Capital Gains Rate now 23.8%

"It would be the highest rate for long-term capital gains since 1997. "

Did we not have strong economic growth in 1997?

Cry, cry, cry me a River

sider.

1997 was a disaster. Tons of foroeclosures. 10% unemployment. Bank failures. Huge deficits. Oh wait, that is now after the Bush tax cuts. How could I get the 2 mixed up???

Its always funny to here arguments from folks who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Alpo, do you even know what a capital gains tax is? Or even a capital gain?

Oh no! You mean that evil Marxist is trying to reduce the Federal deficit? Have you left any sense of decency?

OMG cap gains tax is higher now the wealthy Americans will have to hide their investments offshore! Oh wait - Obama cut that cheating off as well.

I cant believe America is becoming a country where the rich cant hide their money and avoid paying their fair share of taxes! This isnt conservative democracy!

Somewhereelse - why dont you move? Oh yeah because you cant earn your living anywhere else.

Whining TOOL

Its funny to hear the whining from poor people like perfitz think they can just live off welfare paid by us folks who actually do productive things.

"I cant believe America is becoming a country where the rich cant hide their money and avoid paying their fair share of taxes!"

Ah, back to perfitz's normal stupid self. Thinking that raises taxes fixes hiding money is one of the stupidest things you've ever said (and that is saying a lot).

And us rich actually pay more than our fair share..... the richest folks pay the highest share of income across all taxes.

So, we're paying for your broke ass.

You should be more appreciative.

The 15% rate was crazy to begin with. Why a rich person not working but just sitting on her keister should only pay 15% on her income from stock dividends, while a school principal pays 30% on her salary for actual work, was always one of the great abominations of the tax code. Anyone who both works and collect some dividends knows that the tax code should be rewarding the work --- not the passive income.

> You mean that evil Marxist is trying to reduce the Federal deficit?

Wait, increasing spending is how you reduce the deficit?!?!? Amazing, I didn't know that.

You really must be a marxist.

The 15% rate was crazy to begin with. Why a rich person not working but just sitting on her keister should only pay 15% on her income from stock dividends, while a school principal pays 30% on her salary for actual work, was always one of the great abominations of the tax code. Anyone who both works and collect some dividends knows that the tax code should be rewarding the work --- not the passive income.

"The 15% rate was crazy to begin with. Why a rich person not working but just sitting on her keister should only pay 15% on her income from stock dividends, while a school principal pays 30% on her salary for actual work, was always one of the great abominations of the tax code."

Spoken like someone who has never created anything.

What you leave out is... the 15% rate is the SECOND tax on that same income! The person already paid taxes on it once, this is the SECOND time.

So, if 30% is a fine tax rate, I'll take it. Unfortunately, the income you're talking about is taxes significantly MORE. 35% and THEN 15%!

Not to mention, without capital gains investment, you don't have much of an economy... and that teacher probably isn't hired in the first place.

Yes, lets INCENT folks to INVEST LESS! We need FEWER COMPANIES! FEWER JOBS!

Then the unions will provide for us all! They'll just get the money from... uh... well... uh.

Capital gains tax rate goes to 24% = increased spending?
Take a deep breath and try again. Would you like to complain about something else now?

Let's have a whole nation of teachers. Everyone can be a teacher and get union benefits. Of course, there would be absolutely nothing happening to pay anyone, but why let that interfere with liberal dreams?

> Capital gains tax rate goes to 24% = increased spending?

Dude, you need to read the news a little more. If you think that was all that was contained in the bill...

"Let's have a whole nation of teachers. Everyone can be a teacher and get union benefits. Of course, there would be absolutely nothing happening to pay anyone, but why let that interfere with liberal dreams?"

Well, we recently crossed the line to where a majority of union employees are, in fact, government employees.

So, we're well on our way. Unions don't work in business, so they go the only place they can get their kickbacks... the Democratic Party.

and, of course, the Democrats handed the unions a ton of essentially kickbacks on this one.

Surprise, surprise....

The theory that increased taxes lower job creation has not been borne out by reality (Clinton, 1993). The only confirmed result of lower taxes is a larger deficit( see Reagan and Bush II tax cuts).
It's annoying when orthodoxy is buffeted by facts, but I see no future for good Republican governing until they start from facts. Anyway, if the Catholic church managed to recognize Galileo was right, I'm sure the Republican party can admit lowering taxes is not the engine of growth.

If I understand correctly the incentive theory, when the capital gains tax went from 24% to 15% in the late 1990s, this convinced people to spend much more of their money on investments? Assuming that is true, was it a good thing to push more people into investing (rather than saving) at that point in time? During the following decade?

LOL....ok ...well when the "rich people" stop the frequency of buy/sells because the risk reward is less appealing, don't cry when your 401K's move like molasses

Sounds like what's really needed about now is a nice healthy inheritance tax, to replace the so-called estate tax of 0%.

Even though this is a bit off topic, there's a ton of NYC public school teachers out of work now. More layoffs are possible and those who thought they'd be back next sept aren't so sure now.

