Draft report of the US fiscal commission

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

The draft suggests cutting military spending, and no one here is offering the slightest dispute or argument over it. We're DOING what you wanted, so why are you trying to object?

---

Because I am skeptical that recommendations will lead to actions. There is no DOING here, only ideas and suggestions. Also, because I know the two sides will argue about Defense vs Domestic, and history has shown that military spending trumps....pretty much all else. And any time people say we should spend money on our own citizens or our own national needs, people like Loki make accusations of nationalism or protectionism, and then equate that with being ignorant.

There's nothing ignorant or stupid about realizing our limitations, or pulling back when we've over-extended ourselves.

*In fact, there is good cause to stop acting like a super power, while we're in decline. I argue that this is our time to stop acting like the bully with the biggest britches, and pull back home, to survey things and do some mending.

Any comment from you, Loki? Or are you content to lambast me and Being for not knowing what you know, or thinking like you do, and leave it at that?

Is that what this is about for you, a game of aha told you so, or you know things we don't, or what the fuck?



*Oh, he went to bed. Second time I apologize for a tangent. :( Perhaps tomorrow we can comment on the fiscal commission, and state our opinions or ideas, and let it all hang out. It's fine to defend our views, but not so fine when it turns to personal or personality attacks. I'll try to do better. I will try to be less snarky or defensive. I will try to be more diplomatic. I hope we all will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I actually know what I know and what I don't. You, on the other hand, make consistent claims on topics about which you're grossly misinformed. Not only that, but you refuse to acknowledge your lack of knowledge or to take any steps to become informed. I've yet to see you make a single post that a reasonable person would consider to be intelligent. Unintentional ignorance is sometimes forgivable. You, however, must know that you're constantly talking out of your behind and do nothing about it, which says quite a lot about your character.

---

The behind part shows restraint, not reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I hope you read this before you opened your account. :rolleyes:

http://www.us.hsbc.com/1/2/1/oao/ter...ode=CSM0000617

---

I should read... the website terms and conditions? Pretty standard for using any website, far as I can tell. What's your point? Pretty much any bank not tied to a bricks-and-mortar setup will get you over 1% on your savings account (e.g. Ally, HSBC Direct, FNBO Direct, ING, etc.). They generally don't have many downsides - very few (if any) fees, low or nonexistent minimums, refunds of ATM fees, etc. They're a little slow in transferring money (up to 3 days), but that's about it. In contrast, my BoA account is shit - the checking account charges money unless a bunch of conditions are fulfilled, the savings provides essentially zero return, and I never use their bricks-and-mortar setup anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

wiggin, which numbers do you want me to look up? The ones for SS, where we'll have one young worker supporting three retirees down the road? The numbers of Medicare, where the costs of care exceed revenue? Or the ones for waging two wars with tax CUTS?

---

The first part I didn't like was when you argued we have a huge shortfall in SS that's not easy to fix. The numbers are clearly not in your favor - as a percentage of our deficits, SS is nowhere near the most important factor. Furthermore, we control the program and its costs and a few minor changes multiplied by tens of millions can save serious amounts of money. Raising the retirement age by less than a month a year is easy - so is indexing COLA to CPI instead of wage growth. Two simple fixes, and presto - no SS deficit!

My second problem with your numbers is your assertions about the defense budget. Strip out Iraq and Afghanistan and look at trend growth over the last 30 years. Add them back in, with the expected drawdowns in the next few years, and see where that leaves us in 2015. Now, compare that to a similar look at healthcare expenses and tell me where our long term fiscal problem is coming from. Do your homework and stop making hyperbolic statements.


For God's sake, healthcare is the problem. Everything else is just details that doesn't require some radical fiscal commission to fix, but rather some common sense moves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

*In fact, there is good cause to stop acting like a super power, while we're in decline. I argue that this is our time to stop acting like the bully with the biggest britches, and pull back home, to survey things and do some mending.

---

We're in decline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

We're in decline?

---

Rank us against the rest of the world by GDP real growth rate over the last 5 years and yes we've been declining. Rank us against our own GDP real growth rate since 2005 and yes we're declining. What metric should we use to show we are not in decline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Because I am skeptical that recommendations will lead to actions.

---

Most of us think nothing will lead to action, the commission's never going to get the supermajority it needs to report out to Congress. So? Write a rant about it. But you yelled at US for not arguing about the defense cuts on here, when we weren't doing so because we're all pretty much in agreement with you about those cuts. You treat our tacit agreement as violent objection. Why, to feel validation about how righteous you are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Oh OK just to make clear you think a household must make more then 80% of American households to be considered Middle Class. What part of "Middle" do you like ignoring?

---

[QUOTE="']['ear;55276"]Conscious derail bid rejected, part deux.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthw...dangerous.html

There's two sides to the issue, but he has a real point.

---

Thanks. :up: Once the open vs closed thing was explained, the point and implications were clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I think you lost track of your own argument. You were telling aggie (in Massachusetts) that having a home in the $400-500K range wasn't really a middle class category, when it really is. It might mean a dual income couple each making $100,000, but that can also be the norm for that area. Cowboy.

---

Income is often measured by household income which by the way is what aggie used as an example. If you have a two household income that can put you in a higher income bracket and therefore party of the "rich" or "upper class" whatever you prefer.

My point is of course that the mortgage deduction when excluding homes over 500k is NOT targeting the middle class in anyway. If you stretch the definition into something absurd (like 80% of the American population doesn't fit the claim) sure you can say that. Since then the argument has morphed into what is middle class.

I've asked you several times to put forth your own definition of middle class. Or lets change this - at what point does someone become rich?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

The first part I didn't like was when you argued we have a huge shortfall in SS that's not easy to fix. The numbers are clearly not in your favor - as a percentage of our deficits, SS is nowhere near the most important factor. Furthermore, we control the program and its costs and a few minor changes multiplied by tens of millions can save serious amounts of money. Raising the retirement age by less than a month a year is easy - so is indexing COLA to CPI instead of wage growth. Two simple fixes, and presto - no SS deficit!

---

It's not an easy fix politically, third rail and all.

Quote:

---

My second problem with your numbers is your assertions about the defense budget. Strip out Iraq and Afghanistan and look at trend growth over the last 30 years. Add them back in, with the expected drawdowns in the next few years, and see where that leaves us in 2015. Now, compare that to a similar look at healthcare expenses and tell me where our long term fiscal problem is coming from. Do your homework and stop making hyperbolic statements.

---

I was going off one of those studies and graphs you posted, showing most of our costs are in SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense.

Quote:

---

For God's sake, healthcare is the problem. Everything else is just details that doesn't require some radical fiscal commission to fix, but rather some common sense moves.

---

I agree health costs are the lion's share, but so are two unfunded wars that cost trillions. Common sense would say spend less on military operations and more on citizenry.

Quote:

---

We're in decline?

---

Remember the Infrastructure data? ;) US education and health care are consistently rated very low on a global scale, even our infant mortality is rising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Most of us think nothing will lead to action, the commission's never going to get the supermajority it needs to report out to Congress. So? Write a rant about it. But you yelled at US for not arguing about the defense cuts on here, when we weren't doing so because we're all pretty much in agreement with you about those cuts. You treat our tacit agreement as violent objection. Why, to feel validation about how righteous you are?

---

I ranted a bit, yeah. Didn't think it was yelling or self-righteousNess, but now you've corrected me, as is your wont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Income is often measured by household income which by the way is what aggie used as an example. If you have a two household income that can put you in a higher income bracket and therefore party of the "rich" or "upper class" whatever you prefer.

My point is of course that the mortgage deduction when excluding homes over 500k is NOT targeting the middle class in anyway. If you stretch the definition into something absurd (like 80% of the American population doesn't fit the claim) sure you can say that. Since then the argument has morphed into what is middle class.

I've asked you several times to put forth your own definition of middle class. Or lets change this - at what point does someone become rich?

---

Defining middle class(es) is like its own thread. But it depends on region and COL as much as income. (Thanks for quoting with name. :up: )

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...s-graphic.html

I did that puzzle yesterday and fixed the budget by 60% spending reduction, 40% tax increases. :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...s-graphic.html

---

I don't get it. Why doesn't the section for Social Security include an option for removing the cap? More broadly, why doesn't anyone who is concerened about SS insolvency ever include removing the cap as part of the solution?

Quote:

---

Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax
When the payroll tax – which finances Social Security and Medicare – was created, it covered 90 percent of all income. Today, with a ceiling at $106,800, it covers closer to 80 percent. This option would gradually raise the ceiling, until 90 percent of income was again subject to the tax.

---

Got mainly by nailing down on Medicare and Social Security, but keeping tax rates lower. Love that this debate is finally happening in places like the NYTimes, which has otherwise let Paul Krugman run wild about how we need more borrowing.

Krugman has gotten increasingly insane since 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Got mainly by nailing down on Medicare and Social Security, but keeping tax rates lower. Love that this debate is finally happening in places like the NYTimes, which has otherwise let Paul Krugman run wild about how we need more borrowing.

---

Only if you've skipped reading any of their other sections. Like healthcare or education. Tax and spend vs borrow and spend has been part of their coverage for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Krugman has gotten increasingly insane since 2008.

---

His stance that the United States should have 4% inflation in order to fix the economy is particularly awful.

He was also enraged about the deficit reduction proposal, which apparently was a renewed assault on the middle class. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

He was also enraged about the deficit reduction proposal, which apparently was a renewed assault on the middle class. :bored:

---

Krugman isn't the only one saying that, though. Right-leaning opinionators and news sources have said the same thing, especially regarding Bush's tax cuts and taxable income over $250,000. They frame it as an assault on small business, which is thought of as the middle-business-class. :bored:

I think Lewk already addressed the absurdity of claiming that the top 15% of the population is middle class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Krugman isn't the only one saying that, though. Right-leaning opinionators and news sources have said the same thing, especially regarding Bush's tax cuts and taxable income over $250,000. They frame it as an assault on small business, which is thought of as the middle-business-class. :bored:

---

And last I remember, small business is considered 500 employees or less; one of the reasons so many large companies broke up into smaller "Business Units" back in the '90s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I think Lewk already addressed the absurdity of claiming that the top 15% of the population is middle class.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

And last I remember, small business is considered 500 employees or less; one of the reasons so many large companies broke up into smaller "Business Units" back in the '90s.

---

So which is it? Small business is at the top 15% of income earners, or small business has a lot of middle income earners?

The figures go both ways. "Small business" can mean a LLC of attorneys, physicians, or financial advisers that make millions. But it can also mean a mom 'n pop shop barely bringing in $50,000/year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

So which is it? Small business is at the top 15% of income earners, or small business has a lot of middle income earners?

The figures go both ways. "Small business" can mean a LLC of attorneys, physicians, or financial advisers that make millions. But it can also mean a mom 'n pop shop barely bringing in $50,000/year.

---

Well it depends on how you define a "Small business." Devil is in the details you know? I don't think a lot of what most people consider a "small business" is really middle class. That doesn't mean we should raise their taxes of course but its disingenuous to say someone making 250k a year is middle class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Well it depends on how you define a "Small business." Devil is in the details you know? I don't think a lot of what most people consider a "small business" is really middle class. That doesn't mean we should raise their taxes of course but its disingenuous to say someone making 250k a year is middle class.

---

That's just it, though. Defining "small business" and defining "middle class" has moving goal posts. But they're common words used to appeal to emotion.

If you're in Mississippi making $250,000 (taxable income) you're probably wealthy. If you're in San Francisco making the same (taxable) amount, you're probably middle income. It's relative.

Wasn't that the gist of one of Dread's threads about taxes being pegged to local COL?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

If you're in Mississippi making $250,000 (taxable income) you're probably wealthy. If you're in San Francisco making the same (taxable) amount, you're probably middle income. It's relative.

---

No, you're not. :bored: The median income in San Francisco is nowhere near $250,000 (it's actually about $80,000). You'd be hard-pressed to find a single major city in the US where the median income is anywhere near $250k.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

No, you're not. :bored: The median income in San Francisco is nowhere near $250,000 (it's actually about $80,000). You'd be hard-pressed to find a single major city in the US where the median income is anywhere near $250k.

---

I was using a DINKY metric. If the median individual income in SF is 80K, then what's the average for a couple?

As I said, it's all relative. It's not strictly about income anyway, because COL matters. That's what Dread and aggie were trying to say. If you look at home prices, the disparity is crystal clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

No, you're not. :bored: The median income in San Francisco is nowhere near $250,000 (it's actually about $80,000). You'd be hard-pressed to find a single major city in the US where the median income is anywhere near $250k.

---

Why did you all of a sudden equate middle income with median income?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Why did you all of a sudden equate middle income with median income?

---

Because its in the middle? Mean income can be skewed by outliers.

GGT -

Household income is the typical metric used. If one person works and the other does not that changes their purchasing power and potentially their class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Because its in the middle? Mean income can be skewed by outliers.

GGT -

Household income is the typical metric used. If one person works and the other does not that changes their purchasing power and potentially their class.

---

As can DINKY. Like I said, look at an area's housing costs. Whether buying or renting. There was a piece in the NYT today about what young single people pay for an 8 X 10 room in the city....you'd probably faint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Because its in the middle? Mean income can be skewed by outliers.

---

Defining middle class isn't as simple as distribution of points along the X axis.

Household income as the metric...what's that mean, though? My sister and her husband both earn incomes, and his mother lives with them. Does her SS count as part of their Household income? Some couples file separate income tax forms, does that mean their Household income isn't considered jointly? And are other things like food stamps, rent or day care subsidies considered as Household income?

Yeah, yeah, all this can be looked up under IRS definitions, but that's not the point.

Maybe someone needs to start a thread exploring what the hell middle class means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I was using a DINKY metric. If the median individual income in SF is 80K, then what's the average for a couple?

As I said, it's all relative. It's not strictly about income anyway, because COL matters. That's what Dread and aggie were trying to say. If you look at home prices, the disparity is crystal clear.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest...least_50.2C000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Defining middle class isn't as simple as distribution of points along the X axis.

---

No, but it's one relatively simple and reasonable way to do it. You could say, plot the distribution graphically and say anyone within two deviations of the middle is middle class and you won't get 250,000k in your limit either. But I guess that's still mostly the X axis as far as you're concerned. How about something that's not a point metric. If you need financial aid to send a kid to a good college for her/his 4-year degree *private schools, some upper-tier public universities* you're middle-class. Huh, a household with 250k income isn't going to qualify for need-based aid for an undergraduate education at any but the most ridiculously expensive private schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

No, but it's one relatively simple and reasonable way to do it. You could say, plot the distribution graphically and say anyone within two deviations of the middle is middle class and you won't get 250,000k in your limit either. But I guess that's still mostly the X axis as far as you're concerned. How about something that's not a point metric. If you need financial aid to send a kid to a good college for her/his 4-year degree *private schools, some upper-tier public universities* you're middle-class. Huh, a household with 250k income isn't going to qualify for need-based aid for an undergraduate education at any but the most ridiculously expensive private schools.

---

The fundamental flaw of assuming median income has anything to do with defining middle class is that as wealth disparity increases, the median decreases. As an extreme example, if 90% of incomes are in the poverty range and 10% are well above the poverty range then the median is in the poverty range. I don't believe people living in poverty can be considered middle class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

The fundamental flaw of assuming median income has anything to do with defining middle class is that as wealth disparity increases, the median decreases. As an extreme example, if 90% of incomes are in the poverty range and 10% are well above the poverty range then the median is in the poverty range. I don't believe people living in poverty can be considered middle class.

---

Which is fair, but everyone else has the same objection to declaring 250k to be middle class and since it's the exact same objection, it is at least as fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Which is fair, but everyone else has the same objection to declaring 250k to be middle class and since it's the exact same objection, it is at least as fair.

---

I generally agree that 250k is beyond middle class. But exceptions might include people like Santa Barbara police, fire-fighters, and other public servants forced to live in a locale otherwise beyond their means.

Quote:

---

The Bush tax cuts' effect on the deficit in one graph
By Ezra Klein

---

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ect_on_th.html

Yeah, Ezra isn't really big enough for his shoes. He's a JournoLister and a major liberal.

Once again, you can't distill things like that down to a chart with a simple "revenue projection". It's bad financial modeling, in this case done by a left-leaning policy group (CBPP).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Yeah, Ezra isn't really big enough for his shoes. He's a JournoLister and a major liberal.

---

La tee da, you don't like Ezra because he's a librul? :bored: He's not the only one asking whether Repubs will vote to raise the debt ceiling. It's indisputable that extending Bush tax cuts will add to the deficit, while finding spending cuts is already difficult.

Quote:

---

Once again, you can't distill things like that down to a chart with a simple "revenue projection". It's bad financial modeling, in this case done by a left-leaning policy group (CBPP).

---

One chart, one set of projections, holy crap! :bored: Earlier I asked how the debt commission based their projections, no one seemed to know. Next time I'll pick a chart from a right-leaning policy group, their model is probably better. Maybe it'll project that extending those tax cuts (especially for the top 2% earners) will create millions of jobs, just like they did the last ten years?