Regarding 'The Party Of No'

[hkellick]

Once again, I'm putting off my review of last weekend. I have other things I'd prefer to discuss. I'll get around to it.

I want to discuss that which is being dubbed "The Party of No".

It's a matter of fact that, by and large, America is a two-party government. It's also a matter of fact that both parties don't exactly have a good track record of working together for the betterment of the nation as a whole. The reasons for this are complicated and stuck in, well, alot of backroom politics.

Enter Obama, who at least has made offers to work together.

Whether or not you believe Obama has been sincere in his efforts to try to work with the other party.. seems to depend on where YOU lie on the political spectrum. From my perspective, he's tried to at least engage the other side, the Republicans, in conversation and try to bring them into the national debate, however they've been reticent to do so.

Which is why the Republican Party is being dubbed by some "The Party of No."

No. We will not work with you to find middle ground. No, we will not try to find compromise with you. No. No. No. And, by the way, No.

I know that at least some of my audience thinks that this is not a fair assessment.

Yesterday, Tax Day, was supposed to be a Big Day for the party of No. The throngs of angry tax payers were supposed to throng the streets of cities around the nation to protest Obama's tax and spend politics. However, by the accounts I've seen, not only was the protest a relative fizzle, not getting anywhere near the kind of numbers that anti-war protests and pro-immigration protests have seen in RECENT years, but it became obvious to those who were there, it was less about taxation, than about Obama himself.

The ironic part here is the real likelihood that many of those protesters out there, certainly some of the people I know would read this journal and agree with the protesters... would actually pay LESS tax under Obama's plan than they were under the previous tax plan.

I guess what I'd really like to see from the Republican Party is a viable new alternative. It's fact that things fell apart under President Bush's watch. If it's your belief that how you're taxed has anything to do with the economic explosion (and if you truly believe Obama's Tax Plan is going to harm America, than you DO equate taxes with the economy at least somewhat), than how can you expect America to support any plan that mirrors.. the same plan that was in action when things fell apart? You need a new alternative. That plan did not work.

Really, though, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Taxes don't directly affect the economy at all, except that it gives the government more money to lend to banks, to offer to states, etc.

I suspect the real beef is with the idea of raising taxes, period, to pay for all the things Obama wants to pay for. If that is it, couldn't we just discuss this issue. I know it's an age old argument between the two parties, but at least we'd be arguing the right argument. Then from there, you could make bills, attempt to pass them, etc.

One last point...
I know that some of you disagree with me. Some of you feel passionately and strongly against what I'm saying here. I know, and have spoken to, briefly, my ideological opposites.

To you I say: I respect your right to believe what you will and to speak as you may, but ask that if you have something to say, you say it respectfully and thoughtfully. Thank You.

Comments

[cesy]

I'd disagree with "Taxes don't directly affect the economy at all, except that it gives the government more money to lend to banks, to offer to states, etc." on the basis that if you pay more taxes, you tend to have less money to spend on other stuff, and the money you spend on other stuff tends to create jobs and affect the economy.

Of course, you can argue that the benefit of government spending from taxes cancels out this effect, but I don't think it's fair to say that taxes don't directly affect the economy at all, unless you're going to argue that this effect is indirect, which doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of what you've said.

[hkellick]

OK. That's a fair point.

There is a connection between the money you have to spend and .. well, the world economy. Not necessarily the American Economy. That depends on alot of things.

However, to be fair, we're talking about.. I think it's a 3% increase for those making over $200,000. Rolling us back to Clintonian Tax Rates. We aren't talking a huge increase in taxes.

I have no idea how much money that takes out of the world economy, forget the American economy. I'm not sure how many people do.

[cesy]

Yes. It may be small, it may even be negligible, but it's not non-existent.

*is a mathematician*

(Also, that is still $6,000 a year minimum, which is a fair amount of money to some people, though possibly not to the people in question.)

[hkellick]

Yes, it's $6,000 a year minimum. But the increase is...? (I actually don't know the answer to this.)

