-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Poligaf episode 2010: The Empire Strikes Back
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Thunder Monkey
Banned
^:lol
:lolToxicAdam said:
Now that *unusual* basketball analogy she gave when she quit her job as governor makes sense.
My eight year old had basketball practice tonight, and they all stand around with their hands over their heads defending like that. Interesting pose there.
...
I was about to come and gloat about New Democrat and all around corporatist shithead Melissa Bean losing to a Tea Party nutjob, when I read this line:
That's a nightmare scenario.
...
I was about to come and gloat about New Democrat and all around corporatist shithead Melissa Bean losing to a Tea Party nutjob, when I read this line:
But, the job loss might not be too hard on Bean. The Huffington Post reported last week that she could become the first head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
That's a nightmare scenario.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
... I don't ev... oh screw it.GhaleonEB said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
No words
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Think about it. What is the one constant that has come out of the WH since the election: COMPROMISE. I can totally see after Elizabeth Warren puts all of the necessary pieces in order and its time for Obama to either officially nominate her for the post or choose someone else, he chooses someone in the mod of this lady. Why? Compromise. The Repubs and even some Dems will make sure to let Obama know that Warren has no chance of receiving the necessary votes so he will compromise for someone who is much less concerned about making the agency truly consumer focused. The next two years are going to be one big black hole of crap.
maximum360
Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/16/bloomberg-scarborough-2012-president_n_784593.html
Is this a joke? Bloomberg I can understand but Scarbs has nothing to offer. He's not the smartest guy in the world, he's too smug for the national scene, and he's also not an independent.
Is this a joke? Bloomberg I can understand but Scarbs has nothing to offer. He's not the smartest guy in the world, he's too smug for the national scene, and he's also not an independent.
I think Scarbs' intellectual capacity is rather lacking. My favorite smackdown of him, which also describes his understanding of, well, pretty much everything, is here.gcubed said:
You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you.
I have some variation of that thought every time I listen to him. Which to be fair hasn't been in a solid year or so. Random note: Krugman's been on fire in his blog lately. Exasperation has given way to cynicism and snark. It's wonderful and depressing.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Who does the mortgage-interest deduction benefit?
By Ezra Klein
Alex Hart has a good post examining whether the mortgage-interest tax deduction -- which will cost taxpayers $131 billion in 2012 -- is really a "middle-class tax break," as some people like to claim. The answer is no, but it really deserves a graph:
As you can see, the less money you make, the less the mortgage-interest tax deduction does for you. But putting it in percentile terms understates the situation, as 1 percent of a big salary is a lot more money than 1 percent of a small salary. So here's the same graph in raw dollars:
On both graphs, the benefits for the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution are invisible. That's not because they literally don't exist, but because the deduction is worth $2 to people between in the bottom fifth and $32 for the quintile after that. As for the top 1 percent? They're getting a break of more than $5,000. I'm not really clear why we're giving people making hundreds of thousands a year large subsidies to buy a house, but I'm sure there's a good reason.
#######################
Since this was in the deficit cutting report released last week, can anybody think of any good reasons to keep this tax subsidy around? It cost us over $100 Billion a year for crying out loud.
Hell I'd rather we use some of that money for people's health rather than for homes that people may or may not be able to afford.
By Ezra Klein
Alex Hart has a good post examining whether the mortgage-interest tax deduction -- which will cost taxpayers $131 billion in 2012 -- is really a "middle-class tax break," as some people like to claim. The answer is no, but it really deserves a graph:
As you can see, the less money you make, the less the mortgage-interest tax deduction does for you. But putting it in percentile terms understates the situation, as 1 percent of a big salary is a lot more money than 1 percent of a small salary. So here's the same graph in raw dollars:
On both graphs, the benefits for the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution are invisible. That's not because they literally don't exist, but because the deduction is worth $2 to people between in the bottom fifth and $32 for the quintile after that. As for the top 1 percent? They're getting a break of more than $5,000. I'm not really clear why we're giving people making hundreds of thousands a year large subsidies to buy a house, but I'm sure there's a good reason.
#######################
Since this was in the deficit cutting report released last week, can anybody think of any good reasons to keep this tax subsidy around? It cost us over $100 Billion a year for crying out loud.
Hell I'd rather we use some of that money for people's health rather than for homes that people may or may not be able to afford.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Klein said:
According to TomServo and gcubed, it's the only incentive to buy a house.
