments from sources you don't like. Or even paraphrases. But if you actually looked at this article, it not only contained a direct quote by the Administrator, but actually linked to a video on Al Jazeera of him saying those exact words. Now that leads me to one of two conclusions:

1) you didn't really bother looking at the link, in which case I don't have any interest in having discussions with people who don't bother even reading a link before discrediting it, or;

2) you did read the link, but determined that FoxNews must have created a very convincing CGI of General Bolden making statements he never made, and managed to post it on Al Jazeera's website. Or created a fake Al Jazeera website.

Either way, I don't think any future conversations would have much value to either of us.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

The highest marginal tax rate the US has ever seen is 94%. By your logic doesn't that mean as long as the marginal rates stay below that level there has been not tax increase?

[The Progressive]

So I guess that it's probably not a good idea according to teabaggers and associates that NASA is increasing its effort to promote scientific learning and secularism in the Muslim world?

[The Progressive]

Ser Poss.,

The highest marginal tax rate the US has ever seen is 94%. By your logic doesn't that mean as long as the marginal rates stay below that level there has been not tax increase?

Scot,

So you think that the executive branch should defy Congressional acts when it suited them?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not quite true. The executives at Enron could move their money at will. The employees' accounts got frozen--I really doubt the employees knew that was going to happen. The average severance package was $4500 while the execs cashed in a couple of hundred million in stock.

I suspect the "executives" to whom you are referring are the folks who were indicted, imprisoned, died along the way (Lay), and/or had the shit fined out of them. Skilling, Fastow, Kopper, Causey, Rice, etc.

I'm referring to the folks farther down who were well-educated, hard-working, and highly-paid, but not part of the illegal activity. I don't think most of us would consider them "the little people", but they lost their jobs and stock too.

They screwed over their employees, and you see nothing wrong with that?

Please point me to where I said I didn't see anything wrong with what those guys did. They got what they deserved, and I'm glad of that. Fortunately for "the little people", there were a number of fairly successful lawsuits that got at least some of that money back for them.

I find your cavalier attitude disturbing.

That's nice, but you're misreading my attitude. What happened with Enron was horrible, but it was limited because it was a private company. The crooks running that company were juggling too many balls, and sooner or later, they were going to come crashing down. Because a private employer needs to pay its bills, and if it can't it will go under.

The problem is that limitation doesn't apply to the government because it has a comparatively unlimited pool of cash and credit. It doesn't ever go out of business, which means it can engage in monstrously stupid activities -- you can toss wars in there if you like -- far worse than any private entity, and there is no effective market check on it. And we're all powerless as individuals because we don't have the ability to move our assets to something else, or change employers, or whatever. When it wants more money, it just takes it from us, or prints up more, which is really the same thing.

The market, eventually, catches up to stupid private entities. That's not the case with the government.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

No, why do you ask? The sunset provision? I don't belive I diputed the presence of the sunset provision. Regardless, taxes increase to hiher levels in January.

Now, semantically, you can legitimately say the Obama Administration did not cause the taxes to increase as they have nothing to do with the sunset provision.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So I guess that it's probably not a good idea according to teabaggers and associates that NASA is increasing its effort to promote scientific learning and secularism in the Muslim world?

Oh, yes, that's exactly the point. Bravo!

I really have to love how anyone who disagrees with you on the right is a "teabagger". Those gay slurs are just real knee-slappers, aren't they? But to your point, I don't see why we need to be kissing up to all those Macacas anyway. Or would "camel-jockeys" be more suitable.