[cesy]

I don't know - I calculated $6,000 from your 3% of $200,000. I don't actually know how the US tax system works. Ours (UK) is complex enough.

[hkellick]

Our Tax System is complex as well. Very complex.

In short, however, it's a Progressive Tax, meaning those who can pay more do pay more.

[peachtess]

Canada's tax system is fairly complex and confusing as well. Its this whole tiered tax system where at the beginning of the year you start at the first tier and as you start earning money you go up tiers. Each tier has its own tax rate.

I think its a very fair system though as you pay the same as everyone else for the same X amount. The people earning more just move up the tiers faster.

[zorkian]

My problem is that I don't think that the government is efficient, and hence, entirely the wrong group to be running things like healthcare, welfare, etc. Since the government doesn't have to worry about how much they spend (to some degree), it leads to a lot of higher costs. The age-old "You spend $12,000 on a hammer" sort of thing.

Not to mention, I think that, f.ex., universal healthcare is wrong. I don't think that's a good system. What's the point in those of us who put the time and effort in to get a good job and do something with our lives when there's no benefit to it? Why should I bother busting ass for a decade to end up at $big_name_job making six figures, when I could have just stayed at home and still had healthcare, a place to live, food to eat, etc?

At some point, it gets ridiculous. I don't want to pay for other people to live their lives. Helping out family and friends? Yes, that's one thing, and I will do that. But random people I don't know? Not my thing.

[hkellick]

You know, I agree with you that the government is rarely efficient.

I do, unsurprisingly, disagree with you when it comes to things such as universal healthcare, food stamps, etc.
I believe, personally, that we have a moral obligation to make sure that such a person has the CHANCE to better themselves, instead of getting stuck in an unfair system where they have no real chance to succeed. (Which is our system. If you need any further proof of this, let me rant your ear off regarding the total garbage that is the Credit Rating and how it can destroy your life.)

I respect that you and I disagree, but that's where I stand.

[hkellick]

To explain slightly further...

When I was 13 my dad left my mom and took most of the money with him. My family went from middle class living to living off the kindness and others and off the state within a matter of weeks.

Food Stamps? Yeah, I had to deal with those.

Free Health Care would have been nice. Instead, we only went to the doctor if it was something live threatening. Luckily (and it *WAS* luck) nothing like the Gall Bladder attack I suffered earlier this year happened. We were all relatively healthy kids.

The point is.. I believe these things because I was there and because I HAD the opportunity to dig out of the hole I was in to where I am right now. But it wasn't easy, still isn't easy, honestly, since my wife's credit history is significantly better than mine.

Just... to explain slightly further.

[phoenixsong]

Similarly to hkellick, I have also been left in a financial lurch unexpectedly. My family refused any financial support. I was lucky to have friends who could provide a roof over my head and food for me to eat, but I also knew that for some of them, even that was a stretch and an imposition. Even when the economy is good, it takes time to find a job and save up the money involved in securing your own living space. It takes time to figure out what you need and how to get it.

When I was stuck contracting in Rochester, I had to decide on several occasions whether or not I could afford to pay for health insurance out-of-pocket, as an after-tax expense -- or if paying off my credit card debt from my periods of unemployment and/or saving against the possibility of being let go on 2 days notice again was a higher priority. When I wasn't working, unemployment was barely enough to pay rent on, but it kept me from going through my little bit of savings even faster until I could find a job again.

Unemployment saved me from having to beg off of friends who couldn't afford to help me, or having to move back in with my parents under terms that would have been devastating to my mental health. Universal health care would have meant not having to worry about getting sick and having to pay for doctors or antibiotics out of pocket. I was pretty lucky; physically, I'm generally healthy. But if I'd been able to maintain health coverage, maybe I would have gotten my migraines diagnosed earlier. Maybe I would have been less reluctant to follow-up on my mental health issues. Maybe it wouldn't have been almost 10 years since the last time I saw a dentist.