His marriage fell apart. It was all a little strange, as the guy would have been re-elected perpetually until Doomsday. Immediately after quitting he was hired by the most prominent law firm in town, a baldly political move on the firm's part, but the motivations for it have never been clear to me.Tamanon said:
Leaving Congress was the best political move of his life, though. He's gained vastly more exposure than he ever would have had as a House member and he's had the luxury of moderating his views somewhat against the Republican tide of stupid. He was quite the shithead back in the day.
adamsappel
Member
He still is! And if he were to run for office again, he'd have to better explain that dead intern in his office.Evlar said:
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Reading up on VAT, I came across this NYT article from 1993. What interested me was Clinton contemplating the idea that would reduce the deficit and pay for his ill-fated HCR:
Aaron Strife
Banned
PPP released its Senate poll of Virginia.
Jim Webb (D) 49 George Allen 45
Jim Webb (D) 49 Bill Bolling 39
Jim Webb (D) 49 Ken Cuccinelli 38
Tim Kaine (D) 50 George Allen 44
Tim Kaine (D) 50 Bill Bolling 39
Tim Kaine (D) 48 Ken Cuccinelli 41
Tom Perriello (D) 42 George Allen 47
Tom Perriello (D) 41 Bill Bolling 42
Tom Perriello (D) 44 Ken Cuccinelli 41
2012's gonna be schweet.
Jim Webb (D) 49 George Allen 45
Jim Webb (D) 49 Bill Bolling 39
Jim Webb (D) 49 Ken Cuccinelli 38
Tim Kaine (D) 50 George Allen 44
Tim Kaine (D) 50 Bill Bolling 39
Tim Kaine (D) 48 Ken Cuccinelli 41
Tom Perriello (D) 42 George Allen 47
Tom Perriello (D) 41 Bill Bolling 42
Tom Perriello (D) 44 Ken Cuccinelli 41
2012's gonna be schweet.
speculawyer
Member
From a pure economics & policy standpoint, the housing deduction should be eliminated.mckmas8808 said:
But if we eliminated it right now, it would cause absolute chaos! We are already in a housing depression and this would make it a super-depression. This would cause the values of homes to decline because people could not deduct their mortgage interest.
Furthermore, lots of people currently in houses would be forced to sell their houses since they could no longer afford them.
Although it is good policy, it is truly a non-starter right now. I mean jeez . . . they actually when in COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION with the recent first-time home buyer tax-credit . . . a policy that was basically exactly the same as the mortgage interest deduction.
Not going to happen.
His graphs have no bearing on how many homeowners there are in each income bracket. The bottom 40% likely don't own a home and if they do, other deductions available to them reduce the amount this one generates for them.Ezra Klein said:
As for the middle class, or even upper lower as I consider myself, this deduction has been a boon. I'm able to claim upwards of $10,000 less on my taxes. This is true of millions of lower and middle class people who make up a much greater number than the top 1%. Sure, rewrite it to exclude the extremely well-off, but don't pretend this isn't helping the middle class. That's intellectually dishonest.
But the real kicker is the part of the quote I bolded - it's presumes that these deductions cost taxpayer's money. I previously noted the fact that it allows me to deduct $10,000 from my income taxes. How is it costing me money? I'm a motherfucking taxpayer, and this shit's saving me hundreds. Oh, that's right, he's assuming "taxpayer" as a synonym for government. If that's not Orwellian doublespeak, I don't know what is.
Back to the deduction itself, this an example of poor social engineering through the tax code. It was meant to make owning a home more viable than renting, but since it allows deductions of up to a million dollars and on more than one home, it's extremely beneficial to the very well-off. I'm all for phasing it out (or lowering the top deduction), if that's what's decided upon, but getting rid of this overnight ignores the realities of the people who bought homes based on this tax structure. Raising the middle class's taxable income so abruptly would no doubt raise more unintended consequences - as speculawyer predicts in the post above me.
speculawyer
Member
That is the huge part of your point. Yes, those at the top get a bigger deduction. But there are relatively few of them. Millions of middle-class people take the deduction and that aggregate is way bigger than that of the rich.MjFrancis said:
And no, I'm not making the same argument that would apply to the income tax deduction for the rich. The mortgage interest tax deduction is capped at something like a $1M loan. They are not taking a full deduction for the full mortgage interest on a $20M home.
I'm kinda surprised that Ezra Klein fell for a such a stupid idea. It really is a tax-break for the middle-class due to the $1M cap. Again, I agree on a policy viewpoint in the abstract that it is the right thing to do. However, in a pragmatic real-world view, it would be a COMPLETE disaster right now.
Getting rid of the deduction would actually be a good from an energy policy standpoint. People would buy less single family homes which are energy drains. (Long commutes, more outer facing walls, unshared exterior lighting, etc.)
speculawyer said:
i'd be really tempted to sell and rent if they removed it. I can still afford it, but if i dont get the benefit of the deduction while having to pay property and school taxes i'd just rent. I'm sure there would be a bunch more people like me, you'd absolutely destroy the housing market... and destroy the states tax revenue as well
CharlieDigital said:
lol, saw this after my post... perfect
turnbuckle
Member
mckmas8808 said:Who does the mortgage-interest deduction benefit?