>> result of lower taxes is a larger deficit
>> lowering taxes is not the engine of growth.

agree maly; lower taxation + out-of-control spending = budget deficit. but would you agree that that deficits are not possible without spending? i hope so.

can we also agree that spending is a fact of life that neither democrat nor republican can alleviate? we are addicted to spending--personally, professionally and government. it is just like the war on drugs; the ridiculous fallacy that stopping dealers will stop addicts. it doesn't work.

so now what? only one answer--higher taxes.

"The theory that increased taxes lower job creation has not been borne out by reality (Clinton, 1993). The only confirmed result of lower taxes is a larger deficit( see Reagan and Bush II tax cuts).
It's annoying when orthodoxy is buffeted by facts, but I see no future for good Republican governing until they start from facts. Anyway, if the Catholic church managed to recognize Galileo was right, I'm sure the Republican party can admit lowering taxes is not the engine of growth."

If you want to enter the argument, you clearly first need to look up the difference between general income taxes (what you're talking about) and capital gains taxes (what everyone else is talking about).

Not to mention, you're really going to look at 4-8 year periods? Thats called bad math (especially when the clinton era growth started before clinton and was generated by the internet, interestingly engouh, military spending).

Long term, absolutely, countries, time periods with lower capital gains taxes have more investment, more job growth, more, well, pretty much whatever you want.

In terms of parties admitting they are right, the funny thing is, Clinton is known for being the Democrat that shifted the Democrats to the right of the fiscal equation!

So, it was actually the democrats who admitted they were wrong...

Whoops.

Somewhere else, you truly are true to your name. Feel free to make a relevant point to the discussion any time you want. I like how you run from losing talking point to losing talking point. There is obviously no hard facts in the dismal science, so math or history can't provide absolute answers, but you could at least try to stick to your chosen subject and provide a few choice examples to buttress your opinion. That would be a civil way to converse, instead of galloping around a broom pretending to be a cowboy.

>> can we also agree that spending is a fact of life
>> that neither democrat nor republican can alleviate?
>> personally, professionally and government

yes on the past few Congresses but no not generally. to equate Democrats and Republicans in this area is specious. the 1 trillion dollar health care reform package had not 1 Republican vote in the House or Senate. so there *is* a difference between the parties. on earmarks and general abuse of the budget process they're very similar...i'll give you that.

but from where i stand beating back the Democrats at the polls going forward, while simultaneously voting in as many principled Constitutional & fiscal Conservatives would help things enormously. and a Constitutional amendment that a) caps national debt and caps federal spending at some low percentage of GDP (15%, 20%?) and b) reaffirms the restrictions placed on the federal sector by the Constitution wouldn't hurt.

to say that all personal, private, and individual spending is out of control is simply not true and a just a pretext for higher taxation. and it's a mistake to equate government and private spending. i earned my money and i want it to go to *legitimate* government spending, then to me for what *i* want to do with it. government wants it to spend it on legitimate items, but also illegitimate items (heathcare, bailouts for aig and the banks, taking over various private industries, etc), and to feed their own bureaucracies, plus a whole bunch of waste and graft.

maly, sounds like you need to take your own advice...

We'll have to agree to disagree. We're obviously too far apart in our understanding of reality to bridge the gap.

are you kidding? the republicans started two wars without having a clue how to pay for them; they also created the prescription drug benefit with no way of paying for it? any attempt by any politican to cut spending is met with immediate lobbying and advertising by special interests.

as far as personal spending goes, its great that you're careful but look around--you're not in the mainstream.

"We'll have to agree to disagree. We're obviously too far apart in our understanding of reality to bridge the gap."

Yes, I'm not quite sure how one even starts to argue with anyone who thinks that taxing investment does anything but decrease it...

>> created the prescription drug benefit with no way of paying for it
sorry; maybe you are not reading me right CC. illegitimate spending is bad *regardless* of party *including* part D. so no quarrel with you on that point. however i insist that the fiscal distinction between the parties cannot be compared in good faith in terms of spending, the deficit, and the debt.

>> are you kidding? the republicans started two wars without having a clue how to pay for them
i do agree on the "how to pay" bit but note the difference in priorities, the process, and the legitimacy of *that* spending versus other spending (and the resulting taxation):

* War-making is a priority of our federal government. our Constitution explicitly says that it is.

* The wars enjoyed massive Congressional support in Iraq (296-133,77-23) and Afghanistan (420-1,98-0). that is overwhelming support from *both* parties CC. while more of the Yea votes are indeed Republican its an incredibly unfair overstatement to imply there was not Democratic Party support for war. It's just not the case; ask Hilliary Clinton or John Kerry. and note that the relevant defense and national security committees were well represented by Democrats as well.

* the public, by any poll, overwhelmingly supported War (that has changed of course over time of course)

so--perhaps you can give an example of fiscal restraint practiced by republicans?

its ok to spend on wars without paying for it but not ok to spend on healthcare without paying for it? i never suggested that democrats were any better than republicans. the bottom line is that we as a society love to spend without paying for it.

"can we also agree that spending is a fact of life that neither democrat nor republican can alleviate?"

the fact that the public supporting spending on two wars without paying for it seems to make my original point, no?

i am not advocating for any party---I am merely pointing out the fact that we cannot stop spending.

let's be fair. the hedge fund boys paying 15% was a joke.

for the rest of us it's just too damn bad.

how much of my money does this government need to run the show?

how many lazy, smoking, high fructose swallowing dead beats will I have to pay for?