Basic unemployment is not anything close to a self-sufficient salary. You should know that yourself, based on janinedog's recent experience. Likewise, universal health coverage would not mean a free ride for every papercut and sliver. Under Obama's proposal, anyone who has coverage would be able to choose to keep their private coverage, or opt-in to the government plan. I just want to know that if someone should end up out of work or on their own unexpectedly, they won't have to make the kind of choices I did.

[zorkian]

Oh, my credit is pretty bad (620 now, after years of trying to slowly piece it back together). After I moved out on my own, there were Problems. I know what it's like to live on almost nothing -- my family of five shared a room for a while in West Virginia. It was good times.

But at no point growing up did we depend on the system. We depended on ourselves, mostly, and we sometimes got some help from people at church or family. But mostly we just did for ourselves.

I've been without health insurance. I was also fairly lucky during those periods. So that's good. But the worry, I'm familiar with.

I've been laid off, although I had notice, and they gave severance. I've never lost a job suddenly, so I don't know what that is like. Janine has, though, and I've seen her go through that, but of course, we had money in the bank and I have a good job, so no problem.

And the year I spent in Iceland, I heard them bitch about their universal healthcare constantly. One of the guys I worked with, Maggi, he needed some surgery done to remove something or other, or fix something. But he was on a six month waiting list, because it wasn't "critical". I tell you, when you tell an Icelandic man that if he drinks alcohol or eats anything with wheat he will have to be hospitalized, until he has the surgery to fix the problem... yeah, he wasn't so happy.

Anyway, I'm really sort of rambling here. I know about a lot of the pressures that make it useful for people to have access to a support system. I don't think a support system is bad in and of itself, but I think that doing it at the level of government is vastly inefficient and is going to lead to situations that demotivate people to go out and work.

Obama's plan that lets you opt in? If you opt out (or don't opt in), do you not have to pay for it? No? I still have to pay? Yeah, so you can opt in to using it, but you can't opt out of paying. Doesn't sound particularly good to me.

[hkellick]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree regarding Obama's plan. :)

Though I think it's important to differentiate socialized healthcare, such as Iceland or Canada have, with what Obama is suggesting. As far as I understand, Obama's not suggesting state-sponsored health care with waiting lists and all that, just universal healthcare for all Americans, which would otherwise make use of the existing structure. For you and I, who no doubt have health care through our respective companies, nothing would supposedly change (except, as you no doubt will say, the amount we might pay in taxes.)

[aquinasprime]

I think that your understanding of Obama's plan is off. Any form of universal healthcare in this country that is funded by the government will turn into socialized healthcare system. It will have to. Right now, you have fewer and fewer doctors accepting medicare patients - mainly because the trying to work with the government is not worth it (payments so small they don't cover your overhead, innocent and unintentional mistakes prosecuted as fraud, etc). Costs for medicare are spiraling out of control (and most of it is going to the bureaucracy) and soon the only way to control them will be to ration healthcare. And for those who complain about the lack of transparency in what doctors charge - here's a quick fact for you: doctors are prohibited by medicare from posting a price list.

[phoenixsong]

I can appreciate what you're saying in the last paragraph. However, I disagree with the concept of "if I opt out, I shouldn't have to pay for those who opt in." Simply: if you don't pay in, and then need it at some point in the future, you're imposing on those who opted in in the first place. You're the one getting something for nothing, and everyone else is paying into it for you.

The Amish have pretty much perfected this when it comes to social security: they support each other as an intentional religious community. Therefore, they have a religious exemption for paying into SSI, etc., because even if they get a job outside the community, they don't use the government as a religious/community principle. They have that insurance built into their way of life.

Most people don't have that kind of guaranteed quality of life insurance. Therefore, I believe that anyone who realistically might have need to access the system -- including ex-Amish -- should pay in. It's how SSI works (in theory; I won't go into how broken SSI is at this point), so I have no problem applying the same concept to opt-in universal health care. In general, you don't plan to rely on SSI for retirement or if you become disabled, but if it happens that you need it (and can jump through the hoops to qualify), you're damn grateful you don't have to beg for that little bit of extra support.

[ex_beautyofgr925]

What's the point in those of us who put the time and effort in to get a good job and do something with our lives when there's no benefit to it? Why should I bother busting ass for a decade to end up at $big_name_job making six figures, when I could have just stayed at home and still had healthcare, a place to live, food to eat, etc?

I have to ask - no benefit to you personally? Do you and the others making six figures a year not find your jobs and lives personally satisfying? Do you not find what you do, and your personal influence within your community and career to be fulfilling?

I guess I feel that tax money that goes towards government programs (health care, social security, etc.) is a benefit for you, as well - it's not just giving your money away to feel ungrateful, selfish, lazy people (as seems to be so often assumed in these arguments.)

Of course, I have personal bias, too. I've lived short-term on food stamps and other benefits, as I'm a single parent. I didn't plan for life to go that way, but it did. And I was really grateful to have such programs that kept me from losing my home and keeping my children healthy. Thankfully I'm beyond that, make a good income, and can contribute back into the "pot", so to speak.

[hkellick]

Tax money goes to all sorts of things, things that everyone likes and most of use: roads, mass transit, power lines, cleaning our environment, flood prevention systems, parks, libraries, schools, emergency services, the military.

I don't personally agree with everywhere my money goes and all the ways it's wasted, and I'll even agree that government spending does tends towards the wasteful, but... that's just the reality of it when it comes to taxes.

And it doesn't matter where you live, what country you live under. I mean, at least our government is free of the MASS Corruption (not to say that many of our politicians aren't corrupt, but not to the point of...) of saying many of the African states where money comes in, but doesn't necessarily get distributed to the people who need it.

[adalger]

"Taxes don't directly affect the economy at all, except that it gives the government more money to lend to banks, to offer to states, etc."

Yes, I see this has already been brought up as a point of contention, but I'd like to take a minute to examine this statement a little more fully.

Whether taxes affect the economy is dependent rather heavily on how they're spent, and to a slightly lesser extent on where they're applied. When taxes are spent strictly on things that count as "production" in the economic sense, they don't particularly affect the economy, national or global. They merely redistribute consumption. When they're spent on things like national defense, important as that is, they take that money out of the production-consumption cycle that drives the economy.

The numbers don't really matter conceptually. There is some total amount of money P that everybody gets as income. In a tax-free economy, that number is exactly equal to the amount of money that all the goods and services produced are worth, and if nobody is saving up any money, it's equal to the value of goods and services produced. If people save money, that's what's available for investment in future growth, and if there's tax, that's what's available for government spending. (There are exceptions and murky areas, but they aren't that important for basic understanding.)

So, if money is taken in taxes, it comes from either consumption or savings, which is to say it comes from current productivity or future growth. So, the effect of taxes on the economy is inversely proportional (and directly dependent on) the value of goods and services provided by the government plus the investment by the government in future economic growth.

To make clear exactly what the difference is, consider FDR, the New Deal, and the WPA. Government taxation and spending were shown to be not just a theoretical but a practical way to pull a country out of an economic depression. I.e., there is nothing inherently wrong with "tax and spend" politics or economics, and strong evidence that it's exactly what we need right now.

[hkellick]

Well.. guess it's time to admit I shouldn't quite my day job to become an economist. ;)

I agree with your final assessment, in any case.

[aquinasprime.livejournal.com]

As someone opposed to 1. the tax increases, 2. the stimulus plan, 3. the government takeover of private businesses I feel like I should weigh in. I will be affected by both Obama's and Paterson's tax increases. As of October, we will see a significant increase in my salary. We are currently running the numbers based on estimates of my salary to see if it's even worth P continuing to work, not because we don't need it to live off of, but because we may see a net decrease or minimal increase in our available money with him working and the increase in the tax rate. We will be paying taxes of approximatley 47% of our income. Each year, I would paying in taxes more than what it cost to put me through medical school for four years. Not to mention the fact that when I die, any money we managed save for A, will be taxed again.
Google "going Galt" and you will see stories of people doing just what we are. People are actually working less because it doesn't make sense to work more.

And my very hard earned money goes where? To the: Center for Grape Genetics in Geneva, NY (2.192 million dollars for an industry that generates $6 billion in sales yearly), Reference here . It has nothing to do with any one political party, there is pork spending on both sides.

As far as taxes not affecting the economy don't forget this: when tax rates go down, tax revenues go up. The more the wealthy are taxed, the less they have to spend. When they spend, it benefits more than just them. Think about who benefits from a really high end party - flowers (the florist, grower, supplier), caterer, food distributers, food growers, chair/table rental, people to park the cars, serve the food, make the food, etc.

Oh, yeah and before this increase, the top 5% of earners in this country already 50% of the taxes, while 50% pay nothing because they earn too little (25% of whom will be getting a "rebate" despite not paying a single dime in taxes). I have no problem with those making below a specified amount not paying taxes. What I am sick of is being labelled greedy and selfish because I want to keep a little more of the money I earn.

[hkellick]

Firstly, I feel the need to point out that this post was not calling any person greedy or selfish.

And I'm sorry, I don't think there's a direct correlation between how much money the wealthy are taxed and how much they spend. That's where trickle down economics fails. Money put into the stock market or the banks do NOT help individuals so much as it helps the corporation.

And your hard earned money goes to a whole lot of places, not just pork barrel spending. It goes to pay for making sure the air you breathe and the water you drink is clean. It goes to preventing flooding in flood-prone areas. It goes to making sure that your country can handle itself abroad and internally. It goes to making sure that people like me can GO through college. And, yes, it pays for things you may not be for.

For myself, my taxes goes towards things I don't particularly care for either, such as a certain unpopular war. Such is the price of life in America, though, y'know?

I won't argue that pork is bipartisan, and that there's plenty of it and I'd even go so far as to say that I believe such items belong in the national budget not whatever law is on the table, but those are just my beliefs, not reality.

I know that you and I don't tend to agree, politically. And that's fine. I don't expect to change your mind. :)

For the record, I understand it's a hard choice, especially for P... but... I can see benefits either way, such as having someone home full time to be there for A. I'm not saying that's the BEST choice because I know P enjoys his job, but... there ARE benefits.

[aquinasprime]

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you were calling me greedy/selfish. Its just that so often debates on this subject in the general public generally degenerate into that, and I've gotten used to launching pre-emptive arguments against it.

[aquinasprime]

With the exception of National Defence, every other example you quoted is a) prohibited to the federal government by the 10th amendment b) would be much better handled at a local and state level, and c) would likely be cheaper if the government would not be involved.

And I'm tired of paying to rebulid someone's house that they built on the side of a cliff in a mudslide area.

[phoenixsong]

I can appreciate where you're coming from, and I agree it sucks that income that's already been taxed once will get taxed a second time when you leave it to A.

On the other hand, right now, you and P have the option of saying "Hey, P can stay home, and our income/tax rates won't change that much, or might actually improve, compared to him staying employed." And that's a choice that a lot of other people don't have, especially in the last six or seven months. Maybe a lot of people at your income levels can make that choice; a lot more people that I know are working less because they're unemployed, or underemployed.

I'm happy for you, if you're in a stable job and don't have to worry about losing your job or your home. Just remember that you're one of the lucky families. I know, or know of, far more people who have lost their jobs in the last year than I do people who can afford to voluntarily walk away from steady employment.

[aquinasprime]

First off, I'm sure you really didn't mean it this way, but I am sick and tired of being told that I'm lucky to have a steady job. I made this luck by going to school non-stop for 18 years, generating over $100,000 in debt, working for 5 years in a highly specialized field at just over minimum wage and continuing to sacrifice things like time with my family to have this job. This didn't just fall into my lap.

We are heading to a time in this country where not working and relying on the government and others to pay for you is being valued more than working hard and being self sufficient.

My point is that having that option is not necessarily a good thing. A situation is developing where people are voluntarily cutting back on their work. This can create stagnation and further depression of the economy. You have active, highly skilled workers voluntarily taking themselves out of the workforce. And you will see a decrease in new small businesses - who wants to go through the effort of starting a business when the harder you work, the less you get.