By Ezra Klein
Alex Hart has a good post examining whether the mortgage-interest tax deduction -- which will cost taxpayers $131 billion in 2012 -- is really a "middle-class tax break," as some people like to claim. The answer is no, but it really deserves a graph:
As you can see, the less money you make, the less the mortgage-interest tax deduction does for you. But putting it in percentile terms understates the situation, as 1 percent of a big salary is a lot more money than 1 percent of a small salary. So here's the same graph in raw dollars:
On both graphs, the benefits for the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution are invisible. That's not because they literally don't exist, but because the deduction is worth $2 to people between in the bottom fifth and $32 for the quintile after that. As for the top 1 percent? They're getting a break of more than $5,000. I'm not really clear why we're giving people making hundreds of thousands a year large subsidies to buy a house, but I'm sure there's a good reason.
#######################
Since this was in the deficit cutting report released last week, can anybody think of any good reasons to keep this tax subsidy around? It cost us over $100 Billion a year for crying out loud.
Hell I'd rather we use some of that money for people's health rather than for homes that people may or may not be able to afford.
Unless I'm missing something, this seems to ignore the fact that the standard deduction exists in part for people who wouldn't benefit from itemizing (of which mortgage interest is a big one). He can argue to get rid of itemizing interest, but he's not telling the whole story by ignoring the standard deduction's affects on low-middle income people (or people who rent their homes)
gcubed said:
If property values are that dependent on the interest deduction, then obviously they're not sustainable anyway. Sudden drop or long-term decline? Pick one.
EDIT: The poster above me is right: most middle income buyers would get almost as much tax benefit from the standard deduction as they get from the interest deduction. The net savings is pretty marginal.
Meus Renaissance
Member
Just read that Palin has come out publicly to state she is seriously considering running for President. How did US politics go from Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson to (possibly) Palin within a few generations?
Byakuya769
Member
Meus Renaissance said:
Where?
speculawyer
Member
Well, the current prices simply reflect the deduction. If you remove it, they drop. But the increased value from the deduction is sustainable as long as you sustain the deduction. The current drops in housing prices have nothing to do with the mortgage deduction but they'll certainly get worse if we eliminate it.gkryhewy said:
speculawyer
Member
GaimeGuy said:
Yes, they can (and do) occur simultaneously.
Senate Republicans Vote Unanimously Against Bill To Help Guarantee Fair Pay For Women
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/17/paycheck-fairness-act-fail/
Today, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against legislation to close the pay gap between women and men. The Senate voted 58-41 against allowing debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help end discriminatory pay practices against women. It had already passed the House.
Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices. At the time, Snowe said, This new law[] sends a clear message to the American people that this Congress is committed to these core principles and will continue to work in bipartisan fashion to break down the barriers of wage discrimination in our nation.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/17/paycheck-fairness-act-fail/
Today, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against legislation to close the pay gap between women and men. The Senate voted 58-41 against allowing debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help end discriminatory pay practices against women. It had already passed the House.
Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices. At the time, Snowe said, This new law[] sends a clear message to the American people that this Congress is committed to these core principles and will continue to work in bipartisan fashion to break down the barriers of wage discrimination in our nation.
To prohibit debate is supremely maddening. It is utterly antithetical to the goal of a deliberative assembly. Debate would have been beneficial for this bill. They could have revised the bill and discarded the extraneous components. For example, I think they would have scrapped the unnecessary Section 7. Anyway, go to hell, Senate.Dram said:
Funny how driving has become safer despite more congestion, more annoyances thanks to technological improvements in computer-aided design, airbags, MEMS/sensors, etc: Yet this ass thinks he needs to play big brother and impose a solution from Washington.
Just for fun, here's OHSA's data on distractions-in-the-car:
Ban for multi-passenger vehicles next? Except that would conflict with the green agenda, so shit... dilemma!
DailyCaller said:
Just for fun, here's OHSA's data on distractions-in-the-car:
OHSA said:
Ban for multi-passenger vehicles next? Except that would conflict with the green agenda, so shit... dilemma!
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Dram said:
Love to know why they voted this way.
Also, Ben Nelson seems to get off trolling his own party.
speculawyer
Member
Damn authoritarian Republicans.BigSicily said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's votes like these that show just how "moderate" Sen Collins and President Snowe truly are
speculawyer said:
Still fighting the petty partisan battles, eh?
It doesn't matter what party he is or formerly was in. The fact is he's pushing a horrible idea, that many would consider a government infringement on their civil liberties (non-driver passengers for sure) likely at the behest of the administration.
The idea that the government wastes its time with such ideas is ridiculous.
RustyNails
Member
Go Sarah go! You fucking dumboMeus Renaissance said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked