Comments on: All the Wrong Moves http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:58:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dan http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/comment-page-3/#comment-598994 Dan Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:31:16 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=90638#comment-598994 Prepare for the constitutional convention. Prepare for the constitutional convention.

]]> By: CaliforniaDave http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/comment-page-3/#comment-489214 CaliforniaDave Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:35:48 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=90638#comment-489214 Oh come on, guys - vinyl is SO old school. Have ya heard - music is on those little shiny CD thingies now. Only one side! You must be old white dudes if you're thinkin' vinyl. Which means you are stereotypical non-Democrats! Just kidding! Brilliant stuff. Oh come on, guys – vinyl is SO old school. Have ya heard – music is on those little shiny CD thingies now. Only one side!

You must be old white dudes if you're thinkin' vinyl. Which means you are stereotypical non-Democrats!

Just kidding! Brilliant stuff.

]]> By: Philosopher http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/comment-page-3/#comment-486942 Philosopher Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:01:13 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=90638#comment-486942 James M.--I will guarantee you that the 61%will become 58% due to lost deductions, and does not include state and local taxes, bringing it in most cases to 50%. I owned a small business (which is mostly who Obama's increases will affect). I lived with this during the Clinton years and fixed it--I sold the business. My take home pay nearly tripled (learn how Sub S and LLC's are taxed). The large corporation that bought the business has eliminated half the workers by cutting the services we provided (and were paid well for). There, that ought to fix our unemployment problem. Let's just see if the "rich" are the only one whose taxes are raised when these particular birds come home to roost. And remember, inflation is a tax on the poor. They can't own assets which appreciate. James M.–I will guarantee you that the 61%will become 58% due to lost deductions, and does not include state and local taxes, bringing it in most cases to 50%. I owned a small business (which is mostly who Obama's increases will affect). I lived with this during the Clinton years and fixed it–I sold the business. My take home pay nearly tripled (learn how Sub S and LLC's are taxed). The large corporation that bought the business has eliminated half the workers by cutting the services we provided (and were paid well for). There, that ought to fix our unemployment problem.
Let's just see if the "rich" are the only one whose taxes are raised when these particular birds come home to roost. And remember, inflation is a tax on the poor. They can't own assets which appreciate.

]]> By: James M http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/comment-page-3/#comment-1108334 James M Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:42:44 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=90638#comment-1108334 EDIT: 31% of income and 77% of capital gainst should read 61% of income and 77% of capital gains. EDIT: 31% of income and 77% of capital gainst should read 61% of income and 77% of capital gains.

