TaxCheat Geitner -- Hand in the Till

[JonL]

Originally Posted by whell

We couldn't do THAT! Why, we wouldn't be able to use the tax code to shape and direct social policy, or to reward our political benefactors. How could we possibly let our politicians use tax money to launder political contributions if we did THAT!

And, if you think we looked good in 1999, do you also pay your Master Card with your Visa?

You mean we couldn't use the tax code to further increase the unsustainable gap in wealth in this country? We couldn't use the tax code to further incentivize corporations to outsource good jobs? You bring up a good point about political contributions... we shouldn't allow corporations to make them.

As I recall, in the late '90s our economy had enjoyed an extended period of growth and prosperity, and our budget had a surplus for the first time in decades. Yes, we were entering a recession, typical and to be expected as part of the normal business cycle. Although I might not agree that tax cuts the way they were implemented were the best way out of the recession, there is a defensible argument to be made in their favor. There is NOT a defensible argument regarding maintaining those cuts once the economy began to improve AND during a time when we were spending enormously on wars and a new Medicaid drug benefit (that itself was implemented in a way to benefit the insurance and pharmaceutical companies far more than the needy seniors).

If there is pain to be had in digging out of our hole, shouldn't a good deal of that pain be borne by those who have benefitted disproportionately from its creation?

[whell]

Originally Posted by JonL

You bring up a good point about political contributions... we shouldn't allow corporations to make them.

Yep, we've had this discussion before. The SCOTUS decision was unpopular because it allowed ORGANIZATIONS to be treated the same as individuals for purposes of political speech, including political contributions as a form of free speech. You don't see anyone on the Hill advancing legislation aimed at overriding this SCOTUS ruling. Why? Because unions and PACS are organizations too.

Originally Posted by JonL

As I recall, in the late '90s our economy had enjoyed an extended period of growth and prosperity, and our budget had a surplus for the first time in decades.

Like I said, if you believe we had a balanced budget in the '90's, you must think you can pay your MasterCard with your Visa.

[piece-itpete]

Plus, the national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office, according to the CBO, including the SS ripoff.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Plus, the national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office, according to the CBO, including the SS ripoff.

Pete

as a % of GDP?

[piece-itpete]

No, in absolute terms.

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

I wish Obama would tell Boehner to do whatever he wants. Go on TV and say "They know the risks and they know the consequences. My administration believes it is reckless to intentionally sully the good credit of the United States and understands that good, tax paying American Citizens will pay the price for their extremist measures. But they were freely elected and they need to do what they think is right."

What would Boehner and Co do then? They KNOW they have to approve raising the debt ceiling. Playing political games with it is stupid. Obama should call their bluff.

[flacaltenn]

Kinda fair and balanced debate goin on..

Whell stole my sarcastic return to JonL about why we can't rescind all those Green GE tax credits..

About the 1990's -- Pete you are brave and usually right, but Clinton did buy on to balancing the budget (even with that lip-biting episode where he repented "for raising your taxes too much"). And as a result, with the help of a Republican majority, the budget went into surplus for a couple quarters. In fact, at the time, I researched how amazed the Treasury was that there was no mechanism for "paying down the debt" in place at that time. See the Feds can't carry over cash from yr to yr, so if there IS a surplus, they have to buy back bonds early. And that hadn't happened in soo long, they forgot how to do that. But WHELL is right, it was STILL done by stealing about 300Bil/yr in payroll taxes from (largely) the "working class".

JonL:

If there is pain to be had in digging out of our hole, shouldn't a good deal of that pain be borne by those who have benefitted disproportionately from its creation?

First - we need some evidence that "the rich" benefitted from the downturn in the economy. MOST of the "tax targeted rich" got PUMMELED in their private 401K and savings. Only the traders who positioned themselves out of Fanny/Freddy and the housing bubble increased their worth. But for these few, the last 5 years is probably close to a wash. We are ALL being economically deflated. Top to bottom.. Yes, there's a gap -- but it's becoming just about as meaningful as the gap between the Howells and everyone else on Gilligan's Island.

Second -- We're seeing the results of criminally poor financial management at the Congressional level. That Geitners recent action is just the latest example of negligient fiduciary responsibility. For THAT -- the guilty have to pay. Just like demanding accountability on Wall Street, we need accountability and some "perp walks" from the govt. Not going to let them continue these criminal acts. Especially, the continuing lie that the SS/MC crisis is still years off. Stop the lying now -- and we can talk about fixing it. You stop the criminal acts, before you swing into repair mode.

Thirdly, we have excused about 1/2 of America from contributing to this crisis by reducing their INCOME taxes to zero (or refunding a negative tax thru EITC). That puts a crimp into the repair effort. Now progressive income is OK I guess to a point. If we hadn't stolen from this bottom half thru excess payroll taxes for most of their lives, I'd have NO compunctions about asking them to contribute a token amount to the fix. Were none of THESE people for the wars that helped shove us into an untenable financial muck-up? Were none of these people for the housing policies that inflated the housing bubble? Were none of these people for all the Green crappola that's been over-hyped at GE? Were none of these people in favor of including drug benefits to MCare?

Fourthly, the better method than targeting specific incomes with higher tax brackets, is to start closing the existing "tax expenditures" (as the left likes to call them) or loopholes. Do it as uniformly and universally as possible. Don't promote the class warfare rhetoric which truly isn't gonna fix the problem.. (See california e.g. where about 30,000 people in that state pay 60% of state income tax. So when THOSE people take a hit in a declining market -- the whole state goes into the red).

But I'm not in a mood to see the Treasury stealing from yet ANOTHER pile of OPiuM (other peoples money). Or punishing the lower class with a dollar devaluation and NOT calling that a tax.

BTW: I was kinda laid back about Obama and his predilection for class warfare and progressive politics. Was hoping he would at least roll back the Patriot act and get us untangled from the Mid East. But when Geitner went thru after the revelation that he couldn't follow simple instructions for filing HIS taxes --- my patience started to run out. This man SHOULD NOT have that job..

[piece-itpete]

Debt outstanding, treasury department:

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

No, in absolute terms.

Pete

that's what i figured

so really it did not go up at all

[piece-itpete]

Btw, for the record, both parties were responsible for looting SS.

Pete