If it's all the same to you I'd prefer the government use my money to blow up crap in exotic far away places. Perhaps my money could be used for education and infrastructure. The idea of using all my money to keep grandpa alive for 2 months of coma-draining money squandering Medicare extravaganza appalls me as well. How about everyone takes care of themselves and lives according to their plans and prospects.

hey--don't shoot the messenger.

the horse has left the barn....now what?

Well, since (as far as i know) they haven't touched the $500,000 exemption for sale of their home for a couple, I'm not sure how much this is going to affect non-investment properties.

Secondly, where will the money go instead of capital investment? Spending? GREAT!!!!! We could certainly use the rich SPENDING a LOT more of their money on goods and services. Is our crisis right now because of a lack of capital available or WAY TOO MUCH capital available so that high risk, incomprehensible financial instruments had to be invented to absorb it? Or will investors move more of their money to things like Municipal Bonds? And why would that be so terrible?

I guess I'm trying to figure out exactly where we will "get in trouble" because of a lack of investment which would get taxed at this higher rate won't be made? Aside from the stock market, what else are we talking about? (serious question)

On another note, now that the gov't(wealthy)are paying for the additional coverage, are they going to have a say as to what people can and can't eat, drink, smoke?

I would rather they tax the bajesus out of soda, fast food, junk food, alcohol, cigarettes etc. than raise investment/income taxes. Put that money towards paying for health care bill. If people are going to continue to be extremely unhealthy and get coverage, they might as well pay for it in some way. Eat McD's twice a day? It's going to cost you. $10 a pack of cigarettes? Try $20.

I in no way want to be paying for someone else that eats and drinks themselves into a health crisis.

bob, how 420 a pack right? better it become tax revenue than dealer revenue.

Bob, we have a simple solution to the problem of junk food: remove all subsidies to corn growers. It would be incribly difficult to achieve though, as Republicans and Democrats would sooner drop healthcare for children than wean agro-business fat cats.

I would love to know how many of you who toss around the word "Marxist" have actually read any Marx work from cover to cover? Fear mongering is a technique of the weak and mentally challenged. There is not even a tinge of Marxism in any of our present policies. I guess all conservative policies should now be branded as Fascist.

Of course the funniest part is that folks like somewhereelse are convinced that there is a big difference btwn democrats and republicans...they both run the same middle of the road machine. just be thankful that the democrats are your enemy genius.

Junk food, alcohol, cigarettes....Tax the crap out of it. People will still buy it and if the tax forces some people to scale back their vices, even better.

420 is my bday but sure, legalize it and make the gov't some cake!

Moxie, people on both sides vomit badly digested talking points. I wonder how many people know Karl Marx had been dead for 35 years when the Soviets took over Mother Russia. It's like blaming Wagner for the rise of the Nazis.

maly, so you think Marxism had nothing to do with the rise of Soviet communism? Absolutely nothing?
Some strange things get posted here sometimes.

Anyway, Obama always wanted to raise the capital gains tax. Even though doing so reduces tax revenues. He doesn't care, it is ideological to him.

Licc, is that what I wrote just above? Maybe the world wouldn't seem so strange if you started from factual reality. Of course, it can be fun and startling to live in a world of our own making, but it makes it hard to communicate with other people.

Tax alcohol? Moderate consumption is good for you. Over eating/drinking anything can kill you, even plain water.

Yes, overeating/drinking anything can kill you but that is an overdose. Eating broccoli or drinking a lot of water is not going to hurt you. If people are going to smoke/drink/eat themselves into chronic illnesses that require expensive medical care(paid for by others) they should be held responsible. I would glady pay the higher taxes on stuff I wanted to eat/drink in moderation than be taxed on income/capital gains to pay for someone elses irresponsibly caused health problems.

This is intersting.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/24/on-the-check-food-drinks-health-care/

>>----------------------------------------------
>> so--perhaps you can give an example of fiscal restraint practiced by republicans?
>>----------------------------------------------

sure. HR 3950, signed into law 3/23/2010. $1 trillion in spending, $1/2 trillion in taxes, 0 Republican votes in either house. man, that was a lay up... :)

>>----------------------------------------------
>> its ok to spend on wars without paying for it but not ok
>> to spend on healthcare without paying for it?
>>----------------------------------------------
yes n no. we agree that all bills should be paid for. and i believe we'd agree that you don't have bills (taxes) if you don't spend in the first place. less government spending -> more $$ left for the taxpayer -> more individual freedom. In terms of legitimate federal spending, war is an enumerated power, health care/coverage is not. nor is health care interstate commerce. me seeing a doctor in new york and having blue cross pick up the tab is commerce conducted entirely within a state. Congress has a role in spending on the former and no role in the latter.

States may decide to play a role in health care/coverage. And that is their choice. Like I've said several states have decided to do so. Other states like here in NY have no individual mandate and that is also fine. But the burden is on the states in that case and not everyone else's burden which is good in my estimation.

>>----------------------------------------------
>> the fact that the public supporting spending on two wars
>> without paying for it seems to make my original point, no?
>>----------------------------------------------
ahh yes we've come full circle then! :) your original point CC is that government, professional, and personal entities are all "addicted" to spending. and what i'm saying is that is not true. Congress certainly is addicted at the moment, but i've demonstrated that within Congress there are differences between the parties on fiscal matters. let's discuss this point in November :)

i've also demonstrated that there are differences between the states on fiscal matters as demonstrated by the current state of affairs in TX among others vs the big-spending liberal states such as CA, NY, and NJ.

i've also demonstrated by my personal experience and the experience of others that there are tons of individuals that know how to balance their check books fine. ~ 10% of mortgages may be delinquent but don't forget that over 90% of mortgages continue to be paid on time every month.

i hope we fix Congress and state budgets for sure. and if anybody put themselves into hock by their own choice then let them suffer. this is the only way to learn for some folks. in the end, the canards of "we ALL got into this together", and "we ALL overspent" is total crap. this is a false pretext and justification for additional government spending, bailouts, confiscatory taxation, and destruction of my liberty. and i say back off

660incontract,

Wars end, entitlements go on forever. WWII required deficit spending and cost a bundle, but it ended. Your argument is like saying the so long as events that lead to deficit spending that we all agree will end at some point are ok we should enact any entitlement we want without the wherewithal to pay for it, even though in our heads we know one day it will bankrupt us. Look, universal health care is a great thing. People are just deluding themselves if they think this is real reform of the system. Obama showed great leadership on health care yet he punts our nation's fiscal health to a "deficit" commission to save him from having to take a position on how to deal with the deficit (a deficit his own budgets going forward peg at a trillion a year for the next decade, long after the recession ends and double the worst deficits on record for any president prior to his taking office).

He has now already raised taxes extensively on a group of people, yet that only goes to pay for yet another entitlement, NOT to reduce the deficit or address the nation's debt. The debt can be corralled in two ways, cut spending and/or raise taxes. He has fired the tax hike bullet but applied it to yet another new program (one by the way that we are kidding ourselves if we really believe it will lower the deficit, no chance). He has a proposed budget that has a trillion dollar deficit in 2011 even WITH the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy being allowed to expire and with a new cap gains rate of 20% (forgetting the extra 3.8% that kicks in in 2013). None of this even addresses the looming disaster of a bankrupt social security system that no politician (in any party) is brave enough to cut benefits for or raise retirement ages to make solvent. Even Obama's proposal to freeze federal spending at 2011 levels for 3 years is a parlor trick, seeing as how that level represents about a 30% increase of 2008 levels.

Our politicians are gutless and our electorate too ignorant or self-interested to honestly address the problems ahead. Get ready for high interest rates. We will not address our nations pending economic problems until the crisis hits in another decade or so, and then it will be crippling. Look into the future, by 2020 our interest on our debt alone will be 900 billion a year. Good luck to us all.

> let's be fair. the hedge fund boys paying 15% was a joke.

We're talking about two different things.

The hedge funds getting management fees at the capital gains rate was wrong, no disagreement there. That was a bit of a scam.

But thats not what we're talking about, we're talking about folks actually making investments in things and that rate being raised.

"Unions don't work in business"

As a member of FOUR labor unions working in private practice, I can tell you that statement is totally wrong.

"Secondly, where will the money go instead of capital investment? Spending? GREAT!!!!! We could certainly use the rich SPENDING a LOT more of their money on goods and services."

I can't believe there are folks arguing this.

The only reason we need spending is to create jobs... you have it BACKWARD

You think capital investment just sits in a drawer? What do you think pays for the SALARIES and TRUCKS and TAXES (more so than sales taxes).

Yes, please, spend the money on bubble gum, not creating jobs.
Because we don't need JOBS, right, we need bubble gum.

"Is our crisis right now because of a lack of capital available or WAY TOO MUCH capital available"

Is not enough capital. Are you really arguing this?
You think there is too much capital out there?

Oh right, thats why we have the lowest fed funds rate ever... riiiiiiight. Because there is TOO MUCH capital.

Jeez, some folks need to take a basic economics class.

jeez mktmaker, i think you have me confused with "columbiacounty". i agree with what you are saying re: entitlements and war spending 100%. so i think you just fat-fingered the address label there. or one of us is taking too much drugs. :)

>> Obama showed great leadership on health care
but here is where i must disagree. confiscating personal property to pay for some utopian lie is not leadership. saying that:

* the average family is going to save $2500 on their premiums, AND
* the federal government is going to *save* money, AND
* services are going to improve in quality, AND
* that there will be no annual or lifetime caps for pre-existing conditions for anybody

is not leadership; it's a lie. for the ignorant that believe it i have nothing but sympathy. for the leftist that supports this dribble i have nothing but disgust.

mandating that individual citizens purchase a good or service is not great leadership; it's tyranny. hopefully SCOTUS thinks so and i'm inclined to believe they'll be persuaded...particularly after Mr Obama derided them during the last state-of-the-union accompanied by the vicious howls of 1/2 of Congress.