]]> By: James M http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/comment-page-3/#comment-1107842 James M Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:49:08 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=90638#comment-1107842 Obama is 1) Raising taxes on the highest-income tax brackets 2) Raising capital gains taxes 3)Cutting farm subsidies to big agribusinesses (Yes, they made a mistake in proposing $500 000 in revenue as the cut-off rather than $250 000 in profit but they have been amenable to changing that) 4) Increasing revenues with the cap-and-trade system. All of these are austerity measures with political risks involved, which indicates Obama at least has his eye on the deficit, and they are lowering the projected annual deficit to $500 billion in five years (some of this is due to Congressional Democrats, but Obama no doubt included some budget items with an eye toward bargaining). Once you have a budget you can't increase or decrease it faster than a certain point, so that would represent substantial progress. Then it stalls, so Obama will have to take further measures. Will he? Given the somewhat politically risky moves to cut the deficit the odds seem better rather than worse, especially with Senate Democrats talking about the problem of the deficit after the five-year period. Bush didn't even have the deficit on his radar, so things are better off under Obama who at least has an eye toward it. The chief reason for his delay? If he raises taxes again too soon he would be pounded for keeping moving them upwards. I think you can foresee another moderate raise of the highest tax bracket with some additional spending cuts. One might question Obama's austerity measures, saying he's increasing spending so he has no focus on the deficit. Not quite; if one was to calculate in advance all the proposed healthcare, tax, education measures etc, and consolidate the proposed changes in advance then nothing would ever get done. Doing things requires focusing on one issue at a time. Obama has fulfilled his promises to a) Move out of Iraq responsibly b) Start shutting down Guantanamo Bay c) Start extending healthcare towards universal coverage d) Extend a tax cut to 95% of working Americans (since it includes payers of payroll taxes, it does work out to approximately that) and e) Has extended environmental programs. Whether you like those things or not, his record of acting on his promises is so far pretty good. If he balances the budget during his second term he will have gotten most of the troops out of Iraq, reformed the health care system, shored up crumbling infrastructure and poor schools, extended allowing religious organizations to help people with government money and fixed America's budget situation. This would make him a very accomplished President. Right now, the only caveat is the budget and early signs of caring about the deficit are positive, and although it's certainly folly to trust anyone in politics absolutely I think he has shown enough for us to reserve our judgment for the moment. I realize some people will predict economic doom with higher top tax rates and capital gains rates but those do not damage the economy; someone who currently gets to keep 63% of his income and 83% of his capital gainst is unlikely to stop trying to make money if he has to accomodate keeping 31% of his income and 77% of his capital gains. Incentives are economically vital for sure; however, a slight reduction in the incentive (with a strong incentive to invest still in existence) has not shown itself to damage a capitalist economy. People will still follow incentives, and strong incentives to invest are still there. If you have gotten to the bottom of this spiel and are this dedicated, congratulations. Obama is 1) Raising taxes on the highest-income tax brackets 2) Raising capital gains taxes 3)Cutting farm subsidies to big agribusinesses (Yes, they made a mistake in proposing $500 000 in revenue as the cut-off rather than $250 000 in profit but they have been amenable to changing that) 4) Increasing revenues with the cap-and-trade system. All of these are austerity measures with political risks involved, which indicates Obama at least has his eye on the deficit, and they are lowering the projected annual deficit to $500 billion in five years (some of this is due to Congressional Democrats, but Obama no doubt included some budget items with an eye toward bargaining). Once you have a budget you can't increase or decrease it faster than a certain point, so that would represent substantial progress. Then it stalls, so Obama will have to take further measures. Will he? Given the somewhat politically risky moves to cut the deficit the odds seem better rather than worse, especially with Senate Democrats talking about the problem of the deficit after the five-year period. Bush didn't even have the deficit on his radar, so things are better off under Obama who at least has an eye toward it. The chief reason for his delay? If he raises taxes again too soon he would be pounded for keeping moving them upwards. I think you can foresee another moderate raise of the highest tax bracket with some additional spending cuts.

One might question Obama's austerity measures, saying he's increasing spending so he has no focus on the deficit. Not quite; if one was to calculate in advance all the proposed healthcare, tax, education measures etc, and consolidate the proposed changes in advance then nothing would ever get done. Doing things requires focusing on one issue at a time. Obama has fulfilled his promises to a) Move out of Iraq responsibly b) Start shutting down Guantanamo Bay c) Start extending healthcare towards universal coverage d) Extend a tax cut to 95% of working Americans (since it includes payers of payroll taxes, it does work out to approximately that) and e) Has extended environmental programs. Whether you like those things or not, his record of acting on his promises is so far pretty good. If he balances the budget during his second term he will have gotten most of the troops out of Iraq, reformed the health care system, shored up crumbling infrastructure and poor schools, extended allowing religious organizations to help people with government money and fixed America's budget situation. This would make him a very accomplished President. Right now, the only caveat is the budget and early signs of caring about the deficit are positive, and although it's certainly folly to trust anyone in politics absolutely I think he has shown enough for us to reserve our judgment for the moment.

I realize some people will predict economic doom with higher top tax rates and capital gains rates but those do not damage the economy; someone who currently gets to keep 63% of his income and 83% of his capital gainst is unlikely to stop trying to make money if he has to accomodate keeping 31% of his income and 77% of his capital gains. Incentives are economically vital for sure; however, a slight reduction in the incentive (with a strong incentive to invest still in existence) has not shown itself to damage a capitalist economy. People will still follow incentives, and strong incentives to invest are still there.

If you have gotten to the bottom of this spiel and are this dedicated, congratulations.

]]> By: James M http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/comment-page-3/#comment-1192154 James M Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:49:08 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=90638#comment-1192154 Obama is 1) Raising taxes on the highest-income tax brackets 2) Raising capital gains taxes 3)Cutting farm subsidies to big agribusinesses (Yes, they made a mistake in proposing $500 000 in revenue as the cut-off rather than $250 000 in profit but they have been amenable to changing that) 4) Increasing revenues with the cap-and-trade system. All of these are austerity measures with political risks involved, which indicates Obama at least has his eye on the deficit, and they are lowering the projected annual deficit to $500 billion in five years (some of this is due to Congressional Democrats, but Obama no doubt included some budget items with an eye toward bargaining). Once you have a budget you can't increase or decrease it faster than a certain point, so that would represent substantial progress. Then it stalls, so Obama will have to take further measures. Will he? Given the somewhat politically risky moves to cut the deficit the odds seem better rather than worse, especially with Senate Democrats talking about the problem of the deficit after the five-year period. Bush didn't even have the deficit on his radar, so things are better off under Obama who at least has an eye toward it. The chief reason for his delay? If he raises taxes again too soon he would be pounded for keeping moving them upwards. I think you can foresee another moderate raise of the highest tax bracket with some additional spending cuts. One might question Obama's austerity measures, saying he's increasing spending so he has no focus on the deficit. Not quite; if one was to calculate in advance all the proposed healthcare, tax, education measures etc, and consolidate the proposed changes in advance then nothing would ever get done. Doing things requires focusing on one issue at a time. Obama has fulfilled his promises to a) Move out of Iraq responsibly b) Start shutting down Guantanamo Bay c) Start extending healthcare towards universal coverage d) Extend a tax cut to 95% of working Americans (since it includes payers of payroll taxes, it does work out to approximately that) and e) Has extended environmental programs. Whether you like those things or not, his record of acting on his promises is so far pretty good. If he balances the budget during his second term he will have gotten most of the troops out of Iraq, reformed the health care system, shored up crumbling infrastructure and poor schools, extended allowing religious organizations to help people with government money and fixed America's budget situation. This would make him a very accomplished President. Right now, the only caveat is the budget and early signs of caring about the deficit are positive, and although it's certainly folly to trust anyone in politics absolutely I think he has shown enough for us to reserve our judgment for the moment. I realize some people will predict economic doom with higher top tax rates and capital gains rates but those do not damage the economy; someone who currently gets to keep 63% of his income and 83% of his capital gainst is unlikely to stop trying to make money if he has to accomodate keeping 31% of his income and 77% of his capital gains. Incentives are economically vital for sure; however, a slight reduction in the incentive (with a strong incentive to invest still in existence) has not shown itself to damage a capitalist economy. People will still follow incentives, and strong incentives to invest are still there. If you have gotten to the bottom of this spiel and are this dedicated, congratulations. Obama is 1) Raising taxes on the highest-income tax brackets 2) Raising capital gains taxes 3)Cutting farm subsidies to big agribusinesses (Yes, they made a mistake in proposing $500 000 in revenue as the cut-off rather than $250 000 in profit but they have been amenable to changing that) 4) Increasing revenues with the cap-and-trade system. All of these are austerity measures with political risks involved, which indicates Obama at least has his eye on the deficit, and they are lowering the projected annual deficit to $500 billion in five years (some of this is due to Congressional Democrats, but Obama no doubt included some budget items with an eye toward bargaining). Once you have a budget you can't increase or decrease it faster than a certain point, so that would represent substantial progress. Then it stalls, so Obama will have to take further measures. Will he? Given the somewhat politically risky moves to cut the deficit the odds seem better rather than worse, especially with Senate Democrats talking about the problem of the deficit after the five-year period. Bush didn't even have the deficit on his radar, so things are better off under Obama who at least has an eye toward it. The chief reason for his delay? If he raises taxes again too soon he would be pounded for keeping moving them upwards. I think you can foresee another moderate raise of the highest tax bracket with some additional spending cuts.

One might question Obama's austerity measures, saying he's increasing spending so he has no focus on the deficit. Not quite; if one was to calculate in advance all the proposed healthcare, tax, education measures etc, and consolidate the proposed changes in advance then nothing would ever get done. Doing things requires focusing on one issue at a time. Obama has fulfilled his promises to a) Move out of Iraq responsibly b) Start shutting down Guantanamo Bay c) Start extending healthcare towards universal coverage d) Extend a tax cut to 95% of working Americans (since it includes payers of payroll taxes, it does work out to approximately that) and e) Has extended environmental programs. Whether you like those things or not, his record of acting on his promises is so far pretty good. If he balances the budget during his second term he will have gotten most of the troops out of Iraq, reformed the health care system, shored up crumbling infrastructure and poor schools, extended allowing religious organizations to help people with government money and fixed America's budget situation. This would make him a very accomplished President. Right now, the only caveat is the budget and early signs of caring about the deficit are positive, and although it's certainly folly to trust anyone in politics absolutely I think he has shown enough for us to reserve our judgment for the moment.

I realize some people will predict economic doom with higher top tax rates and capital gains rates but those do not damage the economy; someone who currently gets to keep 63% of his income and 83% of his capital gainst is unlikely to stop trying to make money if he has to accomodate keeping 31% of his income and 77% of his capital gains. Incentives are economically vital for sure; however, a slight reduction in the incentive (with a strong incentive to invest still in existence) has not shown itself to damage a capitalist economy. People will still follow incentives, and strong incentives to invest are still there.

If you have gotten to the bottom of this spiel and are this dedicated, congratulations.

]]> By: James M http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/comment-page-3/#comment-1107890 James M Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:48:48 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=90638#comment-1107890 There's a lot of nonsense in this column,and since I enjoy arguing, I'm writing something out in detail. For the start, Obama is not proposing creating a paramilitary for youth; that's ridiculous. An addition of service learning is entirely separate from Americorps; something the author of the above alarmist column extract above didn't note. The second thing wrong with it is that there aren't any pieces of evidence that the proposed idea is anything more than an idea of what might be added on to a child's education and that service learning is generally community-service oriented; where is the evidence of indoctrination? It sounds like an idea of limited effectiveness, but no, it's not a paramilitary. That's ludicrous. "Well, let’s add the latest genius move. The so called “Food Safety Act” which would punish small farmers by putting them under a mountain of byzantine regulations that would shut them down. And punish people who try to grow their own food with million dollar fines. This will make people reliant on big agri-corporations and restrict or ban people from trying to support themselves." This isn't even accurate. The proposed Act doesn't even have a provision to punish people trying to grown their own food. There is no evidence cited here to back up this idea about byzantine regulations that will shut down small farmers, which makes sense, since there aren't any in the proposals. The biggest change that Obama has proposed is cutting farm subisidies that are not tied to production and therefore, according to economists, don't cause more production. For the record, the first wave of bailout money was supported by most economists because it was necessary. Distasteful, but necessary. One can say that Obama's stimulus package is questionable and certainly accounts for something close to $2 trillion of the projected deficit, by far the biggest source of new spending. This projected deficit is made up of a) The bailout (necessary) b) The stimulus package (useful for economically necessary infrastructure but a large part is unnecessary) c) Much lower tax revenues due to the current slump (the Congressional budget office's forecasts in a slump tend to be conservative - conservative in the financial, not political sense) and d) Obama's other new spending - which so far is in the vicinity of $100-150 billion annually if his health plans are included. The only major source of new debt that is unnecessary is a piece (albeit a large piece) of the stimulus package. (Continued after) There's a lot of nonsense in this column,and since I enjoy arguing, I'm writing something out in detail.

