Shared publicly  - 
The White House released a state-by-state report on how $85 billion in automatic spending cuts will degrade programs from defense to education to public health as officials said they don’t expect to avert sequestration. |

(Photo: Pete Marovich/Bloomberg)
norla TorresTurney's profile photoPamela MF's profile photoShawn Foster's profile photoRobert Cassis's profile photo
That too. In fact get rid of the Senate and we can start over. 
To paraphrase: fire them all and let God sort them out :)
Why does someone with the name MF from Ecudor care about our politics? Are we sending you money too?
X is the explnation I would need. You left because of?
I'm really getting frosted by the hype about this from the media, from the Congress and, yes, from Obama.  If it's going to be a 2.3% cut as I've read more than once, that should drive nothing more than a minor chip at wastefulness.  And yet, all we here is how thousands will lose jobs, children will starve and the Beast and the Whore of Babylon will emerge from the sea.
right on MIKE more people should learn to understand what they 
read and hear DONALD ODENWALD
Didn't we just raise taxes on The Rich during Fiscal Cliff negotiations?  Wasn't that supposed to cover us?

Every month the Democrats have a new reason to demand more taxes!!
Mike: Not sure if you know what the train cost the taxpayer's, but you should and you will see why this country is carring around all the bloat. Ask yourself if you really need a train costomg the taxpayer a fourtune to get you a ride for a few miles?
+John Bailo When someone like Mitt Romney pays 15.4% of his gross income and I have to pay 25% there is something wrong with the tax code...
BTW, I'm not attacking Mitt or Republicans here, just using him for illustrative purposes.
+Chuck Sepers Sr Tsk tsk Chucky, you labeled me for a dissenting opinion...I'm not left or right, I'm actually one of the few remaining moderates...and independent to boot.
This budget cut actually only amounts to 1/2 of 1% of the total budget. Are you really going to beleive we cannot cut 1/2 of 1% without destroying our nation? Even with these cuts the government will be bigger next year because the growth will outstrip the cuts. Let the cuts happen and lets plan for more of them in the very near future.
I'll explain it Pamela.  Capital gains are taxed at 15% for several reasons.  First that money is being taxed on inflation.  If I buy a stock for $100 in 1980 and sell it for $120 in 2010, I am paying taxes on the $20 gain, even though I effectively lost money since $120  in 2010 doesn't buy what $100 did in 1980.

Second it is a tax on gain irrespective of loss.  Let's say I bought a stock in 2010 for $10,000.  It goes up to a valuation of $18,000 in 2011 and I sell $9000 worth.  I pay taxes on that to the tune of 15% * $9,000 = $1,350.  Then in 2012 the company that I own stock in goes bankrupt.  I have paid $1,350 in taxes on a $1000 loss.

Because of the volatile nature of investing and the fact that we actually want people to invest in our real infrastructure (businesses) we treat capital gains favorably compared to other forms of income.
+Kathleen Clohessy
By the way, there is no evidence that Marie Antoinette ever said "let them eat cake". It was taken from "Les Confessions" by Rousseau, where the author attributed the quote to a "great princess". 
Just sayin'. And I think the original quote mentioned "brioches", which is more bread than cake.
Not to mention that capital gains are frequently associated with a large life investment.  If you have a farm for instance they require capital gains to be paid upon the death of the owner.  Given the low margin but high property valuations it is extraordinarily difficult to pay even the 15% and keep the property as a family farm.  You would face the exact same thing with your home had politicians not decided to exempt your primary home from capital gains.
Kathleen Clohessy:
So in your mind, when do we go broke and you have to hand your wonderful property in WI over to the govenorment for what you owe to China. I ask you? Where have you been the last 50 years? This country has turned into a scoialist mess. I know you don't care as you were working for one of the great rip off's in the US. You got paid for keeping a bunch of ileagals healthy with my money. Sorry but I am tired of it.
+Robert Cassis My point is that there are many loopholes in the tax code that should be closed so that everyone pays their fair share.
Oh, and simplifying the tax code would be beneficial too, although it would most likely put many accountants and tax lawyers out of business.
And I agree as long as everyone pays something. No one should get generations of free rides. 
+Pamela MF  I'm not going to argue for "loopholes".  But the capital gains rate being lower isn't a "loophole".  It is actually set that way for a reason.  The only loophole associated with it is the exclusion of your primary residence.  It's a pretty popular loophole.  ;-)

Not to mention the fact that the GOP offered to close some loopholes in order to raise revenue.  The president rejected it.
Ed Masi
+Pamela MF Mitt pays 15%, because that is the tax on his capital gains. He already paid probably 40% on the original income. So, in effect, he paid an excess of $55%. 
Ed Masi
And why are we talking about Mitt anyway? Didn't he lose? Why not go after Dave Grohl who has the same net worth as Mitt? That is how ridiculous this is. How about ending the Chicago-style politics, stop spending & create some jobs??
+Ed Masi 
It is different money actually.  True the company he invested in probably paid income tax on revenue made that year.  Capital Gains are on the difference between the value he purchased at vs paid the tax at.  So yeah in a sense the increase in the value is typically due to the business activity that has already been taxed, but not necessarily.  Someone could have just speculated that the value of the company is going to go up and offered to buy the stock at a much higher price.  No taxes have been paid in that scenario, perhaps you are thinking about dividend income?

But I agree on the basic thrust... :)
Sad as it might seem there are explanations for every move that these politicians make...its called rule the roost and until you eliminate these people from your government. You will always be strapped with complaints about what they are doing to destroy you. 
+Ed Masi Well I am sorry I started that by using Mitt as an example (as stated in my post "for illustrative purposes")
Proverbs in The LORD's Word says, " When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule the people mourn ". Is there a significant connection in what the word of God says, and with what you are now seeing within this nation of ours? Absolutely nothing will ever change...except for the worse. 
If we can't cut 2% of our spending without the apocalypse then the President isn't doing his job.
+Pamela MF ?  That is exactly what the sequester does.  It is passed already and going into effect Friday.  The house already passed an alternative (twice).  The president is holding out for even more tax increases in addition to the ones he just got.
Let the sequester happen, let's get it over and see the big federal boogie man. Our elected officials have not done a very good job of managing our countries business. Democrat or Republican. Don't threaten me, bring it. After the fallout let's discuss your effectiveness as a representative.
Too bad there are no term limits on Congress/Senate.
+Pamela MF   I don't think they got specific in public.  But Boehner offered "closing loopholes" as part of the negotiations on the revenue side instead of the marginal rate increases on income over $200,000.  Nobody ever gets specific on cuts because as Machievelli says "For the initiator has the enmity of all who profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new one."
Lack of transparency is just one more issue with our government...
Some of the proposed loopholes and deductions I've seen are (not specific to either party):
deductions for corporate jets, oil companies (why are we still subsidizing this mutli-billion dollar industry but not regulating it), home mortgage & tax deductions, charitable contribution deductions.
+Ed Masi Mitt Romney is a terrible example to use since his income is from carried interest, i.e. he pays capital gains rate even though his income is from residual fees on other people's investment, ie he didn't provide the initial investment so it is a loophole. There's some places we could likely come up with the money, tiny fees on currency trade and commodity speculation that would only effect computer based volume traders.
I would raise income tax - but allow more income to be tax free when put into deferred investments. That preserves individual wealth and grows the economy. 
The Sky is falling!  The Sky is falling!  Let's see it.
The White House has the time and budget to produce a detailed report on the ill effects of sequestration but won't do any work on wasteful spending cuts in areas such as Medicare? It is quite clear what our President does best is campaign.
+Shawn Foster Poor people don't have money to put into deferred investments Shawn, so this would only help the upper middle and the wealthy.
poor people don't really pay income tax. I'm talking about the 'job creator' millionaires who cry about redistribution.. we all know there is no way to justify multi-million annual compensation.  They just did business deals. If they insist on paying themselves that much then they can afford the taxes. Deferred payment would be for inventors and people who made an effort to specialize their skills, and will work at it over their lifetime. People shouldn't be able to argue that the tax code punishes honest hard work, let's have a tax code that makes it impossible for people to argue that.
Where were all of the spending hawks when they got us into 2 useless wars. A balanced approach with increased taxes and spending cuts should have happened over the last 2 yrs. But our Unbalanced Congressional Leaders refuses to move. Well I know how things played out "with the do nothing plan of the GOP, until we have a  new president" worked out. I am sure they know what they are doing now. If you want a balanced budget vote Democratic, Bill Clinton was the last president to achieve this and the president after him ..... well that is now history.
+Dennis Madden A strong mass transit system is more effective than every yahoo driving a SUV with 1 person in the vehicle and adding to global warming or maybe you don't believe in climate change or evolution! Maybe because you can't evolve.
alright, google comments is more civilized and stuff than those other places, we all get along here amd give each the other benefit of the doubt, because we've all given things a lot of consideration. Let's not turn this into facebook
+norla TorresTurney Back at ya!!! GWB took a balanced budget and turned it into a banking crisis that created the greatest recession in history. Not to mention the thousands of our young men and women that have been killed.
+Chuck Sepers Sr Chuck you are obviously not affiliated nor a tax expert, Capital Gains did not get raised. You are an expert of ignorance.
name callers, please take it to facebook... politics is the art of saying the opposite of what one know to be true in order to get something done. Both sides know what needs to be done but have to make it look like a hard fought battle to a compromise in order to appease  impossibly demanding consituents.
+Greg Jean Let have terms limits for the Senate and Congress. The GOP controlled congress are the ones who are screwing up our economy. I believe it started with the last GOP President and his bailouts of big banks. Thank You George W. Bush. His daddy ruled over the S&L bailout. What is it with bailing out banks and the GOP!? What is with Depressions and the GOP!? 2 for 2 eh baby Chuck!!?
If you could borrow money, then pay it back with money that was worth less than the money that you borrowed and spent, would you borrow just a little, or as much as possible? That's effectively what our interest rate allows us to do.
it's a long term plan from the cia bro, not bush or obama. compared to the rest of the world, we're boss. We can't put everybody back to work because it's not profitable for the corporations, they'd rather sell our oil than run our economy.  just legalize herb. things were never that great to begin with.
So solve the real problem +Shawn Foster . Make it profitable for companies to hire. Give incentives for hiring versus forcing employer "contributions" for hiring.
+Pamela MF Agree.  Realize that businesses are just that, businesses.  They exist to make a profit for their owners.  They will have work done wherever it is most profitable for them to do so, and if you raise their costs beyond what a competitor from overseas can produce it for, then they will simply go out of business or move their business there.  So eliminate/reduce disincentives to employ workers here in America.  The largest ones are employer contributions to FICA and health care costs...  (Health care costs are a double sword because having employers provide it makes it less efficient.  People should have their own plans.)
+Robert Cassis I am well aware of how business works. I was a VP for one of the top 5 global banks...

I agree that healthcare is a major cost because it is so exorbitantly expensive in the U.S. Most people can't afford their own plans. My company's COBRA for myself and my husband was ~$1,000 per month. How are families supposed to purchase healthcare when it's that expensive?

Most countries have their own version of FICA so no getting around paying for it, but it is more expensive in the U.S. because wages are much higher than in emerging markets, although many companies are now looking for workers outside India and China because they are quickly becoming too costly as well. They also have a national healthcare plan that provides coverage to all.

Companies also move out of the U.S. to avoid doing the right thing when it comes to the environmental impact of conducting business. They don't like following U.S. labor laws either. For example: the 117 Apple workers in China that died because of unsafe working conditions. They smelled the smoke and were told to go back to work, and the exit doors were chained to prevent them from leaving. I guess that's just the cost of doing business...
Multi-million bonuses encourage behavior that destroys more wealth than it creates.  For these schemes to make someone a million dollars, they have to swindle and lose 20 million. If they were taxed at appropriate rates, they would make investments that paid off over decades instead of this quarter.
+Pamela MF The best part of Obama-care is that it sets up insurance exchanges so that individuals can get "group" rates.  If you say that health insurance is too expensive for you individually then you also have to be cognizant that having your employer pay for it is a huge discouragement for them to hire.  The problem with the current setup is that it removes the consumer from the costs.  Because health care becomes a business expense and a non-taxed benefit for the employee businesses have a perverse incentive to make the plans more comprehensive.  Insurance should be just that.  Insurance.  There for a calamity that you can't pay yourself.  Instead we have the perverse opposite effect.  Plans that max out benefits, but will cover Viagra.

And I agree that companies also move operations outside the US to get away with lower environmental and labor standards.  Shame on them.  Though some of it is due to the regulatory effects rather than the desire to actually perform harm...  IE Not wanting to have to prove compliance or risk non-compliance effects even though they fully intend to make their product safely.  If you worked as a VP in a bank I'm sure you can attest to the financial regulation disaster.

But all this is to come back to the reality of living in a global economy.  If we want higher employment we need to have actual incentives (or eliminate disincentives) to hire.  Cause frankly, it is relatively easy to move wealth to places where it isn't taxed.  If the President continues down the raise taxes path he will soon find out that 40% of nothing is less than 27% of something.
Add a comment...