Obama Administration

[RetiredDude]

Originally Posted by isitayuh

Regarding Sharrod, it looks at this point like a short snippet of Sharrod's speech was shown by Andrew Breitbart of Biggovernment.com and taken out of context to make her look racist. According to the Obama administration and Tom Vilsack, the White House was not directly involved in the knee-jerk reaction that forced her resignation. Don't know if that's true or not, but we have no evidence otherwise. So in a nutshell, it looks like she did nothing wrong, Breitbart pulled a fast one, and Sharrod's bosses fell for it and kicked her out.

I'm getting tired of seeing the "controversy" over the vast majority, so I want to eliminate the possibility of people talking past each other. It is true that the top 1% pay a larger percentage than any other single percentage group. But what Monitor and Aofive are saying is that, out of a total tax burden of 100%, you would at least have to have the top earners pay 51% to have a simple majority. Even though the top earners are paying a very disproportionate share of taxes when you merely look at population to tax burden, they technically are not paying a "vast majority" of taxes because the bottom 99% pay over half.

Put it like this, if there are one hundred apples and ten people, and one person gets forty apples and the other sixty are distributed among the rest of the group, that person does not have a vast majority of the apples, even though he has a lot more apples than anyone else.

You have it correct isi. Breitbart deliberately did this to show racism in the NAACP and he should be chastised for it. However, I think the back story on this is the knee-jerk reaction of the WH and the precipitous firing of Sherrod, allegedly directed by the WH. This, IMHO is just another example of bad management in this Administration. A good manager supports his subordinates until proven otherwise. This firing was a travesty of justice ans she should be reinstated and someone else should lose his job. Can anyone say Vilsack?
As for the 1%, read the link above.

[aofive]

You have proven nothing. You are throwing out the top 1% (40.4% of taxes) and the bottom 95% (39.4% of the taxes). That only adds up to 96%. You are missing 4% of the tax payers that pay the other 20.2% of the taxes. Now, if you had said that the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes and that was a vast majority, I would not quibble with you. However, that is not what you said. You said that the top 1% pay the "vast majority" of the taxes in this country when that statement is just not true.

[aofive]

On Sherrod, I just finished watching the entire NAACP speech she gave. No way she should have lost her job for that.

[Monitor]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

"Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago." From the link provided above.

I'm sorry that you are unable to comprehend this concept. I an unable to assist you any further as I see it as futile. You either just don't understand, or you're being obstinate. In either case, I have made my point and I'm moving on. You can stay on this and stew in your own juices or choose to move on as well.

Forget what your quote said Dude. Forget about the top 1% and the bottom 95% and the 39.4% and the 58% or anything else the Tax Policy Blog had to say because what matters here is what you said and that was ‘1% pay 38% of the taxes. I guess you don't understand math. That 1% does not have to pay 50% or more to qualify as vast majority’. You specifically and clearly said a vast majority does not need to exceed 50%. This has nothing to do with all of us tax ignorant math challenged people on this forum not understanding something on a tax blog, according to you it is a simple math question that we don’t understand.

Now you’re blindly claiming you’ve made your point when you’ve done nothing of the sort. You specifically and clearly said a vast majority does not need to exceed 50% and your tax blog quote says nothing similar to that. I can certainly see why you want to ‘move on’ since that is how you handle being wrong, you move on and hope nobody points that out. That isn’t going to work this time. Too many posters can do the simple math that shows a vast majority does indeed need to not only exceed 50% but exceed it by a vast amount. There is indeed a lot of ignorance around here.

[isitayuh]

One final thought on the Sharrod incident. According to an interview Andrew Breitbart did on Good Morning America, what he was trying to draw attention to was the fact that the Tea Party is blasted by the NAACP as a bunch of racists, but when Sharrod said in her speech (the part biggovernment.com posted) that she wasn't wanting to help the white farmer, the audience applauded this racist thought. Breitbart claimed that he was wanting to highlight the double standard the NAACP was playing between white and black racism, and that he was not trying to cast Sharrod as a racist. Believable or not, that's his claim. The interview can be watched on the Youtube link, but the Sharrod video's title at Biggovernment doesn't say anything about the audience, it is titled "Shirley Sharrod laments land being sold to white man". For myself, I don't believe Breitbart's explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHBVy...ayer_embedded#!
http://www.breitbart.tv/shirley-sher...-to-white-man/

[RetiredDude]

Originally Posted by isitayuh

One final thought on the Sharrod incident. According to an interview Andrew Breitbart did on Good Morning America, what he was trying to draw attention to was the fact that the Tea Party is blasted by the NAACP as a bunch of racists, but when Sharrod said in her speech (the part biggovernment.com posted) that she wasn't wanting to help the white farmer, the audience applauded this racist thought. Breitbart claimed that he was wanting to highlight the double standard the NAACP was playing between white and black racism, and that he was not trying to cast Sharrod as a racist. Believable or not, that's his claim. The interview can be watched on the Youtube link, but the Sharrod video's title at Biggovernment doesn't say anything about the audience, it is titled "Shirley Sharrod laments land being sold to white man". For myself, I don't believe Breitbart's explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHBVy...ayer_embedded#!
http://www.breitbart.tv/shirley-sher...-to-white-man/

Me either.