>>our electorate too ignorant
well...i dont count you and i among the ignorant so there's hope!

somewhereelse, help me out...i'm not understanding the association you are making btwn FF rates and capital. and i'm just a hack...but my understanding is that FF rates are lowered primarily to heat up lending between banks in need of short term capital. but buttressing a bank's balance sheet in the short term (overnight lending) has not much to do with investment generally, or taxation on capital gains, or the activities of hedge funds. two different issues no?

and yes there's capital out there for sure...but capital wants to flow to where it will make a return obviously. any capital investment involves risk, taxation on profits, regulatory overhead, etc. so increasing the latter two contribute to the effect of keeping capital in the drawer in the short term...despite your assertions otherwise... or moving it to a more welcome destination.

but maybe i missing something about your point?

i hope that you're not serious about suggesting that the reason that the republicans didn't vote for the health care bill had to do with fiscal prudence.

"two different issues no?"

Different part of the economy, but same issue. Two types of support for new projects, debt vs. equity. But the point is... anybody saying that there is too much capital available is nuts...

"and yes there's capital out there for sure...but capital wants to flow to where it will make a return obviously. any capital investment involves risk, taxation on profits, regulatory overhead, etc. so increasing the latter two contribute to the effect of keeping capital in the drawer in the short term...despite your assertions otherwise... or moving it to a more welcome destination.

but maybe i missing something about your point"

Bingo, thats the point.

I guess you and me are both surprised that someone is arguing with this.

> "Unions don't work in business"

> As a member of FOUR labor unions working in private practice, I can tell you that statement is
> totally wrong.

Hmmm... union members telling us we need unions. Nothing new there.

Again, union membership is now primarily government workers.
Jobs creation has come from non-union states and industries.

If not creating private jobs and only "creating" public jobs is "working" then I don't know what to tell you.

ok--i'm nuts.

the problem in the economy is not lack of capital; its lack of demand for goods and services. businesses are not hiring nor expanding because they have over capacity due to lack of demand.

cc, you are nuts. The problem with the economy was a credit bubble. Demand is now dampening because of the future expectations of the increasing tax burden.

really?

when did this phenomena begin?

Isn't it clear that it began with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977? Haven't you been reading the talking points for the last year?

whoops...i completely forgot. of course. now i understand.

"Jobs creation has come from non-union states and industries."

More BS. One of the few industires creating jobs right now is HEALTH CARE. And health care is heavily unuionized. You have tons of SEIU nurses and home health aides out there.

"> As a member of FOUR labor unions working in private practice, I can tell you that statement is
> totally wrong.

Hmmm... union members telling us we need unions. Nothing new there."

Dude, you need to cool it. NYCMatt just said he beleongs to unions. He did not argue that there should be more unions. Not all union peopel support unions. I grew up in a union household and my parents are no big fans of unions. My mother was part of SEIU and hated them. My father belonged to the TWU. At first, they were a good union. Then they became prostitutes for the MTA management. You have no first hand information about unions and are groslly unqualified to speak about them.

It's interesting that while regularly attacking unions, somewherelese has not named a single union. Why? Because he can't. He supposively knows so much about unions, but can't name a single one without Google.

Why are Republicans so obsessed with unions?

Unions, unions, Marxist, Socialism, Unions.

Ugh, idiots.

"I can't believe there are folks arguing this.

The only reason we need spending is to create jobs... you have it BACKWARD

You think capital investment just sits in a drawer? What do you think pays for the SALARIES and TRUCKS and TAXES (more so than sales taxes)."

So you think that money invested in the stock market (the single largest capital market, no?) goes to pay salaries? And you think *I* don't know how things work? And even if you are directly investing in a company, you better hope it's the company's INCOME STREAM which is paying those things, otherwise your capital isn't going to last too long because you are using capital dollars to pay for non-capital expenditures (i.e. going broke). You work for the government, right?

"Is not enough capital. Are you really arguing this?
You think there is too much capital out there?

Oh right, thats why we have the lowest fed funds rate ever... riiiiiiight. Because there is TOO MUCH capital."

From an article from TODAY in another thread:
http://www.mybanktracker.com/bank-news/2010/03/24/commercial-real-estate-market-to-bottom-out-in-2010/

"Investors have expressed their anxiety over an abundance of capital"

And speaking of economics courses, so you are saying the less capital there is available, interest rates go DOWN? I think you have it backwards, as capital dries up and there is less of it to go around, it GETS MORE EXPENSIVE NOT LESS EXPENSIVE.

Are you familiar with the "Wealth Effect" and why Alan Greenspan said over and over again that it was the biggest driving force behind our economic growth during the largest period of growth in history?

>> CC said ... i hope that you're not serious about suggesting
>> that the reason that the republicans didn't vote for the health
>> care bill had to do with fiscal prudence.