For the start, Obama is not proposing creating a paramilitary for youth; that's ridiculous. An addition of service learning is entirely separate from Americorps; something the author of the above alarmist column extract above didn't note. The second thing wrong with it is that there aren't any pieces of evidence that the proposed idea is anything more than an idea of what might be added on to a child's education and that service learning is generally community-service oriented; where is the evidence of indoctrination? It sounds like an idea of limited effectiveness, but no, it's not a paramilitary. That's ludicrous.

"Well, let’s add the latest genius move. The so called “Food Safety Act” which would punish small farmers by putting them under a mountain of byzantine regulations that would shut them down. And punish people who try to grow their own food with million dollar fines. This will make people reliant on big agri-corporations and restrict or ban people from trying to support themselves."

This isn't even accurate. The proposed Act doesn't even have a provision to punish people trying to grown their own food. There is no evidence cited here to back up this idea about byzantine regulations that will shut down small farmers, which makes sense, since there aren't any in the proposals. The biggest change that Obama has proposed is cutting farm subisidies that are not tied to production and therefore, according to economists, don't cause more production.

For the record, the first wave of bailout money was supported by most economists because it was necessary. Distasteful, but necessary. One can say that Obama's stimulus package is questionable and certainly accounts for something close to $2 trillion of the projected deficit, by far the biggest source of new spending. This projected deficit is made up of a) The bailout (necessary) b) The stimulus package (useful for economically necessary infrastructure but a large part is unnecessary) c) Much lower tax revenues due to the current slump (the Congressional budget office's forecasts in a slump tend to be conservative – conservative in the financial, not political sense) and d) Obama's other new spending – which so far is in the vicinity of $100-150 billion annually if his health plans are included. The only major source of new debt that is unnecessary is a piece (albeit a large piece) of the stimulus package.

(Continued after)

]]> By: JamesHudnall http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/comment-page-3/#comment-1107930 JamesHudnall Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:14:53 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=90638#comment-1107930 I don't know what happened to that post I did, I don't see it, but as I already said our system is flawed. I just don't want to see it as flawed as yours. I don't know what happened to that post I did, I don't see it, but as I already said our system is flawed. I just don't want to see it as flawed as yours.

]]> By: JamesM http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/comment-page-3/#comment-1107638 JamesM Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:59:18 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=90638#comment-1107638 Except for a total lack of slavery involved, this comment is accurate. I don't foresee people being bought and sold. If his ideas are bad it's for their own reasons, not because of a faulty analogy to slavery. Except for a total lack of slavery involved, this comment is accurate. I don't foresee people being bought and sold. If his ideas are bad it's for their own reasons, not because of a faulty analogy to slavery.

]]> By: JamesM http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhudnall/2009/03/30/all-the-wrong-moves/comment-page-3/#comment-1107786 JamesM Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:54:52 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=90638#comment-1107786 Not quite. The CEO resigned under pressure. It's not dictatorial considering his company is surviving on government money. It's perfectly legal. The government won't force out incompetent execs as long as they aren't depending on government money to survive. This is far more comparable to a creditor demanding some restructuring in exchange for leniency on the debt. Questionable strategically? Maybe, but I don't see it. Dictatorial? Hardly. Not quite. The CEO resigned under pressure. It's not dictatorial considering his company is surviving on government money. It's perfectly legal. The government won't force out incompetent execs as long as they aren't depending on government money to survive. This is far more comparable to a creditor demanding some restructuring in exchange for leniency on the debt. Questionable strategically? Maybe, but I don't see it. Dictatorial? Hardly.

]]>