[Monitor]

I think the Sherrod incident demonstrated multiple things, some of them good. It reminded a lot of people how someone with a computer and a specific agenda in mind can make someone look like someone they’re not. It demonstrated how easily led some people are and demonstrated what Cal posted earlier about how many people jump on something that supports what they already think. It also demonstrated how much fear of being seen as politically incorrect can influence decisions.

But on the positive side it also demonstrated how people at any level should react when it is pointed out to them that they screwed up. Saying things like I should have thought more before I reacted or looked into something in more detail before believing it is an example of how a mature adult accepts responsibility for making a mistake. Have you learned anything from this Dude? If Vilsack had said you didn’t need more than 50% for a vast majority he would have admitted he blew it. You can learn something here.

[Monitor]

Originally Posted by isitayuh

...
I'm getting tired of seeing the "controversy" over the vast majority, so I want to eliminate the possibility of people talking past each other. It is true that the top 1% pay a larger percentage than any other single percentage group. But what Monitor and Aofive are saying is that, out of a total tax burden of 100%, you would at least have to have the top earners pay 51% to have a simple majority. Even though the top earners are paying a very disproportionate share of taxes when you merely look at population to tax burden, they technically are not paying a "vast majority" of taxes because the bottom 99% pay over half.

Put it like this, if there are one hundred apples and ten people, and one person gets forty apples and the other sixty are distributed among the rest of the group, that person does not have a vast majority of the apples, even though he has a lot more apples than anyone else.

Nice try Isi but I tried earlier to give Dude the opportunity to save a little face by suggesting he might have really meant a plurality rather than a majority but it went right over his head. I assure you that I'm more tired of this topic than you are but I hate to see somebody say something that stupid and then just 'move on'.

[AAK]

Been off line for a while. Computer blues.

First, Isi. I read your autobiographical piece in full. I found it remarkable in its candor, clarity and integrity. I commend you for it. You are quite a fellow.

Next, the Sherrod case. What a shameful episode through and through, except for Ms Sherrod, of course. Primary blame goes to this Briebart character, some of it goes to Fox News and other news outlets for their zeal to egg on a food fight instead of practicing, umm, journalism, and some of it goes to the Ag Dept. and the Obama administration for shooting first and aiming second.

In my former profession, personnel management, one would NEVER discipline an employee without checking out the facts first. The administration's misbegotten effort to look strong and act quickly instead of soberly and deliberately were a triumph of image over substance. We all know they should have reviewed the entire recording of Ms Sherrod's remarks. But, unless I missed it somewhere, I saw no report that anyone in the Ag Dept even ASKED her if the remarks shown on TV were an accurate account of her speech. The icing on the cake was that the Ag Dept called Ms Sherrod, who was driving home at the time, and demanded she pull over and Blackberry her resignation to them at once!

Shame, shame, shame all around for their treatment of an upstanding public employee.

[isitayuh]

I don't know a whole lot about Breitbart, but I figure that the people who follow Biggovernment.com are probably supportive of him in this matter. People who are mad at him probably weren't fans to begin with. Compare that to the kick in the pants this has been for the Obama administration and NAACP, and I bet Breitbart is satisfied with the outcome.

Thank you AAK.

[RetiredDude]

Geeze, I stop posting for a few days and you guys go into hiding. What would you do without me? LOL

Anyway, I thought this might be an interesting topic of discussion....
The Bush tax cuts will expire at midnight 12/31/2010. That will raise EVERYONE'S taxes unless Congress takes action. Around 6 Democrat Senators and most, if not all, Republican Senators want the cuts extended for two more years. Comments?

[AAK]

RD
As far as I know, the primary elements of the Bush tax cuts were to TEMPORARILY lower the top marginal rate from 39% to 36% and lower the capital gains tax from 15% to 10% (I think I have those figures right; if not, I would welcome a correction) and affect about 2% of the population. Further, they were sold on the idea they would create jobs, which they didn't. It feels pretty deceptive to be sold a tax bill saying it was designed for a particular purpose and would be temporary, and now be asked to make it permanent, especially since it didn't accomplish its stated purpose. Further yet, allowing the cuts to expire as scheduled would return the tax rates for those earning over $250K to the level they were at in the roaring '90s when that segment of the population was making money hand over fist while salaries and wages for the rest of us were essentially flat. So much for that.