CC, i'm totally serious. 1 trillion spend, 1/2 trillion in taxes, no Republican votes. asked and answered. Understand that I reject spendthrifts in government regardless of party. i didn't support TARP, the bailouts, the $15 bil employment package, the takeover of private institutions, none of it. but please do educate me about the reasons the Republicans were a unified Nay as you may be more informed than me.

while i eagerly await your response i'll remind you that bipartisanship was with the Nays on this matter. i know you know this. and you know i know you know :) so you'd really have to dream up a very persuasive argument as tiresome narratives about Republican motivations make no sense in the presence of bipartisan opposition to this spend.

among fiscal sustainability concerns, the Democratic and Republican Nays place values on individual freedom, do not want govt control of the private sector, understand and respect the limits placed on Congress by the Constitution, and do not want a federal Abortion franchise, and they can't stand that we have a Black president (just kidding on the last one).

so think about who is not being serious on this, me or you.

1. the republicans made it clear from day one of the obama administration that their strategy was to unite in opposition to everything and anything proposed by obama and the democrats.

2. tarp was voted for by many republicans and was passed when george bush was president.

3. you are apparently lucky enough (although you of course attribute it 100% to your own prodigious effort) and healthy enough (at least so far) to believe that you can weather any storm without assistance. i am sympathetic because there was a time that i would have agreed completely with you; it can take time and life experience to realize the naivte of that position.

4. individual freedom is fine as long as you have a job with an income that can support you and your family. much more difficult without it.

"mandating that individual citizens purchase a good or service is not great leadership; it's tyranny."

You mean like car insurance?

And as for the fear-mongering over a "government takeover of healthcare", perhaps you should take a look at meicare/medicaid.

And as for the suddenly budget conscious folks, the GOP prescription drug plan was $800 billion thrown away and then there's that pesky $2.5 TRILLION spent on our vacation in Iraq that didn't need to occur.

"mandating that individual citizens purchase a good or service is not great leadership; it's tyranny"

Ah actually you should read constitution. Why do you provide republics votes statistics for war financing (including budgets) 2002-2009.. I am quiet sure that 100% of Republicans voted for the war and got us in a big debt hole.

H.J.RES.114 1 republican that turned independent. So 100% republican vote as of now.

Cost at the time of the vote: 9bln a month estimated = 650bln by now. In reality over a trillion or 2 easily. Since Bush increased deficit by 5 trillion, looks quiet right to me.

cheney to dick clarke when asked how the misadventure in iraq would be paid for: "it's our turn to run deficits"---ironic for so many reasons, importantly that clinton and co had been paying DOWN the national debt for years prior to this

gop budget conciousness where spending doesnt benefit their own---hilarious

individual freedom, lack of gov't intervention?

patriot act?

cc- again you are misinformed or telling lies. Have the Republicans opposed Obama's strategy in Afghanistan? Have they opposed his increaded drone strikes in Pakistan? When Obama's first stimulus was first being discussed, Republicans voiced support for doing something, but Obama took it to an insane level and the Republicans objected. There was bipartisan support for the recent jobs bill. The Republicans are opposing these radical far left ideological programs that Obama and Pelosi are pushing, and why shouldn't they?

waverly, you can't be this dense. Mandating a purchase of health insurance is not comparable to requiring car insurance IF a person decides to buy a car. It would be more like requiring everyone to actually buy a car.

So the republicans support all of the policies that Obama is continuing from the prior administration? That's mighty big of them.

I just read a poll that 24% of republicans polled think Obama is the antrichrist. I wish I were joking. But continue to throw around words like radical. I'm sure it makes you feel better.

When the US is implementing something that is a pale version of the policies that exist in almost every other first world country, you should re-examine what is really "radical".

>> the republicans made it clear...
we agree. but be fair CC and acknowledge that bipartisan opposition to health care reform trumps your broad brush. Republicans, Democrats of conscience, and many other Americans will always resist the socialist progressive agenda.

>> tarp was voted for by many republicans
YES, but do you see the fault in your logic? *today* Republicans want the 1/2 unused TARP funds returned; Democrats want to extend it for further slush fund "stimulus" waste. there is a difference btwn the parties CC.

>> lucky enough... naivte
off-topic but worth exploration. Luck is evenly distributed around the world...i don't know how you'd measure who is lucky and who isn't. but the more we talk i'm beginning to think you use this formula i learned from one of my progressive liberal professors at Unversity...

success = lucky
failure = unlucky

luck is buying a Lotto ticket. a *lifetime* of good choices, hard work, and sacrifice is not playing the lottery. your "lucky" and "naivety" statements are a deemphasis of my role in my own (limited) success if life. you don't want me to plan my life...you want me to reward the State and other collective institutions... in other words "surrender".

i won't.

understand that i am in a camp with many many other Americans that will resist the efforts of the Left to create some Utopian fantasy land in America. it's a free country for the time being so anyone is entitled to live a fantasy (ask the Departments of Finance in CA, NY, and NJ...and of course our National Treasury). but try to finance it by relieving me of my property and liberty and there's going to be a problem.

>> there was a time that i would have agreed completely with you
well hell...come back then! i'll keep trying CC! :)

LICComment = smart.

#----------------------------------
I SAID "mandating that individual citizens purchase a good or service is not great leadership; it's tyranny."
waverly SAID "You mean like car insurance?"
#----------------------------------

with respect sir, your understanding is seriously lacking. understand that i hope by doing so i can persuade you and others to see things my way and understand the value of my position. your lack of understanding is relied on heavily by those that seek to deprive you of your liberty and property. you should know that and reject it.

There is a legitimate role for the federal government in this society. Federal Powers are clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Other Powers flow to the States as "Reserved Rights" and ultimately to the People from which all power comes from in the first place. This is Civics 101 Waverly. This is critical and demands more respect of our elected representatives. the surrender of State's and People's rights over time has paved the road to tyranny we are on at the moment.

Let me break it down if it hasn't occurred to you yet:

* Auto insurance is not a right; it's a privilege.

* Auto insurance is mandated by the various STATES who made that determination independently of each other. law in this area also varies wildly because the various states have different requirements. Auto insurance is a STATE MATTER...NOT A FEDERAL MATTER. Just because all states require auto insurance does not mean that it is required Federally.

so either you do not understand this or you are trying some Leftist trick to get People to willfully surrender to your position. it won't work.

* Health insurance or health care are also matters RESERVED TO THE STATES. these activities occur entirely within the state in which you live, have no relation to any Federally enumerated Powers, and involve no interstate commerce.

This is really easy stuff. Now, let's say you reject this view. What waverly are the limits of Congress? If Congress can regulate health insurance and mandate that everyone purchase commercial goods...what then? where are we exactly in this country?

What a bunch of poor loser Republicans. You guys lost. Health care passed it will be here for a long time. There will be no Republican win this November.

You guys had your chance for the last 8 years and you fucked it up royally - now you are trying to push the blame on others and it wont work.

Tools who caused the 3 greatest financial collapses in this country's history think they are the only ones who know how to run an economy..

Please 660. I respect that you have bought into the "everything government does is an infringement on my liberty" school of thought but don't go down the road of constitutional law. You clearly have gathered whatever information you believe to know on that subject from various other unknowledgable right wing ideologues. Stop thinking its easy and go read some history.

"waverly, you can't be this dense. Mandating a purchase of health insurance is not comparable to requiring car insurance"

No...Dense is trying to compare HC reform with tyranny. Dense is a group of people voicing concerns about deficits after the same people ran-up BIGGER deficits for a useless drug plan and a war that never needed to occur. Dense is a group of people trying to say they want to "protect their liberty and rights" after the same group of people spent 8 years denying rights and liberties and circumventing the constitution at light-speed. Dense is a group of people not recognizing that the US is the only modernized country without universal HC. Dense is a group of people pretending that HC in the US is anything but marginally acceptable. We rank somewhere around 18th or 19th out of modernized countries. To defeat HC reform is to deny the reality that it has needed to be fixed for a long time.

Burying your head in the sand instead of trying to be a part of the reform is terrible. Trying to derail reform so that others suffer and die instead of trying to be a part of the solution is even worse.

so...not getting cancer is due to hardwork and good life planning? clearly there are many medical problems that are the result of poor life choices; there are also many that are due to genetics and other factors beyond any individual's control.

if we as a society don't want pre-existing medical conditions to make it either impossible or prohibitively expensive to obtain health insurance, there is no other way to accomplish this without mandating that everyone purchase insurance. so many republicans skip over the immutable math involved here and come up with yet another fairy tale of having it both ways. if republicans want to stand up and say that they are advocating to continue denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, then i say more power to them and lets see what the electorate thinks.

but when they re-enter the magical world where we can somehow accomplish this without mandated coverage, it is continuing their endless round of hypocrisy.

MALTHUS CALLED ME OUT AND SAID:
>> respect that you have bought into the "everything government
>> does is an infringement on my liberty"

hi malthus. i know you couldn't have read all of my posts so i'll forgive you... for a moment. please do search this page for "legitimate" and you'll find that i DO support the legitimate actions of government and the resulting taxes. i just believe in limited government which i suppose you do not. with that said, please do not attempt to tarnish me by misrepresenting my position as anarchist, libertarian, or nutjob. if you haven't read my posts in their entirety then we're good. otherwise be a man or woman :) and apologize.

>> don't go down the road of constitutional law
fine. apparently you are much more enlightened than me. where am i'm going wrong? or hey... take the Constitution off the table and educate me on what *you* substitute for it. and clarify what are the limits of Federal power then. I await your response.

>> whatever information you believe to know ... from various other unknowledgable right wing ...
i am certainly right wing ...that much is obvious. but i've never really considered the Constitution to be right wing :) oh, and hey...if you see a problem with my view then let's talk about it. but you aren't doing that thus far; you are just trying to undermine what i'm saying by questioning where the information *came* from. clever, but not persuasive. actually it's not clever either :)

Regards

P.S. i honestly love open discussions like this and I do not have a monopoly on correctness. it's odd that you've stated no position at all ... you've just told me to be quiet. so take no insult if i'm suspicious of your motivation. but hey, maybe you'll surprise me :)

>> What a bunch of poor loser Republicans
>> Health care passed it will be here for a long time.
>> There will be no Republican win this November.

hi petrfitz. we'll see i guess. let's talk about this again in 6 months.

>> think they are the only ones who know how to run an economy

i guess you want this to be a "we won, you lost" conversation. and that's fine if it makes you happy. but some of us with opposing views to yours simply believe in *limited* government regardless of party. that you are even speaking in terms of "how to run an economy" reveals much about your way of thinking. for what it's worth (not much) i don't think anybody should focus on "running an economy"....sounds like 5-year plans to me no?