As for other elements that you say would affect everyone if the cuts were to expire, can you please tell us what they are? It's not that I don't believe you, I just think it would be helpful to see what they are so we can fairly discuss and decide whether or not it would be wise to let them expire too.

[aofive]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

Geeze, I stop posting for a few days and you guys go into hiding. What would you do without me? LOL

We would know what a majority is.

[RetiredDude]

Originally Posted by AAK

RD
As far as I know, the primary elements of the Bush tax cuts were to TEMPORARILY lower the top marginal rate from 39% to 36% and lower the capital gains tax from 15% to 10% (I think I have those figures right; if not, I would welcome a correction) and affect about 2% of the population. Further, they were sold on the idea they would create jobs, which they didn't. It feels pretty deceptive to be sold a tax bill saying it was designed for a particular purpose and would be temporary, and now be asked to make it permanent, especially since it didn't accomplish its stated purpose. Further yet, allowing the cuts to expire as scheduled would return the tax rates for those earning over $250K to the level they were at in the roaring '90s when that segment of the population was making money hand over fist while salaries and wages for the rest of us were essentially flat. So much for that.

As for other elements that you say would affect everyone if the cuts were to expire, can you please tell us what they are? It's not that I don't believe you, I just think it would be helpful to see what they are so we can fairly discuss and decide whether or not it would be wise to let them expire too.

For one, the child tax credit of $1000 would revert to $500. The marginal rates were reduced from top to bottom, so everyone's tax rates would increase. Can't enumerate all of the others, but the middle class received some pretty good tax reductions in that law.
It was a temporary tax cut, and I don't know if it created jobs or not. The issue now is will Congress let the entire law sunset, or will they tweak it. They have very little time to mess with it before it expires.
And of course another question is will increasing taxes at any level create private sector jobs.

[RetiredDude]

Here's a more specific explanation of tax rates discussed above.....

35% bracket which will increase to 39.6%
33% bracket which will increase to 36%
28% bracket which will increase to 31%
25% bracket which will increase to 28%
10% and 15% will condense to 15%

As you can see, without Congressional intervention, EVERYONE'S tax rates will increase.
In addition, the "marriage penalty" will also kick back in.

Here's a site that explains them a little more in monetary terms.....
http://www.factcheck.org/dean_wrong_...h_tax_cut.html

[aofive]

Oh! Now I see your opposition to the temporary cuts actually being temporary. The top rate would be pushed up over 38% which, according to you, would mean that the top rate payers would be paying a vast majority of their income to taxes.

[Monitor]

You must not understand math Ao. If 38% can be a vast majority so can 35% or 31% or 28% or 15%. There sure is a lot of ignorance in this forum and the sad part is that the one and only person that really understands math refuses to share.

[RetiredDude]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/

This has a tax calculator to see the impact on you if Congress does not act.

[23cal]

Here is a slightly more recent article from your source, Factcheck. http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_...rates_tax.html

Also, what is so cavalierly ignored are the tax credits by Obama to the middle class and to small businesses that more than offsest the increased cost of letting the tax cuts expire. Also ignored is "A report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, meanwhile, asserts that the president's economic stimulus package has sent more than $200 billion in tax relief and other benefits to mainly middle- and lower-income families since its passage."http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-13-stimulus_N.htm

And "Citizens for Tax Justice, a self-described non-partisan organization, released a report on Tuesday that read: "The 2009 economic stimulus bill actually reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98 percent of all working families and individuals." This total includes the 95 percent of working families that will or have received tax credits in the range of $400 to $800."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/tax-day-2010-protesters-i_n_538556.html

What happens is the wingers don't want people to understand that in spite of their tax RATE going up through allowing the tax cuts to expire as planned, what they send to the gov isn't increased due to tax credits and benefits instituted by Obama. Of course, these credits and benefits weren't given to the over $250K crowd.

[RetiredDude]

So you/re for letting the entire ackage exire. And that won't really make a difference in the taxes for those under $250K. Okay, anyone else want to chime in?

[aofive]

Yeah. Explain how 38.8% is a "vast majority".

[Monitor]

Come on Dude, just admit that saying a vast majority does not need to exceed 50% was a goofy thing to say so I can ‘move on’. You continuing to support that silly statement makes me chuckle every time you post any percentages in any post.

[RetiredDude]

According to aofive, expiration of current tax breaks will not increase individual taxes because of the Obama tax breaks already being received. Um, how does that work again?

[AAK]

RD:
Cal has already explained that subsequent tax law changes that favor the middle class were made to offset negative impacts of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Nonetheless, I would like to comment about the child tax credit, and I'd like to do it from the conservative mindset as I understand it.

The hallmark of conservatism, conservatives like to say, is to embrace personal responsibility (and they do it as though they invented it and no one else has any). OK, if so, then if I choose to have a child, why on earth should I expect a tax credit for it and expect you to pick up the tax burden for it? Where's the personal responsibility in that, and, if conservatives support it, why do they? If that isn't using the taxing power of the nation for social engineering, then what is? Same can be said for the mortgage interest deduction.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to explain or defend these two elements of the tax code because I do think that in some cases, taxation can and should be used to induce certain behaviors for the good of the nation. But conservatives disagree with that, so they face an uphill battle to explain and defend these two elements, while at the same time staying pure to the diametrically opposite notion that taxation should not be used for those purposes, and that those who can't afford a mortgage or kids shouldn't get favorable tax treatment to enable them to do what they can't afford. One explanation is that conservatives simply tossed a few hundred dollars at middle class taxpayers/parents to mollify them into accepting huge tax cuts for the rich. That explanation has some credence with me.

And BTW, it really is time for you to retract that 38%/majority statement. We all know you're wrong, that stonewalling it is getting you nowhere, and that retracting it will be seen as a sign of integrity and strength on your part, not weakness.

[23cal]

Dude: While you're at it, you might let Monitor know you acknowledge he is not the liar that you labeled him and now know he is not.

[aofive]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

According to aofive, expiration of current tax breaks will not increase individual taxes because of the Obama tax breaks already being received. Um, how does that work again?

I dare you to show me where I said that. Do it now or admit that you are a liar about this statement as well as your assertion that 38.8% of something can be a "vast majority". I have not once commented on tax breaks during this thread, current or otherwise.

[RetiredDude]

[QUOTE=AAK;13456]RD:
Cal has already explained that subsequent tax law changes that favor the middle class were made to offset negative impacts of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Nonetheless, I would like to comment about the child tax credit, and I'd like to do it from the conservative mindset as I understand it.

The hallmark of conservatism, conservatives like to say, is to embrace personal responsibility (and they do it as though they invented it and no one else has any). OK, if so, then if I choose to have a child, why on earth should I expect a tax credit for it and expect you to pick up the tax burden for it? Where's the personal responsibility in that, and, if conservatives support it, why do they? If that isn't using the taxing power of the nation for social engineering, then what is? Same can be said for the mortgage interest deduction.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to explain or defend these two elements of the tax code because I do think that in some cases, taxation can and should be used to induce certain behaviors for the good of the nation. But conservatives disagree with that, so they face an uphill battle to explain and defend these two elements, while at the same time staying pure to the diametrically opposite notion that taxation should not be used for those purposes, and that those who can't afford a mortgage or kids shouldn't get favorable tax treatment to enable them to do what they can't afford. One explanation is that conservatives simply tossed a few hundred dollars at middle class taxpayers/parents to mollify them into accepting huge tax cuts for the rich. That explanation has some credence with me.

And BTW, it really is time for you to retract that 38%/majority statement. We all know you're wrong, that stonewalling it is getting you nowhere, and that retracting it will be seen as a sign of integrity and strength on

You purport to know an awful lot about Conservative thinking. You sure that's not just your opinion? And bringing up a straw man argument doesn't cut it either. This wasn't about fairness or personal responsibility or anything else except the child tax credit is going from $1000 to $500, the marriage "tax penalty" will be reinstated, and all marginal rates will increase if the law is not tweaked.
Regardless of Obama's cuts, next year, everyone's tax will increase. And that's a fact. I really don't care if it expires or not. I wanted to get you guy's opinion. Seems all you folks can do is try to start an argument.
Here's a hint about that 38%. Think "relative" (% v % v total%). And keep in mind that the 1% figures into the calculation of the other %. That's all I'm going to say about that. I'm not here to educate you all on statistical analysis. Edited....

[RetiredDude]

Originally Posted by aofive

I dare you to show me where I said that. Do it now or admit that you are a liar about this statement as well as your assertion that 38.8% of something can be a "vast majority". I have not once commented on tax breaks during this thread, current or otherwise.

Sorry, it was 23cal who claimed that. Guess my old eyes aren't what they used to be.
You didn't have to have a hissy fit about it though.

[aofive]

Is your botched attempt to quote an AAK post supposed to prove your accusation at me?

I don't need any hints about what constitutes a "vast majority". I do know that 38.8% is not it. You contending that it is does not make it so. I will keep on asking until you tell me how 38.8% can be a "vast majority".

[aofive]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

Sorry, it was 23cal who claimed that. Guess my old eyes aren't what they used to be.
You didn't have to have a hissy fit about it though.

So, you admit that your "old eyes aren't what they used to be." Maybe your math skills aren't either.