Bill of rights applies to Feds and STATES.

Wellfare clause is still there, and we can defined healthcare bill as one.

Founding fathers had many different ideas, and lets take Hamilton who was a strong proponent of stronger federal government. For me state or feds don't make a different, actually it does there are many retarded laws in states.

Today republicans are responsible: for trillions of deficit thanks to Bush and Reagan.

Quite simply the history of constitutional law does not support what you say it does. What you are representing as "civics 101" is a states rights position on how certain people would like the Supreme Court to read it. I will grant you that with the appointment of a couple more activist justices like Thomas and Scalia you might get this body of law overturned, but for the last 70+ years the supreme court has interpreted Interstate Commerce very broadly, including recently growing your own pot within one state. To claim that health insurance would not fall under interstate commerce reveals that either you don't know what you are talking about or you are being dishonest. You may wish that it did not but that does not make it so.

And the danger is that by spreading the falsehood (whether knowingly or not) that the Democrats are defying the constitution, you are adding to the hatemongering of the rabid right, no matter how reasonably you choose to present it.

I am pretty sure we a bit of a dust-up 145 years ago that solved this whole states' rights and nullification thing once and for all.

columbiacounty
Ignored comment. Unhide

hehe

aboutready
about 3 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
individual freedom, lack of gov't intervention?
patriot act?

There we go, once again, the lying toilet lady shows up to post while on vacation, something she said she wasn't doing.

660: have you ever stopped to consider what the term limited government actually means? in a democracy (which despite all the ranting and raving we still enjoy) the government is by definition the people. us---all of us who choose to be involved. of course, right off the bat we have a major problem in that so many of us cannot even be bothered to vote.

but, still, the government is not only a reflection of us--it is literally us.

so many have lost sight of the crucial role that government has played in our society and the desperate problems with are facing that only the government can solve. certainly not perfectly, and often in very slow, frustrating ways but nevertheless it is the only vehicle we have to solve the types of problems that transcend the individual and even large businesses.

columbiacounty
Ignored comment. Unhide

hehe

"There was bipartisan support for the recent jobs bill."

So 3 Republican votes out of 41 Republican Senators is "bipartisan"? Ok, whatever you say.

Why don't Obama and other congressional staffers that wrote this bill, have to comply?

"When Obama's first stimulus was first being discussed, Republicans voiced support for doing something, but Obama took it to an insane level and the Republicans objected."

How was the stimulus an "insane level"? It was only $87 billion more than TARP, which in Washington, it peanuts.

>> so...not getting cancer is due to hardwork and good life planning?

sadly people get sick. you use that fact of life to justify federal government control to force some desired Utopian result like "everyone is going to get quality care". i do not.

THis whole "State's RIghts" stuff talk is a bunch of nonsense. Why should states have more rights? I like having a powerful federal government. This way all of the crooks and cheaters are easy to find since they are all concentrated in Washington D.C. If states had more power, the crooks and liars would be harder to find since they would be spread out all across the country, from Tallahasse, FL to Juneau, Alaska.

no...how can you define what is routinely available in all major countries of the world as utopian? and, note i did not discuss everyone getting quality care; i specifically questioned whether or not the majority of the country believes that pre-existing conditions are grounds to deny insurance coverage. i also questioned the honesty of republicans who have suggested numerous times that there is some way to handle this issue without mandating coverage for all.

>> Quite simply the history of constitutional law does not support what you say it does.

sir, we may have a disagreement but please... that doesn't mean that i do not have an understanding of these topics. you are using the "history of constitutional law" as the basis for your argument. I am using the "Constitution". See the difference? you are using the trespasses of government in spite of the restrictions placed on it by the Constitution to justify ongoing trespasses. let me try to persuade you of your dangerous and misguided view ...

Plessy v. Ferguson determined that racial segregation was OK. this was the basis for the ensuing 60 years of "Constitutional law" and the resulting discrimination and outright systematic torment against Blacks until its repeal in Brown V BOE.

>> interpreted Interstate Commerce very broadly
ah yes. and you apparently have no problem with the massive expansion of government power based on that broad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. I *do* have a problem with that as you might imagine :) it really is incredible that so many people in the conversation base their argument as: look, THEY did it over here! so that means WE can do it over there!

you might be familiar with Wickard v. Filburn which is the basis for the broad interpretation of the ISC. For those that are interested ... and i can't imagine who would be at this point :) ... this was a case 70 years ago where the Court determined that wheat:

* grown by a farmer on his own land
* not offered for sale at all (no commerce), and certainly not over state lines
* being consumed by the farmer

...that THIS was interstate commerce as withholding wheat from the market *affected* commerce because there was less of it. do you see how twisted that is? how can you regulate and tax commerce that did not happen?

which leads us back to the current health care reform package and the individual mandate. health care and insurance is consumed within state lines. so let's say i do NOT buy health insurance. what empowers the Congress to regulate activity that hasn't occurred?

Do you see how twisted that is? Somehow Congress believes they not only can they regulate commerce that *isn't* interstate, but that they can force citizens to participate in commerce. I await your response.